laid upon the Table:

1. (1) Laws on Co-operation and Development Second Amendment Bill [No102— 85 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Co-operation, Development and Education).
2. (2) Land Bank Amendment Bill [No103— 85 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Finance).

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

as Chairman, presented the Tenth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Constitutional Development and Planning, relative to the Physical Planning Amendment Bill [No 90—85 (GA)], as follows:

V A VOLKER,

Chairman.

Committee Rooms

Parliament

29 May 1985.

Bill to be read a second time.

Order! The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North has asked me for an opportunity to make a statement and I now gladly afford him the opportunity to do so.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have become aware that in my speech in the House yesterday my use of illustrations and comparisons rather than my arguments and conclusions was unfortunate, has caused deep hurt to parliamentary colleagues on both sides of the House and could have been misunderstood outside of the House. I therefore wish to withdraw the following words: “Fidel Castro look-alikes”, “the SS was gassing Jews, Slavs and Gypsies”, and”Gaddafi”.

Mr Chairman, before I reply to certain aspects which were raised yesterday and questions which were put, there are certain things I should like to place on record.

In the first place I should like to pay tribute, on behalf of the Government, to those who gave their lives to safeguard and defend the RSA during the past year. Among them were national servicemen, citizen force members, Commando members and Permanent Force members, included among whom were people from all population groups. I also want to convey the condolences of this Government to the families of these young men. I want to assure them that we are aware that they and the other members of the Security Forces make it possible for us to conduct debates and take decisions in this House in safety and security. We are very grateful for that.

I should also like to place the following on record: Between 1971 and 1984 a total of 542 members of the Security Forces laid down their fifes in the struggle against terrorism in South West Africa. Of these 380 were members of the SA Defence Force, 141 were members of the SWA Territorial Force and 21 were policemen. Since 1966 no fewer than 9 371 terrorists were shot dead in various operations. Unfortunately the figure for all the murders, homicides, abductions, rapes and atrocities committed by SWAPO against the local population is not always accurate or readily available, but certain minimum figures are in fact available for this period. It can be said that SWAPO was directly responsible for the death of 1 341 innocent people of South West Africa/Namibia: furthermore that 1 356 people, according to the record, were injured as a result of SWAPO atrocities; and furthermore the record indicates that 1 889 Black civilians were abducted by terrorist organizations during this period. If one looks at these statistics, one cannot understand how any right-minded South Africa would try to derive benefit from the situation by laying alleged atrocities or alleged dubious conduct at the door of members of the SA Defence Force.

I also want to make another announcement of special importance. At General Viljoen’s request the Cabinet granted approval for him to retire from service on pension on 31 October this year. General Viljoen informed me last year that he wished to retire in order to devote himself full-time to his second great love, farming. He and I then agreed that he would wait until this year, when he would have occupied the position of Chief of the SA Defence Force for five years.

On this occasion I wish to place on record the Government’s and my own great appreciation for the exceptional service which General Viljoen has rendered to the SA Defence Force and also to our country over a period of 33 years. As a young artillery officer, General Viljoen displayed exceptional qualities as a combat officer and administrator. Before his appointment as Chief of the SA Defence Force, he occupied the following senior command and operational appointments with distinction—I shall mention only the last two: General Officer Commanding 101 Task Force in South West Africa; and Chief of the Army. Such important and highly successful operations against SWAPO as Operations Reindeer, Smokeshell, Protea and Askari were planned and executed under his leadership. As Chief of the Army he participated personally, with disregard for his own safety, in Operations Reindeer and Smokeshell. In this way he demonstrated in a practical way his personal philosophy that a leader should always lead the way for his people to follow.

General Viljoen was also one of the first SA Defence Force officers who were specially selected to attend a work study course at the then Public Service Commission in 1969. For the following four years he served in the Directorate of Administrative Services. Here he was promoted to Chief of the Directorate. In this capacity he participated in the most scientifically-based investigation since the Second World War into the organization of the SA Defence Force. From this the present organization of the SA Defence Force developed. His experience stood him in very good stead in his subsequent appointments and also helped him a great deal when he became Chief of the Defence Force.

For his excellent service he was decorated with the Order of the Star of South Africa, the Southern Cross Medal. In addition he was also a recipient of the SA Police Star for Meritorious Service and of several distinguished foreign decorations, which are proof of the high esteem in which he is held outside the ranks the SA Defence Force and in foreign military circles.

General Viljoen and I are contemporaries. The special bond which was forged between us as young officers was still unbroken during his present appointment, in which he was a great pillar of strength to me. We wish General Viljoen and his wife, who stood by him and supported him loyally all these years, a pleasant and well-deserved second life on their farm. Our loss is the community of Ohrigstad’s gain.

I wish to convey the gratitude and appreciation of the Government and myself, and this side of the committee, to General Viljoen. He accomplished an exceptional achievement by increasing the efficiency of the SA Defence Force, and improving its operational readiness. He was an excellent commanding officer and leader. [Interjections.]

General Viljoen is succeeded by General Geldenhuys. [Interjections.] I need hardly introduce him to hon members since most of them have already made his acquaintance. To him, too, I convey the sincere congratulations of the Government and myself, and wish him everything of the best.

In the third place I should like to convey my gratitude to the top echelons of the SA Defence Force—that is to say the Defence Command Council and the top echelons of Armscor, for the purposeful managerial ability and leadership which they have displayed during the past year. I also want to thank each hon member of the defence family—the Defence Force and Armscor—and the families of the members very sincerely for their contributions and sacrifices during the past year. Their attitude and dedication was reaffirmed in the payments of partial bonuses and the saving on allowances which they voluntarily elected to effect. It is going to require sacrifices, I can assure the committee of that, but I want to assure them that that wonderful example which they have set will not go unnoticed.

The defence of a country, coupled with compulsory military service, is an exceptionally emotional matter. With reference to what was said about this matter yesterday, I request every hon member who participated in this debate to do so in a calm and rational way, so that the debates which are conducted here will not contribute to confusion, which could end in fiasco and which could be counterproductive to the security of the Republic of South Africa. Accordingly I hope that all parties will act in a politically responsible way.

To this I want to add that for years now we have been reasonably successful in elevating Defence above cheap party-politics. I realize that in view of the political shifts which have occurred and the political reforms which have taken place in recent years and owing to the entry of certain radical elements to party-politics in South Africa and also because of the international pressure which is mounting and the intensification and nature of the terrorist onslaught on the Republic of South Africa which is taking place not only inside but also outside the Republic, it is going to become increasingly difficult to elevate security interests above the interests of party-politics. I am nevertheless making this appeal to hon members. I am certain that no hon member would like to drag the SA Defence Force into the party political arena and that no hon member would try, for the sake of petty political gain, to endanger the security of this country. If the opposite is going to occur, I guarantee that it will be the Republic of South Africa that will be the loser. The enemies of South Africa would very much like to have such a situation.

I come next to my colleague, the hon the Deputy Minister of Defence and of Law and Order. I wish to welcome him to this new position he is occupying. I must say that in the short time he has served here, he has already made an exceptional mark on the SA Defence Force and the SA Police. The hon the Deputy Minister will in due course deal with those hon members who have questions to ask about the utilization of the SA Defence Force in Black townships in support of the SA Police.

I now wish to convey my sincere sympathy to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. I do so firstly because he has the important task of serving as leader of that party, and in addition to that he has deemed it necessary, considering it important enough, to take the burden of chief spokesman on Defence upon his shoulders as well. However, I want to congratulate him on his decision to assume this task himself and I hope that the two of us will co-operate just as cordially as I did with his predecessors, the hon member for Yeoville and the hon member for Wynberg. I want to say to him in all fairness, though, that he has my sympathy, because the reason why he finds himself in this position cannot make it very pleasant for him since there is a sword suspended over his head. It is very clear that there is a serious dispute in the PFP. This is the dispute between the left and right wing, and concerns their attitude to the SADF and the security of our country. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Green Point must contain himself.

†If the hon Chief Whip wishes to address the Chair, he must get up and do so in the proper way.

Mr Chairman, are you not permitting interjections?

Order! I am not saying that I am not permitting interjections, but I am not going to allow shouting across the floor of the Committee.

Sir, would you perhaps inform me why you had occasion to reprimand the hon member for Green Point?

Because the hon member for Green Point kept on interjecting while the Chair was calling for order.

Thank you, Sir. It is very clear that I have touched a raw nerve of the PFP, and I wish to continue to do so.

It is very clear that the right wing of that party, after their standpoint was rejected at their congress, did not see its way clear to accepting and proclaiming the standpoint of the left wing in public because they did not agree with it. With that I am saying by implication that they do not agree with the present defence policy of the PFP. I feel very sorry for the right wing, but I have appreciation for them and consider them to be honourable people. They are not a lot of yesmen and parrots. They adopted a standpoint and accordingly resigned from their positions.

I would be pleased if the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, if he has a turn to speak today perhaps, could tell us why he suddenly began to take an interest in defence matters after a certain party congress, because his attitude to defence previously was rather cool and calm. I want to tell hon members what the hon the Leader’s dilemma is. He considers himself to be a fence-sitter between his left and right wing. If he had not taken over that portfolio himself, he would have had to give it to someone on the left wing. Then he would not have known whether he had given it to someone who perhaps had a family member who was opposed to national service, or to a national service evader or to someone who was participating in the End Conscription campaign. Hon members saw a very good illustration of this yesterday. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has such a person in his ranks. What would have happened if he had decided to make the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North the defence spokesman of that party? [Interjections.] I guarantee that that party would immediately have split in two. The honourable men on the right wing, who consistently kept the Defence Force out of politics, would not have been able to tolerate it. I think that we are going to see such situations later today if we continue with this kind of discussion. [Interjections.]

I want to thank the hon member for Wynberg very sincerely because he was always very positive in respect of security matters. He always adopted a positive attitude to the SA Defence Force and Armscor. He always discussed those organizations constructively. I have said this to him before, and I want it placed on record again today, that I am extremely sorry that he resigned from that position. Politically we differ widely, we are poles apart, but I appreciate his approach as far as security is concerned. If that is the attitude we are able to obtain from that party, then the security of our country is not at stake. However, if we are going to have the attitude that was displayed yesterday, in which the security forces were dragged into the petty party-political arena, I want to predict right now that the security of the country will be placed in jeopardy.

I now want to refer briefly to the role of the South African Defence Force in South Africa. It is an old truth that the price of peace is very high, and that is particularly so here in the Republic of South Africa. We have an exceptionally important task of maintaining the balance of power in Southern Africa. During the discussion of my Vote earlier this year in the two other Houses, I gave a survey of the Red arms build-up which is continuing to take place in the so-called front-line states. The arms build-up is extensive, and I discussed it there in detail. Last year I furnished far more particulars about this matter in this House, but if I have to summarize the situation in the neighbouring states briefly, I can categorize them into three groups. In certain countries here in Southern Africa we still find the presence of the Marxists and the surrogate forces, in which they are still continuing with their arms build-up. In another group of countries we find that civil wars, terror, unrest and chaos are prevailing. In the third group of countries there is possible insolvency, a possible economic slump, and one could even go so far as to say that there is famine and distress. That, then, is the prevailing situation in the three groups of countries in Southern Africa.

In support of this statement I take as an example that group of countries in which the Marxists are still present and to which arms are still being supplied. I want to furnish statistics in respect of the period from 1 September 1984 until 28 February this year. During this six month period at least 49 attack aircraft, 25 helicopters and three transport aircraft were delivered to Angola by Russia. Of these 49 attack aircraft, 28 were Mig 23s. I do not know whether one can compare a Mig 23 with our Mirage today. The Mig is a tremendously sophisticated aircraft, but I do not know how one can use this aircraft in a civil war. The value of each of those aircraft is R18 million. In addition, 8 of the helicopters delivered were of the MI 25 type, and the value of such a helicopter is plus minus R100 million. These were supplied to Angola within a period of six months.

There are far more statistics to illustrate to hon members this unparallelled Russian arms build-up here in Southern Africa, but what I really want to say is that the balance of power here in Southern Africa is being disrupted. I do not wish to conjure up any spectres at this stage and consider the conventional threat to the Republic of South Africa. Actually I just want to tell hon members that we shall have to take this situation into consideration in the Defence Budget, particularly as far as the future is concerned. To a certain extent we in South Africa have been conditioned. If there is not a son or a father in a household who is doing his national service, if someone does not have a close family member who is involved in that process, we imagine that things are going well for us, for everything is fine. We do not always realize that we have been involved in a war since 1966, when the first Swapo terrorists crossed the border.

This arms build-up to which I have referred also assumes a new significance to me, particularly if we take into consideration what certain Western strategists have to say about the new Russian leader, Gorbachev. In him they see a far stronger Marxist and revolutionist than in his two predecessors. They even speculate that he was taking over the reins during the period when his predecessor was ill. To my mind, in fact, this statement is borne out if we take into consideration the arms deliveries which occurred in Angola during the past six months. Consequently I wish to reaffirm that if this dumping of weapon systems continues, it will bring about further destabilization in those countries. Why do they not rather offer economic aid and try to improve those countries in that way?

A revolutionary climate is prevailing in the RSA and South West Africa. There are terrorist onslaughts, unrest and riots. I want to tell you, Sir, that there has been no let-up in the hostile activities. The South African Communist Party, the ANC and the UDF are organizing forces for action in many spheres—not only in the sphere of security. During the past year the Security Forces also had to maintain a greater presence and level of activity in the interior of the RSA than had been the case in the previous year. They had to do so as a result of this hostile activity and inimical deeds.

To sum up, I say that there has been no let-up in the onslaught in South Africa. There has in fact been a change in emphasis and in the nature of the onslaught. The scope is shifting and especially as a result of the success of the Nkomati Accord the modes of entry are shifting to other directions. There is an intensified arms build-up and the sophistication of the arms which are being used here in Southern Africa is increasing. What I actually want to say is that it is only a person who is blind to reality who would argue that we should now sit back and scale down the defence effort. The fact that the SA Defence Force is not at present engaged in cross-border operations, does not mean that we should relax our vigilance. We are now in an era in which we should undertake a self-examination. We should examine the deficiencies and needs which exist, as well as our forward planning. We must improve our proficiency and effectiveness. We now have an opportunity to institute a self examination into the strong points and the weak points.

This, then, is the background against which we should examine Operation Thunder Chariot, about which a lot of nonsense has been written and said. In this respect I should like to quote from an article which appeared in The Argus of 1 April 1985 and which was written by Dr Simon Baynham of the University of Cape Town’s Department of Political Science. He wrote inter alia the following:

A country’s defence force is not a technological machine which can be put away in a shed and taken out whenever one needs it. It is not a defence system which can be deployed and kept in readiness by throwing switches or pulling levers. That is why Operation Thunder Chariot was an exercise in preparedness. The results of this exercise will continue to be evaluated for a long time to come. I am thinking of matters such as fire-power, mobility, mobilization, night-fighting ability, battle order and sophistication—all these things which are still going to receive a great deal of attention. This will entail that certain adjustments will have to be made in the Defence Force. It is not a matter of building up a fist to use against the potential enemy. The Defence Force is a symbol of a country’s readiness to protect itself and to ensure peace. It is a deterrent to those who believe that they can sweep aside the RSA.

In view of the situation in Southern Africa and in view of the onslaught on the RSA, it would be foolish now to scale down the degree of preparedness, the physical and psychological standard of proficiency, the availability, presence and operations of the Security Forces in the RSA as well as in South West Africa. We must remember that the Defence Force family can never be allowed to stagnate. It must always be on top, and that is what I was trying to tell the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition yesterday. We must always try to remain on top. One must always know what is happening and what one’s enemy is doing. Similarly one must always be on top in regard to technological and electronic development. One may never allow oneself to be bested. Under the present circumstances the SA Defence Force only has to lose once, and that will be the end of this country. Consequently self examination is very important.

That is one of the reasons why I appointed the Geldenhuys Committee. To reply to the question of the hon member for Durban Point, the Geldenhuys Committee report will appear within a few months, without any interim report.

I said that the defence family can never be allowed to stagnate, and I include Armscor in this. In this connection I want to refer to the very important role which Armscor has played. The RSA today is a country which is politically independent; it is independent of the politics of great powers. The country achieved this political independence because we are militarily independent. If we had not been in this situation, if we had been militarily dependent, the suppliers of our armaments would have imposed their political objectives on us and would have dictated to us what our political objectives should be, and would have held us to ransom in that respect.

This military independence is probably one of the greatest achievements of our State President and is a monument to him. [Interjections.] The fact that we are militarily independent and therefore need not look to the great powers for our supply of arms, is one of his great contributions.

Everywhere in this world we have wars, and the countries involved are compelled, as a result of their dependence upon the supply of their means of protection and because they lack their own arms and ammunition, to give assistance to and throw their strength and weight in behind the countries that supply them with arms. In this way they surrender their political independence for the sake of military dependence, because they are not capable of ensuring their own safety by means of their own armaments. The RSA is grateful to and proud of Armscor, which has made this contribution.

I now wish to refer to yesterday’s debate in this Council Chamber. I wish to begin with the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. I am being sincere when I say that I have a measure of sympathy for him. I wish to have it placed on record that I have the greatest respect for him as person and for his political integrity. I also have appreciation for the high level on which he tried to introduce the debate yesterday after my statement. In addition I also have compassion for the political situation in which he finds himself, and I must say that he is in a very difficult situation.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition prepared a speech in which he wanted to address me on the Cabinda episode and on the alleged support for Renamo. He then had to put questions to me to which I had already replied in my statement. I can understand that I may have put him off his stroke, but I shall reply in a moment to the few aspects to which I may not have replied in the statement; I shall do that for him today.

In his attack the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition tried to heal the breach which exists between the left and right wings of his party. Hon members must believe me when I say that my heart went out to him when I had to watch how he had to sit here, as leader of the party, and listen to the speech made by the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North, since the hon members are talking about it like that. My heart bled for him.

I just want to add this: When he remembers how he felt, he must simply try to think how we on this side of the House felt. He must think how certain hon members of his party felt about that speech; their feelings were visible.

The hon member for Soutpansberg repudiated the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North, and I think he was entirely correct to do so. The hon member for Durban Point demonstrated his misgivings, and those of his entire party. However, those were not all the people who were present here yesterday. In this Council Chamber yesterday were members of the Permanent Force, the Citizen Force and Commandos, as well as national servicemen from all the population groups. The hon member was talking about them. How must they feel, the people to whom the hon member for Durban Point was referring when he said that the Defence Force was here to protect us so that we could sit here safely in this Council Chamber and discuss matters? Then that hon member came along and denounced them so vehemently.

I must honestly say that I felt extremely sorry for the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. I wish to add that I have never before in my political life—and it has been a short one—received so many protests from people—and I am now referring to people across the length and breadth of our country—as I received in connection with this speech. The people who protested against it included Afrikaans- and English-speaking people, ex-servicemen, and people from all groups and all sectors of the population. I know the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition did not expect the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North to make such a speech. [Interjections.]

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition had a great deal to say about credibility. If there was ever a party with credibility problems, then it is the PFP. [Interjections.] I am merely serving the interests of my country and its people. My party and I now expect the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to state his standpoint on that hon rebellious member’s statements clearly and unambiguously. I believe that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition—and I shall gladly afford him the opportunity to do so—ought to say here that he dissociates himself from the unjustified and undeserved vilification of members of the SA Defence Force by that hon member. That hon member, who has always held a brief for national service evaders, is the End Conscription Campaign. He continues to hold a brief for the enemies of the RSA. [Interjections.] Yesterday he made a plea here for the traitor, Hunter.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon the Minister say that the hon member holds a brief for the enemies of South Africa?

Order! Would the hon the Minister please explain what he means by the expression “holds a brief for the enemies of South Africa”?

Mr Chairman, I say he holds a brief for the enemies of South Africa because there was a fellow by the name of Hunter who was sentenced by the Supreme Court for committing treason against the country. This hon member made a plea for that person. Because he made a plea for the traitor Hunter he holds a brief for the enemies of South Africa. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I ask for a ruling.

Order! I am about to give my ruling. The hon the Minister may continue. [Interjections.]

I feel that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition does in fact have a duty to his voters, his supporters, not to allow that speech to keep on hanging in the air. I am certain that he is going to act accordingly later on. [Interjections.]

I honestly want to say that I do not want to capitalize on this opportunity. I do not want to make a political issue of this matter either. I am, however, asking this in this highest Council Chamber, for the sake of our country, for the sake of our security, and above all for the sake of the integrity of the SA Defence Force which was harmed in this House yesterday. The SA Defence Force is responsible not only for my safety, but also for the safety of this entire Committee, the safety of this dispensation, and for the safety of all our people, regardless of the colour of their skin.

I also want to ask the other hon members of the Official Opposition whether they dissociate themselves from that speech. I am referring in particular to the hon member for Wynberg, who has always placed security above party politics. I am thinking, too, of the hon member for Bezuidenhout, an exsoldier, who under those circumstances most probably had a hard time of it yesterday. [Interjections.] I am thinking of the hon member for Bryanston. In this way there are still many hon members to whom I could refer. [Interjections.]

†Mr Chairman, I now wish to attend to one outstanding matter. [Interjections.] The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and the hon member for Durban Point asked me why this operation was undertaken with such urgency at this point in time. Neither of them doubted the necessity for the operation. The answer is very simple. Maybe I can explain the matter by posing two counter questions: Firstly, if not now, when would be a more suitable time? The Nkomati Accord was signed in March 1984, the Lusaka Agreement in February 1984, and we are constantly talking to the Americans. The protest at our embassy in Washington started in December and is continuing. The disinvestment threat is an ongoing one. This is enough. However, I wish to emphasize that the ANC and the PAC threat is also continuing. At all costs we have to prevent it from escalating, therefore we need intelligence. The collecting of information is in itself an ongoing process. [Interjections.] Continuity guarantees its effectiveness.

Secondly, I want to ask whether we have arrived at the point where there is a breakdown in any delicate negotiations. With Angola? No. With South West Africa? No. With Mozambique? No. We have signed agreements which are bearing fruit. I can perhaps credit one point only, namely that the incident unfortunately happened immediately before the discussion of my Budget Vote, because it served to show up the divisions within the Official Opposition. [Interjections.] The timing was inappropriate for the Opposition.

What is the world going to say about that?

I can see that the hon member who is bellowing so loudly at the back there, is also a member of the left wing, because not one of the others bellowed. [Interjections.]

I should now like to turn to those pillars of support of the Defence Group in my party who have already spoken. I want to refer to the hon member for Standerton who, true to his reputation, made a positive and meaningful contribution. I thank him for the level which he sets here every year. As confirmed by the announcement made just now, his effective tribute to the Chief of the Defence Force was particularly apposite. The hon member for Kroonstad saved me time by explaining to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and the hon member for Durban Point how the State machine works and, in its entirety, acts as a unity. I thank the hon member very sincerely for his contribution.

As far as the State Security council is concerned, it is very clear that there are no problems or lack of clarity in the intelligence community. Everyone knows what his sphere of responsibility is and they work together like a team—that is the question which the hon member for Durban Point asked. I also thank the hon member Mr Vermeulen who maintained the standard of the debate in a well-balance way. That hon member makes a study of Defence Force units and his knowledge of Defence Force history is inspiring. The hon member for Brentwood touched upon an important point concerning the greater co-operation between the Defence Force and Education as regards the youth and cadet organizations. The hon the Deputy Minister assured me that he would give attention to these proposals, because they come within his sphere of responsibility.

Both hon speakers of the CP asked me questions about national service for the Coloured and the Indians, and I shall give attention to this matter later in the debate. Meanwhile I want to tell the hon member for Jeppe that I have observed that his personal attacks on the State President and my own person, in which he simply harps on the same themes every year, were somewhat subdued this year. Perhaps that hon member may even surprise this House and come forward next year with a more responsible speech.

Perhaps you will surprise this House, and answer questions.

The hon member for Jeppe referred to the Seychelles incident as well as to the Gerhardt case, and I shall reply on those points. He is always raking open old wounds. He has nothing else to do because he lives in the past. [Interjections.] I want to clarify and place on record the following matter: Justice ran its full course in the Seychelles case. Departmental investigations were instituted. Adjustments were made and action was taken—even by way of legislation when the hon member for Jeppe was still a member of this Parliament, but he does not know it. However, I am not prepared to become involved in a further discussion of this matter because I consider the whole matter closed.

I don’t! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Jeppe says he does not. According to the legal system of this country these people have been tried. There was a verdict from the Supreme Court in this connection, and now the hon member is questioning the administration of justice in our country. The same applies to the Gerhardt case.

Mr Chairman, it is going to be somewhat difficult to make a speech of an hour in 10 minutes, but I shall try to cover a variety of subjects in a relatively short time.

I should like to begin by saying that I want to associate myself with the tribute paid to General Viljoen. I want to pay personal tribute to him not only for the service which I believe he has rendered to the Defence Force and to the country but also for his personal courage. This may perhaps not be an inappropriate occasion to remind the State President that I once complained about Gen Viljoen’s putting his life at risk in leading his troops when I felt that a person with his responsibilities should not expose himself to such risks. General Viljoen is a courageous man, and I should like to pay tribute to him.

Insofar as Gen Geldenhuys is concerned, I wish him well in his new post. He follows in the same tradition and he may remember that we had the same conversation in regard to leading from the front. He told me where he had learnt that, and I must say that I believe he learnt it in a very good school. I wish him well in his new post and I believe that he will acquit himself well of his task.

As I have said, there are a number of matters that need to be covered. There are a number of shadows that hang across this debate. [Interjections.] I shall deal with as many of them as I can. I think that the events in Northern Angola in particular hang as a shadow across this debate. At the outset I should like to associate myself with those who have expressed sympathy and concern in respect of those who were killed and in respect of the soldier who was wounded and captured. The photographs and the use for propaganda purposes by Angola of the remains of those men who were killed, fill me with compassion for their relatives. I feel that we must also have a great deal of understanding for the position of the captive soldier and his family. I think South Africans are going to have to show that understanding in the days that lie ahead. However, the implications of the international situation for the Republic at this delicate stage in our history, and the problems of political credibility have already been stated by other hon members, particularly the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in this debate. I should like to add one other aspect to this issue.

Anyone familiar with the nation’s need to protect itself against actual or potential threats recognizes the need for what may be generally termed secret intelligence operations. Such operations, if successful, are often unknown, and their benefit sometimes only becomes public when history is written. However, when they fail they can have serious implications not only for those who are ordered to carry them out but also for those who carry the political responsibility, including sometimes the country as a whole. Accountability in parliamentary government rests on the shoulders of the Minister and government concerned authorizing the activity in question either specifically or generally. Even though the hon the Minister has spoken this afternoon I do not believe that he has discharged that onus.

The timing of this incident is, however, particularly alarming. I want to point out to the hon the Minister that the timing of this incident is relevant to the whole South West Africa/Namibia situation and also in respect of the punitive legislation campaigns that are being sponsored against this country in the USA at the moment. I have little doubt that it will be used against us in that context in order to strengthen the hands of those who are campaigning against South Africa on this score.

We also cannot ignore the question of possible Security Council meetings which are already being talked about. The reality is that in a case like this the price for what has happened may well have to be paid by the country as a whole. If that is so, I believe we are entitled to know what we are paying the price for. Both Parliament and the public are entitled to know at least what the rest of the world knows and to have credible denials of those unfounded allegations. We need to have an explanation within the bounds of national security for what has actually occurred. For South Africans to know less than the rest of the world when South Africans have to pay the price is to my mind neither logical nor acceptable. I want to draw a clear distinction between on the one hand political accountability in this House by the hon the Minister and the Government, and on the other hand the SA Defence Force which is there to protect the country and should be outside of the political arena.

A clear line has to be drawn as to whose side one is on. One must choose sides in the fight that is taking place. I want to make it clear that I am on the side of reform, peaceful change, law and order and stability. I am against violence, revolution and terrorism. My criticism of Government action should be seen as improving the chances of peace and reform and our defence against violence and terror. While I have chosen to sit in the Opposition benches in the issue between the NP and the PFP, I have also chosen in the fight between the SA Defence Force and terrorism to be on the side of the SADF. One should be careful that, however unwittingly, in the discharge of one’s duty one does not get embroiled in the jargon and attitude of those who are on the other side. One must also be careful that one does not give credence to the misinformation which is disseminated by this country’s opponents by repeating it in this House.

I want to say here so that there can be no misunderstanding that I served in the SA Defence Force. I am still on its strength, albeit in the Reserve and in an honorary capacity, but I would be betraying the men whom I regard as my comrades if I did not speak for them here today. The SA Defence Force, its rank and file and its leadership are not terrorists. It does not have terrorism as its objective and I repudiate anybody who says that because if I fail to do that I will be failing in my duty to the people whom I hold very dear.

I know that there are people in the Defence Force who do wrong but I think this happens in very organization. There must be precautions against this happening and the offenders must be punished, but I refuse to accept that terrorism and the killing of innocent people is an objective of the SA Defence Force or that the DSO can be compared to the gas-chamber activities of the SS. I welcome the fact that my colleague the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North withdrew what he said, because he knows that I am one of the people to whom he referred as being hurt by this. However, I am not alone in that.

Let me make it clear that I believe that we should not look at the issue of the defence of South Africa in a petty party political manner. I am sorry to say that the hon the Minister greatly disappointed me in that respect when he started his speech because I was hoping that he would give the opening to its not being a political issue. If we turn the SA Defence Force into a political football in South Africa the whole of South Africa is going to pay a price for it. I do not believe that the Head of the Defence Force or the humblest or newest serviceman deserves that from this Parliament.

Mr Chairman, I would like to tell the hon member for Yeoville that we on this side of the House appreciate his loyal support of the SA Defence Force. He has demonstrated this on many occasions in the past and he has done so again today. However the official attitude of the PFP in regard to Defence Force matters at this time is seriously impairing the relationship between that party and this side of the House. I am not now referring to the hon member for Yeoville, the hon member for Bryanston, the hon member for Bezuidenhout, the hon member for Wynberg and the hon member for Edenvale. As far as this matter is concerned, they are excluded from what I am now saying. However, the official attitude of that party, as propagated by its leader as well, is seriously impairing the relationship between that party and this side of the House concerning Defence Force matters.

It is traditional for us to try to keep the Defence Force above politics. I would like to say, however, that the change in that party’s official standpoint over the past few months has made it difficult for one to keep their political standpoint in respect of national service and such matters out of the political arena. I am not the one saying this. The hon member for Wynberg said it himself in his statement when he was relieved as chairman of that party’s study group on Defence matters last year.

Recent events have made it necessary for us to be forthright with each other in this debate; and we now have to ask questions in respect of certain matters concerning the PFP’s standpoint on Defence matters. One cannot fail to notice that two successive chief spokesmen on Defence matters for that party were either dismissed or resigned. Both of them were moderates. The hon member for Yeoville, who has just sat down, demonstrated that again today. The other one is the hon member for Wynberg who, as we know, also consistently adopted a moderate approach to Defence Force matters. I find it interesting that both of them are no longer there. We also know that at least three other members of that party hold the same point of view as those two members. They are, namely, the hon member for Bezuidenhout, the hon member for Hillbrow and the hon member for Edenvale. They said that last year at the PFP’s congresses. We also know that numerous supporters probably feel the same way.

The hon member for Bryanston even went as far as not attending his party’s congress in Transvaal during November last year, probably in anticipation of what would happen there. [Interjections.] I see the hon member for Bryanston has a little flag of South Africa with him. That is very nice. I am very glad to see that the hon member is raising the national flag and not the white flag.

After their congresses in November last year, the tension between the factions in the PFP has eased somewhat. It has not disappeared entirely, however. We saw again yesterday that the tension between the factions in that party has not disappeared entirely by any means. One could see it in the faces of the hon member for Yeoville and the hon member for Bryanston while the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North was speaking.

What happened during those congresses? At their congresses in the Cape Province, Transvaal and Natal—I cannot remember whether they had a congress in the Orange Free State at all—and afterwards also at their federal council that party accepted majority resolutions against national service. The reasons for their accepting those resolutions are interesting. I cannot go into too much detail now, except to say that it was clearly a victory for the leftists in that party. It was a deliberate change of direction instigated by the leftists in that party in order to move away from previous standpoints.

I would like to refer specifically to what the hon member for Yeoville said in the debate on the subject at the Transvaal congress. He said that the PFP is divided because there is an element in the party which does not want to reject all forms of violence. That is what the hon member for Yeoville said about the problem experienced in his own party. The hon member is probably right, if I am to judge by certain statements made at the Transvaal congress of the PFP. I just want to quote two such statements in substantiation. The first is:

These words were spoken by a PFP delegate at the party’s Transvaal congress. I come to the second quotation. With reference to the Defence Force’s assistance in regard to the controlling of internal unrest, a delegate said:

That surely speaks for itself and I am not going to elaborate on it.

When I hear these assertions by delegates at the PFP congress, I understand why the hon member for Yeoville says that the problem with the PFP is that not everyone in that party is prepared to reject violence unconditionally.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition owes the hon the Minister an answer. In fact, the hon the Minister has already asked him for an answer. I would like to take it a little further by asking the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to tell the Committee where he stands in regard to the subject of violence. [Interjections.] With respect, the hon the Leader should not hide behind his ingenuity when he puts his viewpoint on this. We have seen in the past how, in his fine academic fashion, he rationalizes his standpoint in regard to this subject. It will also be of no use for the hon the Leader to repeat his party’s standpoint against national service, because we have seen the announcement he made on that. What matters today, in my opinion, is that he take a stand on the division in his party as regards the subject of violence. [Interjections.]

Yesterday the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition made much of the propaganda value or alleged propaganda value of the Angola incident. I want to tell him I have no doubt that the ANC, the UDF and other derived great satisfaction last year from the PFP’s stand against national service. After all, what do those organizations want other than a discrediting of the capability of the SA Defence Force? There is no doubt about this: That statement must have been a source of satisfaction to those organizations.

What does the hon member for Houghton have to say on this subject? What does she say in connection with that congress? Just listen to this:

According to another newspaper she says—it is somewhat ludicrous but I shall nevertheless quote it:

I come back to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition.

What about the decisions taken with great majorities?

That hon member must rather keep quiet at this stage. I think it would be much wiser of him.

The hon the Minister asked the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition for his comment. The hon the Minister also said that the hon the Leader is probably the fence-sitter in this situation. I had a look at the views expressed on this subject and have come to the conclusion that the hon the Leader has already fallen off on the left side of the fence. I take the liberty of saying that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has already taken a stand on the left side and is indeed actively taking the initiative as far as this matter is concerned.

I say it briefly on the following grounds: He is the one who explained the anti-conscription standpoint to the Press and the outside world after his party’s congresses. In the second place, he appointed himself as his party’s official spokesman on Defence matters.

Is that a move to the left?

No, but he has appointed himself as the person who, in future, has to take the lead in respect of that altered standpoint and who has to explain it to the country.

In the third place, the hon the Leader is the one who allowed himself to be led by the leftists in his party and who accepted that with satisfaction. He went even further: In his reaction to the statement of the hon member for Wynberg when the latter resigned as chief spokesman, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition referred to the intolerant and negative attitude of the hon member for Wynberg. Those are his exact words. What else can one conclude from this other than that the hon the Leader had at that stage already made his choice? There is no doubt about that.

I think it is clear that the hon the Leader of Official Opposition has made his choice. If this is not the case, then he should spell that out quite clearly for us today and also substantiate what he says. The hon the Leader must then give us a clear standpoint on that so that we can understand why he has adopted a different standpoint in that regard.

Mr Chairman, I am privileged to follow the hon member for Johannesburg West. I believe he very effectively rubbed salt into the wounds of the Official Opposition. In the time at my disposal, however, I should like to turn my attention to another facet of the SA Defence Force. On their visit to the operational area earlier this year the Defence study groups of the House of Assembly were, as in the custom, provided with certain information documents. One of the information documents that was made available to us was a letter that was written to a mother who had a son on the border. It was written by a minister and he told her that he had seen her son the previous week and that he was well. I quote:

The writer then concludes the letter as follows:

On another occasion, during our visit to Kavango, we were given another information document which dealt, inter alia, with the recipe for success of Sector 20. This recipe for success is faith, positive thinking, enthusiasm and hard work.

A debate on the SA Defence Force would not be complete without reference being made and recognition being given to the South African Chaplains’ Service. These are the men responsible for the equipment called faith—faith in one’s heart to enable one to walk with a rifle in one’s hand. The religious equipment of any person is the rock on which that person can stand fast in all circumstances. For the young man who has not yet gained much experience of those things which can change one’s life drastically, the security he can find in his religious affiliation is that much more important. Along with his military and physical preparedness, it is especially his religious preparedness which enables him to resist the forces of darkness. It is especially in the operational situation that the soldier has urgent need of the security that one can derive from one’s bond with God through faith. It is thus important that the chaplains are there to bring the Word of God to their people.

In the past year 360 Permanent Force, National Service and Citizen Force chaplains did border duty, taking the Word to the men there too. It is important that a chaplain live as closely as possible to his people during training, on parade, in the field, in the church, on sporting occasions, and at the dinner table, and that he even wear the same uniform as them. In that way a relationship of complete trust is developed which enables people to talk frankly about their deepest religious experiences. They can thus be helped to grow religiously and to be stronger in their struggle against evil. The chaplains’ service is primarily the channel through which the various churches are afforded the opportunity to care pastorally for their members in the SA Defence Force. Apart from the 113 chaplains in the Permanent Force there are another 240 doing national service and another 1 231 engaged on a part-time basis in the religious care of their members. Religion plays an especially important role in the establishing of sound human relationships. It is noteworthy that members of more than 100 denominations and representative of all races in no way restrict one another in the SA Defence Force. The message of love and reconciliation across the boundaries of church, language and race is put into effect here and is indicative of the true disposition of children of God.

The erection of 75 coffee rooms during the past few years has added a totally new dimension to the chaplains’ service, especially as far as informal service is concerned. In the operational area, where there are 52 of these coffee rooms, the coffee room offers the soldier a home and a spiritual resting place between patrols. Here he can not only relax among the facilities that have been made available, but can also especially be spiritually refreshed through Bible study and informal conversation. The chaplains find these coffee rooms very effective in their ministering. We also want to express our appreciation to the women’s organizations of the various churches and to the branches of the Southern Cross Fund which, under leadership of the Chaplains’ Wives’ Committee, are making a tremendous contribution to the provision of these facilities.

The advantages of the coffee room are perhaps best summed up in the words of a report appearing in the latest edition of Paratus. The report reads:

The written word contributes greatly to the religious equipment of the man in uniform. During the past year more than 60 000 copies of the Scriptures were distributed amongst the soldiers. The Chaplains’ Service Fund contributed a great number of other publications, nearly three quarters of a million, along with these Bibles. The funds are collected mainly by the Defence Force’s choir and concert group who performed more than 200 times in the Republic in the past year, and whose performances are so much in demand that there are already more than 100 institutions on the waiting list for 1986 and 1987. The thanks-offerings of the men in the operational area are used, along with other funds for Bible distribution, for the benefit of the local communities there. Thus, during the past year, more than 34 000 Bibles and 22 000 editions of the New Testament in the languages of the local people were distributed amongst those people. The SA Defence Force thus carry the Word of God with them so that they can spread it amongst the people who have a need for it.

Patients in the military hospitals are also not forgotten in the religious preparedness programmes. They are regularly visited by the chaplain because one’s spiritual state of mind plays such an important part in one’s physical recovery. The task of the chaplains’ service to spread the Word of God becomes ever more important when one considers the onslaught against the RSA, which is an onslaught also against the church and religion.

We on this side of the House note with appreciation the important link that the chaplains’ service forms in the SA Defence Force family. Our best wishes and our prayers go with the Chaplain-General and the chaplains’ service in the important role they fulfil in the SA Defence Force.

Mr Chairman, I wish first of all to associate myself with the remarks of the hon the Minister and the hon member for Yeoville in respect of the retirement of Gen Viljoen. I do not want to repeat what has been said but to endorse it on behalf of this party. I personally endorse it as well. Gen Viljoen is a soldier in the true mould, someone whom I have always looked up to and respected and someone in whom not only we in Parliament but I believe all in South Africa have had the greatest confidence. I wish him well in his retirement. I think there was one battle that he could not win, one that he lost, and that was the battle against his charming and delightful wife, Ristie, who I know has been looking forward to this day for a long time. Much as I like her and think of her, I wish she had to wage this battle for a little while longer!

However, I am very happy to welcome and wish good luck to Gen Jan Geldenhuys, another man whom we have known a long time and a person who, particularly at this time, will find his experience in South West Africa and in Windhoek—of great value. As the present Chief of the SADF has, so will he also have the full support and backing of our party.

Before turning to other matters I want to come back to the hon the Minister’s remarks when I queried whether the Cabinda exercise should have been a military operation or not. He said there had been no change, and his only answer was to ask questions in return. In fact, that was no answer, Sir. However, I shall give him a few reasons why it was a disastrous time to risk such an exercise.

The first reason is the position of the Cubans in Angola and the negotiations for their withdrawal associated with a settlement in South West Africa. This was the perfect excuse to hand to the Angolans to enable them to say that they have to have the Cubans there because look what South Africa does—it invades right into the heart of Cabinda.

There is another good reason which has been highlighted in the very latest issue of Paratus which I have in my hand. Just a month ago we completed the withdrawal of troops under the supervision of the JMC and announced to the world that we had pulled out of Angola. I am not such a fool that I associate a recce exercise of this nature with the operations in the JMC area and the normal troops we had there. We know what is going on and we know the difference, but to the man in the street and to the world outside it does not matter whether there is one soldier or whether there are 3, 10 or a whole battalion of soldiers in a country because if there are any troops in that country they regard it as a military operation.

There are therefore two immediate reasons I can give why this was the worst possible moment to undertake a risky exercise, concerning which I have still not heard any persuasive argument from the hon the Minister why it was necessary to carry out this operation so urgently in that particular week, a month after the JMC agreement, while we were in the middle of negotiations over Cubans in Angola, and so much else is militating against South Africa at the moment. It has thus given Angola and the world an extra weapon. I would still like to hear a better reason for the urgency and why it was a military operation and not a National Intelligence operation.

Another matter I want to deal with is the speech of the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North yesterday. Notwithstanding the statement made by the hon member this afternoon, I want to say that I do not accept it as adequate either as a withdrawal of or as an explanation for his extraordinary speech yesterday. It was noticeable that one of the words which he did not withdraw was the word “saboteur” attached to our troops—the two who were killed and the one who was wounded in Angola. He withdrew the “Castro look-alike” from that phrase, but left in the term “saboteur”.

I want to say that I was not offended by that speech; I was sickened by it. I was sickened physically as one is sickened by the stench of oozing mud when I listened to that speech. That is what I think of his approach to South Africa’s security, and that is what I think of anyone who does not dissociate himself from the hon member. [Interjections.]

This is the Defence Vote and I think we should deal with Defence Force administration at some stage of the proceedings! This is what this Vote is all about, namely the spending of more than R400 million to provide security for South Africa.

Firstly I want to emphasize that although there has been an increase this year in relation to the past five years, there has been a decrease in real terms in the money which we have voted for defence despite an escalating threat. I think that is something on which we can congratulate the SA Defence Force and in particular its financial management wholeheartedly and without qualification. I would like to know what other defence force could have reduced its real term expenditure on defence in the face of increasing threats.

Another matter that I want to refer to is the increasing part being played by South West African territorial forces in their own defence. I think this is a significant issue which must be remembered and highlighted when there are allegations of South Africa’s “illegal occupation” of South-West Africa. That is something that the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North also did not withdraw in his statement. Over 60% of the sharp-end troops in the operational area are now in fact SWATF.

Another matter with which I want to deal is again to express my sincere appreciation to the Chief of the SADF and his headquarters staff for their unfailing help with the myriad problems which we bring to them. I say this in all sincerity. I personally have received nothing but their greatest courtesy and immediate attention. I may not always agree with the decisions, but that is another matter. There is however always attention given to the problems which one takes to them. I think one makes such a pest of self in the course of the year that it is only right to put on record my appreciation on this occasion.

A moment ago I referred to the savings on the SA Defence Force and to the budget. There is one matter that worries me and I would like to raise it directly here in the House. We may be short of money, but I do not believe that we are yet beggars or so poor that the SA Defence Force has to become a commercial advertising agent for private enterprise. [Interjections.] I refer first to the use of equipment such as Ratels in a commercial TV advertisement for a particular vehicle. I think that is totally wrong and totally unacceptable. Whatever we may need in the way of support for the Force, we do not have to buy it by tying the SA Defence Force to commercial advertising.

However, it goes even further than that. As a Paratus insert this month we have an advertisement for a certain bank. Not only is there the advertisement—which everyone accepts—but there is also an editorial article from which I quote: “Hierdie redaksionele kopie word geplaas om die aandag te vestig op ‘n ooreenkoms tussen Santambank en die Stigting van die Weermagsdele”. it goes on to promote a particular bank which will lend money to servicemen at undefined rates of interest.

Order! I regret to inform the hon member that his time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to give the hon member the opportunity to complete his speech.

Order! The hon member for Durban Point may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon Whip.

†I did not expect this kind of thing in the face of the experience we had with the group life insurance scheme. The hon the Minister, the hon member for Yeoville, and the hon the Deputy Minister and I have fought for years across the floor, over that disastrous scheme and over the men who, after contributing for 30 years, found themselves without cover. Now we find the SADF officially—officially, in its own magazine!—encouraging people to borrow money—at a time when the hon the Minister of Finance is pleading for saving! We are not talking about a little money. No, we are talking about a minimum of R500 in personal loans. They are encouraging these men to borrow money to buy motorcars, furniture, refrigerators and so on.

Let me cite one example. I tore this page out of the same magazine, and then found that the article continued onto the next page in the form of another editorial story—not an advertisement—on finance, so-called telling people how they should plan for their financial future. The writer concludes by recommending a particular firm: “… go into a trust company such as …” A particular firm!

Then I found a third article: “Lewensversekering vir die Weermag: Is dit nodig?” Again a specific firm is advertised, and again it is Sanlam, the firm that administered the old schemes which caused so much trouble.

We may like sponsorship but this magazine should ensure that any advertisement it accepts states that the SADF does not underwrite the product and is not responsible for the product. The magazine should accept paid advertisements. It could even say: “Support our advertisers”. However, it is totally unacceptable to pick particular advertisers.

There are other cases of this nature. There is a magazine here which, had I the time, I would have referred to. It is an excellent paper but it does not enjoy the sponsorship of the SADF. They receive co-operation, yes. However, Defence Force publications are competing, I believe, on an unfair basis when they are used to push sponsors in private enterprise. I believe the hon the Minister should intervene in this, that he should lay down strict regulations, and that the Defence Force should not be associated with this sort of thing.

In the couple of minutes I have left, I want to talk about the Citizen Force. I want to raise the question of the credits given for service at camps. The ruling is—and I have had cases of this—that even if a man has completed his 240 days’ service, he would, if a period of 10 years had not elapsed since his initial service, still have to do the 720 days. I think that is quite wrong. When I talk of 240 I do not include the day-for-day credit for three months camps. In this case the person was six days short; that is, he had completed 234 days. However, he had not been in for 10 years although he had volunteered for and done additional camps—he had done more than he was asked—and when he had completed his service, that is, had served the period he was asked to serve bar six days, he had to wait until the 10 years had elapsed when the 240 days were increased to 720. I think that is totally unjust. It does not take the day for day service into account, and this was, after all, what the increased figure was based on.

Will you pass on the information?

I will. I have taken the matter up in writing and have all the information.

The other matter concerning the CF is an idea they have in America whereby volunteers in the Citizen Force get a pension after 20 years’ service. I do not have time to deal with it, but we might look at that.

Another matter is the question of post to the operational area. In the last war all post to the operational areas in the field was post free. Now parents have to pay. A lot of them are poor. There are widowed mothers and pensioners who want to send parcels and they have to pay for them. The Defence Force in fact transports, distributes and handles the post, while the Post Office gets the money for the postage. Could we not, for the operational area, look at a system such as we had in the last war of postage-free post only to the operational area?

Lastly, where we have had train incidents, could we not think again of appointing an OC train when there are troops on a passenger train? My time unfortunately is up and I will have to stop.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Durban Point will forgive me for not responding to his comments. As he well knows, I cannot really speak objectively on an organization like Sanlam and so I leave it to the others to respond to that.

I had hoped to devote these few minutes to a discussion of our naval reconnaissance and our naval defence requirements, because these are of particular importance for those of us who live in the coastal regions.

†However, being a Natalian, I think it would be remiss of me not to react to and repudiate most strongly the sentiments voiced here yesterday by the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North. Seldom have we had the misfortune in this Chamber to listen to a more unbridled outburst of vituperation of our Defence Force and of the thousands of men, among others from Natal, who willingly serve in our armed forces … [Interjections.] … and this coming at a time when we are at war, as the hon the Minister has so rightly explained. I for one could hardly believe my ears yesterday and so I obtained an unrevised copy of the hon member’s speech from Hansard. I have that copy in my hand, reluctant as I am to handle such a scurrilous document.

The hon member, I hasten to assure hon members of this House, was certainly not speaking on behalf of the people of Natal. I do not believe that he was even speaking on behalf of his own constituents. I personally regard his speech as one which was made on behalf of no more than the insignificant minority on the extreme left of the Pietermaritzburg liberal establishment. However, I do not want to address the hon member on these remarks. He was only running true to form. The hon member has after all always been eager to believe the worst of South Africa and the best that he could possibly find about countries on our borders. We still remember quite clearly the glowing references he came back with about Zimbabwe under Mugabe. [Interjections.] The Marxist government of Luanda could have spared themselves the trouble of brainwashing captured South African soldiers. They have the hon member here in the South African Parliament who willingly spreads disinformation, unprompted, throughout the world. [Interjections.]

*That is all I wish to say about the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North. One must also remember, however, that the hon member is a member of the Official Opposition in this House.

My colleagues and I on this side are grateful for the way in which the hon member for Yeoville today refuted and repudiated, in no uncertain terms, the views of the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North on the Defence Force. However, the hon member’s speech is still recorded in Hansard and his accusations against the Defence Force and the hon the Minister of Defence remain unaltered in spite of the fact that he withdrew four rather more flamboyant examples. A few years ago, when the hon member for Yeoville was still the Official Opposition’s chief spokesman on Defence matters, he took great exception to my questioning the bona fides of the PFP.

On 17 April 1979 he quoted me where I said that certain members of the South African Opposition would first have to prove that they could be trusted with less sensitive aspects of the country’s administration than Defence before they could be given more information about the Defence Force. The hon member for Yeoville said in this connection that he regarded my statement as an insult to himself and to the hon member for Wynberg. He also said that it was not necessary for me to say whether or not he could be trusted with Defence matters. The hon member for Yeoville put his standpoint in regard to the Defence Force very clearly this afternoon, but unfortunately he is no longer his party’s chief spokesman on Defence matters. The man who is chief spokesman and who now has to represent the two factions in that party is the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, however much the hon the Minister may pity him. In the light of the fact that one of his own members tried, while the whole world was looking on, to exculpate a traitor who allowed the enemies of South Africa to gain access to Defence Force information, I should like to ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition what his point of view is on the question of whether or not the Official Opposition can be trusted in regard to the defence of South Africa. We thus come back to that question that was raised six years ago.

In his address on that occasion the hon member for Yeoville also made two other statements concerning the trustworthiness of the PFP. I believe those two points are still relevant. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has to tell us how he reconciles what the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North said with the statements made by the hon member for Yeoville. About himself and the hon member for Wynberg, the hon member for Yeoville said the following:

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has to tell us how he reconciles the statements of the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North, inter alia that the hon the Minister is guilty of acts of terrorism, with the boosting of morale among our soldiers. Yesterday the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North said:

He also said:

I am omitting the word which the hon member withdrew today:

Six years ago the hon member for Yeoville also said:

How does one reconcile this with the views of the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North that our soldiers are nothing other than instruments in the terrorist campaign being conducted by this country? How does one tell the country and the soldiers who are promoting one’s cause that they are in the right and that the war they are waging is a just war if, at the same time, one tells them that the people who are leading them are the foremost terrorists and are guilty of aggression against our neighbours? How does one do that? Can the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition explain that to us? The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition will have to come up with answers, because the speech of the hon members for Pietermartizburg North will be used, not only in Port Natal but also in Durban, in Pietermaritzburg and in every other town in our country, as indicative of the PFP’s standpoint on the defence of our country—unless the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition refutes that speech in no uncertain terms.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Umlazi will excuse me if I do not go into further detail regarding his speech. I think he was speaking to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition who, I think, owes him a few answers.

I want to speak about the economy and the Defence Force today. It is a known fact that a strong economy needs a strong defence force; and the reverse has often been said too, viz that a strong defence force needs a strong economy, for it cannot be strong otherwise. I want to associate myself with that statement and then enlarge on it further. I also see the Defence Force as a large business undertaking. If the economy is having problems therefore, it too has problems.

I should like to pay tribute to the hon the Minister and his department for the savings they introduced last year. They continued those savings in the 1985-86 financial year. In the same breath, however, I want to say that these savings worry me personally. In the present Budget, that of 1985-86, there is provision for a cash requirement of R4 274 million which is only R390 million more than the amount for the previous years. I shall point out later what this means in real terms.

The Defence Force’s cash expenditure is 13,9% of the total State expenditure. This is the lowest figure since 1977. We therefore want to thank the Defence Force for the contribution they make to the combating of inflation in this country. Defence Force expenditure reached a height of 18,2% in 1977. As a reasonable comparison I merely want to compare the 13,9% with the percentage President Reagan’s defence budget constitutes of his total budget. I want to quote from the Business Day of 18 April:

This is the finding of an academic group which did research on this. They go on to say with reference to the study “The military tax bite”:

This gives us an indication of where we stand in comparison with the protector of the world. Despite the nonsense we heard here yesterday and to which much reference has been made, South Africa is the protector of Southern Africa as America is the protector of the Western World. The section I quoted gives hon members an indication of the relative magnitude of the figures involved. No one will argue that since 1977 there has been an escalation in the violence against South Africa, but that despite this the share of the Defence Force in the total budget has decreased. We have all received the figures, and I merely point this out for the sake of interest. The amount we spent on defence in 1983 constitutes 3,8% of the GDP as against the USA’s 6,6%, France’s 4,2% and Egypt’s 9,5%.

What influences these savings? There are two main causes which influence savings, and in the limited time at my disposal I should like to dwell on them very briefly. The first is that the savings should be aimed at campaigns to limit costs without diminishing the quality of the service. In the meantime the threat is increasing, however. We therefore have a conflict in the budget situation here.

The second cause to which I want to refer, is the economic climate within which a Defence Force has to arm itself. One of the greatest enemies in South Africa is inflation. The Defence Force is exposed to it as well. We have to take this into account when we analyse the price of weapons and the value of money.

I go further. I admit that a greater expenditure on defence will make things very difficult for the hon the Minister of Finance. Finansies en Tegniek of 3 May contains an article in which a photograph of the hon the Minister appears and in which they sketch the problem that arises should a budget of the Defence Force be enlarged, because in that case the hon the Minister of Finance will not be able to remain within his Budget. I quite concede that this is the case, but the hon the Minister stated clearly in one of the other Houses that he can stay within the budget if the threat diminishes. If the threat increases, he says, he cannot stay within the budget. For the purposes of Hansard I want to place this on record again today. I agree with the hon the Minister. If the threat exists and it escalates, I am prepared to agree that we should spend money on cracking down on that threat.

If I look at yesterday’s bomb explosion, the threat is increasing. I repeat that in listening to the ANC’s statements and to certain members of the PFP. I hope and trust that it will not be necessary to ask for this additional money in practice.

In the Budget for 1984-85 the Defence Force effected savings amounting to R320 million. The effect of this has been felt in the Budget before us at present, and will also be felt in next year’s Budget. The increase in the fuel price which entailed additional expenditure of between R40 and R50 million for the Defence Force, has already been absorbed as a saving in the Budget.

I want to dwell on the real reduction for a moment. The real reduction which has occurred during the past years, is something that worries me personally a great deal. I have said it before, and I repeat it. In this way the real decrease between the 1985-86 and 1984-85 financial years was no less than 9%. I trust—I should like to advocate it here—that when the economy permits it once again, more money will be voted for the Defence force, but without the old stories of its being wasted or being spent on this or that.

The Defence Force’s bookkeeping is checked carefully, and every hon member has the right to listen when the Select Committee on Public Accounts puts these things to the Defence Force and the Defence Force’s action has to be explained and justified.

In the same breath I plead for us to make more money available for the modernizing of two legs of the Defence Force in particular, namely the Navy and the Air Force. I see the hon the Minister looking at me askance when I speak of the Navy, but in this case I shall intercede for the Navy.

I want to express my thanks towards the Government for not choosing the easy way of bringing about these savings. The easiest way is to cancel the capital appropriation projects. That is the way often applied by entrepreneurs in the private sector, but it is the shortsighted way. There are a number of entrepreneurs who are suffering now as a result of cutting back on their capital projects in the previous recessions, those of 1971-72 and 1979. We must proceed with our capital projects, regardless of the problems we have. They do not catch up with one today, but cutting back on capital projects does catch up with one in future. In the long term an undertaking which cuts down on its capital projects bleeds to death. I am sorry, but I am not prepared to see this happening to the SA Defence Force. That is why I am pleading for the SA Defence Force to proceed with the development of their capital projects, as they are doing at present.

In the budget before us, the working expenditure of the SADF decreases by about 7%, but the capital section has risen by 14%. The action of the hon the Minister, the Government and the Defence Force will ensure, regardless of certain opinions held in the PFP, that we shall continue to have the strongest defence force in Africa and shall continue to develop it. I should like to request the hon the Minister to continue in future to give more attention to the capital programme in particular than to the operating programme in the short term.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Primrose spoke about the relationship between the Defence Force and the economy and it is a problem I want to come back to, but I want to approach it from a different angle, viz the whole question of manpower provision in the Defence Force.

Before I come to that, I merely want to associate myself with the words of the hon the Minister of Defence and record my appreciation towards Gen Viljoen who is retiring. In my relationship with the general I have experienced only the best goodwill. He has acted towards me with honesty and sincerity and I want to wish him everything of the best in his retirement. I am aware of the fact that he is not going to rest on the farm, but I want to express the hope that he will enjoy his retirement there. At the same time I want to convey my congratulations to Gen Geldenhuys who is succeeding Gen Viljoen in that post. I got to know Gen Geldenhuys when I gave evidence before the commission of which the hon general is the chairman. I want to wish him the best of luck in the difficult task awaiting him.

As these are not the aspects I wish to speak about in this part of my contribution, I want to react at the outset to a few points made by the hon the Minister of Defence.

The first is that my party’s and my standpoint on violence and terror was stated very clearly in this House and during this session when the State President’s Vote was discussed. I need not repeat it. Secondly I want to say that I told the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North, when we spoke informally, that hyperbole, exaggeration and emotional utterances are detrimental to a satisfactory and constructive debate on defence affairs and cause alarm. It is against that background that we have to understand and accept the hon member’s rectifications or withdrawals here this afternoon.

Once again I have to express my regret in respect of the hon member’s speech yesterday, as obviously it gave the hon the Minister the opportunity to spend more time on the speech than on the standpoints I stated in my own contribution and to which he still owes me replies. As far as the Cabinda case in particular is concerned, in my opinion his reaction was definitely not very satisfactory. To reply with counter questions is an old technique, but it does not provide solutions to the problems I referred to and in addition I did not refer only to this, but also pointed out to the hon the Minister the Vote of the Minister of Defence in relationship to Parliament, the statement of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the whole question of destabilization and the relationship with Renamo, and that he owes us a reply to that as well. We shall appreciate it if the hon the Minister will reply to us in this regard.

I also find it pleasant to congratulate the hon the Deputy Minister on his promotion and appointment to his present office. We came to Parliament at the same time and we have known each other for a long time. We have discussed a number of matters, especially since the hon the Minister began to manage this portfolio. That is why I find it even more important to speak before the hon the Deputy Minister enters the debate, because the very first matter I want to raise is the whole question of the use of the Defence Force in unrest situations. The second matter I want to raise, is one to which the hon member for Johannesburg West also referred, viz compulsory military service and my party’s standpoint in this connection.

I want to say immediately that I believe it to be of cardinal importance for the Defence Force to be above the internal conflict situation in the maintenance of law and order. What I am saying here now, is said with deep conviction for I believe the problems I am raising are long-term problems, problems which are going to haunt us again. That is why I want to request both the hon the Deputy Minister and the hon the Minister to deal with this matter as objectively and level headedly as possible.

I believe it is important for the Defence Force to intervene only in emergencies and in cases of civil war. I do not think it helps to say the Defence Force will be involved only in a supportive capacity. The temptation to go further and intervene oneself is inescapably great. There are already signs in this connection and I have directed the attention of the hon the Deputy Minister to them, therefore I do not want to go into detail now.

The reason I feel so strongly about this, is that there is a cardinal difference between the image and the role of the Defence Force and that of the Police in any community. The ordinary citizen regards these two powers as differing vitally. I merely want to mention a few obvious differences.

The Defence Force fights an enemy. That is its image. It seeks and fights the enemy. The Police fights transgressors of the law. This is the general difference in image between the two; the one fights an enemy; the other fights transgressors of the law. The Defence Force exterminates enemies—it kills them. The Police Force arrests transgressors of the law and brings them to court. This is another generally known difference.

The Defence Force wins or loses battles. The Police Force protects and restores law and order. These things are accepted in every community, especially in the Western World, as being a vital difference in the function and role of these two instruments for the maintenance of stability and order in a society.

I want to say, however, that as the image of the Defence Force and the Police is going to become vague and obscure to the average inhabitant of a Black residential area, both the Defence Force and the Police are going to suffer from this and their task is going to become increasingly difficult. I tell the hon the Deputy Minister of Defence in all seriousness that this is what is happening. I am not sucking this from my thumb. I took the trouble of speaking to inhabitants of Black residential areas, and I tried to determine their reaction. This is something we should see in a serious light, and I have brought it to the attention of the hon the Deputy Minister. What will the implications and the cost be if we persist in letting the Defence Force become involved in the unrest in Black urban residential areas? I am going to spell out only four of the implications.

In the first place the role of the Defence Force will become increasingly politicized. As a result it will become impossible to present it as a neutral shield behind which orderly reform can take place. This is an inevitable consequence, as a result of the nature of the conditions of unrest in the Black urban residential areas. It does not only concern a Defence Force action between us and the enemy; it is intertwined with political, social and economic problems which are immediately connected with the Government and the authorities. The moment we allow the Defence Force to become entangled in this, its role and its standpoint are politicized.

In the second place it strengthens the ideological appeal of the ANC, for example, in its so-called struggle for freedom. Immediately it becomes a question of “we” and “they”. The role of the Defence Force is changed into an ideology in that struggle. This tendency which can develop is dangerous, for if it does develop, it is an immediate question of one defence force against another as it were, and terms such as “liberalization”, “liberization zones” etc are used.

In the third place it Lebanizes the unrest situation and creates an atmosphere of siege. A dangerous situation arises, and I do not say this only because of the South African conditions. It also arises in other communities, for the same kind of situation arose in Northern Ireland, Lebanon and Cyprus, in which a feeling of siege developed. That feeling and atmosphere makes it even more difficult to effect peaceful reform and transformation.

In the fourth place, relations between Blacks and Whites are polarized because of compulsory White national service and the racial nature of this situation is intensified.

This brings me to the second general matter which I should like to discuss, viz the whole question of compulsory White national service. Allow me to say immediately that in a period of internal tension and unrest, in which feelings sometimes become heated, it is absolutely imperative to look level-headedly and objectively for the most effective way of maintaining stability and order during the process of reform and change in our country. When I state my party’s standpoint on the phasing out of national service therefore, I want to stress emphatically that it has absolutely nothing to do with sensational and cheap propaganda in order to evade or undermine national service. It is also not aimed at doing away with the necessity of a strong and well-prepared defence force. It is for the very reason that I think selective White compulsory national service can become a source of conflict and tension in our multi-racial country, and can undermine the status and preparedness of the Defence Force in this way in future that I am stating, with sincere conviction, my party’s standpoint on national service.

Let us get away immediately from the absurd standpoint that doing away with compulsory national service means there should be no defence force at all. That is absolute nonsense. One of the greatest military powers in the world today, the USA Defence Force, is organized on a voluntary basis, as are those in Britain and almost 30 countries in Africa, including Nigeria which has a larger defence force than South Africa. The question we have to consider—and I want to put it to this House in all seriousness—is …

Must we imitate Africa?

No, we need not imitate them; I am still speaking of the USA. I shall give the hon member the arguments in a moment; I do not say we must imitate them.

The question we have to consider—and I want to put it to this Committee in all seriousness—is whether compulsory White national service, seen in the light of our population composition, economic requirements and political and constitutional problems, is the most suitable system to maintain and develop a prepared and effective defence force now and in the long term. I am of the opinion that this is not so, and that if we persist with it as the most important source of manpower recruiting, it will be counterproductive and detrimental to our country. In essence this was the evidence I submitted before the commission of inquiry under the leadership of Gen Geldenhuys.

In my opinion there are three considerations which can serve to motivate this standpoint. The first is what I would call political considerations. Compulsory national service applies only to Whites in South Africa. This point was also raised by the CP yesterday. If the burden is to be distributed evenly and national service is to get rid of its one-sided character, logically it would also have to be applicable to Blacks, Coloureds and Asians. This is precisely where serious conflict can arise. Because Coloureds, Asians and Blacks do not have the same status, privileges and obligations as citizens of South Africa in their own right, even the possibility of compulsory national service creates a serious political issue for them. We are seeing it develop even now. At the same time the absence of such national service intensifies the unfairness and disparity of the burden on the Whites, however.

In addition—the debate is taking root already—because there is compulsory racial national service, a racial dimension is immediately implicated when the Defence Force has to take action in delicate internal problem areas. That is the very point I made to the hon the Deputy Minister concerning the Defence Force in Black residential areas.

In addition we can definitely not afford to have compulsory White national service increasingly becoming a symbol of Black/ White polarisation and confrontation. This will frustrate the whole process of evolutionary reform. Briefly, these are the political considerations.

In the second place I want to refer to the economic considerations. It is no secret that South Africa is lagging behind to a disturbing degree—here I associate myself with the hon member for Primrose—in the provision of our existing needs for skilled manpower. We all know that. Unfortunately, because of historic and political reasons, we shall have to rely on the Whites as the most important source of skilled manpower in the foreseeable future, until it can be supplemented satisfactorily from the other population groups.

This White source, however, is the same one as that on which the Defence Force relies for compulsory national service. The dilemma of the future should be very clear to anyone with a grain of sense. Two competing sectors of our society are recruiting people from the same source with the result that one or the other is going to suffer. We cannot avoid this problem. It is not going to become easier in future, but more difficult.

In the second place compulsory selective national service—as a result of this dilemma—will have an inflationary and disruptive impact on our manpower situation and productive capacity in a situation of this kind. If we cannot grow economically, we can forget about all the fine and brave stories we have listened to during the past two days. Sound economic judgement requires us to consider alternatives.

The third set of reasons involves military considerations. A great deal has been written about the relative merit of fully compulsory, selectively compulsory and voluntary national service as mechanisms to supply the manpower requirements of any country’s defence force. Both systems have their advantages and disadvantages. It is generally accepted, however, that a well-trained, professional defence force is more effective and cost effective.

At the same time it is accepted that the calling up, training and follow-up work in connection with national servicemen, especially if they constitute the chief source of the manpower requirements of the Defence Force, is an expensive and time-consuming process. Low morale and alienation are often—not always, but often—a problem as well. On the other hand, a well-trained and motivated professional defence force is more effective.

It is accepted that a military organization is not something that can change overnight. The phasing out of compulsory national service requires time, but I believe it is essential to begin now with the extension of the Defence Force on a permanent, full-time, multi-racial, non-discriminatory and professional basis. [Interjections.] We have no doubt that a defence force which is free of discrimination in this way, which provides equal opportunities for all its members, can make an enormous contribution to lessening racial conflict and to ensuring prolonged stability and order. [Interjections.]

In addition a professional defence force of this kind can be augmented by voluntary, locality bound and remunerated reserves. I for no moment doubt that enough volunteers will come forward from all population groups. This is the case even now; the Defence Force cannot accommodate all the Coloured volunteers who come forward annually and the number is beginning to increase amongst the Indians as well. I believe the same thing will happen in the case of the Black population groups if we go to them concerning this matter. [Interjections.]

Once again I request the Geldenhuys Commission to phase out a system of compulsory military service for Whites in the light of the above-mentioned considerations and to replace it with an extended, professional and multi-racial Permanent Force which is strengthened by a multiracial, voluntary reserve on a salaried basis. That is the standpoint I am trying to put here.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order. While the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is making his speech, the hon member for Vryheid keeps on telling the hon member for Langlaagte that he is a “dikkop”. May the hon member do so? [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must not keep on provoking the hon member for Langlaagte and the hon member for Langlaagte must not react to the provocation. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition may proceed.

In conclusion, South Africa is standing before immense challenges. We are on the point of important reform. We also stand before immense economic challenges. Those economic challenges are going to make great demands on our manpower requirements, especially our skilled manpower requirements. Those challenges are also going to make great demands on our capacity to maintain stability and order in this process of change and reform. On the one hand it seems absolutely imperative to me that we do not abuse our scarce manpower requirements in this process of change, but on the other hand it seems that in that process of change we must not allow the Defence Force as such, in the nature of its composition, to become a source of conflict and tension at the very time it has to contribute to stability in that process of change.

That is why I want to make a plea to this Committee: Let us look level-headedly and objectively at this whole question of national service and the system of national service as a way of recruiting manpower for a defence force. If we are going to play absurd little games with one another here, we are going to engage in nonsensical debates when this crisis intensifies.

Against that background I want to conclude by telling the hon the Minister I take his words seriously if he says we must debate and discuss Defence Force affairs seriously, and that we must keep this above the level of party politics. Because I take it seriously, I do not intend to react to those absurd little left-wing and right-wing games with which he ended his speech.

Mr Chairman, at the outset my heartiest thanks to hon members who congratulated me. I appreciate this and thank all hon members. I also thank the hon Leader of the Official Opposition. He is right: We arrived here together in 1974 and now he is sitting in one of the front benches as a leader of a party while I am still a backbencher. [Interjections.]

The hon Leader of the Official Opposition explained the standpoint of his party concerning national service. I think he hit the nail on the head in saying the Geldenhuys Committee was going into the matter. We are sure to have an opportunity for further debate on this subject. He also stated his view to the Geldenhuys Committee and I think they will take note of it.

Nevertheless I now want to make one comment to the hon Leader of the Official Opposition. The hon leader said there was no national service in the greatest country in the Western World, America. That is so. There is no national service in Britain either. Is the hon leader aware however, that those are the only two large Western Countries where there is no national service? Let us examine national service in other countries of the world. National service in Belgium runs to ten months; in Denmark to nine months; in France to 12 months plus a voluntary system; in West Germany to 15 months and in Greece to 22 months for the army, 24 months for the air force and 26 months for the navy. [Interjections.] In Italy the period for the army and the air force is 12 months and 18 months for the navy. In the Netherlands the period for the army is 16 to 24 months and 14 to 17 months for the air force. In Norway it is 12 months; in Portugal it is 16 months for the army, 24 months for the navy and 21 months for the air force; in Spain it is 15 months and in Turkey 20 months. Now I ask you …

I wish to ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether those countries have general national service or selective national service as is the case in South Africa?

That is not the point. I have just told hon members those countries have compulsory national service. In addition, those countries are situated in Europe where the threat to them is not nearly as great as that to us. Does the hon member really want us to accept a different system from that of these countries where less danger exists? In view of the existing danger it is therefore essential that we have national service. I simply wanted to put this point to the hon Leader of the Official Opposition.

The hon Leader of the Official Opposition said—and I agree with him—that the image of the SA Defence Force should be above suspicion. We appreciate the hon member’s standpoint and attitude in that regard.

He made certain statements on the involvement of the Defence Force in Black residential areas with which one could agree in general—yet with certain reservations. It is unfortunately true that there has been criticism of the decision of the authorities to permit the Defence Force to act in support of the Police in restoring law and order in the Republic. We regret that and I can assure you the Government took this decision with the greatest caution and responsibility because we have a responsibility to protect the safety, property and lives of law-abiding citizens. The Government cannot evade that responsibility.

For this reason we knew we could not condone the intimidation of innocent people whose education, training and livelihood were being thwarted. On various occasions in the past the authorities warned that urban unrest would increase as part of the strategy against our country. This has happened over the past few years and that is why the Defence Act was amended in 1984 for section 3(2)(a)(iii) to read that the South African Defence Force or any portion or member thereof may at any time be employed on service in the prevention or suppression of internal disorder in the Republic. All the hon members of the Opposition were present here when we amended that Act and they realized the necessity for it. They joined us in supporting it unanimously.

It is not new or unusual either for the Defence Force to be used in support of the Police. In 1914 the Union Defence Force had to support the Police in suppressing a riot of mine-workers on the Rand. In March 1922 14 000 members of the Active Citizen Force were called up to assist the Police in the Rand strike and two months later the Air Force had to help when the Police experienced problems with the “Bondelswarts” ethnic group in South West. In March 1960 the support of the Defence Force was requested during the riots in Sharpeville, Langa and other Black residential areas. Since the very first South Africa Defence Act of 1912 provision has been made for the use of the Defence Force in restoring law and order and controlling riots. The marginal note to section 79 of this Act reads as follows:

The core of the matter is that the Republic does not have the manpower resources and economic capability to maintain an adequate Police Force to furnish the full-time needs during sporadic riot situations and increased efforts at insurgency in the light of external and internal threat. We have already said that here but it seems to me hon members do not want to listen. We have said that under normal circumstances there are enough policemen in our country but abnormal circumstances prevail and that is why we are obliged to obtain additional manpower to assist the Police. The alternative is for us to say that we do not have Police and we are not permitted to use the Defence Force so there may as well be riots and lawlessness. We cannot shrug off the responsibility resting on us in this way, however, so we are prepared to debate this subject and to say it is in the interests of everyone in South Africa that we use the Defence Force.

In November 1984 an authoritative journal like the Intelligence Digest of London carried the following:

Even these people understand this, but it seems to me hon members do not wish to understand it here.

It is only logical that security forces striving for the same goal, that of the maintenance of law and order and peace, should support one another. The Defence force can play a significant role in this supportive capacity. We have seen in recent times how the Defence Force has been used with great success and effectiveness in restoring law and order.

It is simply a tale to say the Defence Force can only shoot people. That is not true because the Defence Force is also capable of many other acts as it had already proved. Each part of the Security Forces has its own nature and an own modus operandi is maintained at all times. Much is said about the so-called politicizing of the Defence Force without addressing the actual problem. One would expect it of a responsible Opposition to address the real problem by means of responsible pronouncements. The actual problem the Defence Force has to assist in handling is lawlessness and consequently the breakdown of law and order.

I have studied the speeches made in the debate up to this point but I have not found a single word that this should end and that it would then be unnecessary to use the Defence Force in Black towns. The Security Forces act to combat lawlessness in South Africa. Reforms and the correction of faults can only take place under stable and peaceful conditions. In the light of this it would be better to support the Security Forces and to criticize State action less. In any case the State President gave instructions on 27 March that law and order be restored and in this respect the Security Forces will execute their duty to protect law-abiding citizens and their property, to act against ringleaders and ruffians—who prevent children from attending school—and to take action against intimidators who are exploiting shortcomings in Black towns and communities we are developing. The Defence Force will assist the Police in the erection of road blocks, forming cordons, radio links, communications, etc. That is precisely what I indicated had happened here and elsewhere in the world over the past decades. The Opposition loses sight of the fact that it is the Defence Force and the Police which have to maintain law and order precisely to enable a fairer dispensation to be established in the country. Everyone shouts and asks for this but it has to be established and the Police and the Defence Force are carrying it out. Can a just dispensation arise from the chaos which will ensue if the security situation gets out of hand in our country? Only naive people believe that a paradise can be built from a heap of ashes.

I wish to get to another matter. Objections are lodged with holier-than-thou indignation inter alia by the Official Opposition against the action of South Africa in Northern Angola. The hon Leader of the Official Opposition told the hon the Minister that he had not yet replied to him but a dead silence prevails on the daily action of Swapo and the ANC across the border. We heard yesterday that a bomb had exploded in Johannesburg injuring 17 people but dead silence reigns. The bomb certainly did not walk to the building and explode there but someone placed it there. We condemn this but do not stop at condemnation as we attempt to do something about it. Let us examine what has been happening across the border of South West Africa concerning Swapo since the conclusion of the Lusaka Agreement. There have been 29 cases of intimidation, 39 of sabotage and 64 incidents involving mines while 13 ambushes were set up against the security forces and the local population. The Official Opposition is mute on these.

May I put a question to the hon the Deputy Minister? Is it true that members of Swapo were shot and captured in the uniforms of the Angolan forces?

The hon member is quite right. Our Security Forces shot and captured members of Swapo wearing uniforms of Fapla, the Angolan defence force. One is not allowed to mention that; the world is maintaining dead silence on that and members of the Official Opposition are also mute on that.

They do not even listen.

Yes, they are not interested and do not even listen to this. We put the questions and want to know about it.

Who is playing politics now?

The hon Chief Whip is becoming excited again. I am not fighting him but will put a question to him presently—he must just wait a while. The point I wish to make is that we cannot even go and collect intelligence because this elicits holier-than-thou indignation. I should like to read a note I received on the matter of collecting intelligence.

We have just received a report that we have acquired information that a scale model of Sasol II is being used for planning, briefing and orders at the ANC base at Malanje, east of Luanda, with a view to the sabotage of Sasol II. This demonstrates the importance of the point we are making. We had to go and collect intelligence even where we were. This is in the interest of South Africa and all the people living here. Anyone who wants to differ with us on that point now is purely mischievous or he is not on our side.

I want to make yet another point. Wynand du Toit’s statement is being blown up into a major story which appeared in the Press this morning etc. What are the subsequent facts about this? In addition to personal details which are normally furnished and which we monitor to know what is happening, this young man was compelled to disclose the location of units of our Special Services in the Republic. Under pressure he further gave a description of certain reputed operations in which he had participated. I take pleasure in providing the details. The hon Leader of the Official Opposition is angry because we do not inform him—I should like to inform him now. [Interjections.] No, he was highly indignant yesterday because we do not inform him in advance. We cannot inform him in advance but we are telling him now what is happening there. It appears from intelligence at our disposal that Wynand du Toit informed them of the following: Firstly, action against the ANC in Maputo; secondly, action against Swapo at Cahama; thirdly, the destruction of a bridge at Girani situated on Swapo’s logistical route and, fourthly, the present Cabinda operation.

I request the hon House to note the targets just mentioned. If one looks at a map, one will see that all these actions were aimed either at the ANC or Swapo. As regards the target mentioned last, it is alleged the objective of the sabotage was Gulf Oil. May I ask—and this information was also furnished to hon members: Why had the team already moved past the oil installation when it made contact? It had already passed there en route for the presumed ANC target when the fight arose which gave rise to the problem.

Naturally this does not suit the propaganda objective of Angola. That is why propaganda now demands that South Africa be accused further of destabilization. The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North also said so. It suits the enemies of South Africa to drive a wedge between this country and the USA.

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

If it is very short as I have very little time.

Will the hon the Deputy Minister admit that untruths have been told to this House in the past about destabilization?

No, Sir, now the hon member is asking me a question outside my field of knowledge so I cannot respond to it.

Let me continue conveying certain facts. The intention is to create international sympathy for Angola, to attempt justifying the Cuban presence—they wish to keep them there—and to arouse a sense of guilt internally in South Africa by means of people like the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North.

The hon the Minister told us yesterday that Marxists were known for the way in which they forced propaganda admissions from prisoners. I should like to refer hon members to the report of a committee of the American Government from as far back as 1956. On page 3 of the report of 27 June one finds:

The Americans can quote various such cases from the Vietnamese war while the Israelis can also cite various cases in which prisoners were tortured by means of chemical injections to make admissions which suited their captors. The Angolans know these methods. For example, they once refused during the sitting of the monitoring commission to question a Swapo captive of ours privately because they said that could not prove anything; once one had been captured, one said only what one’s captors wanted one to say. We may expect more such confessions from Angola.

I should like to get to a matter of great concern to all of us and to which there has also been reference this afternoon, namely the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North’s speech. There has been reference to this already this afternoon by the Leader of the Official Opposition and it is the speech of the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North. I shall presently refer to the hon leader’s response to that speech.

I state categorically that in my 11 years in Parliament this was the lowest point reached in a speech I have hear here. I did not expect to see the day when an hon member would vilify the Defence Force to such an extent. What is the Defence Force? We all speak of it with pride and the hon leader also referred to it. The Defence Force is our Defence Force. We are eager to uphold its image—we all work toward this. The hon leader was concerned that the action of the Defence Force in the Black towns—this takes place under strict control—would tarnish the image of the Defence Force. While the hon leader was saying this, an hon member was sitting behind the hon Leader of the Official Opposition and what had that hon member done? He had accused this Defence Force, our Defence Force, the image of which we wish to keep bright, of despicable, low action.

You can do better than that.

Order!

I did not expect to experience anything like this. The hon member withdrew certain of the words today but let us examine his actions. Over the past months he has been distributing a pamphlet, File on Torture—Amnesty International, among hon members. It is marked “Sent by Mr McIntosh, MP”. He is distributing this pamphlet. This is not something which has just occurred. He is distributing this pamphlet in respect of which no supporting evidence could be found. One board after another investigated these allegations. The hon member does not even deny it; he admits distributing it. He distributes it to disparage the Defence Force. This pamphlet contains lies but the hon member wants the contents of the pamphlet to be on record here.

The hon member withdrew certain words but look at what he said none the less. I shall read only a few extracts:

He continued:

That is the language the hon member is not withdrawing. Let me continue:

When he said that he was referring to his friend Hunter, a man who is in jail because he passed intelligence to the enemies of South Africa. [Interjections.] That is someone we call a traitor in common parlance but the hon member pleaded for him in the committee. The hon member continued:

Here the word “Gaddafi” was withdrawn:

The hon member said the Defence Force was involved in all those acts. In other words the Defence Force killed innocent people. “In simple words, to terrorize them.” I want to ask him who the perpetrators of these misdeeds are. They are the members of the Defence Force. It is the Chief of the SA Defence Force.

What did they do at Phalaborwa?

Order!

It is the Chief of the SA Defence Force and his officers. This includes national servicemen who are our sons, but he says the children of ours, the children of hon members as well…

No, man …

Order!

The hon member felt that but that is what it amounts to. The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North undoubtedly said they terrorized people, they perpetrated acts of sabotage, they committed acts of terror against innocent people.

They were ordered by the Minister.

I say this is scandalous conduct from an hon member of the House. The hon member condemns the SA Defence Force for these alleged misdeeds but he is mute on the pamphlet I have received, How to sabotage the enemy, a pamphlet distributed by the ANC in which they say—I shall read only one item:

This is the material in circulation but that hon member will not utter a word of condemnation of those people.

The hon member further said the hon the Minister of Defence used sections of the Defence Force for terrorism. He therefore accused that hon Minister of terrorism. I do not believe it is permissible for an hon member to accuse another hon member of terrorism. I believe the hon member should look at this and discuss it with you, Sir, and withdraw it. I do not believe it is permissible to say this.

This is the type of language used regularly by our enemies. We hear it and we read it in the newspapers. They accuse us of sabotage, terrorism and aggression in the council chambers of the world and on the radio. Yesterday we heard these accusations from the mouth of an hon member sitting in this House! We expect this of our enemies but we do not expect it of an hon member sitting in this House. This is a member representing voters with sons in the Defence Force and protected by the Defence Force but that hon member accused this Defence Force of terrorism and sabotage.

This brings me to another point, namely the standpoint of the Official Opposition in this respect. We have heard what the hon member for Yeoville said and we appreciate this. He rejected it. I want to know, however, what the hon member for Pinelands says about it. Does the hon member for Pinelands agree with the hon member for Yeoville? It is very easy—he merely has to tell us. Does he agree with the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North or with the hon member for Yeoville? It is very simple but we shall not receive an answer because that hon member agrees with the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North. [Interjections.]

While the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North was speaking yesterday, the hon member for Yeoville and the hon member for Bryanston were most uncomfortable. [Interjections.]

Order! I was under the impression that the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North had made his speech yesterday. I called upon the hon the Deputy Minister and no one else to speak and I now request hon members to give the hon the Deputy Minister the opportunity of making his speech.

Yesterday the hon member for Houghton listened approvingly and with affirmative nods to the standpoint of the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North. I say categorically she agrees with the statement made by the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North. I believe the hon member for Greytown is also in agreement—unless he says something to the contrary—as well as the hon member for Cape Town Gardens who is not present at the moment.

The hon Leader of the Official Opposition said today that he had spoken informally to the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North and said that such emotional words—and he used other terms as well—detracted from the debate. He expressed his regret that the speech of the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North had left the hon the Minister a loophole to extricate himself from the trouble in which he found himself. That was his conclusion. The hon Leader of the Official Opposition told this committee that his standpoint on violence was known and that was as far as the hon Leader was prepared to go. Nevertheless he did not utter a word of repudiation of the statements made by the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North. I thought in all sincerity that we could count on the hon Leader of the Official Opposition not to agree with this. He had an opportunity to prove this but what did he do? He was not prepared to go as far as saying that he repudiated the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North. We in this Chamber and the people out there take note of this and we take note of the standpoint of the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North with contempt.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to speak after the hon the Deputy Minister. I should like to convey my sincere congratulations to the hon the Deputy Minister on his appointment to that post. It was a pleasure to listen to his speech. He was very effective—he was destructive.

I also want to express my appreciation and thanks towards General Viljoen for his share in the development of the SA Defence Force. We wish him a pleasant period as a farmer. My sincere congratulations also to General Geldenhuys who is succeeding General Viljoen in this immense task.

A prepared and disciplined defence force is every country’s pride. It should also be the pride of any loyal citizen of a country—the symbol of freedom and justice. To South Africa its Defence Force also means the difference between life and death. This is the case particularly because South Africa is in the way of great powers, powers which strive towards world domination. South Africa is in the way as a result of its strategic position, as a result of the fact that it is richly endowed with mineral resources, as well as because it openly takes a stand against communism. That is why classic communist methods are applied here. Just read the book—undermine the leaders, the Defence Force, the Church, the morals and customs. A humanistic way of life is preached. This sickly slogan, “Freedom, Equality and Brotherhood” is raised. They mean freedom without responsibility, however. That is why it is such a pity that the PFP is climbing on the bandwagon and is taking part in these attacks against South Africa.

The greatest attack is inevitably that against the Defence Force, against military service, against the involvement of the Defence Force wherever. The hon the Deputy Minister dealt with the scandalous speech made here by the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North yesterday in the finest details. That speech is disloyal and unpatriotic. I am sure the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North is sick. I am sure he suffers from megalomania. The hon member waged a tirade against the hon the Minister and the Defence Force. I want to remind hon members that this hon Minister attained the highest rung of the Defence Force ladder and then became a Minister, a Minister of whom we are proud and towards whom we should like to express our pride and loyalty. I thank him for what he has done and is still doing for South Africa. We are proud of him and we are proud of the South African Defence Force.

When I listened to the speech of the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North, however, I wondered whose voice it was. Was it the voice of Russia? Was it the voice of Cuba, of the UNO, of the World Council of Churches, the ANC, Swapo or the UDF?

The voice of justice! [Interjections.]

He says it was the voice of justice. The hon member’s sense of justice is narrow. [Interjections.]

The hon the Deputy Minister referred to the pamphlet distributed here by the hon member. In this pamphlet Swapo is regarded as the only legally recognized leader of South West Africa. The hon the Deputy Minister referred to that.

that is not true.

It is true—the pamphlet says so. Did the hon member not even read it himself? The hon the Deputy Minister referred to the fact that this pamphlet was being distributed amongst us here in Parliament. I should like to know whether it is justified for facilities of this Parliament to be used to make photocopies of that pamphlet and to distribute them—to distribute that communist propaganda in this hon House. I say it is reprehensible—it cannot be excused. If this hon member values pamphlets so highly, he must bring us a pamphlet in which he censures the murders and the burning of bodies by the UDF. He must bring us a pamphlet in which he censures the misdeeds such as the blowing up of innocent people using landmines, of this so-called honoured Swapo which he is defending here. Bring that to us. I am afraid that is not possible, however.

I also want to refer to the PFP’s standpoint that the Defence Force should withdraw from South West Africa. I want to ask for us to look at the very positive role played by the Defence Force in South West Africa. I want hon members to look at the role of the Defence Force in the sphere of agriculture, the medical services, education and on all spheres. It is not exaggerated to say that the Defence Force forms the infrastructure in the northern parts of South West Africa. When it became clear in 1978 that South West Africa was on the point of becoming independent, the Defence Force hurriedly began to establish a separate defence force for South West Africa. This new defence force consisted of the following, and the hon member for Durban Point has referred to it already: The headquarters of the SWA territorial force, 10 reaction force or citizen force units, 26 area force or commando units, 10 permanent force/national service units, the SWA Military School and the 1 SWA Special Unit, as well as seven voluntary auxiliary services which were made up from the various ethnic population groups.

The new SWA territorial force was handed over to the Administrator-General of South West Africa at a ceremony on 6 September 1980, and this date is also regarded as the territorial force’s birthday. In 1981 national military service was instituted for all the population groups in South West Africa. Although there was initial resistance amongst certain population groups, it soon appeared to be a hidden blessing when droughts and economic retrogression led to unemployment. Approval was obtained in principle for the establishment of a reconnaisance regiment as well as a parachute unit for the area, and their development and utilization are taking place according to plan. Instructions were given at the beginning of 1984 for the territorial force of South West Africa to extend more quickly so that they themselves could take greater responsibility in the operational area, and in this way could relieve the pressure upon the South African forces. Although the SWA territorial force was utilized only to a very limited extent in the operational area at the time of its establishment, the picture looks completely different today, and 64% of all troops deployed in the operational area are from South West Africa.

There are problem areas, however, especially as far as leaders are concerned, and this applies to all spheres. There is really a great shortage of leaders. Funds are another shortage. The two military bases at Okahandja and Windhoek in particular suffer a great deal. I want to make the point, however, that the Defence Force has every right to be proud of what they have achieved in South West Africa.

What is probably the most important aspect remains, and that is the political aspect. [Interjections.] I see the hon member for Kuruman is making a noise again. [Interjections.] When legislation on South West Africa and its independence was passed, that hon member sat in the NP caucus and did not say a word! [Interjections.]

The MPC is composing an interim government, and only as a result of the successful action of the Defence Force is it possible for them to do so. [Interjections.] If it were not for Defence Force protection, they would not be able to succeed. To be able to succeed in this, therefore, there has to be stability in that country. Therefore it is of the greatest importance to maintain law and order there. That is why we want to address a plea to the hon the Minister once again that we shall remain there until there is peace in that country and until the Cubans have withdrawn from it.

In the single minute at my disposal I should merely like to refer to the retiring chief of the Defence Force, General Viljoen. I have two copies of Paratus in front of me, and it is wonderful to read in every edition of Paratus how he speaks to his people. I want to refer to an article in the one Paratus with the heading “Roei hierdie Onding uit”, in which reference is made to the so-called class categories in the Defence Force. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, allow me at the outset to express the regret of this side of the House at the hon the Minister’s announcement that General Viljoen is to retire. We on this side regard him as one of the most capable and outstanding chiefs of the SA Defence Force that this country has ever had. We wish him well and everything of the best for the future. In the same breath I want to convey our sincere congratulations to General Geldenhuys on his appointment as the new Chief of the SA Defence Force and we want to assure him that he will receive only the most loyal and best support from this side of the House for the SA Defence Force.

Having said that, I want to refer to the extremely disappointing speech of the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North in this House yesterday.

It was a scandalous speech!

It is absolutely disgraceful that in the times that South Africa is experiencing the Defence Force has to hear from an hon member of this House who also represents national servicemen that those serviceman are being referred to as terrorists and saboteurs, and that it is alleged that they are guilty of subversion. I think it is disgraceful and I want to express my extreme displeasure in that regard.

South Africa finds itself in a unique situation today. The country has strategic minerals and is strategically situated, and this makes it the focal point of the East as well as the West. In this situation the country is at present being threatened by communistically inspired Russian expansionism on our borders as well as by internal efforts at destabilization by the ANC. The bomb explosion in Johannesburg is the most recent example of this. In this regard we also want to express our strongest displeasure at the attempt to bring about destabilization in South Africa in such a treacherous manner.

As opposed to this the SA Defence Force forms probably the most important part of our total defence mechanism against those seeking to overthrow the existing order. I believe it is still the ideal of the Government to establish a true people’s army. At least, that has always been the ideal, and I want to ask the hon the Minister whether it is still the ideal to establish a people’s army in the true sense of the word.

The milieu of an ethnic community, a unity of will and of purpose, still creates the best circumstances for a formidable defence force of which any power in the world will have to take cognizance. Mercenaries have never been able to equal the fighting power and the efficiency of men and women imbued with idealism and the will to survive in the midst of a hostile world. That was also the ideal of one of the first Chiefs of the SA Defence Force, General C F Beyers. I want to express the hope that that is still the case today.

Our point of departure on this side is that the Government’s efforts to include all population groups on an integrated basis within the context of the Defence Force is futile because it runs counter to the idea of a people’s army. It will nullify all the advantages and the strength of a people’s army.

The basic training of other population groups such as that of 112 Battalion consisting of Vendas which was transferred to the defence force of Venda in 1982 is a sound development. It creates the prospect of uniform training and armaments for effective co-operation on an allied basis in the event of future hostilities. In this way we should establish various defence force units alongside one another in which every population group including the Coloureds and the Indians can become involved on a national service basis. There are internal unrest situations—here I want to differ with the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition—in which it is necessary for the Defence Force to become involved because these form part of the onslaught from without.

I see the hon the Minister regards the whole issue of conscription as an own affair on which each House can decide for itself. I see that that was how he spelt it out in one of the other Houses. I want to ask the hon the Minister whether this is his opinion or whether it is the official standpoint of the Government. If it is the standpoint of the Government, let me say that it is unfair of the Government to saddle White youths alone with compulsory military service while in the standing committee on general legislation affecting national service, joint and collective decisions are taken on matters affecting only the White population group. Surely that is unfair. It therefore is unacceptable to this side of the Committee. I am sorry; it should then also be entirely an own affair affecting only the House of Assembly. Then the other two Houses have nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Surely we cannot continue in this way with this new dispensation. Equal political decision-making powers are created on the one hand but on the other, the defence obligation is being placed on the shoulders of one population group only. Let me also mention in passing that at present the pay of an unmarried national serviceman is only R150 per month. This is less than a disability or old age pension. On top of this these men are in many cases unemployed. I think the Government should look at this.

This new political dispensation has in any case caused a very sensitive and delicate situation to arise within the Defence Force itself. This is particularly the case in regard to parttime elements the leadership elements of which who are at the same time necessarily members of the leadership group in the community, are supporters of this side of the Committee. Let me tell the hon the Minister, whether he believes it or not, that many of those officers are supporters of this side of the Committee. There are therefore supporters of a party that will never accept political power-sharing and an integrated situation.

The Defence Force has deemed it necessary to lay down certain prescriptive guidelines to indicate to officers what is expected of them. The officers have also have to sign a letter of undertaking concerning their political participation in this regard. I have no fault to find with this provided that it is applied scrupulously to all political parties. If there are complaints in this regard—and there are going to be complaints because it is a sensitive matter—they should in my opinion be dealt with by the Chief of the SA Defence Force through Defence Force channels and not through party political channels by the political chief of the Defence Force. In this regard I think it is necessary for the hon the Minister to spell out to us clearly which people he regards as being politically contentious persons as they are called in the particular directive. [Interjections.]

I want to ask the hon the Minister what the normal political activities are in which members of the commando’s or the Citizen Force may participate. If, for example, an officer is relieved of his post by his second-in-command can he appeal against such a decision? What about a person who makes himself available as a city councillor, for example? Is he also expected to resign because city councillors can be regarded as politically contentious figures at present? Does he therefore have to resign? I think it is necessary for the hon the Minister to clear up any misunderstanding that may exist in this regard so that new recruits to the Defence Force and also prospective officers will know exactly where they stand. [Interjections.] There were the good old days when commando members and officers openly attended divisional executive meetings and even public meetings in uniform. I am afraid, however, that those times have probably gone for good.

Let me give the hon the Minister this assurance. The CP will support the SA Defence Force through thick and thin. Our people will faithfully continue to perform their civic duty in this connection because in any country it is only a well-equipped and wide-awake defence force that can maintain peace and good order.

Mr Chairman, I do not want to devote too much time to the hon member for Pietersburg because the story they tell about integration in the Defence Force and the people’s army is the same every time. This was the story last year, it was the story this year and it was the story of the hon member for Jeppe. [Interjections.] Outside of the House they kick up a fuss about integration in the Defence Force but in the House the hon member for Jeppe agreed with the hon Leader of the Official Opposition when he said that we must extend the component of people of colour in the Defence Force. I do not know where they differ. They apparently only differ outside the House where they say there is integration in the Defence Force. [Interjections.]

You know you are a liar!

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member for Langlaagte entitled to tell another hon member that he is a liar?

Order! Did the hon member for Langlaagte say that?

Yes, but perhaps he does not know it.

Order! The hon member must not trifle with the Chair. He must withdraw that word.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw it.

Mr Chairman, let me state here today that we are very proud of the voluntary participation of Coloureds in the Defence Force. We are proud of the part that they as well as the Black volunteers are playing in the Defence Force. [Interjections.] They speak of compulsory military service for Coloureds and I just want to ask one question: If there were a suitable Coloured person in the SA Defence Force would they accept him as Chief of the Defence Force?

Would you make the Rev Hendrickse Minister of Defence?

If he is competent I should appoint him. [Interjections.]

But is he competent?

Yes, if he were competent I would. [Interjections.] The speeches of the hon members for Jeppe and Pietersburg have always been bad news. [Interjections.] I have good news, however, and that is that the MPC for King William’s Town crossed over to the NP today. [Interjections.]

Order! I appeal continually for order but hon members simply disregard my appeals.

I want to associate myself with other members who expressed appreciation for the service Gen Viljoen has rendered to the Defence Force. My time is very limited but I want to say just briefly that he is a man among men. We have great respect for him and I am very sorry that South Africa is going to lose his services. I should also like to convey my sympathy with the next-of-kin of servicemen who lost their lives during the course of the year in the service of South Africa.

The hon member for Yeoville said that we had to choose sides and show on whose side we were. I am confused, however, because I do not know on what side the Official Opposition is. [Interjections.] It is essential for the men of the Defence Force to know that they have the support of their own people back home. They are doing dangerous work in our interests. It is essential that they have the majority support of the political parties in this House. I want to make the assertion that in spite of the differences among three of the parties in this House there is no doubt that they support the Defence Force, although some doubt exists regarding the standpoint on support for the Defence Force adopted by the Official Opposition. Unfortunately the hon the Leader of the Opposition did not make it clear to us today whether they support or oppose the Defence Force. [Interjections.] We want to know what the standpoint of the PFP is in regard to the Defence Force—if they will be so kind as to tell us.

I contend that those who say that there should be no national service are supporters of the Official Opposition. The vast majority of members who attended the Transvaal Congress of the PFP was opposed to national service. I want now to indicate the effect this attitude has had on the Defence Force. In January 1984 there were only 1 596 national servicemen who neglected to report for duty. As a result of the attitude of the Official Opposition, this figure had increased by almost 400% to 7 589 by January 1985. In October 1984 there was a chorus of protest from their ranks when the Defence Force was first used in a supporting role to assist the Police in protecting the lives and property of people in the Vaal Triangle. The hon the Deputy Minister dealt with this matter thoroughly and I do not want to dwell on it. The Official Opposition also objected when it was decided that immigrants should do national service. Of all the immigrants 982 did not want to accept South African citizenship and as a result 80 of them will be deported.

May I put a question to the hon member?

No, my time is very limited. I gained the impression from the Official Opposition that they were unanimous in their support of South Africa against Germany during the Second World War but that they object to the actions of the Defence Force against Russia, Cuba, the ANC and Swapo. They do not tell us clearly on whose side they are in this struggle. They accuse us of having invaded Angola illegally but they do not object to raids by Swapo and the ANC in South West Africa and South Africa. They accuse the Defence Force of being destabilizers, saboteurs and terrorists and say that we are in a state of war with foreign powers. They accuse the Defence Force of being the chief aggressor in Southern Africa. They accuse the Defence Force of training people to kill and to terrorize innocent people and say that the Department of Defence is responsible for destabilization and terrorism. One of the members of the Official Opposition called Roland Hunter, who provided the ANC with Defence Force information, a patriot. The standpoint adopted by the Official Opposition is that this man should be released from jail. The Defence Force receives more support, encouragement and appreciation from the Coloureds, Asians and Blacks in the RSA than it does from the Official Opposition.

Mr Chairman, in spite of serious unrest in our Black areas, in spite of the permanent threat of Swapo terrorist action in the operational area and in spite of the infiltration of ANC terrorists across our northern borders, which gives rise to escalating urban terrorist action such as the much-publicized Pretoria bomb, the Silverton incident, the latest bomb explosion yesterday afternoon at the offices of the Southern Transvaal Medical Command in Johannesburg, and in spite of the unabated efforts of elements propagating chaos and unrest in the Republic, the majority of the people in this country rest assured in the knowledge that the forces taking care of their safety can be trusted with the task with which they have been charged. No better testimony of gratitude and appreciation towards those who often do their duty at the risk of their own lives can probably be given today. They deserve the undivided support and loyalty of every citizen in the country. In fact, most of them are our own children, our own sons and daughters.

The calculated subtlety with which certain South Africans try to run down the guardians of our safety, literally to get at them, is amazing and often bewildering; and one asks oneself: To what purpose? Today’s Burger reports on the speech of the Leader of the Official Opposition during this debate on the Cabinda incident when two members of the Defence force were killed and one was wounded. The report is as follows:

How naive can one be! Is the hon Leader of the Official Opposition implying that the Defence Force may not do anything which will entail harmful propaganda? Could the Defence Force still do anything with this danger hanging over its head? All propaganda about South Africa, its Government and Defence Force is interspersed with half-truths and lies in any event, which in fact means that even if the Defence Force were to do nothing at all, there would still always be propaganda against the SA Defence Force.

If the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is really concerned about the damaging effects of anti-Defence Force propaganda, why does he then not take the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North to task more seriously instead of saying to him: “You naughty boy, don’t become too harsh when speaking about these things.”? Why does he not say to him: “I repudiate you; saying these things is not in the interest of South Africa and the SA Defence Force.”? Or does he not believe that it is harmful propaganda when the hon member accusses the SA Defence Force of undertaking terrorist action? Does he not consider it to be destructive and harmful propaganda for the Defence Force of South Africa when the hon member says that these actions were covered up with lies?

Now the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North is smiling about it. It does not worry him at all. In fact, I believe that South Africa and her interests are as far from his heart as anything else that he finds hateful. Why does the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North accuse the SA Defence Force of being terrorists? Why does he accuse them of being terrorists, while some of his associates call Swapo and ANC terrorists freedom fighters? If he has any semblance of an idea of a terrorist, and if a terrorist is associated with a freedom fighter, why are the ANC and Swapo freedom fighters and the SA Defence Force the terrorists? Is that, perhaps, beneficial propaganda for the SA Defence Force? I should like to ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition what he thinks of such a situation. I should like to ask the hon member for Yeoville once again whether he can associate himself with such conduct. I can also put this question to the hon member for Wynberg, but he is deliberately sitting and writing, and pretending not to hear me. One would like to hear his answer. The same applies to the hon member for Bezuidenhout. Both those hon members are intently writing. They do not want to hear of these things, because they know that within their own ranks there is at present a threatening palace crisis about the very aspect I have mentioned.

I briefly want to say something about the so-called end conscription campaign. Is that favourable propaganda for the Defence Force? If the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is so violently opposed to such propaganda, is it not, then, his duty to take action in this regard as well? What does he say about his people—we can name them—who are actively involved with this end conscription campaign? What about Di Bishop? What about the others in the Committee?

What about the hon member for Pinelands? The hon member for Pinelands is in an invidious position. He has a crisis in his home, because he not only has there someone who is opposed to conscription; he is also harbouring someone who is in fact evading national service. Similarly one can ask the hon member for Berea whether his son has done national service yet.

That is a lie.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is an hon member entitled to accuse another hon member specifically of harbouring people in his home who are evading military service …

And his son.

Order!

And that it is his son?

Order! The hon member for Swellendam has … [Interjections.] Order! Am I giving a ruling or am I not? Hon members will remain silent while I give my ruling. I did not hear the hon member for Swellendam saying that the hon member for Pinelands was harbouring people who were evading national service. I did, however, hear him say that the hon member had a crisis in his home. That is a common Afrikaans expression …

His son.

His son need not necessarily be at home. If he wishes the hon member can ask the hon member for Pinelands whether his son is living at home. I do not know where the son of the hon member for Pinelands is.

Sir, it is an outright lie.

Order! Did the hon member for Groote Schuur say that it was an outright lie? If so, the hon member must withdraw that.

Sir, I am not going to withdraw it. I am going to move on towards the door.

Order! The hon member must withdraw it.

Sir, I am not going to withdraw it. I am going to move on.

Order! I appeal to the hon member to reconsider a withdrawal.

Sir, it is a lie, and my conscience does not allow me to withdraw the remark.

Then I have to order the hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition to withdraw from the Chamber for the remainder of the day’s sitting for disregarding the authority of the Chair.

Whereupon the hon the Chief Whip withdrew.

If I am not mistaken, another hon member also referred to a lie. Did another hon member also refer to a lie? The hon member for Swellendam may proceed.

Sir, in conclusion …

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: If a father harbours a son as the hon member for Swellendam claims the hon member for Pinelands to be doing …

Order! The hon member for Swellendam did not say that the hon member for Pinelands was harbouring a son.

If one has someone in one’s home, is one not, then, harbouring that person?

Order! The hon member did not say that the hon member for Pinelands had his son at home. The hon member for Swellendam may proceed.

Sir, in conclusion I pertinently want to ask the hon member for Berea whether his son completed his national service or whether he is still overseas?

I should like to use this opportunity to make a few remarks about our retiring chief of the SADF, Gen Viljoen. He has been an outstanding soldier, a tireless person who has commanded great respect. I recall that when he was first appointed he came to visit our unit in East London. He had the nickname then—I do not know whether it still applies—of “Stofstreep” because all one saw when he arrived was a cloud of dust and then things happened. He was a somewhat fearsome person in those days when you met him for the first time as someone lower down in the line of command. Nevertheless he was always a very inspiring person whom everybody looked up to, and he has done the SADF a great deal of good by setting a very high standard and example. We wish him great success and enjoyable farming for many years in the future.

We are extremely fortunate to have somebody of the calibre of Gen Jannie Geldenhuys to take over the reins. He has a very demanding and tough task ahead of him. In fact, it is noteworthy that our Defence Force at this stage of its development has a cadre of officers of very, very high calibre from whom to select successors to fill the shoes of people like Gen Viljoen.

I should like to get on to the question of the township situation and discuss one or two things with the hon the Minister. I believe it is very important that we have a very open debate on the situation in that regard because very often one is inclined not to perhaps, shall we call it, wash dirty linen in these debates. In this case it is not political but I believe unless these things are said in this place and said loudly, then they may not be taken with the seriousness which we believe they should be. It sometimes takes quite a long time for an organization as big as the SADF to put things of this nature into practice.

Lately the SA Police have come in for a great deal of criticism as regards their preparedness in situations of unrest. We have the situation in the SADF today where some of our units are going into riot situations equally badly prepared and equally badly equipped. I should like to ask the hon the Minister to ensure that this aspect of soldiering which is such a sensitive task is very thoroughly reviewed. The question of the selection of the troops to go into those areas is a very critical one. I do not believe that one can send in just any unit. There are cases where they have gathered people from all over the country, put them together as a platoon and put them under the command of somebody they have never met before. They do not know the area and they do not know the people. I know that there has been something of a rush job as far as this is concerned but it is a matter that demands a great deal of in-depth attention as to how the SADF is going to go about this task which already puts it in a very difficult position.

I may just mention to the hon the Minister that there are units in townships today which do not have so much as a fire-extinguisher on their vehicle and they are facing the threat of petrol bombs. They do not have gas maks and yet they are supposed to use tear-smoke. I did not think that the lack of that sort of basic equipment would be allowed in the SADF, and I must say it surprises me. I believe the hon the Minister should get his generals together and have a good look at this riot situation as far as the SADF is concerned and make very certain that we do a proper job from the word go. One realizes that we are going to have to develop new tactics.

I should like to mention another thing which is equally sensitive but I think it should be aired. It has already been mentioned in a slightly different context. I refer to the relations of the SADF with the SA Police Force. In this case too I think that this hon Minister and the hon the Minister of Law and Order should get their generals to sit down together and sort out some of this lack of co-operation in their ranks. The unfortunate little incidents that take place as well as any possible lack of co-operation between the SA Police Force and the SADF should be discussed. I know it is a longstanding problem and I know it is difficult because of the different roles that the two forces play and the different methods they employ. We know all that, but we cannot afford to have major problems in view of the extreme sensitivity of the situation. There should not be any taint of failure or any let-down in the high standard of the SADF.

The next point I would like to make is a slightly political one, and that is that I believe the hon the Minister should now press very urgently for the immediate introduction of Black regiments. The Prohibition of Political Interference Act is due to be scrapped. That Act, more than anything else, has brought about a situation where there is a great big void in South African politics in which the moderate Black has been unable to participate. By doing that we left a vacuum that the radicals could use, so that we now have a circumstance where those moderates to whom we are looking for co-operation in the evolutionary process of reform, are at a terrible disadvantage. Had that Prohibition of Political Interference Act not been enacted, and had more political expertise rubbed off on these people, I am certain we would probably have formed Black regiments. I think now more than ever before the responsibility lies with the hon the Minister to go to the political leaders and say that we have to get these regiments off the ground so that we can use them in the right roles in these townships. [Interjections.]

The last point I would like to make is about the comments made by the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North. These have been very well discussed, and I must say that the hon member for Umlazi made a very good speech as far as that was concerned. I agree with his remarks completely. I just want to mention one point, and that is we should not forget that the “Boere-oorlog” or the “Vryheidsoorlog” or whatever one wants to call it, was in progress …

The “Engelse Oorlog”.

The “Engelse Oorlog”, no less! Or the Gold war!

†When that war was in progress there was a hefty debate in the British Parliament led by an opposition party as to the Government’s role in that war in this country. The democratic process and tradition must allow maximum debate as to exactly what role a defence force must play. I just want to make it quite clear that I do not agree with one word of what that hon member said. I believe the entire speech should have been withdrawn and not just a few phrases. I believe that that speech could only be made by a person whose perceptions of the defence situation in this country clearly indicate that he supports those against whom this country is fighting. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the establishment of Armscor, our armanent industry, was a direct result of the boycott actions of the United Nations and military onslaughts on our borders. If we had been left in peace, our military might would have been much smaller today. The boycott against South Africa had directly the opposite military effect of that intended by those people who instigated it. Not only is Armscor in a position today to fulfil every need of the SADF, but is now also seen as a threat to the traditional armanent producers of the world as a result of its unique and quality products. Now, more than 20 years later, certain individuals in different countries are again propagating boycotts against disinvestment in South Africa because they say, among other things, that there is not enough individual freedom in South Africa. I am positive that these threats against us will in the long run, despite temporary setbacks and hardship for some of us, turn out to be—like Armscor—a blessing in disguise for South Africa.

In Australia today one has a Hawke-ish Hitlerism where one man can decide where, when and if any Australian may travel or play sport. What has happened to the individual’s freedom in Australia? In New Zealand individual freedom has now also be come subservient to the political gluttony of its Prime Minister. In the USA, the land of total freedom—of free enterprise and equal opportunity—the individual’s freedom is now also being threatened and restricted by political groups. The entrepreneur can no longer exercise his freedom to invest his capital in the most profitable venture or area of his choice. Leftist political cliques now want to decide for him as to where he may invest or must disinvest.

American companies in South Africa must not look to us for a solution to their problems. They must go back to their source, their own country, where the personal freedom of investment of the ordinary American is being whittled away—very subtly but in no uncertain manner—by elements whose interests are purely selfish and certainly not national. Americans must first of all re-establish their own freedom before pointing a finger at South Africa. If disinvestment must come, so be it, because—as with Armscor—it will urge us on to greater strength, independent economic power and greater utilization of our mineral, human and natural resources. We have great appreciation for the American President’s wisdom and understanding of our problems, but we refuse to be impressed by ill-informed and misinformed people who, because of their own guilty consciences, want to interfere in our affairs and sacrifice the poor of this country for their own selfish political aspirations in America and elsewhere.

*I want to return to Armscor which we were virtually forced to develop because of the boycotters. Armscor experienced dramatic growth over the past 20 years. In 1964 its assets totalled R18,6 million. Today it runs to more than R1 500 million and its turnover is more than R2 000 million per year. When measured against the economy, South Africa spent at least 70% of her Budget on the overseas acquisition of weapons before 1965. Today practically 100% is spent in South Africa. The effect of this on the economy speaks for itself. Armscor’s role in South African industry is seen as a unique partnership between the Government and private enterprise. Over and above its nine affiliations it deals with more than 1 000 subcontractors in the private sector. This illustrates Armscor’s position with regard to the stimulation of growth it is estimated that for every job opportunity created within Armscor, a further six to eight opportunities are generated in the private sector. Seventy per cent of the corporation’s total budget is spent in the private sector.

Armscor is not only a leader in the technological field in industry, but also in the field of occupational safety. Armscor has proved this so-called dangerous industry to be the exact opposite. No less than five Armscor affiliations hold the soughtafter Noscar, the highest award for occupational safety in South Africa. In the whole of South Africa only 30 companies have attained this award and that out of a total of 30 000 which qualify for it. It is indeed a wonderful achievement. When one looks at the reasons for the establishment of Armscor, as well as its achievements and the benefits it holds for each South African and at what it produces, then it is very difficult to feel downhearted when disinvestment and boycotts against South Africa are propagated.

†May I say in conclusion that I do not think we should judge the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North at this stage. I think that in all fairness we should not judge him until he has been sent to a psychiatric ward for observation and declared fit and responsible for his actions. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member said that the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North should be sent to a psychiatric ward for observation. It is inferring that the hon member is not sane. Is that allowed?

Order! What did the hon member for East London North say?

Mr Chairman, I said we should not judge the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North at this stage until he has been sent to a psychiatric ward for observation and declared fit and responsible for his actions and his utterances. I did not say that there is something wrong with the hon member; I said that he had to be examined.

Order! The hon member must withdraw that remark. The hon member for East London North must withdraw that remark because it contains a clear insinuation.

Mr Chairman, is that an insinuation?

Yes, the hon member must withdraw it.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, if there is one thing that is dangerous in these critical times in which we are living, it is to cast suspicion on the bona fides, strategy and integrity of our Defence Force and its leaders. It is dangerous because our Defence Force is daily becoming more important in maintaining our country and civilized, orderly government. People of all colours in South Africa look up to the Defence Force. I therefore cannot condemn strongly enough the new spirit of irresponsibility and even recklessness that has raised its head in this debate through the Official Opposition. In speeches by hon members of the Official Opposition there has been a calculated denigration of the hon the Minister of Defence.

This began with the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition himself. His speech is not as innocent as we think. Hon members would do well to reread it; it is denigration. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition even proposed a reduction in the salary of the hon the Minister of Defence. This speech was followed by an objectionable speech by the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North, who has already endured several hidings here today.

One does not want to deny the Opposition parties the right to criticize, because constructive criticism is always welcome, but a dangerous new spirit of condemnation and denigration of the SA Defence Force is evident in speeches by hon members of the Official Opposition. It is a spirit almost as negative as that which one encounters among the enemies of South Africa. It worries me that this spirit has manifested itself among the Official Opposition. It is a sad day for South Africa. It is therefore not surprising that the loyal hon member for Yeoville shook his head yesterday when the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North was talking, and that later he even walked out. We also know what he said here today.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition should stand up here and repudiate the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North. If he does not do so, we must accept that he agrees with the reckless tenor of the speech by the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North. Even after the hon member withdrew certain remarks, the tenor of his speech was still extremely reckless and dangerous for South Africa.

It is very clear that there is a great deal of discord in the PFP regarding Defence matters and that the wild horses in that party now have the upper hand. I predict that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition will not be able to restrain these wild horses. These horses will break away from their leader’s reins. They have already done so in this debate.

The task of our Security Forces of making South Africa safe, and keeping it safe, is not getting any easier. This task is getting greater and more difficult because the threats against South Africa are continually increasing. We are living in a revolutionary climate and there are forces that are throwing everything into the struggle to foster this climate further.

The build-up of forces in Angola, the Black unrest here in our country, and the American disinvestment campaign are all part of the multidimensional onslaught against the present system in South Africa. The newspapers write: “Rooi wapens hoop op om Suid-Afrika en veral in Angola.” Can there still be any doubt that Angola is being prepared as a front basis for Soviet domination of Southern Africa if more than 30 000 Cuban military personnel are being utilized there at present?

This is why I say: People who try to run down our Defence Force are playing with fire. The Official Opposition is playing with fire in speeches such as those they made in the course of this debate. I want to ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to hold his party, his team in check. He must not allow his party members to play into the hands of these revolutionary forces. Speeches such as the one by the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North play right into the hands of people who blow up and bum down buildings.

I now want to come to Angola. What are the facts regarding Angola? The facts are that Angola is not playing the game with South Africa. Despite our having reached an agreement with the Angolans, namely that we shall not allow our territory to be used by terrorist forces against them and that they, too, will not allow their territory to be used against us, they have nevertheless allowed their territory to be used against us. Angola has become the main base for the ANC in their attacks against South Africa. This is so in spite of our having held a series of discussions with the Angolans on the subject, telling them repeatedly that such a situation is not acceptable to us and that we find it untenable. The provisions of the Lusaka Agreement have not been fulfilled honourable by Angola. One of the provisions was that Swapo activities would be restricted, and that has not been complied with. The ANC and Swapo are being accommodated by Angola and are being backed by the Angolan government.

In contrast, South Africa has kept its part of the agreement. Our part of the agreement was that we would withdraw our troops from certain areas, and this has been done. The Opposition should remember that the Angolan government came into power with the help of the Cubans and other communists. The plain truth is that we have a nonelected, communist power in Luanda which supplies aid to terrorist forces acting against South Africa. Do we not under these circumstances have the right to make suitable arrangements to protect our interests, as we have now done?

It would constitute gross dereliction of duty if the Defence Force were merely to fold its arms and do nothing, while fully aware of the action taken against us by the ANC from Angola. Then one would indeed be justified in asking our Defence Force accusatorily: Why are you not taking action?

Mr Chairman, it was interesting that the hon member for Bloemfontein North and the hon the Deputy Minister used Swapo’s operations across the border from Angola with the intent to kill people, to justify the recent incident in Angola. By referring to those cross-border operations the hon the Deputy Minister and the hon member are implying that our men were in Angola for the purpose of doing something similar. I want to say to them that they should be careful when they draw such a comparison. What I also found interesting, was to hear the hon the Deputy Minister refer to the Swapo camp in Cabinda as a target. By using the word “target” he is once again implying that it was the objective of those young men to destroy that target. I should say that hon members should be careful when they say things like that, too.

I, too should very much like to avail myself of this opportunity to express my appreciation to Gen Viljoen. I have got to know him over the years and he is a man for whom I have a great deal of respect. I shall miss him in the Defence Force and I trust that he will rest after his retirement and will derive the same job satisfaction from the agricultural position he will as it were, occupy, as he did from his position as Chief of the Defence Force.

†A year and some months after Nkomati and about two weeks after our internationally acclaimed withdrawal from Angola, this particular debate should have been one of hope for the future and joyful expectation for peace in Southern Africa—a peace for which many have worked and for which many young South Africans have actually sacrificed limbs and in some cases lives.

However, as we debate here today these hopes have been dashed sadly and our expectations have been aborted. I lay the blame for this squarely at the feet of a Minister who seems to be incapable of understanding the rules of international diplomacy and negotiation and who, in a hamhanded manner, has led South Africa into a series of blunders which we can no longer afford.

in the past I have remained or tried to remain objective with regard to the SADF, and I have levelled my criticism at the political head of the department and not at the men in uniform. I have done this, I believe, in a constructive manner. At the same time, I have in some quarters been criticised when it was thought that harsher condemnation was due and it was sometimes said that I withheld such criticism.

It is true that I have respect for the Chief of the Army and his senior officers. It is also true that I do not believe that the SADF has used methods of terrorism to achieve its goals. I do not believe that the SADF has knowingly been responsible for unpunished atrocities. I also do not believe that the SADF operates independently of the Government of the day. It carries out its instructions. However, this latest blunder in Angola, I believe, is unforgivable and should be condemned in the strongest possible terms. In the critical times in which we live in this country, there is only one crime more serious than malicious intent and that is stupidity. Had I not known the senior decision-makers in the SADF as well as I do, I might have thought that in this case there had been a combination of both. By sending armed young men into Angola or into our neighbouring states at this juncture in our history the hon the Minister shows complete disregard for international boundaries and respect for our neighbours. It places the peace initiative in Angola and South West Africa in jeopardy and rises the question where else we have operators in our neighbouring territories. I would like the hon the Minister to reply to the question whether we have troops in neighbouring territories, because I believe Parliament should be told. A clear denial would be sufficient. Recently I together with a group of parliamentarians visited the border area of South West Africa. During this trip I was told specifically that apart from a small number of troops guarding the hydro-electric scheme there were no South African troops in Angola.

May I ask the hon member a question?

No, I do not have the time. When I come back, I reported that fact to my hon leader, but I now find that that assurance was not true. On how many other issues have we not been given clear or true answers? Who should we believe in future? To me this is a very serious question and an indictment of the hon the Minister and others who supply us with information. If Parliament and parliamentarians are no longer part of the decision-making mechanisms, decisions which we can only make if we have the correct information, where then are the decisions made? Is Parliament no longer sovereign and does it no longer count? This incident has caused South Africa to be regarded with a lack of credibility, and the public would in future be well advised to take whatever they are told by the Government with a pinch of salt.

That is a disgraceful statement.

The circumstances, as I have just explained them, prove that it is necessary to say these things. The hon member was with us in South West Africa. He knows that the question was put, and he knows what the reply was.

†There are serious implications that flow from this debacle. Firstly, there is a total loss of credibility between Parliament, the public and the hon the Minister concerned. There will be a loss of friendly co-operation by our allies. We have also given our opponents a tremendous propaganda boost in Africa as well as elsewhere. Lastly, we have given those in favour of disinvestment a shot in the arm. Our friends and allies have been let down by us …

Not by us.

I include myself. I take responsibility as a parliamentarian for what happens in South Africa and in the various State departments. That is why I feel so very strongly about the credibility gap that has developed because I cannot say when it comes to defence matters that it is only a matter of concern to members on the other side. As a parliamentarian I believe that we should make a contribution and be placed in a position to make that contribution. That information is either being denied us or, when it is given, it now appears to be suspect. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, later this evening, if I have a chance, I shall reply in detail to the points raised by the hon member for Wynberg. I first want to refer to the gathering of intelligence in Southern Africa and the activities of our security forces. Yesterday I made a statement in Parliament, but I think very few of us read that statement in detail. It was a policy statement which indicated how the Defence Force was going to act in Southern Africa in future. This, too, has the approval of the Government. If we consider the incident which occurred in Angola I want to tell the hon member for Wynberg, with reference to what he said a moment ago, that there are no troops in the area of dispute. This was indicated in yesterday’s statement, and that was the report which was conveyed to him.

A second aspect is that he said that he as a member of this Parliament wanted to know about sensitive reconnaissance operations of this kind. Mindful of the hon member who is a colleague of the hon member for Wynberg, I want to say that if I were to give sensitive information of this nature to that hon member, I guarantee that the ANC would have it tomorrow. Surely the hon member for Wynberg cannot expect South Africa to allow me, when human lives are at stake, to make such sensitive aspects general knowledge. It would ensure the failure of every operation. I think the hon member for Durban Point made an extremely important statement in this House yesterday when he said that it was a pity that the operation had failed, and that it was one of the few occasions that that had happened.

I should like to amplify that statement of mine. We shall always act effectively against our enemies such as the ANC and the PAC. I want to make that clear.

I cannot understand why the hon member for Durban Point, as well as other hon members, are still complaining about the urgency of the Cabinda operation.

It is a question of the timing.

Let me place it clearly on record, once again, that the ANC and its fellow-travellers are constantly threatening our security in this country. It is not a question of today or tomorrow. It is an on-going threat. My colleague, the Minister of Law and Order, spelt this out recently, and I want to make it clear again—and I make no apology for doing so—that we shall do everything possible to sniff out and locate the ANC and take action against them, wherever they may be. It makes no difference who objects to this or in what terms they do so; when we want to look for them, we shall find them, and we shall keep on doing so; we shall look for them wherever and however we like. The timing and similar factors make no difference, for we are concerned here with a continuous onslaught which has been made on the Republic of South Africa for the past 19 years. The timing and such factors cannot make any difference if it is a continuous onslaught. Just think of the bomb incident in Pretoria on 20 May 1983, while we were dealing with a Defence Vote here. Think of the massacre of innocent White and Black civilians of this country of ours. They demand it of us. I want to make it very clear that the legislation in question authorizes us to take these actions; and this House agreed to that legislation.

On the other hand, I just want to tell our neighbours that we are not taking action against them as states or as governments, or against their integrity. Those who still continue to accommodate the ANC and the PAC are requested once again to adopt the way of peace and to remove those people from their countries. We can ensure our stability. It is terrorism against us which brings about destabilization for those neighbouring countries. They want to make us ungovernable—and when I say “they”, I am referring in particular to the enemies of South Africa, the ANC and the PAC. They want to establish a dictatorial state for élite Black Marxists in the Republic of South Africa. Whether or not suspicion is cast on the SA Defence Force by irresponsible members of this House, the SA Defence Force will carry out its responsibility towards the Republic of South Africa.

When the terrorist organizations, specifically the ANC and PAC, were requested to follow the road of peace, they replied: “With greater violence.” It was violence which was not timed to suit us. We shall take action for the sake of South Africa and assure our country of a position of strength. Then the Government can go to the diplomatic conference table again to negotiate for peace and prosperity for all our people, Coloured, Black and White.

It must be realized now that my colleague, the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and all my other colleagues, agree with this. In my presence the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs repeatedly warned the Angolan Government against the accommodation of ANC members in that country.

This afternoon I want to ask the hon the members of the Official Opposition to associate themselves with our warnings in this Committee. I am making an appeal to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition so that we may preferably say to our enemies as a united front: If you keep on doing this, you will have the full extent of our military might to contend with.

I come next to national service. We listened to the emotional arguments put forward by members of the CP. Certain political standpoints were adopted in respect of national service for Coloureds and Indians. It was very clear what the motives behind these political standpoints in regard to that particular national service were. The object is political. It is harshly and clearly political. I shall tell hon members why I say this. They do not want to serve the cause of national defence. No, they are making a play for right-wing White sympathy. [Interjections.] No, the hon members must wait so that I can finish speaking.

Order!

I sent the hon member for Jeppe a written invitation in 1984 to come forward and state his case in this connection as well to the Geldenhuys Committee, because this committee is inter alia enquiring into this matter.

Was the Rev Hendrickse before that committee?

Yes, the Rev Hendrickse is going to testify before the committee. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon member for Jeppe did not even have the courtesy to reply to that invitation.

You are talking rubbish.

To say nothing of accepting it.

You are talking rubbish.

Order! The hon member for Jeppe must contain himself.

He does not even know what is happening in his own office.

Order! The hon member for Jeppe must control himself! I am calling the hon member to order, and he keeps on talking. The hon the Minister may proceed.

He did not even accept that invitation, and I repeat what I said. If he is concerned about the defence of this country, as he says he is, he will go and make his contribution before the committee. He will not come and kick up a fuss here, and unleash political emotions.

I want to make it plain to the Committee, just as I made it plain in the other two Houses in respect of national service, that there are three Chambers of this Parliament. I am part of those who voted in favour of the new Constitution, and the remainder of us sitting here must accept the present Constitution. In terms of the present Constitution every House will itself decide, in a democratic way, about national service for its own people. In addition I am still awaiting the recommendations of the Geldenhuys Committee as far as this matter is concerned. They are considering it through non-political spectacles.

Is national service an own affair?

The hon member must give me a chance to speak and abandon his obsession with own affairs. He sounds like a gramophone needle that has stuck in a groove: Own affairs, own affairs, own affairs! [Interjections.]

Perhaps it is also wise to take cognisance of the historic develop of White national service. The Whites started a voluntary national service system. It subsequently developed into a ballot system. Still later it culminated in a system of compulsory military service. Moreover we shall also have to bear in mind—this is what the Geldenhuys Committee is dealing with—that there are certain factors which will determine whether a national service system is successful or not.

One of the factors is going to be the supply and demand in respect of manpower. Other factors are going to be such things as mental attitudes, the level, the development and the education of people, the degree of co-operation, motivation, etc. Consequently, in order to establish a successful national service system, all these factors will have to be considered and only then will we be able to say what form it should take.

This brings me once again to the attitude of the Official Opposition in respect of national service. I want to make it very clear that the Government is always amenable to positive suggestions in respect of the improvement of national service. The new policy of the PFP is apparently causing dissension in their ranks, because all the members of the defence group have resigned as a result of the policy.

Do come to the defence of the country now.

I consider the defence of this country to be so important that I do not want to have it politicized, and for that reason I gave the Geldenhuys Committee only one general guideline, namely that their recommendations should serve the national interest. I am very grateful to the Leader of the Official Opposition and to the hon member for Wynberg, who both went to testify before the committee. They know that the committee has a great deal of appreciation for what they did. I want to thank them very sincerely. The committee will consider their proposals and then make its recommendations.

I also have a great deal of fault to find with the momentum which the extremists in that party are giving to the End Conscription Campaign. I am of the opinion that they are playing right into the hands of the enemy. There is sufficient evidence that this campaign …

[Inaudible.]

I shall come to that hon member in a moment, because there is a direct connection between the End Conscription campaign and that hon member. I have sufficient evidence that there is co-ordination between a number of left-wing organizations, such as the South African Council of Churches, Nusas, the Black Sash, of which Mrs Blackburn and Mrs Bishop, who are also members of the PFP, are members, and the UDF. Mrs Blackburn appeared at a UDF meeting in Port Elizabeth in 1984. In 1984 the hon member for Pinelands called the establishment of the UDF the most important development in Black South Africa since the fifties. [Interjections.]

I do not think it is unfair, in view of this interaction between these organizations, to put certain questions to the hon the Leader of the Opposition. On the one hand I hear that the hon member for Pinelands has a UDF calendar in his Parliamentary office. [Interjections.] It is also known that that hon member’s son appeared at several UDF meetings—meetings at which national service was decried. In 1984 he was the chairman of such a meeting. In addition I want to know from the hon member for Green Point—who is being so clamorous now—and from the hon member for Cape Town Gardens whether they have any direct connection with the End Conscription campaign. [Interjections.] Why are they silent now? Does the hon member have any connection with it or not? On the other hand there are hon members of that party, such as the hon member for Yeoville and the hon member for Wynberg, who are now backing down and making compromising noises in the direction of the left wing. The hon member for Bezuidenhout also caused it to be placed clearly on record that he is in favour of a strong South African Defence Force and a strong national service force.

I find this strange, because the hon member for Wynberg always adopted a very firm attitude. He always formed his own opinion and was always prepared to say what he thinks. I see that his attitude is no longer so firm these days.

Before I come to the speakers who spoke this afternoon, I want to thank the hon member for Randfontein. I accidentally omitted to mention him this afternoon. He had a difficult task, because he had to maintain calm after the speech made by the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North. As usual he acquitted himself well of his task and did his work very well. He had a lot to say about disinformation, and it was very clear that he had made a thorough study of it.

I listened attentively to the hon member for Yeoville, and I am very pleased to see that he is back. I have referred on quite a number of occasions to his dilemma—he has my sympathy, as many other members in that party have my sympathy. All I can say about him is that his South African heart beats in the right way for the SA Defence Force, and I have appreciation for that. I thank him for having leapt into the breach to defend the honour of the SA Defence Force.

I want to compliment the hon member for Johannesburg West on his contribution. He discussed the PFP which is in the process of performing a somersault in regard to national service. The hon member has his finger on the pulse of politics—he knows his politics and he simply exposed the conditions in the PFP further. I think the situation there still remains the same: We are saddled with a right wing and a left wing, and the hon the Leader is sitting on the fence.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member for Newcastle made an important contribution on the chaplain service. I have appreciation for the remarks he made.

†I appreciate the loyalty of the hon member for Durban Point to the SADF, a loyalty that he has reflected over many years here in this House. I have attended to the matters relating to the Angolan incident. The hon member raised several administrative matters, but unfortunately I do not have the time now to reply to these. I will, however, follow them up and furnish him with written replies.

*The hon member for Umlazi referred with good insight to the dilemma of the PFP, and in particular to the dilemma of the Leader of that party. That dilemma was clearly demonstrated here this afternoon. [Interjections.] He indicated with well-founded arguments how factions were being formed in that party.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member for Houghton is sitting here, clucking all the time. Yesterday it was very interesting to see how she sat clucking here when the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North was making his speech. It was very interesting to see how she went to do a little lobbying at the back there, when the hon member for Yeoville found himself in a dilemma as a result of the speech. This is the faction I am talking about, which exists in the PFP at the moment.

You will never …

The hon member can be angry with me if she likes, because I know I am touching an exposed nerve. [Interjections.]

I thank the hon member for Primrose for his exceptional contribution on the role of the SA Defence Force in the economy. His speech testified to a profound insight. Since what we are in fact dealing with here is the Budget and the spending of money, we are glad to take cognizance of his remarks. His views on the protective task and the cost of the Defence Force are accurate and I appreciate them.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said that my replies on the Angolan incident did not satisfy him. I should like to offer him a copy of that statement which I issued yesterday and which I said today I would let him have.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition sidestepped the question of his rebellious member, the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North. To hide behind the hon member’s “hyperbolic presentation” and emotions, does not solve the problem. I repeat that I sympathize with the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition; I say this and I mean it seriously. To get the various factions together again in future is going to be an impossible task. [Interjections.] What I really want to say is that it is an impossible task to keep them together. They are like a lot of naughty little children who jump up as soon as one says a word, and the first one who is going to jump is sitting next to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. [Interjections.]

I want to convey a special word of thanks to my right hand, the hon the Deputy Minister of Defence. He is a very competent right hand. [Interjections.] His speech and the way in which he dealt with the Opposition shows why he is where he is.

Well considered and well balanced contributions were made by the hon members for Walvis Bay, Vryheid and Swellendam. I appreciate their kind words.

Business suspended at 18h45 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr Chairman, because I am rising to speak so late in the day, when everyone has virtually said what they wanted to say, I chose a very special subject, namely women in the Defence Force. [Interjections.] I hope hon members would like to listen to this for a while.

I should like to dwell for a moment on the training and utilization of women in the Defence Force. One often hears conjectures as to whether or not it is desirable to utilize women in the Defence Force. One finds positive as well as negative arguments in this connection. Personally I think it is desirable that as many women as possible should undergo training. Those who cannot be utilized in the Defence Force after their training can successfully perform useful functions in public life.

After the Second World War, many years elapsed before women were again militarized as full-fledged members of the Defence Force. The reason for the militarization of women was primarily as a result of a manpower shortage fourteen years ago. At present women comprise 10,2% of the Permanent Force, and women are being employed successfully in 65 different occupational fields. Woman applicants are subjected to a thorough screening process, after which, in the case of privates and non-commissioned officers, they are offered a basic course. Depending upon the branch of the Defence Force, such a course varies from between eight to twelve weeks. This basic course if offered separately from the course offered to men, and acquaints the students with the Defence Force organization, military traditions and practices, as well as the need for environmental and personal discipline. Upon completing the course further special training is offered in most cases. A woman may—just as in the case of a man—not only be nominated for junior staff service courses, but also for the senior staff service courses. The latter courses, which are offered jointly to men and women, equips women for the task of senior staff officers. Six women have already successfully completed the staff officer course of the Army or the Navy. I have a sneaking suspicion that they beat many men hands down.

As a result of a shortage of qualified nurses, the South African Medical Services, in consultation with Unisa, inaugurated their own nursing college at the beginning of 1985, at which nurses undergo full-fledged training. At the end of the course the diplomas are issued by Unisa, which also monitors the contents and standards of the course. The role of nurses in the Defence Force can never be overemphasized.

One cannot talk about the military training of women without referring to the SA Women’s Army College at George. From 1971 until the present day, in 1985, more than 3 000 young women have been militarily trained and equipped. They are motivated to perform community service, as well as to take the lead if a crisis situation should arise. Since 1980, 15% of the girls who completed their training at George, joined the SA Defence Force.

The army college at George is not only a military training college for young women; it is far more than that. One could almost see it as a kind of finishing school for young matriculated girls. Many young people do not know for certain what course or occupation they wish to follow. Frequently they are not certain about this when they leave school after matriculating. This is one of the reasons why we have such a high failure rate among first-year students at universities today. After a year at the army college many of the women have attained greater maturity and they have more certainty as to what field of study they wish to follow, or what occupation they wish to enter.

I want to make an appeal to the hon the Minister. I really feel that we should establish another similar army college, because there is a great need for it. Every year many applications have to be turned down—this year the figure was 155—because there is no longer enough room at the army college at George. One matter which I should like to bring to the attention of the hon the Minister at this early stage, if such a college is being considered, is where it should be situated. To my mind it is very important that it should not be in a city in which there is a university. Unfortunately I do not have the time now to elaborate further on this matter, but I should just like to leave this idea with the hon the Minister.

It redounds to the credit of women in the RSA that more than 2 000 women are members of the commandos, and that more than 300 women are serving voluntarily in the Citizen Force. What is also of great importance to the Defence Force is that the feminity and refinement of women should be retained in the Defence Force. [Interjections.] What finer sight is there than a group of women, neatly dressed in their uniforms, appearing on parade? This serves to motivate the men as well. I conclude by conveying a word of gratitude and appreciation to the women in the SA Defence Force.

Mr Chairman, like the hon member for Winburg I too want to bring a particular matter to the attention of the Committee, namely the involvement of the SA Defence Force in the whole question of nature conservation. Recently a great change has quietly been taking place in the involvement of the SA Defence Force in nature conservation.

After all, the primary task of the Defence Force is the defence of the country against invaders and threats. Almost one’s first thought is to ask what the Defence Force has to do with nature conservation. It is, however, the concept of the meaning of the words “invaders” and “threats” that warrants further investigation and forms one of the cornerstones of the SA Defence Force’s growing positive involvement in the sphere of nature conservation in South Africa.

The SA Defence Force has several areas under its control which are utilized for a variety of primary ends. It is interesting to note that the Defence Force controls approximately 500 000 ha of land. This represents 7% of the country’s conservation land and, needless to say, involves important facets of South African wild life. It is scattered throughout the country and accommodates large variety of veld types and ecosystems as well as plant and animal species.

A considerable variety rare plant and animal species are encountered on military land. The Heidelberg training center, for example, is one of only two places where an extremely rare butterfly, namely Poecilmitis Aureus, is encountered.

The military area of Klawer Valley near Simonstown is the only place the species of heather Erica Heleogena is encountered. A number of rare species of fynbos are encountered in training areas in the Western Cape.

In the area of the Vaalbank training center near Bethlehem we find a very valuable breeding colony of the rare red-headed ibis. Valuable species of wild fife such as sable antelope, cross-bred hartebeeste also called tsessebes, cross-bred gemsbokke and others are being established successfully by means of exchange schemes on land belonging to the Defence Force, and vice versa.

It is important, however, that we give attention not only to certain rare plant and animal species but also to the conservation of every hectare of land because, after all, the entire plant and animal life on that land is of the utmost importance. That is why we are pleased that the Defence Force has reached the stage where within its existing primary task, it accepts its responsibility to preserve and conserve these parts of our country. I understand that scientific guidelines and strict instructions have been laid down in this connection. In due course a nature conservation plan will be drawn up for each area, and care is being taken that these plans will be executed.

This conservation trend also has direct advantages for the Defence Force. Under operational conditions a thorough knowledge of nature is a great, positive asset. Bushcraft means survival. We are also aware of the value of good tracking techniques in operations against terrorists. Good bushcraft therefore raises the standard of Defence Force personnel.

The question now is whether the Defence Force has at its disposal adequate professional knowledge to carry out this task successfully. Probably not, but we are nevertheless finding increasingly closer co-operation between the Defence Force and the various persons and bodies engaged in nature conservation in the planning and management of specific areas for nature conservation. It may be mentioned that the most important resources in this regard are the Provincial Nature Conservation authorities and the Department of Agriculture. Furthermore, national servicemen with advanced training in and knowledge of nature conservation can be better utilized during national service in their particular fields. This ensures an improved professional nature conservation advisory service from their own ranks.

In my study of the subject I have come to realized the extent of the Defence Force’s task. Nevertheless the Defence Force has no approved posts in this connection. How then is the work done? At the moment there is only one qualified Permanent Force Officer in the Logistics Division at Defence Force headquarters where the whole question of nature and environmental conservation is coordinated overall and policy is laid down. Apart from this, the Defence Force is dependent upon national servicemen with a knowledge of nature conservation. I may also mention that at the moment 17 national servicemen form the nucleus of the Defence Force’s nature conservation personnel. We also find a great deal of expertise among members of the Citizen Force. At the moment there are approximately 30 members of the Citizen Force who are being used for this purpose at the various headquarters. I still think the time has come for the hon the Minister to give serious attention to the question of the creation of Permanent Force posts for Nature conservation personnel.

We think too of the role the Defence Force can play in dealing with natural disasters. After all, the Defence Force has at its disposal the equipment and the manpower that no other nature conservation group has. By its involvement it will not only promote its own conservation image but also enhances its image as the protector of our country.

A greater awareness of nature conservation is being fostered within its ranks by the awarding of certain prizes. Various floating trophies are already being used within it for this purposes. I may also mention that the floating trophy of the Endangered National Life Trust already enjoys great prestige in Defence Force circles. I may also just mention that the Air Force Base at Hoedspruit has won this much sought-after trophy for the second successive year. Furthermore, the Caltex Trophy is awarded annually to the unit that has shown the most progress in environmental conservation. I understand on good authority that the SAS Saldanha Base has won this trophy this year.

The steps taken by and achievements of the Defence Force in respect of nature conservation are already far advanced, and in congratulating them in this regard we can also feel justifiably proud. I think we can all contribute to words extending this fine, positive image of our Defence Force by making the general public and the media aware of it in a still more dynamic way.

Mr Chairman, I am happy to follow the hon member for Humansdorp who made a very good contribution in the peaceful atmosphere prevailing at present. The same applies to the hon member for Winburg. However, I want to tell the hon the Minister quite frankly that I think the hon member for Primrose made the best speech.

On behalf of my party I want to repeat the words of congratulation to Gen Geldenhuys: Well done on your appointment, and all the best! We accept the fact that your doors, like those of Gen Viljoen, will be open to us 24 hours a day. As far as Gen Viljoen is concerned, it was a highlight in my own military career to be able to do my operational service as a staff officer on the General’s staff. I want to tell him: You, General, throughout your brilliant military career, were a perfect example of what the English call “an officer and a gentleman”.

Hear, hear!

The hon member for Vryheid said that an Indian or a Coloured could well become Chief of the Defence Force in terms of NP policy. He wanted to know what our standpoint was. Our standpoint is that should a CP government come into power, only a White person would be Chief of the Defence Force. The Indians, Coloureds and Blacks can have their own armed forces with their own heads. [Interjections.]

I want now to turn my attention to the hon the Minister and tell him that I really do not know tonight whether I should be angry with him or whether I should laugh or cry with him. For example, he accused us of not testifying before the Geldenhuys Committee. The point is, however, that his department is aware of the fact that we are still going to testify and that, inter alia, we were waiting for this debate to hear the hon the Minister’s standpoints so as to know what our own standpoints were going to be. [Interjections.] Hon members laugh about it now but we want to know how the hon the Minister is going to try to resolve the dilemma of the Coloured and Indian situation before we adopt a stance. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister’s accusation that we did not testify there is therefore proof of his own incompetence because he does not even know what goes on in his own department. He is, as the hon member for Lichtenburg has said on occasion, nothing but an unconscious Minister. This is, however, also proof of his political spinelessness because every time we attack him he hides behind either Gen Viljoen or now behind the commission and says: No, you must go to the commission; I am running away.

(Inaudible.)

I want to ask the hon the Minister who is head of the South African defence set-up, to pluck up courage and show a little guts in the eyes of South Africa. He is, after all, the Minister of Defence, but he is giving this country a spineless image. What about the questions we asked him which he avoided because he did not have the guts to answer them? We asked him here whether a video had been made. We asked questions regarding the pay of national servicemen.

What video?

Video? If the hon the Minister does not have ears, someone else should listen on his behalf. We asked whether a video had been made during the unrest. The hon the Minister not only suffers from a lack of credibility; he is deaf as well. [Interjections.] We asked him to stand up, if he had the guts, and give us the assurance that he would no longer make Defence Force helicopters available to his little friends sitting here in the NP to go hunting or to attend NP functions in. [Interjections.] He is a disgrace to the SA Defence Force and the sooner he removes himself, the better for us.

Order! There must first be silence in the Committee before I call upon the next hon member to speak. I now call upon the hon member Dr Vilonel to speak.

Mr Chairman, in a previous speech the hon member for Jeppe referred to the credibility of the hon the Minister. He has carried on again in a way one rarely hears at a soap-box meeting. [Interjections.]

What did the judge say about him?

I want to tell the hon member that he is not the one to talk about credibility. He has a certificate from a judge to the effect that he is an unreliable witness. [Interjections.] He will forgive me if I do not devote too much time to his argument because one cannot reply to the argument of an unreliable person.

He said in a previous speech that the Coloureds and the Indians should undergo military training. He insisted upon it. Now he says they should have their own defence force and their own generals. In other words, the hon member is politically dishonest and I cannot follow him in that argument. If he and his party are not honest enough to say that these people should undergo military training, that they will provide them with the necessary training and facilities, and that certain conditions will apply if they are engaged in an operation, they are being politically dishonest and I cannot follow them in their argument.

I am unreservedly proud of the SA Defence Force. It is a people’s army. I am unreservedly proud of the way the SA Defence Force is carrying out its task, and this includes the one carried out recently in Cabinda. We apologize to nothing and to nobody for that, least of all to America, Russia or any of the great powers that are making such a fuss about it now. We honour, pay tribute to and thank the men of the Defence Force and those who were involved in Cabinda, and we do so without reservation. We are also not going to apologize to the Official Opposition. This is an Opposition that is quick to pull the Phillip Myburghs and the Harry Schwarz’s up short and to hamstring them when they become too positive about the Defence Force, but it becomes very weak in the knees when it is necessary to stand up for the country and its defence force.

I, too, came to the House in 1974, as did the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, and that is why I have this flower in my lapel tonight. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has already made a speech or two this year that caused me a little discomfort. During the partition debate and after speeches by the hon the Leader of the CP, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition made such good speeches that I actually began to feel uncomfortable because I agreed with them to such an extent. I had the feeling that the Official Opposition was on the right track. However, when it came to the crunch yesterday, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition laid the foundation …

He is going to participate in your forum, though.

The hon member for Rissik should watch out or Mr Piem Fourie is going to nab him for his next frog-jumping competition.

The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North did not come to light with an emotional outburst or hyperbole as the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said he had. The word I would like to substitute for “hyperbole” is not parliamentary, but I shall tell the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition what it is later on in private. The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North made used of a prepared speech, a considered speech that he delivered deliberately with a predetermined aim. He practically read his speech and there is therefore no question at all of an emotional outburst. If, for example, I become angry with the hon member for Jeppe and say something involuntarily, that is something else. The speech by the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North, however, was premeditated, and this is what makes it so absolutely disgraceful. In his speech he said, inter alia:

I am proud of my association with the Defence Force. When I became a medical doctor, medical students were not being called up, but I went to work for the Defence Force for four years of my own accord. My two sons are doing their military training at the moment and, had there been no national service, they would have been there voluntarily. I shall tell my sons there is an hon member in this House …I do not think what I want to tell them is parliamentary.

I want to tell the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that I have been a doctor for 24 years and I have also received a good grounding in psychology, but I do not think one needs that training to diagnose that the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North has a personality problem. He is emotionally completely immature, and a person who is emotionally immature and has a personality defect can be very dangerous. Such a person tends towards extremism, for example, religious extremism—this happens very easily—and such a person can become an instrument in the hands of a person who is more mature and can then become very dangerous. I do not want to go as far as the hon member who said he should receive psychiatric treatment, and had to withdraw it, but I want to say quite frankly—and I do so on the grounds of my knowledge of medicine and psychology—that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition should have that member examined by a psychologist. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the reference to a psychological examination not a reflection on the hon member concerned?

Order! The hon member Dr Vilonel must withdraw that last remark.

I withdraw it, Sir, but I shall say it to that hon member outside.

I want to go further. I want to say that the Constitution provides that one has to have reached a certain age before one may enter this House. Unfortunately the Constitution makes no provision for mental maturity. I want to say that we should be careful: That young hon member is a danger to this House.

The matter also has another side to it. Yesterday we sat and watched the hon member for Yeoville and discussed his facial expressions. Unfortunately the hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition and the hon member for Pinelands have left the Chamber, because while we sat here and passed remarks and I raised a point of order in regard to what the hon member for Pietermaritzburg had said, the hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition and the hon member for Pinelands both made it very clear—and I heard it—that they agreed with the hon member.

I want to tell the the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that in his innocence and immaturity the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North has laid bare his soul. He has also revealed quite clearly today that he does not regret what he said. He confirmed today by way of interjection what he had said. I want to tell the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to be very careful. The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North laid bare his soul, but that soul is also the soul of more than one of the members in his party. [Interjections.] The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North is a danger in the hands of mature people, and the hon former professor, the hon member Prof Olivier, should know it.

I am ashamed at your personal attack.

If the hon member Prof Olivier were to have to explain the speech of the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North to my two sons on the border

I am ashamed at your personal attack. [Interjections.]

If the hon member is ashamed I shall tell him what he can be ashamed about. The SA Communist Party and the ANC could publish the speech of the hon member virtually unaltered as literature hostile to South Africa. They could publish it just as it is as the vilest and dirtiest propaganda against South Africa. [Interjections.] I am prepared to say that outside the House as well. It is the duty of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to investigate this matter.

Sir, what do we see in tonight’s Argus? [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I want to conclude the debate on this vote by providing answers to those who participated this afternoon and to whom I have not yet supplied answers. Just before we adjourned for supper, I thanked the hon members for Walvis Bay, Vryheid and Swellendam for their fine, appreciated words.

†I should like to refer to the hon member for King William’s Town. I believe that the hon the Deputy Minister has already dealt with the supportive role of the SADF in townships and I am sure that he will attend to the matters referred to by the hon member. I think that the points he stressed here are very important and I thank him for it.

*I am referring particularly to the hon member for East London North because he explored another subject. He discussed Armscor and what he said was true and correct. I thank him for the recognition of Armscor, which has put us in the lead as regards the supply of arms and ammunition.

All I want to tell the hon member for Bloemfontein North is that he is a real tower of strength, and I mean that. It is always good and a privilege to listen to him. I thank him for his contribution.

As regards the hon member for Wynberg, I praised him earlier this afternoon. I now wish to say that there was a sharp edge to his speech, a sting which I have not previously encountered. I am very sorry that I have to discern it now.

I want to tell the hon member for Winburg that I think he had a very good subject to discuss. If I consider the interest which the other hon members displayed in it, I want to tell him that he did very well to bring home to all of us the importance of women to the SA Defence Force. That is my personal appreciation, but I can also give him the assurance that everyone in the Defence Force also appreciates the important service and sacrifices received on the part of women in the interests of the security of our country. The hon member said correctly that this did not only happen at the Army Women’s College and in the Permanent Force. We find women coming forward and playing key roles in our Citizen Force and Commandos. They all do this voluntarily, and we thank them very much for doing so. I shall ask the Geldenhuys Committee to see whether there is a need for another women’s college.

I thank the hon member for Humansdorp very sincerely for having raised that subject. We in the Defence Force and Armscor have frequently been told that we should do more for fauna and flora. The hon member demonstrated that a great deal was being done for the conservation of these essential things for posterity. I am very sorry that the hon member for Constantia was not here when the hon member was making his speech, because he is also an important patron of, and takes a great interest in wild life and nature conservation. I think it would have done him a great deal of good if he had listened to the way in which the hon member for Humansdorp commented on what was happening. The hon member also indicated a few shortcomings. He wanted to know inter alia whether there was an adequate personnel. I shall have that looked into. He also wanted to know whether there were sufficient posts, and I shall have that looked into as well. I agree with him that this is an essential task.

The hon member for Jeppe, as in the past, is still making insinuations. He insinuated that certain things were impermissible. I want to tell him that if he thinks something is impermissible, he can raise the matter with the Advocate-General.

I want to thank the hon member Dr Vilonel very much for his contribution.

Do you agree with him?

Yes, of course. I thank him for his fine words concerning the SA Defence Force. It is very clear that he knows his politics, as well as the SA Defence Force.

Reference was made to a certain aspect concerning national service in the sense that there are still people and bodies who wish to give evidence. The Geldenhuys Committee reported to me that there were several individuals and bodies who made inquiries to ascertain whether they could still give evidence. Inter alia, the End Conscription Campaign and the SA Institute of Race Relations put forward a request in this connection. I am quite prepared to comply with the request. Accordingly I asked the Geldenhuys Committee to listen to these additional standpoints. Consequently I invite anyone in this committee to come and give evidence if he feels that he wishes to do so. In this way we shall be able to obtain a very good overall concept. This will mean that the committee’s report will be submitted to me within two or three months.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister whether he could tell us whether the SA Defence Force has made a decision about the VE-Day celebrations?

I know there were parades in which the ex-servicemen’s organizations were involved. I do consider the ex-servicemen’s organizations as part of the Defence Force family. I have a group serving the Ministry of Defence. I gave them the option and we supported it. The hon member should not for one moment think that we did not support the celebration of VE-Day.

*I almost forgot to say that General Viljoen’s decision to retire had no connection whatsoever with the appeal by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to me to return to active military fife. [Interjections.] Nor does it have any connection with the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North’s regarding him as a terrorist. Now I wish to turn to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the same spirit and propose that he voluntarily relinquish his allowance as Leader of the Official Opposition until he can prove to this Parliament that he is able to maintain discipline in his party. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I move:

During the discussion of the Commission for Administration Vote earlier this year, amending legislation was envisaged to make the termination of service of Public Servants more streamlined. The Bill under discussion seeks to accomplish this object.

Circumstances occur in which the commission finds it necessary to make a recommendation for the termination of the services of an officer in the A division of the Public Service, without such termination of service resulting in the addition of service for pension purposes, that is to say that such officer will merely receive the normal pension benefits. At present the Public Service Act, 1984, Act No 111 of 1984, allows two possibilities where the termination of service of an officer in the A division in terms of the pension regulations results in a pension without the addition of service. The first is section 15(4) of the Act in terms of which an officer in the A division may be retired from the Public Service on or after attaining the prescribed minimum age. The second possibility is discharge of an officer in terms of section 16(2)(d) on account of unfitness for his duties or incapacity to carry them out efficiently.

The abovementioned circumstances do not occur in all cases in which the commission deems a termination of service, resulting only in a normal pension, to be necessary. Section 16(4) which at present makes provision only for the discharge of officers in the B division, notwithstanding the absence of any reason for discharge specifically indicated in the Act, does allow such a possibility. It is deemed to be in the interests of the Public Service that this provision is extended to include officers in the A division. Clause 3 of the Bill makes provision for this. In accordance with what is already included in the Act with regard to termination of service, the commission has to make a recommendation for such a discharge.

Although the Public Service Joint Advisory Council supports the provision in principle, the council requested that an officer whose discharge in terms of this provision comes up for consideration, be allowed sufficient opportunity to put his side of the case as well. In addition Ministerial or Administratorial approval of a recommendation by the commission for such a discharge should not be delegated to a level lower than that of departmental head. As hon members will observe, this request of the council is being complied with in clause 3.

†Mr Speaker, in cases where an officer in the A division, due to circumstances, cannot make his full contribution, and where these circumstances are not reconcilable with existing reasons for discharge, such an officer’s only choice is to resign if he wants to leave the Public Service. In such a case he does not receive a pension, but only a resignation benefit. This consists of his own contribution to the pension fund plus the nominal interest which has accrued. This measure is, however, penalizing in cases where officers have rendered many years of faithful service and in the end have to do without their pension.

To overcome this problem, clause 2 of the Bill makes provision that an officer in the A division may be allowed to retire if the Minister or the Administrator deems the reason for his request to be sufficient and is of the opinion that the retirement would be to the advantage of the State. An officer who is thus retired shall qualify for the normal pension benefits in accordance with the length of service rendered. Naturally, the commission’s recommendation for such a retirement will be required.

I trust that Parliament will lend its support to this Bill.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Chairman, this Bill amends the revised public servants charter which we passed last year. Clause 2 is a great improvement in that it now allows certain changes to take place which can be beneficial both to the Commission for Administration together with the Public Service, as well as the individual public servant.

Chapter 5, section 15 of the present Act covers termination of service and deals with retirement and retention of service of public servants. As the present Act stands, a person may retire from the Public Service on or after attaining certain prescribed minimum ages. However, it is perfectly true that there are cases where persons, having rendered outstanding service to the State, should be given the opportunity because of circumstances often beyond their control to retire earlier from the service so that they may overcome personal problems or should something arise which may preclude them from continuing to serve the State.

Should a person, for instance, join the Public Service after completing his university studies, say at the age of 21 or 22 and, after serving the State for some 20 to 25 years, on reaching the age of about 45 have a psychological problem or if another personal problem compels him to retire from the service, he would, under the present conditions, only receive his contributions to the pension fund with a certain rate of interest but would not be entitled to a pension as such. It is now possible that he can apply for retirement at an early stage and, if he has served the Public Service well, he can go on pension and also obtain the gratuity but only in relation to the years of service which he has rendered. In other words, he would not be entitled to an additional five years as is possible in some other cases, but purely to the pension in relation to the service which he has rendered to the State. We fully support this clause.

It is common cause that this Act has always been considered as the public servant charter. An officer has felt that if he had worked in private enterprise he would probably have earned more, but there is always a risk in employment in private enterprise as its motive is profit. If the company does not make profit, he may lose his employment. In the Public Service it is service which is the watchword and this has been the reason why impartiality is the basis of his service.

There are some who believe that security of tenure has always been assured for this reason. Therefore, it is clause 3 that gives me certain misgivings and on which I have to rely entirely upon the goodwill of the Commission for Administration for its proper execution. When the original Act was passed last year by this House, section 16(4) allowed officers of the “B” division to be discharged in terms of section 2 under certain circumstances. We on this side of the House thought that this principle was in order then and, therefore, this principle is now being extended to officers serving in the “A” division.

Section 16(2) states the manner in which persons may be discharged from the Public Service and when they will still get pension benefits. An officer may be discharged on account of continued ill-health; owing to the abolition of his post; if his discharge will promote efficiency or economy in his department or the office in which he is employed; or if it is in the interests of the Public Service; furthermore, if the State President appoints him in the public interest under any Act of Parliament to another office. In all these cases the person on being discharged from the Public Service will not only receive a pension but will get an additional five years added as a pension benefit. In all other cases of discharge under section 16(2) he can only receive what he contributed to the pension fund plus a certain rate of interest.

However, let us admit one thing. It does occur in any modern business organization that it may be necessary to discharge a person for reasons other than misconduct. It may be difficult actually to prove that a public servant has not applied himself to his post in a proper manner, or that he is inefficient and that it is necessary that such a person should be discharged rather than that he should continue to be a burden on a particular department. It is to meet these circumstances that it is now necessary to introduce this particular provision in the Bill.

What worries me is that in terms of the proposed new section 16(4)(a), service can be terminated upon the recommendation of the commission by giving notice in writing. It is not necessary for the commission to state any reasons whatsoever for dismissal. It is perfectly true that, if the reasons were given in writing, it could lead to interminable disputes and it is this that the Commission now wishes to avoid.

On the other hand, in the new section 4(a), (b) and (c) it is provided that where a man has been given notice under these conditions, he has the right and is afforded an opportunity to make representations with regard to his position to the Commission. Only after the Commission has given due consideration to any of his representations, can he be dismissed.

The problem that I have with this as it is now stated is that it is difficult for an officer to make representations when he does not know what the case against him is. I believe that it is unfair that the onus should rest upon the officer to determine why he should not be dismissed. I believe that somehow or other it is only just and fair that the public servant should be told the reasons why he is being discharged. I believe that it is in the interests of the Commission that some detailed form of procedure be laid down whereby dismissal under these conditions is fair and just.

It is perfectly true that the Commission for Administration has always, to the best of my knowledge, been fair and just, but one cannot be certain that in the case of any future Commission a person serving on the Commission will not be severely prejudiced against a particular person for reasons other than those known to the public servant concerned.

I have in my hand here the latest regulations which appeared in the Government Gazette. I want to ask the hon the Minister if the commission intends to use the procedure for dealing with complaints and grievances of officers in cases where the commission has made a recommendation on a matter as laid down in Regulation A23 as amended in Notice 5.81 in the Government Gazette No 9682 of 22 March.

How can the aggrieved public servant, in terms of these regulations, submit representations in writing to the Commission if he has not been given any reasons whatsoever for his dismissal? That is the problem that I have with this particular clause.

As the A Division does not include the four top posts in the Public Service, it is quite in order that the head of a department should be delegated the power to carry out this particular duty because in the case of the four top posts that onus lies upon the Minister concerned, the Minister of that department.

However, it is absolutely essential that in all cases the commission must exercise the greatest caution and do the deepest investigation in order to ensure that a man is being removed purely for service reasons and that under no circumstances is he being removed for such hidden reasons as his political affiliations, his religious beliefs, the colour of his skin, or anything else.

Even with these misgivings we will support this Bill.

Mr Speaker, it is always a pleasure to speak in this House after the hon member for Bezuidenhout. I should like to tell the hon member that he is an example to most of the hon members in this House. I will not mention his age this evening. I just want to say that it makes we Parliamentarians feel good to see a man of his years working with so much enthusiasm in this House. I think that as regards the Public Service he also makes a positive contribution of which he and his party can be proud. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Bezuidenhout raised the point that in future we must not discharge people in terms of this clause for political reasons or on account of the colour of their skin. I should like to tell the hon member that during the discussion in the standing committee we were all agreed that the guarantee which had been built in, namely that the Commission for Administration had a final say and would look after the interests of the people involved under all circumstances was sufficient reason for us to accept that this clause could not be used at all to discharge anyone on any grounds other than administrative incompetence or the feeling of the official himself that he no longer saw his way clear to make his contribution.

I should like to thank all the hon members who served on the committee. I specifically want to thank the hon the Minister of Home Affairs. In the short time he has been involved with the Public Service, the hon the Minister has demonstrated that he has great understanding and sympathy for and tremendous gratitude towards the officials in the SA Public Service who with great difficulty and in difficult conditions tried to make their contribution. We also want to thank the members of the Commission for Administration, who assisted us in the formulation of this Bill, very much.

We believe that this Bill and this clause will contribute towards making the Public Service a better place, and that it will consequently contribute towards bringing about more happiness and satisfaction among the officials. In consequence of this clause they will be allowed to retire on pension at an earlier age, it can also be said that we are doing a good thing in this House for which the officials of the public Service will be grateful to us.

With these few words I should like to thank the members of the standing committee again. If many of them are sitting in the House this evening they must not forget that we are going to have another meeting tomorrow morning at 08h30. We take pleasure in supporting the measure.

Mr Chairman, I want to tell the hon the Minister that we supported this Bill in the standing committee, and we shall do so now too.

I do not want to let this opportunity pass without reminding the hon the Minister that in principle the CP very strongly opposes the Government’s constitutional policy and principles. For that reason I want to tell him that the Government’s policy will obviously spread to the public Service as well. The concern and fears we have with regard to the Government’s constitutional policy we also have with regard to the handling of the officials and the policy being followed in connection with the Public Service. Consequently we are very careful when we support the hon the Minister. We do not want him to throw the support we are giving him this evening back in our faces at a later stage.

I want to say that the role of the Commission for Administration is extremely important. Consequently we in the CP are looking very carefully at the conduct of this particular commission.

Say what you mean.

I just want to tell that hon member that I do not believe he always means what he says, because at one stage he said that if the hon the Minister were to become Prime Minister the Good Lord would have to protect us against what would happen in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Turffontein must contain himself. The hon member for Rissik may proceed.

With pleasure, Mr Chairman, but I have it in for that hon member [Interjections.]

As I said, the Commission for Administration has an extremely important role in the Public Service. It fills the very important function that on the one hand it serves the Government of the day, with its policy, and on the other hand it looks after the interests of the public servants.

Today I want to state very clearly that with the experience we have gained here and there as a result of the Government’s conduct, we want to draw the attention of the Government to the fact that the amendments under discussion must still be seen …

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

Yes, but then the hon member must promise me that he will conduct a debate against me either in Rissik or in Innesdal.

Certainly.

Order! It is in any case the prerogative of the Chair to allow the question. The hon member may proceed.

I should like to ask the hon member for Rissik whether he said a single word about this measure in the standing committee.

Mr Chairman, I just want to say that I am a very good listener. I do not speak unnecessarily. [Interjections.]

I just want to get back to the hon member for Turffontein who said that I was a racist. I want to tell the hon member that the NP must spell out to us what a racist is. They will have to spell this out to us at some stage, because the point is that the Public Service is now being fully integrated by the hon the Minister and his Government. I should very much like to hear from the Government on what grounds they are integrating the Public Service if they have the different Members of Parliament sitting in different Houses in this Parliament. On what grounds do they separate them here?

I just want to say that the hon members of the CP are not racists, because, if I think quickly, a racist is a person who will not allow a person of another race what he allows himself. We not only allow the Coloureds and the Indians their own separate public services, but also separate territories in a separate country with a separate government. There is no racism in that. [Interjections.]

That is why I want to say that the Commission for Administration is going to play a very important role in future. Even when this Act is amended we would like to see the role and function of the commission still to be substantially aimed at looking after the interests of the public servant because we are concerned about the value which democracy still has for the Government. There is a play on words and it is said that democracy is being broadened. The State President always says that he has broadened democracy in South Africa because he has now included the Coloureds and the Indians in this democracy. This is just another way of saying that in principle we accept Prog policy.

Order! Is the hon member discussing the Bill now?

Yes, Mr Chairman. I am discussing the Bill because the Public Service is one of the pillars of democracy.

I was under the impression that franchise was the basis. The hon member may proceed, but he must not digress from the Bill too much.

Prof Sampie Terreblanche said that too many elections were being held in the country. That is why it is very important to us that in dealing with this legislation the Minister must not gain the impression that our support for it means that we support the principles of the NP. We support the legislation.

Mr Chairman, I am pleased that at some stage of the proceedings you felt compelled, probably by what you were hearing, to ask whether or not the subject matter of the Bill before us was being discussed. I want to say to the hon member for Rissik—and I say this in all kindness—that there is one thing that puzzles me namely that I find more and more in standing committee work that these hon gentlemen—I hope they take this in the spirit in which it is offered—do not contribute anything in the standing committee but then come to this House and have an awful lot to say. I believe they would achieve far more as far as legislation is concerned were they to contribute more in the standing committee and then, possibly, still say what they want to say in this House. It is sad that no matter what we talk about they somehow seem to get onto the sort of subjects that have just been discussed. In a Bill of this nature they want to know what a racist is and try to find out who is racist and who is not. It is incredible.

Having said that, I do want to agree with the hon member for Rissik in that I do not think the importance of the Commission for Administration and its role in the Public Service can be overemphasized. I should also like to pay tribute to the hon member for Bezuidenhout. As the chairman of the standing committee has said, I think the tremendous amount of effort he puts into his preparatory work and the way that he goes into every single nook and cranny of every Bill that he has anything to do with, is quite incredible. He always comes here well prepared and with a speech which is reasoned out to the nth degree. I sometimes think to myself that he must have infinite patience in order to do what he does.

I wonder if I could turn my attention to the hon the Minister for a moment and tell him that I listened with interest to his Second Reading speech the other day. We have heard a lot this afternoon about terrorism and all that sort of thing. If I was a public servant I would run home tonight and say I think my job is in jeopardy because it would almost appear as if the hon the Minister is saying that he wants to streamline the end of the line for every public servant. I say that in a lighter vein and I hope that he too will accept it in the spirit in which it is said.

I do believe that this Bill does in fact go a long way towards doing what the hon the Minister sincerely wants to do, namely to improve the Acts of 1984, namely the Commission for Administration Act and the Public Service Amendment Act. While on the subject, I would like to express my thanks to the chairman of the standing committee who undertook to let every member of the committee have copies of those Acts, because I believe that they will be invaluable in the months that lie ahead when we are in recess and are maybe called upon to have to refer to them from time to time when dealing with matters that fall under this particular Minister’s sphere of influence.

The final point is that I have taken note of what our worthy chairman has said. He has told us in no uncertain shape, fashion or form that there will be a meeting of the committee tomorrow morning at 08h30. I want to tell him that I have a meeting at 08h00, a meeting at 08h30 and another at 09h00, but that I will do my best to be there. We support the measure.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank all speakers who participated for their support for the Bill, as well as all members of the standing committee for the speedy and thorough way in which they dealt with the Bill, disposed of it and unanimously supported it. I want to address a particular word of thanks to the chairman of the standing committee, not only for his contribution this evening and for his kind words to me, but also for the constructive role which he plays in that capacity and as our main speaker on public service matters. I thank him for his contribution.

†The hon member for Bezuidenhout had a complaint, namely that the Bill does not prescribe a procedure in terms of which the commission, a Minister or an Administrator is charged with the duty of formulating the exact reasons for a decision in terms of clause 3 of the Bill which amends section 4 of the Act.

It is a new principle.

No, it is not a new principle. This is exactly the point I want to make to the hon the member. In the existing section 4 that procedure was not prescribed in respect of the B division. What is being done here, is that what is good for the one category is now also being extended to the other category. If the hon member did not complain about this last time, why should he complain about it now? I want to give the hon member the assurance that it will be superfluous to prescribe such a procedure. As he quite rightly pointed out, the Commission for Administration plays a central role with regard to the application of the new measures contained in the Bill before us. What does the Commission of Administration have to do in this regard? The position entails a situation of trust vis-a-vis the employer and vis-a-vis the employee. I can give him the assurance that obviously this kind of notice to which clause 3 refers is only given after discussions have taken place and after some sort of explanation has been given. It is just not the practice in the Public Service to write a cold impersonal note to somebody to tell him that he will be on pension as from a certain date without giving any reasons. That letter is the juridical result which will follow upon negotiations, discussions and explanations, and one will in all probability find that in many cases it will result in clause 2 of the Bill being applied instead of clause 3 even where the employer initiates the steps. So, I do not think he need be concerned about this and I can assure him that in practice nobody will, in terms of this Bill, leave the Public Service without knowing exactly why.

*The hon member for Rissik made an interesting contribution. I listened attentively and as a result of his speech I think I can say that the CP is now becoming a “yes, but” party. That is progress, because at the beginning of the referendum campaign they were an absolute “no” party. Then just prior to the referendum they developed into a party which said one must positively say “no”. This evening they say “yes, but”. Perhaps they will still see the light and they will again become “yes” people who face up to the future.

The hon member was really looking for trouble this evening by dragging a little politics into a measure into which one should really not involve any politics at all, not even in one’s wildest dreams. I want to tell him that we have dealt with the employment policy of the Public Service and of the State in detail. There is no secret about that. But we will never accuse the CP of supporting that policy. It can rest assured: We will tell everyone how small-minded they are in their approach to this matter. We will accuse them of not supporting it. Consequently we are not going to hang the albatross around their neck that they approach a sensible policy in a really positive way. As a matter of fact we are going to quarrel with them because they are neglecting to do so.

The hon member ended on an interesting note by mentioning how wonderfully generous the CP was. The Black peoples, the Coloureds and the Indians are each going to get their own country and their own public service, their own capital city and everything else. Well, I am in a friendly mood this evening. I want to tell the CP that they can hope: We will give them the moon. They can have their own public service there and they can isolate themselves from reality there and from a distance, from their castle in the air, they can look down on the reality of South Africa while we are engaged in solving the real problems of South Africa.

A promise which is unenforceable, is not worth the paper it is written on; and because it is unenforceable, the promise of the CP to other peoples and population groups, as they have formulated it, is not worth the paper it is written on. Because the hon members of the CP know deep down in their hearts that it is not enforceable, we accuse them of paying lip service to real justice and fairness and we are accusing them of a great deal of selfishness. They do not meet the standards they set for themselves when they discuss these matters.

†The hon member for Umhlanga was initially puzzled at the CP’s silence in the standing committee and its vociferous verbosity in public. The answer to that is not difficult to find. Surely he must realize by now that the CP are only interested in propaganda and not in administration.

I want to give the hon member for Umhlanga the assurance that no public servant who does his or her job properly need fear anything from this Bill or from the way in which the Commission for Administration will administer the legislation at its disposal. We have, however, reached the stage where productivity has become a very high priority and where each and every employee of the State should realize, as should each South African, that the time has come for everyone to do his or her best. That is good enough, but anything less is not good enough.

*I thank hon members for their support. I give the officials the assurance that the legislation being passed now, will be applied with great circumspection and misuse of the powers and opportunities being created by the legislation by the employer on the one hand and by individual employees on the other will be guarded against. It will be applied with circumspection and with compassion and when necessary in the best interests of the State and of South Africa. In the end this will be the only test. Every employee that one would ever consider dealing with in any way in terms of this measure, is assured of fairness. I want to thank all the hon members for their participation in the debate.

Mr Speaker, I move:

This is the first amendment of the Social and Associated Workers Act, 1978, since its promulgation. The amendment arises from representations received from the Council for Social and Associated Workers.

The objects of the Bill are mentioned in the memorandum, and I do not intend to discuss all of them now. I will, however, highlight some of them for the benefit of all hon members.

In clause 1(e), and also in various other clauses, especially in clause 7, provision is now made for the registration of student social workers—that is trainee social workers who satisfy certain prescribed requirements. I do not think that it is necessary to advance any reasons for such registration because it is common practice among the professions to register students. Suffice it to say that these students have to do practical work from their second academic year. They get to know the personal and confidential matters of clients and it is essential that they be subject to a code of conduct. The Bill will enable the council to exercise control over the conduct of students.

The council is precluded from performing any of its functions in self-governing and independent Black states because the Act does not apply in any of those states. Like other statutory bodies which are established to control professions, it is foreseen that the council may be requested to put its expertise and resources at the disposal of these states too. Clause 3 will enable the council to perform its functions outside the borders of the Republic in terms of the laws of the countries concerned and in accordance with agreements between the relative governments.

People who performed social work in the service of the State or welfare organizations who at the commencement of the Act were not academically qualified to be registered as social workers, are exempted from the provisions of the Act. Although they have been earning their livelihood by performing social work, they are not obliged to pay any fees to the council or to observe any rules of conduct laid down for social workers. The exemption is now being withdrawn and in its stead the people concerned are being given the opportunity of registering as fully-fledged social workers.

In conclusion, a clear distinction is now being made between rules made by the board and regulations made by the Minister on the recommendation of the board. The rules will relate to matters which may be regarded as domestic matters of the profession or the council. Henceforth the council will be empowered to make its rules without any intervention by the Minister.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Chairman, this Bill will bring about the first amendments to the principal Act since its introduction in 1978. The hon the Deputy Minister dealt in his Second Reading speech with some of the major provisions of the Bill. He also indicated that the Bill was necessary because of representations received from the Social Workers’ Council. Their representations are aimed at the improvement of their work and functions.

Since the legislation has not been amended since 1978 I think it is perhaps important that the House should recognize the unbelievably good work of the social workers and the debt that South Africa and this House owe them. They are people who often work under the most difficult circumstances with the most difficult people. We in medicine, especially those of us who have served in provincial hospitals, are only too well aware of the great aid given to us by these workers and the great assistance they render when we deal with patients.

It is perhaps not well known that when we try to do follow-up work on patients upon whom we performed operations 10 or 20 years ago, the social workers all over South Africa will, when they get the names of such patients, find them and organize them to come back to Groote Schuur Hospital for a follow-up visit.

In general this is a noble profession doing fantastic work. This is especially true in South Africa where there is unemployment, a lack of food, increasing child-battering, increasing social problems and also, as I must point out, increasing unrest in the townships. We know that these people have to enter those townships to perform important work there. I should like to ask them to make quite sure that children are not left unattended when parents are taken away. Before I proceed to discuss the Bill as such, I therefor want to pay tribute to social workers and their profession.

I should like to ask the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister to ensure that their working conditions are looked after so that they will always have the best working conditions possible.

I do not think the hon the Minister likes it when we praise the medical profession or the people associated with the profession. I intend, however, to leave it at that. I make no apology for having made these general remarks about our social workers.

The Bill deals in the first instance with the registration of social worker students. I should like to point out that in the course of the deliberations of the standing committee we considered the representations of three organizations. The first one was the University of Cape Town. The second was the University of Natal. The third was the SA Federated Chamber of Industries. I do think that the hon the Deputy Minister owes it to them to give in his reply some elucidation of the problems which they have. I think if people are interested enough to submit representations, we should try to satisfy them. I think that is the function of this House.

In connection with the registration of social workers students some of these representations were made in favour of the idea that control should vest in the universities. The second point of view was that it was a good idea. The third point of view was that it should be done after the first year. I think the hon the Deputy Minister made it very clear in his introductory speech that these students and also students controlled by other councils did have some responsibility. As soon as they are in their second year, they go out to see people from whom they gather confidential information. I believe they must be under disciplinary rules. Therefore, I support this Bill.

There is only one question I should like to ask the hon Minister: Since the University of Natal mention a 40% drop-out rate after the first year and since the hon the Deputy Minister himself said that it is only from the second year onwards that this clinical work is done, is it not possible for the hon the Minister to see to it that they only register in their second year? For the rest, I support the principle that they should fall under a council so that disciplinary action can be taken when they do not act according to the ethics of the profession.

There is a second point that I want to refer to. It is dealt with in the memorandum.

[Inaudible.]

I cannot hear what that hon member is saying, Sir. I should like to find out whether I can help him.

The hon member may continue.

The council now has the authority to perform its functions in the independent and non-independent homelands, which I think is an excellent provision. Social work is needed in those areas and the council, with its experience, can make a great contribution.

Thirdly, as regards the people who will be allowed to teach social welfare at the universities and other institutions, there was the query in the representations as to whether this was not limiting the functions and rights of the universities. I should like the hon the Minister to respond to that.

We on this side of the House support this Bill of course, especially since it has been requested by a council which is responsible for the social needs of our country.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Parktown said a few wonderful words about the social work profession and I should like to associate myself with them. But I do want to say that the Council for Social and Associated Workers is surely competent to decide for itself—and I feel we should leave this to the profession—from which year they want to register the students.

I believe that the social work profession has come a long way since 1916 when, with her “social diagnosis”, Mary Richmond tried for the first time to regulate social investigation scientifically, but in spite of the fact that we now have an Act to protect this profession and in spite of the amendments in this Bill, there is still quite a lot of ignorance among the public regarding the nature of the profession. I want to confine myself to saying that the general public still accepts that a person trained as a clergyman or a teacher is frequently placed in control of social assistance programmes. In my opinion one of the reasons why many of our social assistance programmes cannot be developed effectively today is because the trained person is not in control of the development of this service.

These few ideas will suffice and I take pleasure in supporting the amendment of this Act on behalf of this side of the House.

Mr Chairman, I believe it is quite clear that the hon member Dr Venter knows a great deal about this subject and I have only a few things to add.

This amending Bill deals with a few important and meaningful matters regarding the social work profession. I believe that the original Act being amended here made a very important contribution towards placing the status of the social work profession on a sound footing. In this amending Bill attention is being given to student social workers and in my opinion it is essential for such an arrangement to be made early on in their training, as is the case in the medical profession.

Perhaps more than anyone else, the social worker gets to examine and work with the most personal, intimate and confidential affairs of people and their families. What is important is that the person being treated and the members of his family must come forward openly and honestly with all relevant matters so that therapy can proceed successfully.

Students are involved in practical terms in this amending Bill and that is why they must be bound inter alia by a code of conduct to ensure that a high standard of professional conduct will be maintained. In the second place the prestige, status and dignity of the profession can be enhanced. In the third place the importance of the interests of the people being treated is being emphasized.

The question as to when a student must be registered can surely be left to the council itself, although one could perhaps suggest that it should be at second year level already, as the hon member for Pinetown proposed. I just want to ask the hon the Minister, when improper conduct is inquired into and a student is found guilty of it and this leads to the removal of that student’s name from the register, what that student’s position will be with regard to the continuation of his studies in this field or in another field.

The Council also draws up codes of conduct containing domestic rules which also make provision for a tariff of fees for this profession. The hon the Minister has had quite a lot of experience of the tariff of fees of medical practitioners, and one merely wants to express the hope that the tariff of fees of this profession will not go the same way as that of the medical profession.

With these few words hon members on this side of the House would like to support this amending Bill.

Mr Chairman, obviously we also support this measure. No MP who is in contact with his constituency will not agree with me that the social worker plays a terribly important role particularly in the fives of the people in the lower economic strata of society, and especially in the fields of child welfare, mixed marriages—this problem has now fortunately at long last disappeared—and the effect of such marriages on children, family neglect, the abuse of small children, mothers addicted to alcohol, etc: You name them, they are all there in any cross-section of society. As has been said by other members, I think that this house and the country owe the social workers a great deal for the work they do to alleviate suffering and to try to make things a little better where they are difficult.

We welcome the fact that this Bill includes the student. The hon member for Parktown referred to the queries raised by the universities. I think these things were adequately dealt with in the committee and I do not intend to deal with them. I want to make one appeal only, and that is that only a nominal registration fee should be prescribed for the student registering. There is always a tendency, whenever a body or organization has the power to levy a fee, to take the maximum that they can get in order to improve the finances of that organization. Where students are now going to be registering and will have an additional cost over and above their university fees, I hope that, whatever fee will be imposed in terms of this Bill, it will be a nominal one. I also welcome the fact that those who were exempted in the Public Service will now also be able to register.

With those comments we will support this measure.

Mr Chairman, as regards the remarks of the hon member for Durban Point, it will not be the Department of Health and Welfare that will determine what the registration fees will be, but I fully agree with him and I think the board will take notice of the plea that this should only be a nominal fee.

The board must tighten the screw.

Yes, we shall tighten the screws where we can.

*The hon member for Parktown raised three matters here which were also raised in the select committee. Naturally, I have no knowledge of the matters discussed there. However, the hon member has referred to them and I could perhaps just say that mention has been made of the fact that this control should be exercised by the university itself. I cannot associate myself with that, because it is the right of every professional council, for example the Medical and Dental Council as well as the Pharmacy Board, to discipline their students. Disciplinary measures in respect of students is normally vested in the councils and not in the university. That is why I believe that the usual custom should simply be followed in this case.

The question of the registration of students from their second year has also been raised. My information is that it is the council’s intention to register students only from their second year. However, it is possible that registration will have to take place in the first year, since some universities send their first-year students to attend clinics or conduct interviews, assisted by their lecturers. In such cases first-year students, too, will of necessity be subjected to these disciplinary measures.

The final point he raised concerned the question of the right of the council to require all lecturers in social work to register. It is also stipulated in the Act that such a person should be registered in the Republic. However, it sometimes happens that when people from overseas who also have a sound knowledge of either sociology or social work visit the country, it is necessary to use their knowledge by allowing them to lecture to these students. The legislation simply provides for such an eventuality.

I am very grateful for the words of praise uttered by the hon member for Parktown in respect of social work, since generally speaking, I do not think we can thank these people enough for the wonderful work they do under very difficult circumstances. The hon member Dr Venter also referred to the fact that they often find themselves in a difficult position since they have the knowledge but are controlled by people who do not always have the same knowledge to enable them to make judgements about certain programmes and so forth. This is unfortunately the case and organizations who employ social workers will have to pay attention to this, because those people have a professional integrity of which they are proud, and professional knowledge which can only be fully utilized if those in authority over them are able to utilize them properly. [Interjections.] I think there must be very few people in this House who have more knowledge of social work than the hon member Dr Venter.

The hon member for Pietersburg also referred to the codes of conduct these students will have to comply with. It is a fact that each profession has a set of codes with which the students in that field, too, and not only the practitioners of that profession, have to comply. This legislation merely seeks to give effect to this.

The hon member also wanted to know what would happen to our students against whom disciplinary steps are taken in terms of this legislation for some reason or other. Such a student will probably be allowed to continue his university studies but will certainly not be able to register as a social worker or as a student in social work. In order to be registered as a social worker one also has to be registered as a student. Therefore, what it amounts to is that the university will have to decide whether it will allow such a student to follow another course. As far as the council is concerned it has no say in deciding whether such a student should be allowed to continue with social work or not.

Finally, I want to convey my sincere thanks to the various parties in this House for their support of this Bill, as well as to the select committee, which made such an in-depth study of it.

Mr Speaker, I move:

The controlling body of the pharmaceutical profession is known as the South African Pharmacy Board. The Bill seeks to change that name to the South African Pharmacy Council in order to bring it into line with the names of similar professional bodies.

Up to now the additional qualifications of pharmacists who may be registered have been prescribed by the Minister on the recommendation of the board. Whether such additional qualifications are registerable is in my opinion a domestic matter which should be left to the discretion of the council. The amendment of section 28(l)(a), for which clause 11(a) makes provision, will empower the council to prescribe such qualifications without the intervention of the Minister.

With the introduction of the Close Corporations Act, 1984, which came into operation at the beginning of this year, one may assume that pharmacists will prefer to make use of close corporations rather than companies because it is cheaper and simpler. The purpose of the amendments for which clause 10 makes provision is to ensure that when a close corporation carries on a business as pharmacist it must also comply with the provisions of the Pharmacy Act, 1974. The amendments are of a technical nature and I do not think it is necessary to discuss them in detail.

A request was also received from the board to the effect that the Act be amended to make provision for the recognition of qualifications which will allow the holder of such qualifications to qualify for registration as a pharmacist’s assistant. Such provision is now being made in clause 7.

Section 49 of the Act makes provision for the making of regulations concerning the professional practices of a pharmacist. In terms of the regulations thus made, pharmacists are prohibited from trading in certain non-pharmaceutical commodities on the premises of a pharmacy. In a recent court case it was found that the regulations are ultra vires the Act. It was found that the regulation-making power does not include the power to regulate the trading stock of a pharmacy or to prescribe what may be sold in a pharmacy.

Clauses 14 and 16 seek to ratify the existing regulations and to confer the power, which has thus far been lacking, to make the regulations concerned.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Chairman, the pharmacists and doctors in South Africa seem to experience great problems with each other at present. It does not concern this Bill, but when we discussed the omission of clause 12 in the standing committee, we also discussed several aspects concerning pharmacists and the medical profession. I do not think we should discuss this matter again today but rather at a later stage as there is still oral evidence to be heard by the standing committee and this matter will still be dealt with in detail.

Where there are two associations concerned and they are making an effort to resolve this problem, I would be very grateful if the hon Acting Minister could attend to this matter with some urgency. People are going bankrupt or having a very bad time of it as a result of this disagreement between the two associations and the problems related to this matter.

It is a matter for two statutory boards to thrash out.

Yes, it is a matter for two statutory boards, but I still feel that the hon the Minister should have compassion for people who are in deep financial trouble.

I receive telephone calls every day from pharmacists who are going bankrupt because of these problems.

Why do you not talk to the medical people.

The hon the Minister is quite right, and I do. However, I do feel that the hon the Minister has a duty too as far as that matter is concerned. The Pharmacy Act and the pharmacists are his responsibility. I do feel that, where people are having problems, somebody must at least tell those concerned to get on with trying to resolve the matter.

I receive telephone calls all the time, especially from certain areas such as Alberton and the Eastern Cape. In these areas the pharmacists can no longer manage as a result of their loss of prescription income. I am asking the hon the Minister most sincerely to look into the matter and to use his authority as the political head of health in South Africa to try to ensure that this matter does not drag on for another 5, 10 or 20 years, but that it is resolved as soon as possible.

I would like to deal only with clause 14, which the hon the Deputy Minister referred to in his second reading speech. I would like to quote what he said at the time:

*This court case was concerned with a pharmacy that sold cigarettes. The hon the Minister will also know this. The hon the Minister is now amending the Act by means of this clause to prevent pharmacists from selling cigarettes. I want to ask him why he is doing this. Why may pharmacists not sell cigarettes? I agree with that, but I do not think the hon the Minister is the person to do that. He allows his colleague, the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs, to advertise cigarettes everywhere at airports and stations and he also allows the SABC to advertise them.

Every year a Bill is introduced to prevent this, but the hon the Minister does nothing about it. Yet when a pharmacist wants to sell cigarettes the Act is amended. [Interjections.] I agree to that amendment. There is, however, something that I want to bring to the hon the Minister’s attention. We on this side of the House support the Bill, especially clause 14, because we know the purpose of clause 14.

Clause 14 now makes it illegal for a pharmacist to sell cigarettes. Of course I think it is madness to allow a pharmacist to sell cigarettes in a pharmacy. Likewise it is madness—if not worse—for the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs to allow cigarettes to be advertized at airports and stations. It is even worse to keep on hearing from the SABC’s services what a wonderful thing it is to smoke. For that reason we on this side of the House support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, the hon member who has just resumed his seat, referred to a serious discussion which was taking place between pharmacists and medical practitioners inter alia at the moment. I do not want to say much more about this because it does not actually have anything to do with this Bill.

But the hon member stated that he was receiving telephone calls from pharmacists every day—these were not his exact words, but this was what it amounted to—who were going bankrupt as a result of prescriptions they were not getting. I want very seriously to question the words “as a result of’. There are people who never get prescriptions who also go bankrupt. The country is in a serious financial state, and one of the problems linked to this is the problems of pharmacists.

What is more the pharmacy profession is a matter we must give very serious attention to at the moment, because a pharmacist is trained for four or five years and then he stands there dispensing pills. That is now supposed to be his “job” in life. I really think that this entire matter is very serious and must be discussed in detail from all angles, and obviously I cannot do so this evening. [Interjections.]

It is a fact that the pharmacist’s profession, the medical practitioner’s profession, and many other professions overlap. There is, for example, the medical practitioner, the clinical psychologist, the pastoral psychologist and even the dietitian. No medical practitioner will, for example, appeal to the dietitian not to prescribe a diet. Similarly no dietitian will say that a doctor may no longer prescribe a diet. I think this is the crux of the problem. There is a very clear overlapping of the work of a medical practitioner and the work of a pharmacist as far as the dispensing and handing out of medicine is concerned. When the one wants to prohibit the other from letting his services overlap, or ostensibly overlap, we have problems.

There is only one aspect I want to single out briefly in support of this Bill. With regard to the Bill which initially served before the standing committee, there was a clause 12—and this has already been referred to quite rightly—which caused the committee problems. In this connection we received various representations from the Medical Association, the Pharmaceutical Society and various other bodies. The standing committee then decided to set that clause aside for further investigation I think this is proof of the good role which the standing committee plays in this new system. Now this matter is going to be ironed out properly. I think the hon member for Pinetown is trying to indicate that he suggested this. It was a good suggestion. That clause has now been omitted from the Bill and is being investigated properly.

It is also interesting that certain representations were addressed to the standing committee regarding sections which did not appear in this Bill at all. I am thinking of the organisation, for example—I think it was SA Druggists—which objected to section 22(6)(b)(i) of the Pharmacy Act. But it does not appear in this Bill at all. It is also interesting that when a Bill is introduced, outside bodies are now being given the opportunity not only to comment on specific points in that Bill, but also to make further inputs. This will lead to our drafting better legislation in future.

With these few remarks I take pleasure in supporting the legislation.

Mr Chairman, the hon member Dr Vilonel motivated his support for this Bill, and pointed how sensible the standing committee was to delete clause 12. The interesting thing is that one has already seen that a further amendment, viz Bill No 88 of 1985, has appeared on our desks which brings this very clause 12—it is phrased in precisely the same legal language—before this House again, or rather that it goes to the standing committee and then back to this House. One asks oneself what is the sense in having a standing committee if legislation is handled by the Government in this way. If it does not get its way in the standing committee—the standing committee’s amendments as contained in Bill 67A-85 (AS) expressly reject clause 12—it turns around on a later occasion and prints clause 12 in precisely the same words. I think this makes the work of a standing committee ridiculous. [Interjections.]

The amendment to the English name of the control body of the pharmacist’s profession—the South African Pharmacy Board now becomes the South African Pharmacy Council—brings the terminology into line with similar control boards, and we have no objection to that either. Clause 3 amends the constitution of the Pharmacy Council in that the council’s diploma in pharmacy is being done away with, and the necessity for two members each to be a member of staff of a college for advanced technical education therefore falls away. In its comments the Pharmaceutical Society in fact proposed that this representation of practising pharmacists on the council should be increased in order to bring about better communication between the council and the society. Perhaps the hon the Minister should bear this in mind for the future.

The South African Pharmacy Council is also being authorised to recognize certain qualifications for the purpose of the registration of pharmacist’s assistants, as well as to make rules for the recognition of additional qualifications of pharmacists without the meditation of the Minister. We also find this quite in order.

Pharmacist are also being authorise to do business as a close corporation instead of a company. These provisions are set out in clause 10 which contains quite a number of technical details which I think it is unnecessary to deal with further here.

As the hon member Dr Vilonel said, clause 12, to which the Medical Association in particular objected strenuously, has been deleted. We want to associate ourselves whole-heartedly with this. I think this is a wise step in view of the current vendetta between medical practitioners and pharmacists regarding the matter of dispensing of medicines by medical practitioners. One can only hope that the ad hoc committee which is at present carrying out its functions, will find an acceptable solution to this problem.

Clause 14 determines the practice of pharmacy, the tariff of fees payable to a pharmacist in respect of professional services rendered by him and the trading activities of a pharmacist, including the goods in which the pharmacist may not deal on his premises. In my opinion his provision does not restrict a pharmacist’s normal trade practice in pharmaceutical goods. There was also a certain amount of doubt in the manufacturing industry, but I think it has been eliminated.

But there is a provision that certain non-pharmaceutical goods, as the hon member for Parktown indicated, must disappear from the pharmacist’s shelves. There is a suspicion that certain pharmaceutical goods can be affected by the widening of the council’s authority in this connection. This could mean further prescriptions in connection with the kind of goods, doing business with them and possibly also the price of medicine. I would like the hon the Deputy Minister to spell out that entire matter very clearly in order to eliminate the suspicions which exist in the industry.

The entire matter of the practice of pharmacy of necessity brings up the matter of high medicine prices. I have just returned from a meeting of the Federation of Medical Aid Schemes and if there is one thing that is worrying the federation tremendously, it is the high cost of medicine. If one looks at the statistics of various schemes, it is clear that the medicine cost of the claims they receive at present totals 30% to 40% on average. I feel that this is an important aspect to which all the professions involved will have to give serious attention, particularly when the future of the pharmaceutical industry is being considered.

There is another very important aspect. The rule has now been amended in such a way that medicine may be replaced by generic equivalents. Many people now doubt the effectiveness of the generic substances that are replacing medicines. A spokesman of the manufacturing industry alleged, for example, that generic replacement could bring about a reduction in the price of only 2%, whereas a spokesman of the pharmacy industry alleged that it could be as much as 25%. As far as generic replacement is concerned, one finds that many pharmacists are hesitant to supply the substances, because the entire matter of legal liability as regards possible side-effects of such substances has not yet been spelled out to them clearly.

As a result of the high prices of medicine it would seem as if an accusing finger could be pointed at the so-called State tender system this is probably an important factor giving rise to high medicine prices. We read in the Star of 12 May, for example …

What has this got to do with this legislation?

It concerns the conduct of a pharmacist and I think one could say a thing or two about the price of medicine. The newspaper report read as follows, inter alia-.

Order! I consider that the hon member has now elaborated a great deal on the matter of the cost of medicine and the hon member must now get a little closer to trade practices and the pharmacist. I have allowed the hon member to say quite a lot about a matter which is not entirely relevant.

As far as I am concerned it has everything to do with the practice of pharmacy. I should like to know from the hon the Deputy Minister …

I want to point out to the hon member that I have ruled that he must get closer to a discussion of the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I abide by your ruling, but want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister what his comments are on these kind of allegations.

In conclusion I want to say that one thing is certain, viz that it is up to us to steer health services in South Africa in a direction in which they will not be beyond the reach of the public, because then socialization will be the only alternative. This will be a retrogressive step for every patient in the country. It is the duty of the Minister and the department to take the necessary steps to ensure that patients do not lose out.

Mr Chairman, I want immediately to disagree strongly with the hon member for Pietersburg. He claimed that the standing committee had deleted clause 12 and then, by some act of subterfuge, it came before us as a single clause Bill with its original wording. He was on that committee and knows perfectly well what the position is and that there was no way in which we could reach agreement. The Medical Association could not have stauncher supporters than it has in its doctors. I want to pay tribute to them for that. Because it was clear, however, that the unholy alliance of the CP and the PFP doctors would not agree to clause 12, it was by agreement decided to remove that clause so that the other provisions of the Bill, which were positive and were needed and would otherwise have been delayed, could be passed. The clause on which there is a dispute between the pharmacists and the doctors was therefore removed. That dispute is always there. The hon member Dr Vilonel referred to it. Wherever there is any hint that something could be done by a doctor, nobody else must do it. Because of the suspicion that chemists might prescribe, which is not the intention of clause 12, that has now been withdrawn. As agreed by the committee, as part of the deal we made, that provision will now appear before us in a separate Bill.

I regret that the standing committee did not have the courage to grasp the nettle and put it to the vote to get that clause included in this Bill, because I think it is a necessary clause. Now we are going to have to fight that issue separately. We are going to have the same battle all over again of the Medical Association saying they are not going to let the pharmacists prescribe and the pharmacists adopting the same hostile attitude to doctors dispensing. The standing committee has to be the judge. It must be the referee in this fight. Be that as it may, we agreed to remove that clause and it will appear before us separately in terms of that agreement and we will then have to deal with it.

What is left was agreed to unanimously by all the parties and we will naturally support it at the second reading stage, as we will support clause 12 as it appears in the new Bill because we believe it is necessary to put an end to the closed-shop fight that is going on, this monopolistic approach. We will support that provision as we would support it had it remained in the Bill presently before us.

Order! The hon member is anticipating a Bill which has yet to come before us.

I accept that, Sir, and I shall say no more about it.

I want to say that we considered all the representations we had before us, which were diametrically opposite in some cases. We looked at them all and took due note of them and the final decision was in the hands of the committee. That is the task of the committee and ultimately of this Parliament. There were a lot of representations wanting to remove the necessity of having a “natural person” in a pharmacy and seeking to open ownership of pharmacies to companies. All these things were taken note of, whether provision was made for them in the Bill or not.

We support the Bill as it is before us and I regret that it is no longer in the form in which it was originally presented including clause 12.

Mr Chairman, the explanation which the hon member for Durban Point has just given us of the reasons why clause 12 of the Bill, as it was originally introduced, was deleted tallies with my information on the matter. I accept it as such and I do not want to discuss that matter further. The hon member is quite correct. Those are the reasons and that is why we acquiesced in that ruling of the standing committee.

The hon member for Parktown has again referred to the entire matter of the current dispute between the medical practitioners and the pharmacists. When my Vote was under discussion I appealed to hon members for us not to discuss this topic here. This is a very sensitive matter, which is being considered at the highest level by the Pharmacy Council and the SA Medical and Dental Council, in an effort to find a solution to the impasse which exists at the moment.

I notice that the Chairman of the Pharmacy Council is in the visitor’s gallery, and I can tell the hon member for Parktown that I believe that the chairman will take cognizance of the fact that this matter is urgent. I think he is probably just as keen as anyone else for this problem to be solved as soon as possible.

Why the hon member dragged the question of smoking into this matter again I do not know because during the discussion of the relevant Vote I actually told him that we were in the process of investigating the report of the Medical Research Council on smoking, which they published recently, in depth. I feel that should be enough for the hon member. He has no necessity to quarrel with the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs or the hon the Minister of Communications and of Public Works, because I have here in front of me a long list of items which pharmacists may not sell. These are not only cigarettes—there is sporting equipment, television sets, arms and ammunition, camping equipment, barbecue equipment and any number of other items, but I cannot waste the House’s time with this.

What was the court case about?

The court case was about cigarettes, but I have now told him that this is not all they are prohibited from selling.

The hon member for Pietersburg is making a mistake when he says that clause 15 widens the powers of the council. Clause 14 only makes it legal. The court case concerned the validity of a regulation which was made and in terms of which a pharmacist was taken to court because he had sold cigarettes. When he appealed, the court upheld his appeal because it ruled that the regulation was ultra vires. Clause 14 is merely confirming the power of the Pharmacy council to make certain regulations to restrain pharmacists as far as certain trade practices are concerned. It has absolutely nothing to do with the cost of medicine.

Sir, I am glad that you called the hon member to order, because I am not prepared to participate in a debate on matters which are related. The other member said that he was talking about these matters because they were related. I do not want to enter into a debate about this, because that is not what is at issue this evening.

The matter of the cost of medicine is already the subject of an investigation by the Browne Commission and the commission under the chairmanship of the hon member for Waterkloof is in the process of editing the repart on pharmacy. We expect to reach finality on that in the near future too.

I thank all the hon members very much for the support we are receiving in connection with this Bill.

Mr Speaker, I move:

The purpose of the Bill before us, as submitted by the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare, is actually very simple. It is to make provision for the representation of the respective Ministers’ Councils on the National Health Policy Board, and of the Administrations of the House of Assembly, the House of Delegates and the House of Representatives on the Health Matters Advisory Committee.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House support the Bill. We should actually like the scope of this Bill to be widened because it amends the Health Act of 1977 and makes it possible for members of the House of Delegates and members of the House of Representatives to become members of the Health Matters Advisory Committee. The Bill also provides for the representation of the Ministers’ Councils of those Houses on the National Health Policy Council.

We support the Bill because it broadens the representation of the South African people on a very important committee and council which deal with the planning of health services in South Africa. On the standing committee we had a definite commitment by the Department of Health and Welfare that this was a temporary measure and that it would have to be changed as the constitutional changes unfold. Therefore we have supported it but we would also like to see representation by our Black population, as requested, as well as by people from the business sector seeing that there is more and more talk about the privatization of medicine.

We support this Bill. It is a good Bill. In view of the changes in the Constitution it is necessary, but we look forward to further amendments soon in order to widen the representation provided for in the Bill.

Mr Chairman, the measure before this House is a consequential measure. We are engaged in the process of putting a new constitutional dispensation into operation. I should like to reassure the hon member for Parktown that as far as the ruling party in this House is concerned, we will continue with reform and he need not concern himself about that. We will give the different groups the necessary representation when they have a right to it.

I take pleasure in supporting the measure before this House in view of the fact that it is a consequential measure.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Witbank said that he supported the measure because it was a result of the new constitutional dispensation. I hope the hon member does not feel that we must help to implement the consequences of the new constitutional dispensation.

This amending Bill provides that the constitution of the National Health Policy Council and the Health Matters Advisory Committee should be amended to fit in with the new dispensation. An official from each of the three administrations, the secretary of the Commission for Administration and the three Ministers of Health Services and Welfare of the Ministers’ Councils are now being included in these bodies.

Another of our objections is that a person in the service of a provincial administration may only be included as an alternate member. All the years the provincial administration has pre-eminently been the body which has taken care of hospitals in the province. It is unacceptable to us that they may now only appoint an alternate member.

I want to ask the hon the Minister whether he foresees that when a further amendment is made—as has already happened with local authorities—Black people are also going to be included in this National Health Policy Council when the intention to give Blacks a statutory say or joint decision-making up to the highest level is put into effect. The hon the Minister has already intimated that leaders of self-governing states may also be able to serve on this national Health Policy Council.

This is totally in conflict with the standpoint of this side of the House of self-determination at every level of government—in this case in the field of health as well. That is why we will oppose this amending Bill.

We would also have liked to see that representation rather be given to the private sector such as the Medical Association of South Africa, the Dental Association of South Africa, the pharmaceutical and chemical manufacturing industry, the Pharmaceutical Society of South Africa and the Association of Private Hospitals, as well as the South African Nursing Association. If we think that we can leave the government sector to take care of every facet of health we are making a big mistake. Then there will be no other alternative but that we will move towards a socialized health service for which only a small percentage of taxpayers will have to pay, and they will eventually not be able to afford to do so. Because the hon the Minister has already indicated that hospitalization in particular can increasingly become the responsibility of the private sector, in my opinion it is only logical that this sector must be represented in an advisory capacity on the National Health Policy Council.

As I have already said, the principle of this Bill is in conflict with the principle of self-determination and own freedom and for that reason we are opposing the acceptance of this amending Bill.

Mr Chairman, this is the Bill that the hon member for Pietersburg should actually have held up as an example of the satisfactory functioning of a standing committee. The original draft that was presented to us was totally obnoxious and totally unacceptable. It gave the Minister totally dictatorial powers to appoint whomsoever he wanted. Following discussion in the committee, it was sent back and rewritten, and the new Bill, as it is now, specifies who may be appointed and removes those unqualified, untrammelled powers of the Minister originally proposed. It would have read:

That is how it would have read. That was totally unacceptable, of course, but as it is now, we support it, and I believe that this is the satisfactory outcome of being able to discuss the Bill in a standing committee. We will therefore support the measure.

Mr Chairman, as was generally expected, the CP is opposing this amending Bill. They have every right to do so, but they are doing so for completely erroneous reasons. I shall therefore leave them at that.

As far as the hon member for Parktown is concerned, I can tell him that Black people are already serving on the advisory committee and that it will also be expanded in the future. As an hon member has already mentioned, this Bill will be evolutionary. We cannot do everything overnight. Some structures are still to be established, and as they come into existence we shall certainly involve those people participating in the rendering of health services in this country in this Health Policy Council.

I thank the other parties for their support.

Mr Chairman, I move:

That the Report be adopted.

Mr Chairman, I have never in the past taken part in a debate considering the report of a standing committee, and I would appreciate it if you would kindly tell me if I am on the right or wrong road.

Hon members will see in the Minutes of Proceedings of Thursday, 23 May 1985, on p 196, that Mr N W Ligthelm, on behalf of the Chairman, presented the Seventh Report of the Standing Select Committee on Health and Welfare relative to the Associated Health Service Professions Amendment Bill, as follows:

Tonight we have to discuss what happened in that committee and why we came to that conclusion.

I think it is perhaps appropriate just to tell this House that the amendment to the Associated Health Service Professions Amendment Bill really concerns only two principles. The first principle is to establish a minimum qualification for people wanting to practise associated health service professions. The second principle has been debated and argued since 1971—and we will certainly not deal with it in detail here tonight—and concerns the re-opening of a register to these people. These are the two principles that we discussed in the standing committee.

I want to tell hon members that it was very interesting that on the day when this Bill was tabled in this House it so happened that by some strange coincidence there was an arrangement for members of the standing committee to hear representations by the Chiropractic Association of South Africa and the Homeopathic Association of South Africa. It was very interesting that this happened on the same day. This meeting was arranged not by the chairman of the standing committee on the day of the tabling of the Bill but by the hon member for Rustenburg. He arranged this meeting where these gentlemen made representations on behalf of these associations as to why we on the standing committee and other interested parties should support this Bill.

My first question to the hon the Minister is whether he does not think it a trifle suspicious that on the day that this Bill was tabled the standing committee was asked to listen to these associations’ representations. To me it appears as if there was some way in which these people were favoured so that they were able to make representations to the members of the standing committee on the particular day on which the Bill was tabled. It is interesting to note that the Medical Association of SA has not been able to present its views to the standing committee at a meeting such as the one called by the hon member for Rustenburg. [Interjections.]

At the first meeting of the standing committee there were some of us who were not totally in support of this Bill and who had not been brainwashed by the extreme lobbying of these associations. When we asked for written representation, which is our right, this was resisted in a way that was unbelievable, and other members of the standing committee can tell me if this is the truth or not. It is unbelievable that hon members of this House seemed to resist obtaining representations from the Medical Association of SA which is responsible to the hon Acting Minister. It is unbelievable that they did not want the Medical Association of SA, which represents 16 000 doctors of South Africa, to present written evidence. Somehow there was resistance, and I want this to be on record because I believe it is very important that it be known how this Bill has been brought before this House. [Interjections.] After it had been pointed out at the first meeting that it was the right of a member of the standing committee to ask that written evidence be presented to the committee, it was accepted.

At the second meeting of the standing committee there were written representations—I should like this recorded in Hansard. There were written representations from the Medical Association of SA in which they expressed their opposition to this Bill. There were also very brief representations from members of associated health professions stating that the Bill was very important and that if it could not go through as a whole, only one clause should go through so that they could be reregistered. At the end of the proceedings when we had already basically voted, written evidence from the Medical Council of SA was handed to us. Once again this body is the hon the Minister’s reponsibility because it advises him on health matters in South Africa.

I am not responsible for the standing committee’s actions.

Sir, I do not think that hon Acting Minister is responding correctly. I did not say it was his responsibility. I was referring to the Medical Council of SA. [Interjections.]

During proceedings on the standing committee we discussed two important matters. Firstly we had to decide whether we should ask for oral evidence. This Bill is opposed by the Medical Association of SA and by the Medical Council of SA.

Why do they reject the Bill? [Interjections.]

The hon member for Witbank who is the NP authority on health matters these days says that they objected to it. They strongly oppose this Bill, so there is no doubt about their point of view. The chiropractors and homeopaths support this Bill because it is to their benefit.

It concerns them, but it does not concern the Medical Association. [Interjections.]

Oh, I see. The House should therefore understand clearly that it does not concern the Medical Council and the Medical Association. Now I would like to ask the hon the Acting Minister: Does it concern patients with disease?

Yes.

But it does not concern the Medical Council? I have never heard an hon Minister talk more ridiculous nonsense in my life. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must not all speak at once. The hon member must not ask questions either because it is only the Chairman who may call upon the hon the Minister to speak.

Mr Chairman, I respect your ruling, but I may ask the hon the Minister questions to which he can reply later.

Yes, exactly.

That’s right. Therefore I think the hon the Minister should wait for the appropriate time to give his reply.

I will pay close attention to that.

Mr Chairman, I am grateful to you. [Interjections.]

When it came to the point of asking for oral evidence in the joint standing committee, this was rejected by the members of the House of Assembly and the House of Representatives and agreed to by the House of Delegates. I find it very significant that the NP rejected oral evidence concerning a matter of vital importance to them—in spite of what the hon the Minister has just said. They rejected oral evidence from the Medical Council and the Medical Association of South Africa. To refresh the hon the Acting Minister’s mind, let me just say that the Medical Council is the guardians of health matters in South Africa. They are the people who determine the health laws and the way that health matters are administered in South Africa. The NP rejected oral evidence from it.

Order! Is the hon member referring to the standing committee rejecting it or to the NP rejecting it?

Mr Chairman, I am referring to the NP. [Interjections.]

The Medical Association of South Africa which represents 16 000 hardworking and dedicated doctors was, like the Medical Council, not allowed to give oral evidence before this joint standing committee. I would like the House to tell me why this was the case. Why cannot they tell us?

The hon member for Parktown can tell us. He knows the reasons.

Yes, I think I have an idea, but I will wait for the correct time to discuss this. I would just like to have this fact recorded so that the doctors and the Medical Council will know exactly where the NP stands in their regard. I think that is very important. The division between these groups becomes much worse when that party shows such a lack of consideration in denying them the right to present their views before a joint standing committee.

It is interesting to note that the South African Associated Health Service Professions Board did not even ask to give oral evidence. Before the hon member for Durban Point jumps on me, let me add that the Medical Council did not ask to give oral evidence. They submitted written evidence. However, the Medical Association of South Africa did ask to give oral evidence.

May I ask the hon member for Parktown whether the memoranda of both the organizations totally and in principle rejected anything to do with chiropractic and homeopathic practices?

Yes, that is correct.

It was therefore a total and exclusive rejection in principle. Will the hon member then tell us what one can discuss with people who totally reject what is before one in that way?

I am very grateful to that hon member for his question because this is the next point that I want to make.

The second issue we debated was clause 1 of the Bill which deals with the qualification. It is concerning this point—the qualification—that the doctor parts company with the chiropractor and the homeopath. We must, therefore, look at the curriculam of these people.

You see, Sir, on the day that the President of the Chiropractic Association of SA addressed us, the hon member for Pietersburg asked him about their curricula and their training; and he admitted that these are deficient. Therefore, we as the guardians of health have to ask: Are we allowed to admit people whose training does not measure up to the standards set by the SA Medical and Dental Council? Are we to allow them to see, diagnose and treat patients? I argued in the standing committee that, if the doctors are not satisfied with the qualification, the chiropractors and homeopaths should first do a medical course. What is wrong with their doing that? After all, they would then have received scientific medical training and would be accepted in the medical profession. Once they have been trained as doctors, they could, if they so wish, do a one- or two-year post-graduate course in order to specialize in chiropractic or homeopathy.

This, I believe, was where the problem olay when this matter came before us on the standing committee; and this is also my answer to the hon member for Durban Point. In my opinion it is most important that the chiropractors and the medical profession accept that. If they do accept it, this problem, which we have had, I am told, since 1926 or 1927—indeed, it seems like forever—could be resolved. It would have been of great value if we on the standing committee had been able to bring that about. When, however, it came to voting, we again …

But if both sides reject it, what do you talk about?

I really do not understand the hon member for Durban Point. Once something has been rejected, one no longer talks about it. I believe one tries instead to reach a compromise. I thought it is consensus politics we are dealing with now. [Interjections.] I would like it to be quite clear that the standing committee and the NP refused to allow the SA Medical and Dental Council and the Medical Association of SA to give oral evidence. Furthermore, we were not allowed to try to reach a compromise, and now we have to rush this Bill through Parliament.

I like the chiropractors.

Yes, that is why you like smoking. The hon the Minister is a smoker, Sir, and so it is not surprising. If one is not interested in one’s health, whatever happens to one is one’s own fault. I cannot worry about it. [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, the hon the Deputy Minister of Home Affairs seems to be wanting to ask me a question.

Order! Does the hon the Deputy Minister want to ask a question?

Mr Chairman, I would like to ask the hon member when he gave up smoking.

Mr Chairman, I do not know what the hon the Deputy Minister is trying to get at, but I shall answer the question. I gave up smoking more than two years ago and I am ashamed of every cigarette I ever smoked. I hope that the hon the Deputy Minister will also give up smoking. [Interjections.]

You smoke secretly, Marius.

Order! Let us come back to the report. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I think the NP is very good at taking one’s mind off the point one is making.

It is a smoke-screen.

Yes, it is a smokescreen. [Interjections.]

Now we are told that we should proceed in haste with this Bill because these associations have brought their house in order. [Interjections.] I would like to ask the hon the Deputy Minister what he means by “their house being in order”. That is my first question.