Mr Speaker, at the commencement of my speech I should like to pay homage to those who paid the supreme price by laying down their lives for their fatherland. We shall remember them with pride and mourn with their next of kin.

We also wish to extend our gratitude and appreciation to those people who have retired on pension from the Defence Force. We thank them for a lifetime of loyal service to the Defence Force. We share the pride of those whose achievements, of one kind or another, were to the advantage of the Defence Force. We should like to single out Armscor and the Defence Force for their conduct during the floods.

On this occasion I should also like to single out Lt-Gen D J Earp who will be retiring on pension on 30 June. He was a pilot who fought in Korea; he was also a prisoner of war. He was an operationally-orientated, aggressive soldier in the face of all South Africa’s enemies. He is a good man and a dear friend, and we trust that he will enjoy his retirement.

We should also like to refer to the appointment of Lt-Gen J P B van Loggerenberg as the new Chief of the Air Force as from 1 July. He has also made his mark in the Defence Force, especially in the Air Force, and actually proved himself as Chief of Staff: Operations. We wish him everything of the best.

We should like to make a few other exceptions as well. Lt-Gen Witkop Badenhorst is being appointed Chief of Staff: Operations. As far as we are concerned he is a formidable operational officer. Lt-Gen C J Lloyd has been promoted to the post of Secretary of the State Security Council, and we wish him well. We should also like to express our gratitude and appreciation to Lt-Gen N J Nieuwoudt, who is retiring as Surgeon-General and going to Lebowa as Consul-General. We should like to wish his successor, Lt-Gen D P Knobel, everything of the best.

We should also like to thank the hon the Minister and his staff. We should like to single out the names of Brig Opperman, Col Van der Poel, Dr Herbst and Comdt Durandt in this regard for the exceptional services they rendered this year. We had many requests and problems, and I should like to tell hon members today that the doors of these people were open to us day and night and we were welcome to phone them day and night. We say thank you to that exceedingly good staff.

We should also like to express our thanks for the tour to the operational area in November, as well as the tours to Bloemfontein and Kimberley. They were very informative; we learnt a lot. We should also like to express our thanks for the tours which were arranged for the ladies.

I should like to refer to the case of Maj Wynand du Toit. He is indeed a hero, and we have the highest regard for him. We have exceptional sympathy for him for the two years he was held captive as a prisoner of war, mostly in solitary confinement. It is unthinkable the kind of sorrow and suffering that solitary confinement causes. How can one imagine the cruel solitude that Maj Du Toit suffered? How many nights did he spend in solitude, with only his Bible as companion? We pay a very great tribute to this former prisoner of war.

At the same time we should also like to express our repugnance at the way in which the Government politicised Maj Du Toit’s release. Whereas his homecoming should have been quietly and peacefully spent with his own people, he was removed from his solitary confinement and immediately exposed to dramatic shocks. [Interjections.] The busiest political actor on SABC-TV, the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, was so over-eager at Maputo airport that he almost embraced the startled Maj Du Toit under the harsh lights set up for the TV cameras. What was almost a midnight visit to the State President’s residence awaited him in Cape Town. Honestly, enough is enough! [Interjections.]

I maintain that Maj Du Toit was blatantly politicised by a Government that is unscrupulously snatching at straws in an effort to save its sinking political ship. [Interjections.] That is not only a disgrace, but it is also cruel and unfeeling behaviour towards an exhausted prisoner of war. [Interjections.] Hon NP members can laugh. They can go ahead and enjoy their chuckles—they come only from their side in any case. Most of those hon members have not done a day’s national service yet. [Interjections.]

I have information at my disposal that even senior Defence Force members are unhappy about the manner in which this matter was handled, and it would not surprise me if the hon the Minister were not unhappy about the handling of the situation too. I trust that the hon the Minister will guard against the Government launching such political onslaughts on the Defence Force again.

I should like to congratulate the hon the Minister on the manner in which he handled Maj Du Toit’s involvement in NP meetings and for the fact that in future Defence Force officers will not be allowed to address political meetings. [Interjections.] I should like to thank him for the way he handled the matter.

The CP is still receiving complaints about integration in the Defence Force. There are regular complaints because White soldiers have to share messes and sleeping quarters with people of colour. A great deal of unhappiness is being experienced, and I should like to request the hon the Minister to pay urgent attention to this.

They are fighting for you!

No, they are not fighting for me. They are not even fighting for you. More than 99% of the SA Defence Force consist of Whites. Why does that hon member not go and do his military service? [Interjections.]

*The time has perhaps arrived for the hon the Minister to spell out the Government’s policy in respect of integration in the Defence Force. It is still the position that Coloureds and Indians are not obliged to do national service. I find it surprising that the hon NP members have now shut up like clams. [Interjections.]

I have said it before, and I repeat it today: It is extremely unfair that Coloureds and Indians may participate in the Government on the same basis as the Whites, but that only the White lads are obliged to bear the heavy burden of the country’s defence. It is indeed a heavy obligation, because it entails the risk of being fatally shot, maimed or being taken prisoner of war. It also entails separation from one’s loved ones for long periods, as well as a break in one’s professional career. In contrast to that the young Coloured and Indian men enjoy the peace and prosperity bought by the blood and sweat of the White national servicemen. [Interjections.] This is unfair, and a cruel indictment against the Government for tolerating this untenable situation. This is also conclusive proof of the failure of the Government’s system of consensus.

We do have appreciation—I should like to state this in public—for the Indians and Coloureds who participate in the country’s defence on a voluntary basis. There is, however, a world of difference between compulsory and voluntary national service. What I find comical is that the Coloureds speak about “our” Defence Force and that the hon member for Mamre, Mr Abe Williams, is the deputy chairman of the Standing Committee on Security Services, while their sons are not doing national service, and only our sons are compelled to do it. It is therefore appropriate that we pay tribute today to the White national servicemen.

Mr Speaker, is the hon member prepared to reply to a question?

I do not have the time.

You have plenty of time.

Oh, nonsense, you know he does not have much time.

We should like to tell our White lads with great respect that we sincerely appreciate their national service and we are very grateful and commend them for the sacrifices they alone are making. We are of the opinion that as a group they are South Africa’s greatest heroes. Our prayers are that they might perform their important task for the fatherland with the utmost dedication and distinction. We should also like to ask the parents, families, loved ones and friends to treat the national serviceman as he deserves to be treated; as a hero!

National servicemen are playing a key role in the Angolan war at present, and the great praise being expressed throughout the world for the South African soldier is to a large extent applicable to the White national servicemen. In Die Burger of 12 May 1988 reference was made to the latest edition of the authoritative military publication Jane’s Defence Weekly. In this edition great praise is expressed for the South African weapons used by the soldiers fighting in the Angolan war. I quote:

This was originally written in Jane’s Defence Weekly and it is an enormous compliment to our lads fighting in Angola.

Those people who are opposed to South Africa’s involvement in Angola, would do well to take cognizance of the following:

Were only Whites involved there?

Practically all the South Africans were White. [Interjections.] I am not ashamed to stand up in Parliament and plead for the 99% of the Defence Force who are White. Hon members can continue to plead for the Coloureds, Indians and Blacks. Why do these hon members not represent them and go to their House?

Order! I am afraid the hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Speaker, I am merely rising to afford the hon member for Overvaal an opportunity to complete his speech.

I thank the hon member most sincerely.

Certain South African weaponry was used operationally for the first time. Our tank, the Ratel 81, and our Ystervark cannon received the highest praise in this area. I should like to quote from an article in Die Burger, as follows:

No South African can read this article in Jane’s Defence Weekly without hero-worshipping the Defence Force and Armscor.

As far as the war is concerned, rumours have it that the war is terribly expensive. One of the rumours that reached us was that the war has cost in the region of R2 000 million. [Interjections.] We have queried this, and we accept the assurance from the Defence Force that the cost of that war is entirely within the framework of the present budget. There have also been rumours about the number of soldiers being utilised in Angola. There were sometimes rumours that between 15 000 and 20 000 of our troops were involved. We once again accept the assurance of the Defence Force that the troops were limited to 3 000.

What does, however, cause anxiety is the feeling one gets that South Africa’s involvement in South West Africa and Angola is being prolonged to such an extent that it is being referred to as a Vietnamese-type situation. The war has indeed been in progress for many years and the important question which I think we all ask ourselves, is: How much longer?

The CP is of the opinion that we should of course continue to fight for as long as we are threatened by the communist aggressors. We shall of course be prepared to make financial and other sacrifices for as long as the fatherland is threatened. White South Africa is not divided on this issue and the Government need not glance over its shoulder to see where the CP is. Every one of us supports the Defence Force. It is, however, to everyone’s advantage to secure peace, and that is why I should like to refer to the present peace talks.

The Defence Force itself plays a very minor role in those talks because the Defence Force is merely the politicians’ instrument of strength. Peace should be negotiated by the politicians. The Defence Force, with its resounding military successes, provides the precious time needed by the politicians to seek and find political solutions.

If the peace negotiations were to be successful, Resolution 435 would be set in motion and eventually an election will be held in South West Africa. There are rumours that Swapo will win that election. I should now like to ask the hon the Minister what the effect of a Swapo victory in South West Africa would be. If the peace negotiations were successful and Resolution 435 were set in motion, there would be an election, and Swapo would win. That is a reality. So it seems as though the Russian flag may wave in Windhoek and ANC bases may eventually appear in South West Africa too. The threshold of the war will then move from the Kunene to the Orange.

But you are asking for it!

What a lot of nonsense!

Why have we fought and sacrificed all these years, if that were to happen? Only to lose eventually? I should like to tell the hon the Minister that I do not have any ulterior political motives. I am asking him as an anxious South African: What is going to happen? Is the scenario which I have now sketched, not a realistic one? What is going to happen if the outcome is peace, Resolution 435, and a Swapo government?

Do you want peace then?

I want peace. Of course we want peace. [Interjections.] Oh please, my friend should go and do the national service he has never done.

You may then perhaps understand.

I should like to conclude by asking the hon the Minister how we see this scenario. Will it not end with the whole effort having been self-destructive? Then we shall have a situation where we have been at war for years and as a result, the sacrifices we have made over a long period would possibly have been in vain.

Mr Speaker, this is really going too far. I am not going to react to the hon member for Overvaal’s comments on the way the Government welcomed Wynand du Toit.

As far as his remarks about integration in the Defence Force are concerned, he knows very well—this is something that is raised year after year—that it is impossible to duplicate sophisticated training.

With regard to his standpoint on compulsory military service for Coloureds and Asians, he also knows that a Coloured leader actually asked for this in the House of Representatives yesterday. This is fully in accordance with the Government’s standpoint that the Coloureds and the Indians will be dealt with in the same way as the Whites in this regard; in other words, they will be brought in through an evolutionary process.

In that case, what is the Government doing in this regard?

The hon member for Overvaal asked how long the war was still going to continue. The answer is simple; the war will last only until a political solution is found in South Africa as well as in Southern Africa.

On behalf of this side of the House I want to join the hon member for Overvaal in congratulating Gen Knobel on his appointment as Surgeon-General. We are glad to have a man of his calibre in that position. To Gen Earp, who is retiring as Chief of the Air Force, I want to convey a special word of thanks and appreciation for his dedicated service, not only to the Air Force, but to South Africa. We are aware of the fact that this service involved personal sacrifice, privations and losses. I have no doubt in my own mind that he achieved the same renown in the Air Force as his famous namesake Wyatt Earp of the Wild West. To Gen Van Loggerenberg, who is succeeding him, we convey our heartfelt congratulations. The hon member for Overvaal mentioned this. He has made his mark in the Air Force and he is splendidly equipped to occupy this new post with distinction. We wish him well.

We also congratulate the Chief of the Defence Force, Gen Geldenhuys, on the efficient administration of the Defence Force as an organisation. When one bears in mind the fact that South Africa is engaged in a war and that this has not led to any undue demands on the country’s budget, when one bears in mind that it has not caused any undue increase in the Defence budget, I believe that this is a unique achievement and that the Defence Force, under the leadership of Gen Geldenhuys, is indeed to be congratulated.

We also wish to thank the administrative staff of the hon the Minister of Defence and of his hon Deputy Minister for the service that they render day and night on our behalf. We are proud to have Gen Malan and Mr Breytenbach as our Minister and Deputy Minister, and we thank them too for their dedicated service.

Hear, hear!

Mr Speaker, we on this side of the House also pay tribute to those men who have made the supreme sacrifice in order to protect South Africa. We wish to convey our sympathy to their next of kin. Only when one attends a memorial service at Fort Klapperkop does the reality of the border war hit one between the eyes. Only when one reads the many rows of names on the commemorative plaque does one realise the gravity of the situation in which South Africa finds itself.

Allow me to make one remark in this connection, Sir. A few weeks before the Bolshevist Revolution broke out in Russia in 1917, there was a meeting of the synod of the Russian Orthodox Church. In the midst of the crisis in which the country found itself, the main item on the agenda of that church was the colour of a priest’s bands. While the country was on the brink of a revolution, while the hungry and unemployed were roaming the streets of Moscow, therefore, the church was arguing about the colour of the clerical bands.

I believe that we in South Africa, too, must get our priorities in order. We cannot afford to indulge in political point-scoring across the floor of this House while our sons are dying on the borders of South Africa. I believe that we should put a stop to our political quarrels and join forces in trying to find a vision for the future which will accommodate everyone in this country, for if this is not done, this struggle will continue and there will be no end to the armed conflict.

That is why we on this side of the House are grateful for the talks that are being held at the moment with a view to the possible ending of the war in Angola. About one thing there must be no misunderstanding, though. This Government is sitting at that negotiating table in a position of strength, which has been brought about by the SA Defence Force. Therefore the Government will not be a party to any negotiations which would harm South Africa’s position and which would favour Swapo or the ANC. As far as South Africa’s involvement in Angola is concerned, the HSRC has conducted an interesting investigation, and according to that investigation, most South Africans support the involvement of the Defence Force in Angola in support of Unita and regard it as an investment in peace.

It was stated in no uncertain terms that South Africa should resist this Russian-Cuban onslaught. South Africa’s support for Unita met with the approval of 86,6% of the respondents, while 7,2% disapproved of it. The contention that the defeat of Unita would lead to an intensified onslaught by Swapo on South West Africa was supported by 86,5% of the respondents, while 3,8% believed that this would not be the case. In all, 86,3% believed that the defeat of Unita would also lead to an intensified onslaught by the ANC on South Africa, while only 6,2% held the contrary view. Eighty-two per cent believed that the bush war in South West Africa and in Angola was an investment in peace, while 6,1% considered it to be a waste of manpower and money. It is gratifying to see that the majority of South Africans support South Africa’s involvement in Angola. When one lacks support on the home front, one cannot achieve a military victory in any case. America provides a good illustration of this. It could not win the war in Vietnam because its own people no longer supported its war effort.

The Defence Force is also to be congratulated on the tenth anniversary of Operation Reindeer, which actually marked the beginning of the cross-border operations. Attempts have also been made to denigrate this operation, too, as having been an attack on civilian targets, but I think we shall have to get used to the fact that the Defence Force and the security Forces will always be the target of this kind of disinformation.

The fact is that these cross-border operations, more than anything else, I believe, are now forcing revolutionary organisations such as Swapo and the ANC to change their tactics. Until recently, these organisations had been following the revolutionary model of Mao Tse-tung. In terms of this, the revolution is taken from the rural areas to the cities. The military bases are established in the rural areas, therefore, and the revolution is conducted from there.

Thanks to the actions of our security forces, these military bases in the rural areas have been destroyed, and these organisations are now being forced—so it seems to me—to return to the traditional Marxist revolutionary model, in terms of which the revolution has to be taken from the cities to the rural areas. This obviously means that the battle-zone is shifted. The battle-zone is shifted from the rural to the urban areas. It is striking that for many years there were few incidents of urban terrorism in South West Africa, while it is now beginning to occur there. This proves that the revolutionary forces have changed their tactics.

Order! I am sorry, but the hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I am rising merely to afford the hon member the opportunity of completing his speech.

Mr Chairman, I think the South African security forces will have to adapt to this. In my opinion, two things will flow from this. Firstly, there will be an escalation of urban terrorism, but on the other hand, there will inevitably be a greater involvement of military forces in urban areas. I do not think it will be possible to avoid this. The security forces will undoubtedly deal with this second approach just as effectively as they dealt with the first one.

†The NP can be accused of many things but it cannot be accused of neglecting the security of the country, and the achievements of an organisation like Armscor are proof of this. Allow me to quote from an article which appeared in Time magazine of 9 May 1988:

Mr Chairman, a better testimonial can scarcely be found anywhere.

*One congratulates an organisation which in spite of boycotts has built up South Africa’s arms industry to the point where it is the fifth biggest in the world today, with sales exceeding R2 billion a year. No wonder that South Africa had the biggest display of arms at a recent arms exhibition in Chile!

It was Napolean Bonaparte who said, “He who wants peace must prepare for war.” If this is true, Armscor is an instrument of peace par excellence. We want to congratulate Comdt Marais and his team on what this organisation has achieved.

I want to make one final observation in this connection. It was thanks to the foresight of President Kruger after the Jameson raid that the Boers were able to fight the English for three years. After this invasion he saw that the arms industry in the Transvaal was in a sorry state. Of the 24 000 burghers who could be called up, only 10 000 had guns, and those were obsolete. He thereupon gave orders that someone should go and buy German Mausers—which were the latest weapons on the market—to the value of a million pounds, and this kept the Boers in the field for three years.

When an arms embargo was imposed against South Africa in 1977, the Minister of Defence at that time, who is now the hon the State President, gave orders for South Africa to start its own arms industry. Had it not been for that, our enemies would have walked all over us.

I want to express my agreement with what the hon member for Overvaal quoted from Jane’s Defence Weekly, but I am not going to repeat it. I just want to say that we are proud of our Defence Force.

Mr Chairman, today’s debate can surely be considered one of the most important in view of the latest situation in which we find ourselves. I am referring in particular to the peace negotiations in Brazzaville. In that connection I firstly want to say—I shall link up with the hon member Dr Geldenhuys at a later stage—that everyone in this House, and surely everyone in South Africa, has the profound hope that the discussions which are being held will indeed lead to peace in Southern Africa. I should like to wish all those representing South Africa there everything of the best with those discussions.

At the same time the latest reports about what is happening there in the south of Angola makes this a singular debate because the situation there is fraught with all kinds of possibilities. I should not like to venture onto the same terrain as the hon the member for Overvaal by creating theoretical scenarios, but I do want to ask the hon the Minister whether he is convinced that the drive which is taking place there, is meant to force South Africa into a conventional confrontation and what the implications of such a move could be.

I think I am probably interpreting the feelings of this House and of the whole of South Africa in saying that one takes note of these developments in the south of Angola with the utmost concern. However, I shall possibly be returning to this aspect tomorrow.

At this stage I want to associate myself with the hon member Dr Geldenhuys and also the hon member for Overvaal who paid homage to Gen Earp and his successor, Gen Van Loggerenberg, as well as Gen Niewoudt and his successor, Gen Knobel.

I want to convey the deepest sympathy of this side of the House with the next of kin of those South Africans who lost their lives in the fight in Angola. I know that nothing we say or do can bring those people back, but we at least want to convey our deepest sympathy and appreciation for those people who fought and sacrificed their lives for South Africa.

We also regret, of course, the loss of equipment we unfortunately suffered there. I am thinking, in particular, of the loss of the three Mirages and the problems we have in the replacing of that equipment.

On this occasion I also want to express my appreciation for the approachability of the hon the Minister, the hon the Deputy Minister, the various officials of the Department of Defence and the officers of the Defence Force. I want to state that during the past months it has been my privilege to co-operate with these people and to discover how approachable they are. Time and again I have had to approach them with real problems, and have found them to be very willing to listen and assist where possible. I express my appreciation for that.

I also want to express my appreciation for the arrangements made by the Defence Force for visits to various fronts by members of Parliament and their spouses. I should like to refer, in particular, to our recent visit to Bloemfontein and Kimberley. I am certain that all those people who participated in the tour were impressed, especially so by the performance and training of the special service battalion in Kimberley.

I have put many questions to the Defence Force about the budget. As hon members surely know, the Department of Defence has the second largest budget, a bit more than R8 000 million. Only the Department of Finance has a larger budget. It is only right and proper for us as citizens and taxpayers, to ask the Defence Force to account for the expenditure of those funds. I want to tell hon members that initially I was concerned and put quite a few questions to the Defence Force about the increase in the budget in comparison with that of last year, because that increase was higher than for other Votes in the Budget.

I should like to add that I am indebted to the Defence Force for replying in full to the questions I put to them. It it is clear to me that there is a fundamental difference between those Government departments mainly involved in staff expenditure and other Government departments in which a large portion of the expenditure is in respect of the acquisition and production of equipment. It is not always possible to exercise proper control over that equipment in the same way one is able to exercise control over salaries and other similar matters. I am satisfied that in this instance the increase in expenditure by the Defence Force is totally warranted.

I want to add that a singular responsibility has been imposed on the Defence Force in that it has to account for the proper expenditure of every cent it receives. I am not implying that this does not happen. I merely want to caution that with the funds available to our country, the utmost care should be displayed in regard to the expenditure of our finances. I am aware that the financial problems facing us in future are merely going to get worse and that greater problems are going to arise in respect of the financing of the Defence Force and of other services as well, but especially of the Defence Force. As we are all aware, it is going to become a problem as and especially when the armaments of the Defence Force becomes obsolete, the necessity for replacement increases and especially once we have to proceed to the development of various other aspects to strengthen our own Defence Force as much as possible and increase our own preparedness as well.

I make no secret of the fact—I have repeated it on more than one occasion—that I am of the opinion that specific steps should be taken to manufacture our own aircraft. We are all aware of what the financial implications of such a step would be, so much so that at this stage it seems doubtful whether we would, in reality, be able to acquire the necessary finance. However, with my limited knowledge, I want to state that unless we extend the manufacture of aircraft in particular—I do not want to detract from the other aspects— South Africa is going to experience great problems in any conventional war.

With regard to the war in Angola I want to associate myself with what the hon member Dr Geldenhuys said about the excellent task performed by Armscor. I do not think words can describe Armscor’s achievements. I want to add that I trust that the Defence Force and Armscor will give careful consideration to the extent to which their activities can be entrusted to private enterprise. I should like to believe that the possibility of the privatisation of Armscor is being seriously investigated by the Government, the department and Armscor. This would appear to be a possible means of circumventing several of the financial Gordian knots we are trying to unravel.

With regard to the war in Angola, it is obvious that our men have acquitted themselves of their task admirably. I do not think anyone can have any doubts about that. It is the function of the quality of the people there, of the training they receive, of the leadership available there and of the armaments they have at their disposal.

In this instance I want to add—the hon member Dr Geldenhuys mentioned it—that the South African public appreciates the fact that the Defence Force puts its cards on the table. All sorts of rumours and stories have being doing the rounds with regard to the extent of our involvement in Angola. I appreciate the candour, and I have said more than once, that I am of the opinion that the more honest and candid the Defence Force is towards the people of South Africa, the more understanding there will be of the actions of the Defence Force. I do not expect that candour to include disclosures of the day-to-day tactical military operations, but that the extent of the involvement should be disclosed.

I shall discuss more of those aspects tomorrow, but I appreciate the fact that the Defence Force made it very clear that its intention was not to remain in Angola. Gen Geldenhuys, and I think on occasion the hon the Minister of Defence, stated that there was talk of a strategic withdrawal. I accept the clear assurance that it is not their intention to remain in Angola. I am not referring now to the latest problems involving the Cubans in the south of Angola. I am referring to the operations in which we have been involved during the past few months.

In spite of the figures quoted by the hon member Dr Geldenhuys, I want to say that there is no getting away from the fact that between 7% and 10% of our people are extremely concerned about our involvement in Angola. Although many of us may approve of that involvement… [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I take pleasure in following the hon member Prof Olivier. He made a responsible speech with which I cannot find much fault. The hon member only made one minor mistake. I merely want to draw his attention to the fact that we did not lose three Mirages in the operational area but only one.

The hon member referred to financing. This aspect will be replied to later on in the debate by other speakers, and I am consequently not going to react to him.

In contrast with some of the hon member’s predecessors, he really spoke in a responsible way today. I think the hon member is the fifth chief spokesman on defence for the PFP in the past five years. First there was the hon member for Yeoville, and he was a little too responsible for the PFP’s liking, and then there was the former hon member for Wynberg, Mr Philip Myburg, who was also a little too responsible. Then Dr van Zyl Slabbert took over himself and tried to be irresponsible, and he was then replaced by the hon member for Durban Central, who is now sitting there in the ranks of the NDM. Now the hon member Prof Olivier is the PFP’s chief spokesman on this matter, and I think the hon member is rather uncomfortable, because he does not know how long it is going to be before they get rid of him.

Let us not drag party politics into the debate.

No, we are not engaging in party politics. The hon member merely reminds me of the Dutch immigrant I knew who came here to South Africa on his honeymoon. He saw a prickly pear bush full of ripe prickly pears. He picked some of them with his bare hands and stuffed them into his trouser pockets. He found himself in an uncomfortable position, and I think the hon member is feeling just as uncomfortable.

You must please leave that to me.

The hon member says I must leave it to him. However, he is associated with the statements of his colleagues on the ECC, the Freedom Charter and the ANC-SACP alliance. The hon member did not dissociate himself from this today. I can understand that, because the hon member is really in an uncomfortable position in the PFP. As long as the hon members on that side do not adopt a standpoint on this ANC-SACP alliance, the PFP will remain soft on national security.

Recently we were guests of the hon the Minister of Defence. We paid a visit to Bloemfontein and Kimberley where we also visited 1 Parachute Batallion. We saw how the paratroopers were trained. It was very impressive and we were all very grateful for the opportunity to see this.

There is an apparatus known as the “monkey cage”. It is approximately 10m high and prospective paratroopers must jump out of it in their harnesses in order to practise their parachute jumps. I was watching the hon member for Overvaal while he was speaking today. He looked for all the world like someone who had fallen out of the monkey-cage! [Interjections.]

We are always very grateful for the opportunity which the hon the Minister gives us to make such visits. During these visits I have always been impressed by how motivated out Defence Force is, how highly professional they are and how loyal they are to South Africa. Our Defence Force is run according to the best principles which can be expected of an efficient war machine. We were very impressed by the preparedness of our Defence Force. With such a Defence Force we are in safe hands.

On an occasion like this one today the hon the Minister and the Government are expected to report to Parliament in respect of the Defence Force’s budget. However there is another aspect we do not always notice, namely that we, the hon members of Parliament, must also answer to the Defence Force as to why we use the Defence Force in the way we do.

The Defence Force provides the security umbrella under which we as politicians must get and keep our country’s affairs in order. Now the question is whether every party in this House honourably takes responsibility for its actions to our young men who serve their country with such commitment and loyalty. In this regard I want to refer briefly to the PFP, the NDM and the independent left-wingers. Actually they form an informal alliance. In many respects this alliance is pursuing similar objectives, namely the unbanning of the ANC and other subversive organisations. They believe in discussions with the ANC/SACP alliance. These objectives are being pursued although the ANC/SACP alliance is openly encouraging civil disobedience and strikes in this country.

The PFP is even in favour of legitimising the SACP. The most left-wing member of this informal alliance, namely the hon member for Claremont, regularly asks questions about Defence Force actions in this House. Every question he asks, every speech he makes, is aimed at placing the actions of our security forces in the worst possible light. The hon member maintains that our Defence Force invades the townships like the storm-troops of an enraged dictator, and he does so although those inhabitants quite frequently request our protection. The hon member for Claremont’s rhetoric creates the perception that our troops behave in a similar fashion to the Waffen SS of Nazi-Germany. It is no secret that South Africa is involved in a revolutionary war.

I want to give attention for a few moments to a few well-known slogans and concepts which the revolutionaries use in a revolutionary war. These concepts are not unfamiliar to us either. Those persons who are co-operating with the Government are its “puppets” or “stooges”. The revolutionary always has a “just cause” as against an “unjust system”. He is always “progressive”, and those persons who work against the revolution are always “reactionary”. The political solution favoured by the revolutionary, is referred to as a “just democracy”, while the existing system is “exploitative and illegal”. This has become familiar language in South Africa. This is also language which we have even heard in this House. It is the revolutionary language of the extra-parliamentary groups, which is being echoed in this House.

The spirit which the hon member for Claremont is trying to create was reconfirmed in his question on today’s Order Paper. This left-wing informal alliance considers the Freedom Charter an acceptable alternative to the existing order because in their eyes the existing system is an “unjust” system which should be replaced by that alternative, the so-called “just system”.

The Freedom Charter defines very few of its objectives in hard, concrete terms. All its promises are vague and ambiguous. It sounds wonderful though, and to the uninformed ear it may sound as if it is promising paradise itself. However we must warn each other unambiguously and seriously against this dangerous wolf in sheep’s clothing. The ANC and SACP are in favour of a Marxist one-party state in South Africa, and for this simple reason alone one must mistrust the Freedom Charter. For that reason it is at most a document of temporary importance— the interlude between the two phases of the revolution; the carrot being dangled in front of the uninformed and naive. In fact it is because of all its fine promises that the Freedom Charter cannot be trusted.

At its congress last year in Arusha in Tanzania the ANC unambiguously adopted a standpoint in favour of continued armed violence and said the following inter alia:

Those persons who trust the ANC are the “useful idiots” of Moscow’s revolutionary planning. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, when we look at the military history of the world, it is undoubtedly true that the countries and the nations that could organise themselves into a national defence force had the best military achievements. This has always been the case. That is why the first commandant-general of the SADF, Gen C F Beyers, after a visit abroad, advocated and envisaged a national defence force (volksweermag), based on the pattern of the then Swiss Defence Force, for South Africa.

When it comes to a war situation and the freedom and survival of a people and a fatherland, a national defence force brings out what is best and finest in a soldier. This has always been the case. That is why in the Anglo-Boer War the British soldier put his finger on the truth when he wrote in a letter that those persons who fought for a shilling a day—i e mercenaries—could not fight against the father and son, fighting shoulder to shoulder in the trenches for the freedom of their people and their fatherland. This is still the case today, and this will also be the case in future. This is precisely what is worrying those of us on this side of the House as regards the future of the SADF.

If the policy of the Government of the day filters through to the Defence Force, namely one constitutional dispensation for the whole of South Africa, this will therefore of necessity mean one integrated defence force consisting of different peoples. I want to associate myself with what the hon member for Overvaal said. That is why we on this side of the House are not in favour of compulsory military service being extended to other peoples in the same defence force, but are in favour of compulsory security force service in their own units for use in their own areas. In other words there must be compulsory service, otherwise we will be discriminating against our young men, as the hon member for Overvaal pointed out. However it must not be an integrated defence force as we see it day after day and as our young men experience it on the Border.

Has your son been there yet?

Yes.

In the case of a joint threat a Southern African allied defence force can then offer the necessary support side by side. That is how we see the situation.

As regards Angola, we on this side of the House agree with our limited presence there in the interests of South Africa, and the SA Defence Force is to be congratulated on the great success achieved and the relatively low losses suffered on our side.

I want to refer to the article in Jane’s Defence Weekly which the hon member for Overvaal quoted, and specifically that the greatest advantage which the SA Defence Force has is perhaps not its equipment but the immeasurably better training of its non-commissioned officers and soldiers. This is what is said in this periodical, and I think it is really a feather in the cap of our Defence Force. We are glad that this kind of report on the SA Defence Force has appeared in an overseas periodical.

There are nevertheless certain aspects of the war in Angola which worry us as parents and our soldiers, particularly in consequence of what was said recently by a Defence Force officer to an audience of students. I am quoting from Die Perdeby of 11 March 1988:

As far as I am concerned to a great extent this links up with what was said in the March issue of Paratus in respect of the then joint monitoring commission which operated between February 1984 and May 1985. Hon members will remember how that commission worked. It was a joint force, and to us it seemed very unreal that two opposing forces on one side could take action against two opposing forces on the other. It looked more like a trick on the part of the Department of Foreign Affairs.

We read in the report that the joint monitoring commission moved, as agreed, from Cuvelai, Mupa and Ngiva to Oshakati. I want to quote the following paragraph from the report in Paratus of March:

I hope the hon the Minister is going to reply to my next question. When we say we are involved in a planned tactical withdrawal from Angola, does this not mean that Fapla forces and the Cubans are simply going to reoccupy the areas they have lost, or is Unita at all able to maintain the status quo? I think the hon the Minister owes us and the country an honest and straightforward answer.

A second matter regarding which I should like to hear the opinion of the hon the Minister, is whether the SA Defence Force is at present making provision for body armour for certain target groups and whether they are planning this for the future. I am asking this in consequence of another report in Jane’s Defence Weekly. I merely want to quote the following excerpt:

I should like to hear the hon the Minister’s reply to this.

Lastly I come to our chaplain service, which performs an indispensable and absolutely essential service. In the first place I want to ask whether provision is being made for denominations other than Christian denominations. I also want to know whether provision has been made for chaplains posts for the Afrikaans Protestant Church.

This Church is a full-fledged Afrikaans church, with the same articles of faith as the other three Afrikaans churches. It has 150 congregations and 51 clergymen throughout the country, and a membership of between 40 000 and 50 000. At present the position is that clergymen of the Afrikaans Protestant Church are simply treated as follows, and I am quoting from a letter which such a clergymen received:

My question is whether an agreement has now been reached with this particular church, and if not whether it is envisaged that in future provision is also going to be made for chaplains posts for members of this church in view of the large number of people who already belong to this church.

Mr Chairman, in the course of my speech I should like to return to the remarks the hon member for Pietersburg made about a people’s defence force.

Certain hon members have already referred in the debate to the promotion of Gen Knobel to Surgeon-General.

†On behalf of the NP study group I wish to compliment and congratulate him on his promotion. For very good reasons I also want to give a short summary of his curriculum vitae. He was born in Edinburgh in Scotland—presumably because his mother happened to be there at the time! After the completion of his education at schools in South Africa and some three years’ study at the University of Pretoria, he went to the University of Edinburgh where he qualified for the MBChB degree in 1961 and the PhD in 1966.

After lecturing in anatomy at Edinburgh, the University of the Witwatersrand and the University of Pretoria, he became the youngest professor of anatomy ever in South Africa at the age of 31 at the University of Pretoria, and head of the department in 1977. He was honoured by various scientific and cultural organisations, and has more than 50 publications, including the first Afrikaans textbook in microanatomy, to his credit.

He joined the Citizen Force with the rank of Captain in 1971 and, as could be expected from a man of his calibre and with his competence, the ranks of Major, Commandant and Colonel soon followed. He joined the Permanent Force in 1981. That was about seven years ago. He was appointed Director of Operations at the South African Medical Services Headquarters with the rank of Brigadier. He was appointed Chief of Medical Staff Operations in 1983 with the rank of Major General and, after several other promotions, he took command of the South African Medical Services as Surgeon General at a parade on 26 February this year.

He has already been awarded the Chief of the South African Defence Force Commendation Medal, the South African Defence Force Good Service Medal (Bronze), the Pro Patria Medal, the Southern Cross Medal and the Southern Cross Decoration.

*The motto of the South African Medical Services is “We serve the brave”. The motto and logo were created by him.

I have given this brief summary of his curriculum vitae for two very good reasons. One reason of course is that he deserves it. The other reason is that the South African population and members of the Defence Force itself, especially national servicemen, place enormous confidence in the South African Medical Services as they developed inter alia under the previous Surgeon General, Gen Niewoudt. I have quoted this curriculum vitae as proof of the calibre of person we have in the Defence Force—both men and officers.

†I would like to say that General Knobel is a prime example of the calibre of men and officers which we have in the South African Defence Force. We are just as proud of the men and officers and we trust in them.

*For the sake of informing and reassuring people on the home front, I want to make a few comments about the use of defusing programmes by the South African Defence Force and especially during the demobilisation phases. For the sake of clarity I want to say that what is meant by defusing is the neutralising of negative effects on the mental health of our men as a result of operational experiences. Of course it is essential that the physical, psychological, and mental condition and mental preparedness of our forces should receive high priority. This applies not only in combat but also specifically when members return to civilian life. There is a “normal” incidence, if I may call it that, of crime and psychological deviation in every society. When somebody returns after his national service or after he has taken part in the Angolan war and a crime is committed, it is frequently asked whether this is not the effect of the war on him. Is it not the same as Vietnam did to the American Rambos and matters of that nature?

This is why I want to say now, without becoming technical, that in operational areas matters pertaining to combat groups right at the front are spoken of as “the first line”, the headquarters of the task force as “the second line” and the advance headquarters or assembly point as “the third line”. The base hospital and intermediate units are “the fourth line”. These defusing actions in respect of members who show signs of stress take place continuously by locating psychologists and other behavioural experts as well as chaplains, to whom the hon member referred, across this entire spectrum. This defusing is done on an individual as well as a group level. To us here at home in our daily lives the defusing which takes place during the demobilisation phase is obviously of more importance.

I want to repeat that the purpose of this defusing programme in this assembly area is to neutralise the negative influence which operational experiences have on members’ mental state and to care for them emotionally as well as to normalise their behaviour in order to enable them to become assimilated into daily life again in a meaningful way. For this purpose there is very close cooperation between specialists—the specialised disciplines like psychologists, social welfare officers and chaplains. In addition a progressive selection is made to identify high risk cases in good time for further intensive treatment.

I do not want to go into the treatment. I think it is too technical but I want to say that special attention is also paid to those who may possibly show post-traumatic or possibly post-discharge reactions as well as to national servicemen who are for instance no longer altogether content after such a condition. They are not discharged but their national service is extended and they are cared for.

In concluding this subject I want to say that our people here at home can have peace of mind. We on the home front may be satisfied that the necessary work is being done excellently on this level by the Defence Force. I actually make so bold as to say that a considerable number of our young people come from normal homes where matters frequently go wrong too. Quite a number of these young men return from the border and from their national service more mature emotionally, more stable and more balanced emotionally.

Finally, I want to refer to the CP. Their attitude toward our Defence Force is that they always say the Defence Force is just—what is the polite word for “bakgat”? Everything is fine except for the hon the Minister. [Interjections.] Then they come up with the sting in the tail and attack the Defence Force. The hon member referred to a people’s defence force again. This depends on what one means by a people. I want to ask the hon member whether they want to go as far as to partition even the operational area and the fighting line? It sounds as if that is how they visualise a people’s defence force. [Interjections.] The hon member says that people of colour like the Coloureds and the Indians should also do military service. But they are doing it on quite a large scale.

That is not true!

Coloureds are actually doing it on such a large scale that we cannot cope with the numbers.

What is happening at grass-roots level? The hon member referred to visits to the border. I once paid a visit to men who were sleeping in underground bunkers there. That is where I saw an Indian of whom I was really proud. That, I thought, was “bakgat”. Now hon members of the CP are making a great fuss, however, they are even publishing long reports in the newspapers. In this way the morale of our Defence Force is being eroded. I could mention quite a few other examples.

I can still remember how the hon member for Overvaal spoke about members of the Defence Force who would supposedly become mercenaries for Russia as soon as there was a new dispensation. I could mention one example after another in this vein. What I actually want to say is that those people of colour in our Defence Force are an integral part and parcel of this country. They are doing their duty toward South Africa on an ever-increasing scale. It is physically impossible and in any case unnecessary and undesirable as well to try to partition people right up to the fighting line.

A young Defence Force officer told us about the Black battalion in which he is involved—101 Battalion. They entered the combat area, followed tracks and drew fire. They were fired upon. He told us that it was incredible to see how those men fought and how proud people in surrounding areas were of them when they returned. When say 100 people are required for that battalion, between 200 and 300 volunteers apply. That shows how proud those people are, who fight together with our people, who draw fire together with our White officers. Now the CP is asking whether they are not perhaps there merely because they get paid. [Interjections.] It is at such a time that such a young officer would tell them one does not allow oneself to be shot for a few hundred rands. One does not draw fire from the enemy one is pursuing, up to four times a month, merely for money.

I want to appeal to the CP to make a real effort to keep its petty, partitioned, political thinking out of our Defence Force so that the Defence Force can get on with its task. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, in last year’s debate on the Defence Vote I expressed my great concern about the deteriorating balance of military power in Angola, and said that we were slowly but surely being drawn into our own type of Vietnam. I have not revised that point of view. Our position there has worsened significantly. The conflict has now developed into a conventional war in many respects, with full-scale armoured and artillery confrontations and with set-piece battles taking the place of the guerilla-style hit-and-run skirmishes of previous years.

On the Angolan side the SADF, in its public briefing document of 18 April, refers to “alarming quantities of new and sophisticated Soviet military hardware arriving on an almost daily basis at Luanda harbour”. Latest news about the Angolan and Cuban push southwards is further evidence of the build-up. This means the conventional escalation on the Angolan side is admitted and clearly evident.

On our side our own escalating involvement is also common knowledge. The fact is that for the first time since World War II South Africa last year ordered South African tanks into operational action on foreign soil. We also deployed G-5 and G-6 mobile artillery guns crewed by South Africans, firstly in support of Unita at Mavinga, and lately in open shelling of Cuito Cuanavale. We are now no longer only providing logistical support to Unita, while also occasionally swiping at Swapo, but we are also now ourselves in the thick of conventional warfare on Angolan soil, in direct confrontation with Angolans, Cubans and even Russians. The picture is deteriorating, I would say, to a frightening degree.

Not only has the conflict escalated dramatically in one year, but our losses in men and material have also surged. This could be only the beginning. We were told by the SADF briefing document of 18 April that the SADF had by then lost 31 soldiers killed in action since May 1987 plus three tanks, four infantry combat vehicles, one fighter aircraft and a light aircraft. What we have not been told is what, if any, additional losses there may have been in men and equipment sustained during the same period by the South West Africa Territorial Forces and also by Unita. Reputable international sources make interesting reading in this regard.

My information from published sources overseas is that the extent of the combined losses of the SADF and the South West Africa Territorial Forces in the past six months runs into hundreds of troops plus up to 20 aircraft and helicopters and also dozens of combat vehicles.

In addition it is reported that Unita’s troop losses are in the region of 2 000 men. The extent of the variation in the stated loss figures is obviously a matter for concern. The truth obviously lies between the figures given for the SADF as such and the total losses for all the forces with which we are associated. I believe the hon the Minister must give the public the figures in respect of all the elements with which we are associated. That is the only way in which to place the overall situation in its proper perspective.

What is also of great long-term importance, besides the state of the scoreboard, is the serious deterioration in our strategic position in Angola. It seems to me that the Government has led us into both a military and diplomatic dead end in Angola which will become more costly and ignominious for South Africa the longer it is permitted to continue. What is important is that Fapla is already strong enough to defend its own territory successfully and to inflict losses. It would also seem to have gained some air superiority or, at least, it would appear that we have lost the clear air superiority we once enjoyed. The loss of the Mirage piloted by Maj Van Coppenhagen near the border last March indicates a new level of proficiency and mobility on the part of the Fapla missile and radar equipment. The point I want to make is that time is not on our side. It is significant that there have been no known Russian casualties in Angola. If Soviet lives are not at risk in Angola, why should Russia make any concessions to our position at all, bearing in mind the loss of prestige that that would involve when as a super power they can easily fund and supply their Angolan and Cuban allies at a reported current annual rate of some $500 million as long as it may suit them to do so?

The very serious question that we must ask of the Government is how much longer the country must continue its involvement in an escalating war far from South African soil in which no military victory seems to be possible. [Interjections.] Or is a military victory possible? [Interjections.]

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

No, Sir, I am afraid I do not have the time.

What is this Government holding out as its prospect to South Africans as our future in Angola? A number of people are becoming very deeply troubled in South Africa about these matters.

Mr Chairman, I am grateful that the hon member Dr Geldenhuys raised the question of Armscor. He referred to the report in Time magazine which was also picked up by The Star newspaper and in which Armscor is now listed as the fifth largest defence contractor in the world with current orders of more than R9 billion. [Interjections.]

What is wrong with that?

At face value, Sir, that is a remarkable achievement. According to Time magazine, armaments are South Africa’s third largest export after gold and coal, and last year, Armscor exported R1,8 billion worth of armaments to 23 countries.

We in the PFP are not in favour of sanctions and boycotts, and we also believe that any democracy needs to be as militarily strong to defend itself as it can be. [Interjections.]

But!

For those reasons Armscor deserves credit for the growth that has been achieved. But in the light of this… [Interjections.]…there are two important questions which I believe need to be answered. Firstly, what, if any, are the policy, diplomatic and ethical guidelines which define the countries to which we will sell our armaments and to which countries, if any, we will not sell our armaments? Do such guidelines exist and, if so, what are they?

Secondly, have we in the past supplied our armaments to any country which is avowedly communistic and/or in open hostility to the Western World?

These are important questions and I would like the assurance that South Africa while taking such a strong public stand against international communism has not itself been guilty of arming any communist countries anywhere in the world. If it were not prohibited for Armscor to do business with any communist or terrorist-supporting country, then I submit sooner or later we would pay a terrible price in international condemnation if it were to transpire that we were arming the enemies of the Western Alliance.

The reason I have raised this matter is because it has recently come to my attention that Armscor has reportedly sold the G-5 artillery gun to Ayatollah Khomeini’s Iran and also to Iraq, both of which are fighting a bitter war across the Persian Gulf.

The allegation that Armscor has being doing business with Iran is made, inter alia, by the international news magazine Newsweek in its edition of 2 May. Regrettably, I must tell the House that I have been informed by a reliable independent source that this allegation is true, and that Armscor has indeed been doing business directly with Iran in recent years. [Interjections.]

I ask the hon the Minister to confirm or deny this allegation in this debate. [Interjections.] It is a matter of great importance. We know what happened with Irangate in the USA. If it now transpires that South Africa has wittingly and officially also been supplying the terrorist-supporting Iranian regime with sophisticated weaponry, then I believe this country will be set for a fresh wave of outrage from the world community. [Interjections.] Who will defend us in that situation? I would like to ask the hon the Minister to clarify the situation as a matter of urgency. Let it not be said that the ultimate degrading price of apartheid is the need eventually to have to sell arms to terrorist-supporting regime or to communists. [Interjections.]

The third issue I would like to raise is the question of regular psychological tests for operational troops. The severe psychological stress and trauma of being in an operational situation has caused many young servicemen to crack under the strain, and I believe that this justifies a stepped-up programme of regular psychological testing of troops to identify the most susceptible persons before they crack and do serious harm to themselves and others. The recent disgusting episode involving the killing of live animals is a classic example of what I mean. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I am not going to reply to all the allegations the hon member for Constantia has made here this afternoon. I am sure that the hon the Minister will deal with some of them and that other hon members will deal with the rest.

It is a simple fact that some people never learn. I doubt that the hon member will ever learn or that his suspicious mind will ever be satisfied about the security of our country and about our Defence Force.

*To us on this side of the House the annual discussion of the Defence Vote is a highlight. Right at the outset I should like to record my genuine appreciation of the dynamic leadership of the hon the Minister of Defence. His incredible capacity for work, his management expertise and his example inspire everybody about him and therefore ensure that we remain a winning team.

I also wish to pay tribute to the South African Defence Force, Armscor and the entire Defence Force family. I have already conveyed this to them personally as regards promotions. I want to salute Gen Dennis Earp this afternoon on his retirement and thank him for the dignified way in which he wore the uniform, the wings and the crown as Chief of the Air Force for many years. I want to thank him for his service to our country.

I also want to pay tribute to those members of the South African Defence Force who had to pay the highest price over the past year for our country. We honour their memory in the full knowledge that their sacrifice was not in vain, but that in life and in death they contributed to the triumph of civilisation in South Africa. I also wish to convey my condolences to their next of kin and assure them that they are in our prayers.

I want to return to hon members of the CP who have spoken up to this point. The hon member for Overvaal started to make me angry, but then I decided that he would not leave this afternoon. He must stay this afternoon because I want him to give us answers. I hope the hon member will behave himself so that he can stay here. [Interjections.]

He raised many subjects, to which he will receive thorough replies in the course of the debate. I want to tell him that the defence of our country is indivisible. Terrorists do not draw a distinction between White people and Black people or members of other population groups. I want to tell him he should actually have been in the House of Representatives yesterday. He should have seen how those people acted as regards the security of this country. [Interjections.]

The chief spokesman of the CP could take lessons from hon members of the House of Representatives as regards many matters. He spoke about integration in the Defence Force, but this hon member is hiding behind one important matter. He speaks about our Defence Force but he is not honest; he is actually referring to our White Defence Force. It is time for us to examine the CP defence force policy.

The NP has a proud tradition in this House that we deal with the security of our country in a responsible way. We are of one mind on this side that security and defence must never become a political football. This is a policy which we always want to carry out to the full, but we shall not permit ourselves to be placed under political quarantine by those hon members. The hon the Minister and I, and all on this side of the House, represent constituencies. We put the South African Defence Force and the security of this country first but we shall not evade our political responsibility either.

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

Mr Chairman, I do not have time for questions now and shall not reply to that hon member’s question in any case.

Up to this point the NP has been patient and offered the CP adequate opportunity to honour the long-standing convention of this Parliament that we do not drag politics into Defence matters. Nevertheless they have continued to deal recklessly with matters of security in this House every year, as was demonstrated again this afternoon by the hon member for Overvaal. I say this afternoon that the CP defence force policy is fatal for our future. If by some mischance they should come to power, they would weaken our security capabilities to such an extent that our descendants would have no alternative but to capitulate.

Let us see what the hon member for Overvaal says. I quote from Hansard, 22 March 1983, col 3578:

The hon member said this here this afternoon as well. I shall continue:

The hon member said this long ago and he repeated it this afternoon. We now accept that this is their policy.

The hon member for Pietersburg said the following, and I quote from Hansard, 17 May 1984, col 6812:

The hon member said in Hansard, 14 May 1986, col 5555:

This quotation stipulates specifically—and the hon member affirmed it this afternoon—that the official CP policy is to create an own defence force for every people. Did the hon member spell out the implications of this to us, however? He is talking about a White defence force, a Coloured defence force, an Indian defence force and possibly 10 Black defence forces for one South Africa. What nonsense is this? This statement they are making is absurd.

The time has come for the CP to start giving us certain answers on their defence force policy. I want them to answer. I want to ask them in the first place: Will each independent people be permitted to build up its own defence force, according to CP policy? Secondly, if a defence force is a prerequisite for the independence of such a people, will a CP government supply them with such a defence force? Hon members must write down these questions and reply to them. Thirdly, will a CP government permit every independent state to import and acquire weaponry from any country? Fourthly, will the CP have the courage to spell out the financial implications of a possible 13 defence forces to the voters of South Africa? This has serious financial implications.

In the fifth place, I want to ask a question about the so-called allied operations against common enemies. We want a few answers on this subject too. What will the CP do if one of its independent peoples refuses to serve in this alliance? What will the CP do then? [Interjections.] Will White South Africa, as the CP defines it but which does not exist in essence, be the leader of these allied forces or will the leadership be assumed by the various states in rotation? [Interjections.]

The CP is on the hook. We shall leave this place and tell the voters that the CP must state its defence force policy clearly and consistently to them. Its members are always asking the Government what its plans are. Our plans are on the table. [Interjections.] Our plans for the defence of our country have been and are always on the table. According to our policy the defence of our country is the responsibility of all. The Government now demands that the CP spell out its policy clearly so that the voters may hear it.

The hon member for Langlaagte referred to Wenella. We take those hon members to the operational area to expose them to conditions there, but I shall ask the hon the Minister to consider very seriously whether we should continue to do so. [Interjections.] I am ashamed of exposing the troops to people like the hon members of the CP and the remarks that those hon members made at Wenella base. [Interjections.] I am ashamed of this. I am telling hon members bluntly that that commander is there under operational conditions. He has received the order to safeguard a certain area and people are put at his disposal to do this. All our commanders have carried out their orders 100% in this regard. There were people of different colour; do hon members of the CP want to tell me that that work was not done well? What image do they think parliamentarians have after the insulting remarks which CP members of Parliament made while those people were defending our country? [Interjections.] I think those hon members should be ashamed of themselves.

You are a disgrace!

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

No, I am not answering any questions, especially not from that hon member. [Interjections.]

Hon members of the Official Opposition have learnt nothing from their predecessors as the new Official Opposition. Look at the PFP today. Why do they look like that? It is because they did not put the security of this country first. Hon members of the CP are endangering the security of our country and I say to them today that if by some mischance they should come to power in this country, according to this policy of a hotchpotch of defence forces…

You are talking nonsense!

The hon member must not tell me that I am talking nonsense. The CP said this here today. [Interjections.] That is their policy.

I say to the CP that they will not be able to guarantee the security of the Republic of South Africa because one cannot do this with so many different defence forces, no matter how hard one tries. We are waiting for answers. We want answers from the CP in this regard.

Order! Before I call upon the hon member for Durbanville to speak, I want to point out that the hon member for Meyerton said to an hon member on this side of the House a while ago: “You are afraid”. The hon member must withdraw that remark.

I withdraw it, Mr Chairman.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: While the hon the Deputy Minister was speaking, the hon member for Pietersburg referred to the hon the Deputy Minister and said “You are a disgrace”. Is that permissible?

Order! I shall check on that.

Mr Chairman, as is so frequently the case this afternoon in this House we are again experiencing the phenomenon in this debate that people view a matter from divergent points of departure, but eventually arrive at the same objective. In this regard I am referring specifically to the hon members for Overvaal and Constantia, who this afternoon started out here from totally different points of departure. Eventually they both arrived at the same objective. They denigrated and embarrassed the SA Defence Force through their questions about arms sales on the one hand, and their remarks about so-called integration in the SA Defence Force on the other.

This afternoon I want to state unequivocally that it does not matter whether 99% of the SA Defence Force consists of Whites and 1% of people of colour. We are proud of the entire SA Defence Force. Those soldiers sacrifice their time—and sometimes even their lives—to make South Africa a safe place for its people to live in.

This afternoon I want to touch on something which is spreading like a contagious disease, namely disinformation on the nature, role and behaviour of the SA Defence Force. What terrorists cannot succeed in doing by using weapons, a growing number of refugees and avowed enemies of South Africa are trying to do by using the written and spoken word. The informal press is aimed at casting suspicion on the system in South Africa by means of subtle propaganda. By means of false comparisons with the utopia of communism—as seen through the eyes of the revolutionary—they are trying to encourage the masses to rebellion and lawlessness.

It is the goal of the disseminators of disinformation to represent the SA Defence Force as a cruel, immoral movement, which involves people in its activities under false pretences. The best example of this is the constant efforts of these people to label the Defence Force as waging an armed struggle against the opponents of apartheid. I have proof of this here, but owing to a lack of time I shall not refer to it.

Using this as a point of departure, people are encouraged to refuse to undergo military service because they have religious or political objections. Although the Defence Force makes provision for conscientious objectors, attempts are still being made to involve them unilaterally in disparaging the SA Defence Force. One never hears a word of criticism against the violence of terrorists. They are depicted as heroes in the liberation struggle of the so-called oppressed masses.

National servicemen and their parents are terrified by rumours which are spread that the South African soldiers are being killed in large numbers in battles with the enemy. Our armaments are ostensibly inferior. Another rumour which is making the rounds is that national servicemen are brain-washed to such an extent during training that they undergo an entire personality change, which leads to them acquiescing without any will of their own to everything the Defence Force does.

I merely want to refer to two extracts from the publication Out of Step of August 1987, in which the following is said, and I am quoting:

It goes on to say:

There are accusations that the Defence Force is guilty of treating the so-called oppressed masses with inhuman cruelty. This is aimed at making the masses rebel against the Defence Force’s actions to protect life and property. The objectives of the disinformers which are more frequently expressed in the informal press, are perhaps best described by the editor of New Nation, a certain Mr Zwelakhe Sisulu, who had occasion to say the following, and I am quoting:

The co-editor of Weekly Mail, Mr Anthony Harbour, said the following in an article in The Journalist, and I am quoting:

No further evidence is needed to make one wonder whether the existing defence laws are strong enough to handle this situation. This afternoon I am appealing to the hon the Minister to have the laws which control the informal press thoroughly investigated and to give those laws more muscle so that they can take action against behaviour of this kind by the informal press.

We must not doubt for a moment whom we are dealing with. In Sechaba—this is the official mouthpiece of the ANC—of May 1985, a certain Jordan wrote:

It is clear that these disinformers who use the informal media, are very definitely not operating in a vacuum. Secondly it is also true that these people are definitely not at the service of the democracy of the masses, as it is spelt out. These people are at the service of a specific ideology, which is aimed at eliminating Western values, Western standards and the free-market system in South Africa. It is of no avail for us to win the physical fight on the border; it is of no avail for us to keep the morale of the Defence Force high by equipping them well and so on. If we lose the propaganda war against South Africa we are going to find it difficult to win the total war in South Africa.

This afternoon I want to express the hope that the hon the Minister and his Department of Defence, as well as the Government, will take far stronger steps to combat this evil, which is coming increasingly to the fore. I hope that in the process, no matter what political party we may belong to, we will not use the Defence Force as a political football, but that we will hold the Defence Force’s name high, that we will help to build the morale of the Defence Force by proving in word and deed that we fully support the Defence Force in the performance of its task and its duties.

Order! Before I call upon the hon member for Germiston District to speak, I first want to appeal to hon members, as regards expressions used in interjections, to take note that it is very easy to refer to an hon member in unparliamentary language. I have already given a ruling in this connection where an hon member was specifically referred to in unparliamentary language. The same applies to the expression which the hon member for Pietersburg used a while ago when he said: “You are a disgrace!” The hon member must withdraw that remark.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw it.

Mr Chairman, I take pleasure in speaking after the hon member for Durbanville. I considered saying a few words about the speech of the hon member for Constantia, but I then noticed that the hon member for Yeoville was here. It is therefore not necessary for me to do so.

Before I come back to him, I want to say a few words about the emotional speech of the hon member for Overvaal. In his tribute, and judging by the entire tone of his speech—I am saying this as a retired officer, and I am saying it with great responsibility—he disparaged and, I submit, belittled the role played by people other than Whites. I submit that this was the most irresponsible speech I have ever heard this hon member make, and that is saying a lot. He referred to the not more than 3 000 troops participating in the operations in Angola. Approximately one third of those troops including reliefs, were non-Whites. In addition 65% to 70% of the soldiers in the operational area are people of colour.

Are they fighting for South Africa?

These people are all fighting for our security! Yes, for South Africa.

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

No, Sir, I only have eight minutes. The hon member must resume his seat; he will get an opportunity later.

These people are all fighting for our security; for the security of South Africa. I may now be replying to his question. They are fighting against the combined Marxist enemy. They are also fighting for the security of the CP, and on behalf of everyone on this side of the House I want to thank them for this. As volunteers they are also playing their part to keep South Africa safe for all of us, including the CP. [Interjections.] This does not mean that I do not acknowledge the unique contribution of our White national servicemen. They are our people and our heroes, and I associate myself with everyone who wants to pay tribute to them.

In the limited time to my disposal I should like to turn to an aspect with which I was very closely involved for more than 10 years, namely the propaganda onslaught against South Africa, particularly the SA Defence Force, and the way this is being dealt with. My colleague, the hon member for Durbanville, has already spoken about this with great insight and referred specifically to the kind of propaganda which is used against the security forces. In his speech he also referred to the role of the alternative media. I want to confine myself more specifically to the role of the national or commercial media.

Let me start by saying at once that it always has been and still is my standpoint that as much information must be released as quickly as possible. The fact is that a well-informed public is also a prepared public. However, there are certain limiting factors and problems which we should take proper cognisance of in this House. There are those persons who allege that the South African public is being left in the dark—I think this feeling is very strong among PFP members—while newspapers elsewhere are ostensibly telling the whole story. This afternoon the hon member for Constantia showed how he believed everything which was said against South Africa, and he threw this across the floor. Disinformation is playing into the hands of the enemy. [Interjections.]

The sources of information on military actions and military operations in Southern Africa, are firstly the SA Defence Force, the propaganda agency Angop in Angola, AIM in Mozambique, Ziana, Pana and the local so-called alternative agencies, that have recently emerged. It is actually unfair to the Western news agencies and our own agency Sapa in South Africa to refer to these propaganda agencies as news agencies because they actually operate quite differently.

Essentially these agencies are nothing but State-controlled and State-financed propaganda machines which act in support of military operations and in the propaganda onslaught against South Africa. They are echoed by certain hon members here, and now I am referring specifically to the hon member for Claremont. This means that democratic or free-world states are by definition lagging behind the controlled propaganda being made against them by totalitarian states.

All too frequently the criticism comes from our own ranks that we are losing a propaganda war because the public is not being adequately informed. I frequently hear the argument that we act too reactively and are not always first with the so-called news. I want to tell those prophets of doom that we have the choice of operating at the same level by telling untruths or half truths, or we must tell the truth. I do not think we have a choice. [Interjections.] That hon member had better keep very quiet, because the truth is something quite different to him, and it does not suit us.

I am speaking from years of experience when I say today in this House that it is impossible to predict in advance what the next untruths or half truths are going to be which the propagandists are going to come up with. One cannot even predict what that hon member is going to say.

The frequency of the false reporting is virtually hourly and not simply daily. It is nothing but an orchestrated effort to cast suspicion on the security forces. If we bear in mind that the news agency AIM and some of its stablemates in Southern Africa have part-time USSR staff in their employ to help them, we must realise what this onslaught against us actually involves. These people are well trained members of the KGB who aim their propaganda at the masses and their onslaught is always in support of military operations. Owing to a lack of resources of their own the Western media therefore have to rely on that news which the so-called frontline states want to dish up to the free world.

There is only one way in which this onslaught can be opposed, and this is by telling the truth and giving adequate information from one’s own ranks. For that reason I want to congratulate the hon the Minister and the Chief of the Defence Force on the way in which news regarding South Africa’s involvement in Angola has been announced to the world recently.

The Chief of the Defence Force fully understands the value of providing information, and his sensitivity to this need was tangibly demonstrated in the news statements he made and the news conferences he held recently. In addition to these news statements the Defence Force has a full-time media service lasting 24 hours a day, which is run by expert staff who fully understand the needs of the local media. A media agreement between the hon the Minister and the Press Union of South Africa is being maintained and carried out to the letter. Media bosses and senior Defence Force officers also hold regular meetings during which problems which satisfy the interests of both are discussed and, I submit, solved.

In the short time I still have at my disposal, I also want to give attention to the way in which staff and equipment losses are handled by the South African Defence Force. If we lose an aircraft or a soldier in an operation, this is announced as soon as the next of kin have been informed in a humane way. However, it has been found that the agency Angop increases the number of aircraft and staff tenfold in their propaganda reporting.

Now a new trend has reared its head. The so-called know-alls in the lower ranks of our part-time forces frequently spread rumours which have a particularly demoralising effect. The rumours are that the Defence Force is suffering greater losses than it is admitting. These so-called people “in the know” spread sensational rumours abroad, and are probably doing this not as part of the propaganda war, but simply to cause a sensation and with the object of… [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Germiston District must forgive me for not reacting to his speech. [Interjections.]

When we consider the role played by the South African Defence Force within South Africa’s borders, on the borders and beyond the borders, it is clear that the Defence Force has long ceased to be a force that merely protects South Africa from foreign aggressors.

The fact is that South Africa is increasingly being drawn into a civil war between the State, which is determined to maintain its monopoly and power at all costs, and the majority of South Africans, who want to cast off the yoke of apartheid. In this civil war, unfortunately, the South African Defence Force is unabashedly on the side of the State, who happens to be the aggressor in this case. [Interjections.] Hon members must please be quiet.

That is a blatant lie!

The hon member is free to say so if that is what he thinks. I shall substantiate my statement by referring to three fronts on which the South African Defence Force has been active.

The first front on which the South African Defence Force operates is within South Africa’s borders, where it is increasingly being used by the State in its political struggle against the majority of South Africans. The reckless way in which the State has acted against truly representative leaders and political organisations has closed virtually all other avenues for peaceful protest and political mobilisation by the disfranchised.

You are a half-tamed ANC terrorist!

By using the South African Defence Force to act against the protest and resistance in the Black townships—the direct consequence of this oppression—the South African Defence Force is being irreversibly politicised.

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

I do not have time for answering questions. I am not even talking about the action taken at Kaya Mandi, which has been defended here today.

This is an exercise in muck-raking!

Order!

Oh, let him cackle as much as he likes. He never says anything meaningful anyway. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Durbanville cannot go on making interjections in this way.

The second front on which the South African Defence Force is operating is on the border; that is to say, on the borders of South Africa and South West Africa. The war is primarily a civil war, since the enemy consists of citizens of South Africa and Namibia who have left their countries to bring about peaceful change by making use of all possible avenues. However, those avenues have been blocked by the Government, and they have consequently decided to start using violence against the oppressor. [Interjections.]

That is a lie!

You are talking like a communist!

Those hon members’ protests will not get them anywhere. [Interjections.] These are the facts, and hon members may find out for themselves how they are seen by the majority of South Africans. [Interjections.] The border war against the ANC and the Swapo guerillas will continue until the majority of the people in both Namibia and South Africa have been included in a truly non-racial democratic dispensation.

Order! Hon members must please stop making interjections now and allow the hon member for Claremont to complete his speech. It is not necessary to keep on interjecting.

The SADF’s third front is across the South African and Namibian borders. Here it operates in two ways, either raids across the border in pursuit of the ANC and Swapo guerrillas or in attacks on their bases. As is the case with the first two fronts on which the SADF operates, this operation is also directly linked to the internal political situation in South Africa and Namibia. As long as apartheid domination continues in this country, the ANC and Swapo guerrillas will continue with their attacks from whatever country they find themselves in. That is a fact. We can chase them out of our neighbouring countries, but eventually we will have to chase them out of London. As long as we have this policy in this country there will be guerrillas who will go somewhere from where they can launch attacks on this country. [Interjections.]

But they are terrorists.

Whatever one calls them, they are people who use violence, but they use different names for it. I do not care. They use violence and I reject violence. I will reject it whoever uses it, and I will never support it. [Interjections.]

Secondly, the SADF is also used in the very widespread destabilisation of Southern African states. [Interjections.] Our hon Minister may make noises which are inaudible, but he may enlighten us later.

While such destabilisation is primarily of a military nature in Angola, it is mainly economic in states such as Botswana, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Lesotho and Swaziland.

In an attempt to install a basically pro-South African government in Angola—or at least a neutral one as, I believe, the hon the Minister or the Deputy Minister stated—South Africa has actively assisted Unita, a movement which is using violence and economic sabotage to overthrow the legal government of Angola.

Legal? [Interjections.]

That is the recognised government of that country.

You recognise it. [Interjections.]

Although Unita’s tactics and aim are the same as those of the ANC and Swapo, our Government calls them freedom fighters while the ANC are branded terrorists. I say that that is hypocrisy.

In October 1975 an invading South African force, intent upon overthrowing the MPLA government and installing Savimbi’s Unita, was 200 kilometres from Luanda when Cuban soldiers were brought in to help the MPLA to repulse the South African attack. Since 1975 South Africa has increasingly helped Unita in its attempt to sabotage the Angolan economy and overthrow the government of that country. This has resulted in Angola requesting more Cuban soldiers. If we want Cubans there, let us continue the way we are going now. It is futile to expect the withdrawal of Cubans as long as the SADF remains in Angola and, more importantly, as long as South Africa continues to give Unita support. After all, those are the reasons why the Cubans are in Angola. Without South Africa giving these undertakings, the Cubans will not leave. Today the hon the Minister could possibly tell us what his attitude is—or maybe he wants the Cubans to stay.

Beside military destabilisation, the SADF also used economic sabotage in an attempt to cripple the Angolan economy. [Interjections.] Well, Sir, the hon the Minister will have a chance to speak. He can tell us.

On whose behalf are you speaking? [Interjections.]

In a failed attempt by an SADF commando group to blow up the Angolan oil installations at Cabinda, Capt Wynand du Toit was captured. While ANC and Swapo guerrillas who are trying to do exactly what Capt Du Toit was trying to do, are called terrorists and are charged with treason and sabotage, Capt Du Toit was hailed as a hero by our Government for committing acts of violence against another country, the very same thing that we abhor and which is being done to us by other people such as the ANC. [Interjections.]

Aren’t you ashamed of yourself?

There are many books on this subject in our parliamentary library. I have read recently published books such as Beggar, your Neighbour and Apartheid’s Second Front and others. It is shocking for a South African to have to read detailed accounts of hundreds of different acts of destabilisation committed by South Africa and the Defence Force. [Interjections.]

I challenge the hon the Minister of Defence, if he says this is untrue…

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

No, Sir, I am not answering any questions. I do not have the time. [Interjections.] I challenge the hon the Minister, Sir. These allegations are being made in various books and publications and by many authors all over the world. If he maintains that they are all untrue… [Interjections.] Well, he must tell us. Are we engaged in these actions? Are we or are we not? I do not believe we should use our children—inter alia my son—to perpetrate actions of that nature… [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I sat here in silence and listened to the voice of the ANC, the voice of the SA Communist Party, the voice of the UDF and of all their henchmen as well. [Interjections.]

My constituency, Walvis Bay, is far removed from this motherland. Geographically we form part of South West Africa and we are more attuned to the sound waves there and consequently perhaps have a better understanding of what is going on than the hon member for Claremont. Since a year and a half ago, Walvis Bay has been the point of attack for Swapo cowards who plant bombs there. People have been killed; buildings have been severely damaged. The post office has just been repaired after an explosion in November last year and at about l0h00 yesterday a limpet mine was again discovered in a full post office. Thanks to prompt action by the staff of the post office and equally prompt action by the Walvis Bay SA Police, that bomb was defused 42 seconds before it was meant to explode.

As we express our thanks to those people, I want to express my contempt for the hon member for Claremont.

Hear, hear!

Yes, he deserves it!

The hon member for Claremont did not have the courage to do national service in South Africa; he chose to run away to Holland. [Interjections.] When it suits him, however, he returns to the fleshpots of South Africa. He uses the privilege and the protection of this Parliament to intercede for all South Africa’s enemies.

I really came to the conclusion here today…

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member for Walvis Bay has just said I intercede here for all South Africa’s enemies. [Interjections.]

That is true!

Order!

That is quite correct! [Interjections.]

Order! There is only one Chairman in this House. The hon member for Walvis Bay referred to all South Africa’s enemies. That is a very general reference. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, thank you. I think we have really experienced here today that it is possible to lie scientifically. [Interjections.] He charged to State with suppression.

Order! The hon member must withdraw that statement.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw it.

He lied unscientifically! [Interjections.]

Yes, he is merely unscientific. [Interjections.] He speaks about a true democracy which is being suppressed by the Defence Force in South Africa. He speaks about a legitimate government in Angola. Does the hon member not know that there were three freedom movements in Angola to which the government there was ultimately to be handed over? Does he not know that the present government took over the government in Angola with communist assistance and influence and interference? Does the hon member not know that the present government in Angola is not recognised by the American government? [Interjections.] Nevertheless he speaks about a legitimate government in Angola. I think it is really disgraceful that we in South Africa should be blessed with the presence of hon members of this calibre in our Parliament. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I want to refer to a speech which the hon the State President made on 4 September last year in this House in which he presented a certain ANC document to us. According to that document a certain Mr Budlender, an attorney of the Legal Resources Centre, and a certain Sizulu, the editor of New Nation, said inter alia that they had formed a White ANC coalition grouping here consisting of the PFP, the Black Sash, the End Conscription Campaign and others to serve as a front organisation. While we were listening to the hon member Prof Olivier here today, I was really impressed by the way in which he dealt with matters. But then the hon member for Constantia came forward with his attacks. Just after that we listened to the hon member for Claremont’s tirade. Consequently it is very clear now that this claim is justified, especially as far as some hon members of the PFP are concerned. I am absolutely certain that there are other hon members who differ on this point.

Tell us about the size of your constituency! [Interjections.]

If that hon member looks at his own size, he should fall into a bigger hole. [Interjections.]

I should like to convey the thanks of my constituency to the hon the Minister, the hon the Deputy Minister and our Defence Force for outstanding, splendid service. We are proud of the success they have achieved on the war front. Let us admit here today that it is as a result of successes on the military front that diplomatic dialogue can be conducted today. Without them, it would not have been possible, and we should like to pay tribute to our Defence Force.

Besides the ANC and UDF to which reference has already been made, there is another very dangerous enemy which I should like to expose today. They are the so-called liberation theologians. This is an equally dangerous enemy— clerics who abuse the garb of religion to promote the objectives of the ANC, communism, the UDF and all South Africa’s enemies.

I think that few people actually realise what these theologians have in mind. They change the spiritual message of the Church into a political message. They do not place the focus on God and His commandments and do not endeavour to convert sinful man to God, but are intent on satisfying man in his personal desires, creating expectations in him and are intent on the present and the establishment of a so-called just community—the hon member referred to this too—a democracy in which the masses will have no say in any case. This is the most dangerous heresy which State and Church have had to deal with this century and we shall have to face up to this evil positively and pay positive attention to it.

South Africa must be prepared, and we should also like to hand Armscor a bouquet for what they are doing to keep South Africa prepared. The only insurance policy South Africa will have in the years ahead is a prepared, motivated Defence Force. We take pleasure in wishing the Defence Force everything of the best.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister of Defence once said the following:

These words were said in 1984 and were indeed very prophetic. The grim battles of the Angolan war over the past 13 years are very real in our minds. For those of our beloved sons of South Africa who have not returned and those who came home maimed, their memory and their deeds of gallantry in the defence of our country’s heritage will make our Government all the more determined to succeed in ensuring that all our children’s children live in peace in a developing South Africa.

Let our enemies and the world remember and understand one simple thing. They have not understood the resilience of our South African people, irrespective of race, colour or creed, who abhor and reject violence. There is something else they have also not understood, and that is that our men in uniform have a very special gift, and that is the gift of courage. Their faith, their willpower, their feelings and their loyalty can never be destroyed.

Today I am reminded of that great Greek philosopher Euripides, who wrote the following 2 400 years ago:

This is the epitome of our men in uniform today.

Gen Douglas MacArthur once said: “Skilled officers, like all other professional men, are products of continuous laborious studies, training and experience.” Trained officers constitute the most vital essential in modern war. An army can live on short rations, it can be insufficiently clothed and housed, it can even be poorly armed and equipped, but in action it is doomed to destruction without the trained and adequate leadership of men. Our South African Defence Force has that kind of leadership, men who put our soldiers first above all else, who have the responsibility to care for our soldiers, to lead them in combat, and understand the importance of demanding realistic training, for they know there is nothing they do that warrants unnecessary loss of life. For a leader the bottom line of being unprepared is certain death for his soldiers, an unforgivable sin.

Yes, Sir, our Defence Force is prepared. Let us be under no illusion: In Southern Africa today we face a revolutionary onslaught, an enemy who favours indiscriminate bombings and the laying of landmines as a preferred tactic. The response, therefore, of our security forces to a threat of this sort, can only be effective if they have the support, encouragement and respect of the entire community. As it is, the majority of our men and women in uniform are non-regular and therefore the relationship of the security forces with the wider community is of critical importance in a conflict where the people are the prize and indeed the battleground.

Therefore I say today in this House to the Official Opposition that the article in the Patriot of 6 May headed “Pre-election violence: Is it a coincidence?” reeks of gutter politics. The article exposes the CP for the untenable fact that it is they who seek to politicise our Defence Force, the very organisation which enables them, in security and safety, to practise their mischievous politics. The article abuses the image of our Defence Force and the courage and commitment of our soldiers, our sailors and our airmen, portraying them as political pawns. Our men in uniform are the pawns of no-one. They are too big for that. The article exposes the CP, for whom integrity and ethics have no place. It exposes them as a party which will use any tool, however dishonourable, to make cheap political gain, while our men are fighting and dying for our country.

During my many years of involvement in the Southern Cross Fund as provincial chairman and a member of the executive council, my inspiration was to be found in the work that I was doing. I always remained amazed and humble at the tremendous effort of so many thousands of men and women across the country who identified themselves with our men in uniform, giving of their time, energy and expertise in a voluntary way, representing that ordinary man in the street which has made it possible today for the Southern Cross Fund to become the biggest single donator of funds to our Defence Force and security forces, with R15 million being raised in 20 years. I pay tribute to them.

It is said that the most secret and effective weapon of a country is the morale of its people. Our country has that secret morale. The morale of our national servicemen is high. Validated scientific surveys show that 98% of our national servicemen believe that military training is essential and 91% believe that conscription is necessary for the defence of our country. I continue to have faith in our young men and women of this country.

The following vivid and lasting impression will remain with me forever. During one of my weekly visits to the Wynberg No 2 Military Hospital, a young orderly called me and said that a national serviceman wanted me to be with him. His leg had been amputated and he was having his new leg put on.

I walked into the room, and as I looked at him, before I could say a word, he took my hand and said to me: “Thank you for being here. Thank you for being with me while they are putting on my leg.” Then he said: “I just cannot wait to get back into the Army.”

This simple statement is a lesson from which we all can learn, for such is the motivation and the morale of our national servicemen.

Mr Chairman, firstly I want to make a statement on behalf of the CP.

I want to inform the hon the Minister that unless the hon the Deputy Minister withdraws his accusations about the conduct of CP members on military tours, CP members and their wives will no longer participate in such tours. [Interjections.]

In this debate I firstly want to thank the hon the Minister for having given attention to those who have served in the Defence Force on a voluntary basis, receiving very little remuneration, for example Comdt Clive Derby-Lewis.

Shame on you, Wynand! You are a Deputy Minister.

I am referring, in particular, to people in senior positions in the citizen force and the commandos. [Interjections.]

You have a grotesque face!

On behalf of those who have held a temporary rank for years now, and who have been promoted to a substantive rank I want to thank the hon the Minister…

Order! I did not quite hear what the hon member for Brakpan said to the hon the Deputy Minister, but it did not sound very flattering. What did the hon member say?

Mr Chairman, I said that he had a grotesque face, and I withdraw it. [Interjections.]

Order! I think it is a very outrageous and ugly remark to make. I would be glad if the hon member would not do that sort of thing.

Mr Chairman, I merely want to point out to you that the hon the Deputy Minister—a person who calls himself a Deputy Minister—was taunting me.

Order! I accept that, but I nevertheless want to ask the hon member not to do that. [Interjections.] It is not the first time that hon members have made really unflattering remarks about one another. I cannot expect one hon member not to react if another hon member makes a similar kind of remark. I am asking hon members to maintain the dignity of this House and of the constituencies which are represented here. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I want to finish my sentence by thanking the hon the Minister very sincerely, because we gather that they are now going to obtain the necessary recognition. I wonder how many of the hon members who made such a fuss about this matter— they know precisely who they are—ever completed their national service.

I want to confine myself to border tours, and I hope that in doing so I am not going to be treading on any toes. It makes no difference, however. On behalf of the CP I want to thank the hon the Minister and his Deputy Minister for that. I respectfully want to say that the person I met on those tours, and the one who spoke here this afternoon, are two different people. I am very sorry about that.

I want to thank Genl Geldenhuys, all his generals and his men sincerely for the trouble they took and for the information conveyed to us during our tour last year. This applies specifically to the thoughtfulness displayed to the leader of the CP, and to the continual presence of the hon the Minister and his Deputy during the tour. We really appreciated the thoughtfulness displayed towards our leader during the tour.

That concludes the thank-you part of my speech. I ask myself objectively what exactly I learned about the war on the Angolan border whilst I was there. Except for seeing the facilities in the camps we were at, I gained the impression that large-scale operations were in progress to uplift the Bushmen population at Omega. They are being accommodated there on a large scale. I want to ask the following question: When the war is over—that now seems a possibility—and South Africa’s money is no longer being used to pay the salaries of the Bushmen soldiers there, how are those people going to survive? Will they be in a position to look after themselves? I did not find the answer to that question there.

The hon the Minister recently asked us to keep politics out of the Defence Force. I personally wrote a letter to him about this, because there we saw how integration was being forced down the throats of our White conscripts. They share sleeping quarters with people of colour. Is that really necessary? I am asking the hon the Minister please not to do that.

The next place we visited was Ondangwa. Again it was a question of the upliftment of the Wambos. I should like to express my concern about this, because what is to become of these people when the war is over? Can the South African Government afford to look after them? According to the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs it is not impossible that the Angolan war will shortly be over. What do the hon the Ministers say who are really involved with the war? Who is actually the Minister responsible? We should like to have an answer to that question.

I want to ask the hon the Minister to keep this window-dressing for foreign visitors. I should like to make contact with members of the unit stationed in Middelburg. I think we should all like to talk to the people who are actively engaged in the war. I would very much like to talk to SAI men or any other young men. My conclusions about the tour actually give a distorted picture, because I did not witness actual combat. That was denied me. I think that the actual reason why we went to the border was, after all, to see how the war was being waged. On my return I should have liked to contact the parents of the conscripts and to have told them that their boys were fine. I should have liked to tell them that we were all proud of them.

I had an opportunity to speak to one such person. The parents greatly appreciated the fact that I telephoned them. When I returned home my teenage son asked me what the war was like. My reply to him was: “There is more war on TV than I actually saw.” Could the tours not be more constructive? [Interjections.]

Hon members of the CP were also privileged to undertake a recent tour to Bloemfontein and Kimberley. It really was a privilege and a very singular experience. Such a tour must be made more accessible to people inside South Africa to show them what the Defence Force is doing from the point of view of productivity. It has been proved what one can do on one’s own initiative. We are proud of those men. We thank them for what they did during the flood disaster in the Free State and elsewhere.

That someone can be trained for 13 weeks in Kimberley and then think he is an artisan is a Nothnagel myth.

That was never said!

Let alone such young Coloured boys! Even if they were White, it would have been the same. My question to the hon the Minister is: What becomes of our less intelligent White boys? Can they not be trained too and kept in the Defence Force for two years?

I now come to the last part of my speech. Many years ago I hoped I would one day have an opportunity to express my opinion about this. I never thought I would be able to do so in this Chamber. I want to express my thanks and appreciation to the Southern Cross Fund. I personally think they are doing wonderful work amongst our young men on the border and throughout the country. I do, however, want to express my regret at the fact that all local organisations under the direction of the mayors of various towns have been abolished in those towns where Defence Force units have been established. All contributions must now go to the Southern Cross Fund. This has put quite a damper on people’s interest in this fund. For various reasons local communities regard the Southern Cross Fund with suspicion, but I do not want to go into that.

In my day there were local organisations at Middelburg under the direction of the mayors of the various towns. They did a tremendous amount for these young men. One Christmas in Middelburg the young men of 4 SAI Military Base on the border received parcels each containing nine different items. The value of those parcels was approximately R14. When those young men returned, the women of Middelburg spontaneously decided to bake cakes for them. They planned to bake one cake for every four young men, but ultimately there was one cake for each young man, with quite a bit left over.

During one very cold winter in Middelburg, the young women, under the direction of the mayor’s wife, baked pancakes. The intention was to have three pancakes for each soldier, but ultimately there were seven for each soldier. The spontaneous co-operative effort on the part of the young women was wonderful. Everyone did some baking and helped with the transportation, and for quite a few days these young men really tucked in. On one occasion the whole unit was invited, one Sunday, to be the guests of the various churches in the community. The inhabitants had to apply in advance, indicating whether two, three or four young boys would be coming. The boys were divided up on the basis of their religious affiliations. This cemented wonderful ties of friendship between the young men from all corners of the Republic and the inhabitants of Middelburg. Eventually the inhabitants were talking about “our boys”. There are two requests I want to make. Where military bases are situated near towns, I am asking the hon the Minister to give serious consideration to allowing independent funds to be established so that our young people can be given a good time. In Middelburg this worked very well for some considerable time.

I also have a second request. Why must a bank in Oshakati be blown up before a Swapo or ANC base is wiped out? [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon members of the PFP here to my right have probably had some consolation in the midst of all their frustrations this afternoon. Last year they had to vacate the official opposition benches, but at least they have heard this afternoon that their successors have made a very good job of imitating their boycott approach. [Interjections.]

On behalf of his party the hon member for Middelburg, as solemnly as could be, said that they were now going to boycott us.

[Inaudible.]

I have news for him. Long before he came to the House, the Official Opposition was trying to boycott Government functions. Long before he was here, the previous Official Opposition was trying to boycott various steps being taken on the South African political scene. I want to suggest to him and to his party that they ask the party immediately to their left what became of their boycotting of the President’s Council. [Interjections.] They must ask the PFP to what extent their retrogression can be attributed to their boycott approach.

They cannot spite this Government. This Government was elected to perform a specific task in this country, and it will fulfil that task. The Official Opposition was also elected to perform a specific task, and if it refuses to do so, that is its affair; then it owes its voters an explanation. [Interjections.] I do not intend to discuss politics any further this afternoon, except for this remark I made about the new boycott approach of our new Official Opposition.

I want to refer briefly to the recent conflict in Angola and the losses we suffered there, and here I am referring to our wounded soldiers and the transportation of those wounded soldiers. There are thousands of parental homes in our country which have relinquished a son, a father or a brother to the operational area. It is therefore understandable that there is wide interest in the quality of the medical and psychological care the soldiers receive. I am grateful to the hon member for Langlaagte for already having referred to psychological treatment. I want to focus attention, more specifically, on the medical treatment our wounded soldiers receive.

In every constituency there is great interest in and concern about whether there is quick and effective transportation to convey the sick and wounded to the excellent facilities the Defence Force has at its disposal. In addition the availability of timely medical treatment must not be underestimated as a positive factor in the motivation of our armed forces on the battlefield.

It is therefore with great pride that I can state that the SA Medical Services has succeeded in becoming an organisation that furnishes medical support over a wide front, from initial surgery to overall rehabilitation. It is remarkable, in fact, that in most cases the transportation of combat casualties to points where specialised medical assistance is available takes place more quickly than the transportation of victims of car accidents to hospitals in the RSA. I think we can say, with a great sense of pride, that the treatment of our wounded is amongst the quickest and the best in the world.

I merely want to make a few remarks about they way in which the SA Medical Services operates. During operations it furnishes a comprehensive medical service with a view to successfully supporting tactical operations. In support of this I merely want to mention the following statistics. Within 10 to 30 minutes of being wounded, a member of the force is in the hands of a trained operational medical orderly or even a medical officer.

A wounded soldier needing urgent surgery can be in the hands of a surgeon within 30 minutes to three hours. Here emphasis is placed on the tactical situation. The transportation of casualties from base hospitals in the operational area to 1 Military Hospital takes place in fixed-wing aircraft after the patient has stabilised and is ready for further transportation.

The deployment of elements of the South African Medical Services during operations takes place as follows. At every sub-combat element a medical team is deployed, a team consisting of a medical officer and two operational medical orderlies. Firstly this team is responsible for immediate, life-saving medical treatment; secondly, for the establishment of a medical post in a safe area, depending on the tactical situation; thirdly, for the transportation of casualties from the war zone to the medical post, whether by stretcher or by ambulance and, fourthly, reaching the medical post within 10 to 30 minutes.

At every combat force headquarters a medical headquarters is established and a medical team is deployed. The grouping of these elements consists of a medical commanding officer and staff in command and control of medical teams which are deployed as sub-combat elements. The responsibilities of the medical teams are briefly as follows: The further stabilisation of a casualty and his transportation to a surgical team or to a medical base hospital such as the ones at Rundu and Ondangwa. This transportation takes place by means of Rinkhals ambulances or by helicopter. A surgical team is deployed in accordance with the dictates of the tactical situation.

Such a combat force team consists of a surgeon, an anaesthetist and two theatre orderlies. Transportation from this point takes place as follows. From the medical team to the surgical team transportation takes place by means of a Rinkhals ambulance, and by helicopter from the surgical team to the military base hospital. At the military base hospital further treatment is given, and if surgery is necessary, it is carried out here where the services of a further surgical team are available. Transportation from there to 1 Military Hospital takes place by means of fixed-wing aircraft. At all times the SA Medical Services tries to get a casualty to 1 Military Hospital within 36 to 72 hours so as to allow for more advanced treatment and rehabilitation.

The casualties suffered by the SA Defence Force at the end of last year followed shortly after there was general concern throughout the country about epidemics having broken out and cases of malaria in the operational area. It is a known fact that in most cases infrastructural services seriously disrupt activities in the operational area. This fact should also be linked to the fact that conditions in countries bordering on the operational area are frequently conducive to the spreading of epidemics. In the past few years the SA Medical Services has nevertheless succeeded in developing medical techniques for the control of these conditions, thus being able to prevent large-scale civilian and military staff losses.

One field in which great success has been achieved is that of the combating of malaria in the operational area in South-West Africa. By efficient control measures and discipline, not only has the loss of life been limited, but further outbreaks and the spreading of resistant strains of malaria in Africa have been limited.

I have merely tried to note a few of the achievements of the SA Medical Services in the field of combat casualties and epidemics. That is not all, however. The SA Medical Services is fully aware of the fact that placing thousands of young men in combat conditions can also be psychologically traumatic for those soldiers. Other hon colleagues of mine have already made contributions on that subject, and in any event in that field there is room for a complete speech in itself.

To sum up, I think that in this House we can, on behalf of the next-of-kin of all our soldiers and the South African population as a whole, attest to our pride in the contributions made by the SA Medical Services to the physical and moral welfare of our soldiers, and we are very grateful for that service.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to speak after the hon member for Umlazi. I should like to say something about the discussions that are taking place at the moment with a view to holding full-fledged talks on ending the conflict in Angola.

This is an extremely sensitive matter and it would probably be most unwise to try to conduct a detailed debate on this subject in public at this stage. The fact is, however, that as long as the conflict in Angola continues and no acceptable settlement is reached in South West Africa, there will be a heavy burden on the shoulders of the South African taxpayer. Even more important, under these circumstances the lives of South African young men are constantly in danger.

I find it deeply disappointing, therefore, that in the two or three most recent issues of Patriot in particular, there have been virulent attempts to discredit this peace effort in which the Government is involved. I do not want to enter into a dispute with the CP about this today, but I just want to say that it is a great pity that such matters, which are literally matters of life and death to thousands of South Africans, are being exploited for party-political gain, as we have to some extent seen today in the case of the hon member for Overvaal.

However, I should like to examine a particular aspect of the latest attempts at negotiation, and then I wish to make a few observations about the terms “stabilisation” and “destabilisation”. It is interesting that talks about this conflict should be receiving so much attention again at this particular stage. At the end of 1980, too, talks and discussions about this conflict were receiving a great deal of attention, and this led to the UN’s so-called pre-implementation conference in Geneva.

†It is ironic that, as then, we are now coming to the end of a term of office of one American administration and are on the verge of the start of a new administration. Luckily, during 1980-81 we were experiencing the end of the Carter administration, which was replaced by the more realistic approach of the Reagan administration. One of the problems of the Geneva talks was the realisation that the American policy of one day would be forgotten history only a few days later.

We are in the same situation again. There is total uncertainty as to whether American policy and maybe even guarantees of now will be the same and be honoured a year from now. In fact, indications are that if a Democratic president is elected, we will see a return to the old Carter policy in our part of world, despite the fact that it failed dismally the first time around. This characteristic of the uncertainty and unreliability of American administration is almost as big a threat to the stability in our region as the presence of Russian proxy forces and advisers.

While South Africa is often accused of destabilising the region, the fact is that we are the only stable and dependable force on this subcontinent, and even beyond. If the so-called superpowers stop making Southern Africa its playground, they will find that South Africa and its neighbours will arrive at a solution to their problems a lot sooner.

*The accusations that South Africa is destabilising the region are a perverse distortion of the truth which is intended to camouflage the motives of the superpowers themselves, or the failures of some of our neighbouring states themselves. Stability in this region is in fact in South Africa’s own interest. Evidence of South Africa’s practical constructive involvement in African countries far beyond our borders is surfacing everywhere. Let us mention a few examples.

I quote from a recently published article written by Dr Leisner:

Are these the actions of a country intent on destabilising its neighbouring states? I think it is important to realise that the South African Defence Force is not averse to these attempts to bring about stability or peace. The SADF is in fact a part of this strategy and it provides a security umbrella within this region under which stability, growth and progress can be brought about. At the same time, however, it must be realised that South Africa’s primary duty is to protect its own interests by maintaining internal stability in order to ensure growth and development within the country. For this reason, those of South Africa’s neighbouring states that train and harbour terrorists must know that if a choice has to be made between their stability and the stability of South Africa, they will take second place.

Mr Chairman, I gladly speak after the hon member for Springs, and before I get around to the Official Opposition, I should like to make a few remarks about the nature of revolutionary warfare.

The fundamental view of Mao Tse-tung, one of the architects of such warfare, was that power grew out of the masses and could only be sanctioned by the masses. He said that their support and co-operation, whether active or passive, was a precondition for success in any revolutionary struggle. Just as water is absolutely fundamental to the existence of fish, the masses are essential to the survival of revolutionaries. Through the indoctrination and mobilisation of the masses one creates a sea in which the enemy ultimately drowns. He was responsible for the essential linking up of guerilla warfare to political, ideological, social, economic, cultural and psychological elements, creating an effective weapon for toppling governments and subverting the existing social order.

The revolutionary’s foremost objective is to cause a rift between the authorities and the population, a rift which must then give rise to uncertainty and a lack of faith in the government, so that people begin to feel insecure. Then the revolutionary, with his alternative structures and systems, emerges as the alternative protector of the inhabitants. If sustained pressure is exerted on the population over a long period, the moderates start to give in and to look for the source of the violence, the authorities ultimately being blamed for it. In South Africa it is a known fact that the long-term objective is the violent overthrow of the Government, its temporary replacement by a so-called Black majority government, and the ultimate establishment of a communist system of government. The immediate short-term objectives are aimed at making the country ungovernable and making the new constitutional dispensation unworkable through a process involving the organisation, intimidation, politicisation and influencing of the population.

In South West Africa, too, the population is the target of atrocities committed by Swapo. We are in the process of winning against this revolutionary struggle in this territory too, however, because the security forces have come to the fore as the protector, help-mate, educator, ally and true friend of the people. The security forces in the north of South-West Africa are referred to as “Totokela”—the man who helps his friend out of a pit—because they have made a supportive contribution to the overall prosperity of the population in the fields of education, agriculture, medicine, administration, etc. Thus we are also in the process of winning the struggle in the Republic of South Africa, because a counter-revolutionary struggle can only succeed if stability—ie the creation of law and order—normality and development can be brought about.

It is an misconception that the Official Opposition has of the standpoint, however, and I am referring to the Patriot of 5 February 1988, from which I should like to quote:

Mr Chairman, firstly I want to refer to the contention that bribery is involved here. Then I should like to know from the hon member for Overvaal whether he, as the Official Opposition’s chief spokesman on Defence, could inform us whether the Patriot is alleging that the SA Defence Force is engaged in bribery and whether the Patriot’s allegation boils down to the South African Government being engaged in bribery in the north of South-West Africa.

Are you saying that I said there was bribery? [Interjections.]

I am asking the hon member to give us an answer to this question. The Patriot says that what we are doing in the north of South-West Africa is nothing short of bribery, and I want to know from the hon member for Overvaal who is bribing whom. Who are the ones doing the bribing? The Defence Force or the Government?

You see, Sir, they cannot reply to this question. If they were to say the Defence Force was doing the bribing—which they are not prepared to say— they know that they will lose the loyalty of the Defence Force. They also know that we would object to that in the strongest possible terms. If they were to say that the South African Government was doing the bribing, they know—the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition also knows—that they participated in Mr Vorster’s decision in 1975 to have teachers and officials made available in Ovamboland, at Mr Ndjoba’s request, to help with the training of his people. If it is therefore alleged that people were being bribed, I am saying that they had a hand in it.

A further blunder is their statement that this philosophy of counter-revolutionary warfare has never succeeded anywhere in the world. What about the Philippines between 1946 and 1954? What about Malaya between 1948 and 1960? What about Kenya and the Mau-Mau between 1952 and 1956 where the fusion of military and political action specifically ensured the Government of victory?

Where the revolutionary strategy did not succeed was where the military aspect was over-emphasised. That was not the case in Cuba, in IndoChina and in China alone, but also in Southern Africa—in Angola, Mozambique and Zimbabwe. This afternoon the Official Opposition expressed its adulation for the hon member Mr Clive Derby-Lewis. He was the one, however, who said that Rhodesia had been sold down the river by Mr John Vorster. That was what he said in 1985. According to him, that supposedly took place while he was still a member of the Transvaal Provincial Council, while his present hon leader was still sitting on this side of the House.

There is another allegation that is made, and that is that Gen Lloyd supposedly said, and I quote:

I am now asking the hon member for Overvaal whether they have cleared up this matter with Gen Lloyd. I cleared up this matter with Gen Lloyd. He said that with that remark he had never meant that the South African Government was hampering the security forces in the performance of their task in the north of South-West Africa. What is more, both the hon member for Overvaal and the hon member for Soutpansberg were in the Northern Transvaal when Gen Lloyd said that 20% of the struggle was military and 80% non-military. Why did they not disagree with him at the time? When he was commander of the territory force in South-West Africa, the same Gen Lloyd was specifically implementing this policy which embodied a military, counter-revolutionary philosophy. He also did so in the Northern Transvaal, and surely we can see what the positive results were in Lebowa where, specifically as a result of the non-military 80%, we succeeded in winning the revolutionary struggle.

There is no substitute for good government. Even if Swapo were completely destroyed militarily, we would still only have won 20% of the battle, with 80% of the battle still remaining to be won. The question in every revolutionary struggle is whether the welfare authorities and the politicians win their part of the struggle, which is 80% of the battle. The Defence Force can support welfare bodies and buy time for politicians, but ultimately the solution is a political solution, and if that solution is not found, that is specifically one of the factors restricting the Defence Force, which has to carry out its military task. I find it lamentable that one of our generals should so unjustifiably be singled out in a political newspaper such as that propaganda pamphlet of the CP. We have the utmost respect and regard for him—not only because of what he did in South-West Africa, but also for what he did in the Northern Transvaal; not only for the Defence Force, not only for the CP, but also for the whole of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, it is a singular honour and privilege for me to speak after the hon member for Vryburg. I want to congratulate him on the positive and constructive attitude he displayed and on the high standard of his speech. At a later stage I shall be referring to certain aspects he mentioned. What is more, I shall only be replying to hon members’ questions and requests at the end of this debate.

Out the outset I want to associate myself with hon members who paid tribute to those men in uniform who paid the ultimate price, in South-Eastern Angola, for the peace, security and tranquility of mind we have here in South Africa, allowing us to sit peacefully here in this Parliament with its three Chambers and debate the future of South Africa. We lost 31 men there, men who, in their loyalty and devotion to their task, died for South Africa. I also pay tribute to those people who have paid the ultimate price elsewhere in the operational area and here in South Africa whilst doing their duty fighting the enemies of this subcontinent.

Once more, on behalf of the Government, I express my deep sympathy to their parents, wives, families and friends. The spirit in which our members accept these losses, and the way in which they have come to terms with them, attest to the resolve, on the part of South Africans, to stay in this country and to fight if they must. For a home to lose a husband or a son leaves a vacuum—I actually want to say a vacuum that cannot be filled—but the knowledge that that husband or son made the ultimate sacrifice in the service of his fatherland is a firm anchor in the storm. I thank those who have suffered losses for their understanding. I wish them grace and strength from above.

Let me convey my thanks and congratulations, and that of the Government, to Armscor and the South African Defence Force on a further successful period of service to the country and the State. I think that everyone in this Parliament realises what loyal and brilliant service these two members of the Defence family have rendered to South Africa.

I want to begin by making a few remarks about Armscor. Comdt Piet Marais—he has now become Dr Marais after having been honoured by the University of Stellenbosch—and his staff deserve special praise and appreciation for a success story unique in the annals of South Africa. In an extremely brief period of only 11 years South Africa has developed an armaments industry which manufactures complex weapons systems comparable to the best in the world. Under the direction of Armscor the arms industry, which commenced operations in 1977, has grown into an industrial giant. At present Armscor has an annual turnover of R3 000 million, the corporation being the country’s major exporter of manufactured goods.

In March of this year, for the third time, approximately 150 of Armscor’s products were seen at the international military exhibition in Chile. Four new products were exhibited, ie the V3C, a data missile system; the Seeker, a reconnaissance aircraft; the Jakkals, a vehicle for paratroopers and the Valkyrie 5, a rocket system. The South African armaments industry attests to the ingenuity, scientific expertise and dedication of many South Africans.

A characteristic of the success of this industry over the past 11 years is, of course, the close co-operation between the public and the private sectors. Here I am referring specifically to what the hon member Prof Olivier referred to, ie the privatisation of Armscor. Approximately 70% of Armscor’s budget is allocated to subcontracts handled by the private sector. More than 900 companies are involved, providing work for more than 60 000 people. Armscor and its partners in the private sector have indicated how, in spite of the renewed threats by those advocating sanctions, South Africans can face the future with confidence. I want to tell the hon member that the reason why there have been no widely publicised statements about the privatisation of Armscor is because Armscor had already commenced with privatisation before the idea of privatisation had been popularised in South Africa.

This brings me to the South African Defence Force. At the very outset let me sincerely thank and congratulate Gen Jannie Geldenhuys and his high-ranking officers on the excellent work they have done. In the history of the South African Defence Force the 1987-88 period will be designated as one of the highlights. It was a period of fantastic achievements. I am referring to the South African Defence Force’s limited involvement in South-Eastern Angola in support of Dr Savimbi’s Unita. The South African soldier and his equipment have been a credit to South Africa. The South African Defence Force’s image as an efficient, purposeful and formidable fighting force was reconfirmed. There were achievements which have echoed to the four corners of the world. One sees this in the negotiations now taking place on Angola and South West Africa/Namibia. This has nothing to do with the shocking headline I saw in the Patriot: “Swart Suidwes is prys vir Kubane uit Angola”. I have just told hon members what the price is and how we have managed this, ie with the South African Defence Force.

In about November of last year events in South-Eastern Angola had the South African Government facing two options, ie that of allowing the communist surrogate forces and the Fapla army to destroy Unita or of trying to help Unita with South African forces. Faced by these choices, the Government decided on the latter. If we had decided on the former, Unita could have been brought to its knees. That would have cleared the way for the infiltration of communist forces, the ANC and Swapo terrorists into South West Africa/Namibia’s whole northern and eastern territory. These forces of violence and terrorism could then have spilled over into Botswana and further into the neighbouring states in Southern Africa, even bringing them to within striking distance of the Transvaal.

Our policy is not one of interference in the domestic affairs of other countries, but when we are asked to ensure Africa’s freedom against the tyrannies of foreign oppressors, we must heed the call. Thus we protect and serve our own interests, and I am respectfully saying this to the hon member for Constantia who still seems to be in the dark about why we are in Angola. The offensive launched against Unita last year is a striking example of Soviet-supported expansionism. It was aimed at the complete subjugation of the people of Angola and Southern Africa.

The major part of Angola was transformed into a desolate, empty and broken country, with indescribable human suffering and hardship. The landscape is strewn with sophisticated armaments abundantly provided by communist countries, but there is no food and no roubles with which to buy food. It is in this tragic landscape that Dr Savimbi offers hope to the people of Angola. He is fighting for freedom, democracy and civilised values in Angola.

It is against this background that the Government chose the second option. In doing so it did, in fact, put the interests of South Africa and the subcontinent first. With the directive given to the SA Defence Force it has irrefutably proved that it can be trusted with the security and the interests of South Africa. For a long time to come stories will be told of our men’s achievements in the role they played in support of Unita and the action they took in conjunction with Unita. Thus the hostile Fapla forces suffered estimated losses of between 7 000 and 10 000, their losses in armaments totalling more than $1 billion.

What should be realised, and said out loud, is that at no time did the SA Defence Force have more than 3 000 soldiers in Southern Angola. I do not think the hon member for Constantia should read everything he sees, and speak here in Parliament about everything he reads, because that is the way disinformation is disseminated in this country. If he does not know what to do, my door is always open to any hon member of this Parliament, and if there are any doubts or rumours, he is welcome to come and discuss matters with me. He must not use this platform, however, to broadcast dissatisfaction and uncertainty to the South African public. [Interjections.]

It is a fact that the SA Defence Force could have achieved its objectives more quickly than was the case. Let me say at once that capturing Cuito Cuanavale never was an objective and is not a present objective, as some newspapers speculated at one stage. In this kind of war one does not occupy an insignificant little town which, from a tactical point of view, is also poorly situated. By the way, in one of our morning newspapers I see that the Cubans are now issuing medals to their soldiers who served in Cuito Cuanavale. That is a surprise to me, because they were there for such a short time, before they hastily left, that I would rather have handed those medals to the Fapla soldiers.

The Defence Force could have achieved its goals much more rapidly, but in the specific circumstances that was not done. The reason for that is that the SA Defence Force gives priority to safeguarding the lives of the soldiers. That is the Defence Force’s top priority. That is why no unnecessary risks were taken. Moreover, Únita also had to be given sufficient time to dig itself in permanently and firmly in certain strongholds, thus enabling it to counter new enemy offensives.

Our involvement in Angola had positive results. I shall name of few of these. Firstly it exposed the cowardly conduct of the Cubans. In the heat of battle they left the Angolan forces in the lurch, and that is a message that has travelled the length and breadth of Africa. The Cubans cannot be trusted. Their actions have shown Africa that it can get along without them.

Secondly Unita’s bargaining power in Angola has indisputably been increased. It is active throughout Angola and is a military and political factor to be reckoned with.

Thirdly the South African Government has unequivocally indicated that under no circumstances will it allow Marxist forces to destabilise Southern Africa.

Fourthly Marxist expansionism in Southern Africa has been dealt an effective blow.

Lastly, our armaments now carry the “battle-proven” warranty. Such quality and efficiency certainly constitute a marketing benefit. Our armaments have been tested in battle and found suitable.

The SA Defence Force and its men deserve to be complimented. They deserve to be commended for the task they have performed so excellently. Instead of looking askance at the conduct of the Defence Force, particularly in cross-border operations, the Defence Force ought to be complimented.

Before I make a few announcements, I should like to congratulate the designated Chief of the Air Force, Gen Jan van Loggerenberg, and the new Surgeon-General, Gen Leon Knobel, on their appointments. I wish them everything of the best. I also want to express a particular word of thanks to Gen Dennis Earp and Gen Nickel Nieuwoudt. This is also a fitting occasion to say that they furnished excellent service in their respective fields.

This brings me to a few announcements in connection with the Defence Force. The first announcement concerns a new Defence headquarters. There have already been many reports about this popping up in the media. The establishment of a new DHQ will increase the efficiency of the command and control of the SA Defence Force, which in turn will result in higher productivity. I heard an hon member of the Official Opposition saying that high productivity was important. The present DHQ in Potgieter Street, Pretoria, came into being with the establishment of the old Transvaal State Artillery during the last decade of the previous century. Since the time of President Kruger that building complex has accommodated military personnel. Some of the buildings have been declared national monuments.

Over the years, owing to the development of the SA Defence Force’s activities, increasing use has inevitably had to be made of additional accommodation. This has led to the rental of essential office accommodation in the Pretoria business centre. At present divisions of Defence headquarters occupy 62 000 square metres of office space in 16 buildings all over Pretoria. The need for a new main complex was identified as far back as the early sixties. As a result of more urgent operational priorities this need could not, as yet, be met. We have now reached a stage, however, at which the erection of a new DHQ can no longer be postponed.

It goes without saying that the widely scattered buildings at present complicate security arrangements and involve much greater costs. Security is now extremely important, particularly as a result of the ANC’s onslaught on South African Defence Force buildings and facilities. A good example of this is the car bomb which exploded in front of the Airforce headquarters on 20 May 1983.I could mention numerous other examples.

The new complex chiefly embodies office accommodation for the various staff divisions of Defence headquarters. The new complex is planned for the northern slopes of Magasynheuwel. The floor area is approximately 80 000 square metres. The intention is to complete this phase of the development by the end of 1993. After the completion of the project the present building will be used as the Army headquarters.

My second announcement concerns the Danie Theron Military College at Kimberley. The training function of the Danie Theron military school will be transferred to the infantry school at Oudtshoorn with effect from 1 January 1990. The benefits inherent in this—apart from those involving the hon member for that area—are that the military expertise of the infantry school and the Danie Theron military school can be augmented, thus directly benefiting both the commandos and the citizen force organisations. In future no distinction will be drawn between the training of permanent force, citizen force and commando infantrymen. The training and accommodation facilities in Kimberley have become inadequate. It would be cheaper to move the unit than to erect new facilities. This relocation has already been communicated and explained to all commandos and commando group commanders by the Chief of the Army.

That brings me to the following matter, ie the task of the SA Defence Force. Against the background of South Africa’s success in Angola, I now want to make a few remarks about the Defence Force and what it does. The Defence Force is an organisation serving South Africa. In the Defence Act the tasks of the SA Defence Force are also spelled out. Briefly the Defence Force is there for the defence of the Republic, for the prevention or suppression of terrorism, for the prevention or suppression of local unrest, for the preservation of life, health and property or for the maintenance of essential services. These directives involve tangible tasks.

As a result it is easy for the Defence Force to be perceived as an organisation which is merely there to offer territorial protection, or an organisation whose activities are limited to the protection of our borders or to the suppression of internal unrest or riots.

This perception or impression, however, is an oversimplification. In essence a defence force is there to safeguard and defend people. The safeguarding of a country also means the safeguarding of people and their norms and value systems. Without people a state’s territory becomes a meaningless piece of land.

With this as a premise, it is essential to ask what the SADF is fighting for and why it engages in specific operations. In that connection there are a few fundamental matters which have to be accepted as realities.

South Africa has a civilisation which has been built up over the centuries. Those principles and value-systems may not be jeopardised. If they were to collapse, South Africa would go the way of Africa—the way of human suffering and deprivation under a power clique. That is what the revolutionaries, the terrorists and those who plan behind the scenes—the enemies—want for South Africa too. I shall come back to that subject at a later stage.

South Africa made a choice, and that was to move into a post-apartheid era in terms of a model reflecting the orderly broadening of the democratic base. In the process the diversity in South Africa must be acknowledged and respected. That also means, as the hon the State President indicated in the discussion of his Vote, that the existence and the spiritual assets of all the population groups should be recognised. That is the Christian point of view, and that is part and parcel of South Africa’s future planning.

South Africa’s defence family must take this future planning into account. It must be sensitive to that planning. It must prepare itself to keep up with it and to make the future a reality. In the process it is not the task of the SADF or Armscor to impose a specific political model on the country. What is, in fact, involved is the safeguarding of a specific political attitude or orientation, and that is democratic government and the development of such government. This attitude or orientation I am speaking about emphasises the following aspects. Firstly it proceeds from specific civilised norms which must be able to meet the requirements of the times.

Secondly the SA Government has, in principle, adopted a course which must lead to the broadening of the democratic base. The realities of our situation attest to the fact that this is a process requiring both time and patience. There is no short cut to an instant democracy.

Thirdly we are living in a country with a heterogeneous population. Joint loyalties are not self-generating. Nor do they pop up overnight. They must grow, and that is a slow process.

Lastly our population structure, which consists of First-World and Third-World components, also demands patience. A portion of our population are moving with the computer into the 21st century. On the other hand, a large portion of our population have not yet properly found their feet in the 20th century.

These realities are not mere political fabrications. They are established realities which have an influence on the development and extension of the democratic base. As part of the overall machine of State, the SADF must gear itself to these realities. That is why, as far as the SADF is concerned, it is not a question of forcing certain political models onto a country and its people.

Columnists and political commentators who are so quick to refer to a so-called approaching or creeping coup d’etat would do well to pay attention to this. The Defence Force does not force specific views onto the country. That is not its raison d’etre. As a service organisation, however, it can and must help shape the scene and create a climate within which values and norms can develop or evolve to the benefit of all citizens.

It is against this background of confirmed realities and truths about South Africa that the SA Defence Force must justify its handling of the conflict. This matters requires exceptionally clear thinking and long-term vision. The reason is simple: South Africa is facing a revolutionary onslaught in virtually every sphere of life, and in this onslaught terrorism plays a major role.

A few basic facts must once more be examined. The news on television and in other media indicates that throughout the world, from the West Bank to Panama and from Northern Ireland to South Africa a Stone Age has once more set in. Stones, as harbingers of violence, have once more come upon the scene, and stone-throwing has become a daily occurrence. To tell the truth, there are some hon members who think it is a national sport.

Stone-throwing so frequently goes hand in hand with the destruction of property, as do car bombs, petrol bombs and land-mines. Those are the weapons of aggressors, but alas also the new symbols of liberation in our modem civilisation. Those are the weapons of revolutionaries and terrorists. Revolutionaries direct their acts of terrorism against the population. They do not primarily pit themselves against the Defence Force or the Police; no, they pit themselves against John Citizen.

That is why we find ourselves waging undeclared war for the minds of men. What is involved here is the destruction of human values and political systems and the establishment of revolutionary political and other systems here in the RSA. The polls are being replaced by car bombs and political meetings by necklace murders and burning petrol. Revolutionaries do not seek peace or real negotiation or discussion. I am sorry the hon member for Claremont is not here to listen to this now, because this relates to the questions he asks each and every day. [Interjections.] Revolutionaries seek surrender, control and power. They do not seek peaceful coexistence and co-operation.

This striving for control and power, however, comes in a pious semantic disguise. The system which is held up for inspection is tinted with fine-sounding words, and unfortunately many South Africans are taken in by this picture. They are mislead by words whose actual meaning is hidden.

The nature of the conflict in South Africa is superficially hidden and is explained by oversimplified statements which divide participants into two categories, ie those for and those against apartheid. All those who declare themselves opposed to apartheid are given the commendable qualification of belonging to the so-called “anti-apartheid forces”, which supposedly strive to achieve a “non-racial democracy”. I see the hon member for Randburg is listening.

These contrived perceptions of the problem of conflict are a farce and give no indication of the true state of affairs. As I have said, the Government’s standpoint is one involving the broadening of the democratic base. In opposition to this there is a whole group of organisations, some with overseas support, which actively strive to achieve a “non-racial democracy” in South Africa. Last year we saw full-page advertisements in which the so-called “non-racial democracy” was defined as a “people’s democracy”. That appeared, for example, in the Cape Times of 26 June 1987. I am not sure whether the hon member for Randburg was not also involved in placing this advertisement.

The marketing of the so-called “people’s democracy” or an ethnic democracy in South Africa is the starting point of the conflict situation. Last year in this House, and in the other two Houses as well, I spoke extensively about this so-called ethnic democracy and its relationship to the ANC’s Freedom Charter. For the record I want to clarify a few main points once more.

The concept “people’s democracy” is not a Western term and is unequivocally defined by the communists. An ethnic democracy is the opposite or the antithesis of what is regarded as a democracy in the civilised world.

The concept “people” does not denote the everyday concept of “people” encountered in the civilised world. These “people” are members of a power clique. They are the elite. They are the top structure which manipulates the masses. The Great Soviet Encyclopaedia defines this concept in the following terms:

The word “people” occurs 26 times in the Freedom Charter. It would be meaningless to give an explanation of all the meanings here, because what it repeatedly comes down to is the act of misleading the South African public and misdirecting international opinion. If this were to be implemented in South Africa, the electorate would only have the “wonderful” choice of voting “yes” or “no” in the election—only for a candidate of the SA Communist Party and the ANC alliance. It would make a complete farce of an election as we know it. That is a point the hon member for Randburg would do well to take note of. He advocates a “people’s democracy”—he is on record in Hansard as having done so. I put a question here and he answered in the affirmative.

In ANC terms the “people’s democracy” presupposes a two-phase revolution which they derived from Lenin. The first phase implies a broad united front against the Government. In this phase the ANC is at the helm with the Freedom Charter as its banner. They present it as their textbook. They try to persuade the population that the Freedom Charter is the ultimate goal. That is not so. In referring to “they”, I am not referring to the hon member for Randburg, but to the ANC. Once this first phase has been successful, they proceed directly to the second phase. In this phase the SA Communist Party consummates the socialist revolution with an ultimate Marxist South Africa as the ideal.

In this struggle the ANC and the SA Communist Party have an inextricable bond of co-operation, with joint ideals and objectives. Because the ANC has been instructed to unite all groups opposed to the Government, it has to fabricate a so-called loose alliance under a fine-sounding name which would not offend anyone; low and behold, the birth of a “non-racial democracy”!

The above-mentioned facts have not been plucked out of thin air; they come from the documents of the ANC. It is a pity the hon member for Claremont is not here either, because at the moment he is moving much closer to the hon member for Randburg. The time has come in South Africa for us to take note of the fact that words have lost their meaning and that the same word has different meaning for different people or groups. I want to give hon members a very good example of this. When the CP speaks of integration, it is speaking of something quite different to what the NP means by integration. They are speaking at cross-purposes. One can no longer speak in isolation of concepts such as “democracy” and “the right to self-determination”. These concepts have to be linked to specific political systems of thought.

That is one of the reasons why the South African Defence Force and other departments regard it as their duty to inform parents and members of the general public continually about the nature, the scope and the essence of the revolutionary onslaught. That is why, in particular, members of the study committees of this House also continually receive information. Circumstances require an awareness of the fact that a revolutionary war cannot be won overnight. Patience is required. It requires determination and the ability to think creatively, to find new avenues of thought. In winning the revolutionary war it is therefore not merely a question of using violence; in essence what is involved is the improvement of the quality of people’s lives through the granting of housing, job opportunities, educational opportunities, etc. The time has come for all South Africans to have another good look at this terrorist war.

It is an onslaught in the face of which we may not relax our vigil. It is an onslaught by which we may not allow ourselves to be misled.

In this House today I want to refer to a recent book in which an incisive analysis of the whole phenomenon is given. I am very sorry the hon member for Houghton is leaving now, because I am going to refer to her. The book is called Terrorism: How the West can win. It was compiled by ambassador Benjamin Nattanyou who served in the Israeli defence force. I think this book should be compulsory reading for every South African who is serious about the war against terrorism. The book is the result of a series of conferences held in America and Israel under the direction of the Jonathan Institute. The book defines the role of the terrorist in society as follows, and I should like this to be conveyed to the hon member for Claremont:

Terrorism is defined as follows:

This exposition is a definition of unadorned international terrorism. It could equally have been a factual description of South Africa’s harassment by terrorism. The recent attack across the Limpopo from Zimbabwe, the bomb in the Oshakati bank and the Krugersdorp bomb attack are textbook examples of the kind of thing mentioned in this book.

It is time we in South Africa used these basic concepts with greater clarity. The media also refer too often to the ANC and Swapo as insurgents or guerrillas. Our media and members of the public should realise that the ANC and Swapo make use of techniques of international terrorism and that they are terrorist organisations. We must not confuse terrorists with guerrillas, and in this book the following distinction is drawn:

Here I should like to underline the following sentence: “More often than not they hide behind civilians.” I am emphasising these words because I shall be referring to them once more at a later stage.

Mr Speaker, my sincere thanks; and I think it is now a suitable time to adjourn.

Business interrupted.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, this is an appropriate occasion on which to congratulate the hon the Minister on his appointment. One has problems here and there with the portfolios that are changing so quickly. When one looks up the hon the Minister’s portfolio in Hansard, it is still given as the Minister of the Budget and Welfare in the House of Assembly. That is just incidental, however. I want to congratulate the hon the Minister sincerely on his appointment to this post. There must be millions of people in the Public Service for whose welfare the hon the Minister is responsible.

Incidentally, since rugby tours to this country are so scarce these days, perhaps the hon the Minister should consider arranging a rugby match between the House of Assembly, the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Fish River must please contain himself. I have been trying to get hon members to lower their voices, and now this hon member is talking most loudly of all. The hon member for Outeniqua may proceed.

This reminds me of an incident that took place in the dining room this afternoon, but I shall leave it at that.

I merely wanted to say that if we arranged a rugby match between the three Houses, we would have a multiracial team and then we could play.

“Vat horn Dawie”! [Interjections.]

Order! I merely want to tell the hon the Minister that apparently that is the price famous people have to pay.

It was with great interest that cognisance was taken of the progress the Commission for Administration is making in eliminating disparity. Positive attention has been given to this aspect since the beginning of the eighties, and the situation has changed significantly. In an earlier annual report, the Commission for Administration mentioned that all disparities between population groups would be eliminated with effect from 1 March 1988. In addition the report said that that would truly be a milestone in the history of the Public Service. If this does happen, the responsible people must be praised for their efforts in this connection.

Mr Chairman, we may have come here to praise what is being done in the Public Service, but one must also look at what is really happening and at things that still exist in the Public Service. It is no secret that all population groups can make use of benefits in the Public Service these days. Public Service bursaries are freely available, for example. Let us see what happens to non-classified posts in the Public Service, however. The report I referred to contains statistics in Government departments in respect of labourers, educationists, nursing staff, services and others. It appears that 62 548 out of a total of 151 948 people work in the Public Service as labourers. If one goes on to analyse the figures, and looks at the various population groups, the figures are as follows: 1 150 White labourers, 11 912 Coloureds, 500 Indians and 48 986 Blacks are employed by the Public Service.

Why has this subject been addressed? On numerous occasions a particular Minister has indicated that this question should be discussed when the Commission for Administration Vote comes up for discussion. If we look at the level of employment, there are different designations for the same kind of work. I want to mention an example. In the Department of Environment Affairs there is the designation of “foreman” when the post is filled by a White man, and as soon as someone of another colour is appointed to such a post, another designation is used, in this case “leading hand”. There is a difference in salary when it comes to the different designations. That is why I find it rather strange when it is said that no disparities exist in the Public Service any more. Why then are the designations changed to create disparities once again? No White man is appointed to the post of “leading hand”; he is appointed to the post of “foreman”.

A further practical example is the designation of “storeman” which applies to Whites. The designation for a non-White person is “general assistant”. The Coloured general assistant does the work of a storeman. In his turn he gets an assistant. The conditions of service for the posts are identical, but the salary differs because the designations differ. The hon the Minister’s predecessor will remember that the Public Service League addressed him in this connection on a number of occasions. These differences in designation exist in various departments. As I have said, it will be a happy day when no disparities or discrimination exist in the administration of the country. We cannot boast in our annual reports— in black on white—that this is the case when it does not happen in practice yet. When one listens to the grievances that still exist after the Public Service League has addressed the hon the Minister, one realises that this phenomenon is still found in every Government department.

I request today that this practice be stopped. For the sake of an effective national administration and for promotion in the non-classified posts in the Public Service, we request that those adjustments or the removal of those designations take place as quickly as possible.

I think the hon the State President and the hon the Minister’s predecessors have replied on numerous occasions to questions to determine whether or not people of colour can serve on the Commission for Administration. It is probably common knowledge that members of the Commission for Administration have to be appointed by the hon the State President. It is probably also common knowledge that one has to hold a certain post before one can come into consideration for nomination as a member of the Commission for Administration.

Order! Hon members must please help us by lowering their voices. The hon member may proceed.

It is true that nominations for members of the Commission for Administration come from the ranks of Directors-General. If this practice continues, it does not look as though a member of any other population group will have the chance to serve on the Commission for Administration within the foreseeable future.

I want to refer briefly to a report that appeared in Rapport about the salaries of members of the Commission for Administration. I quote from Rapport of 10 April 1988, in which mention is made of members of the Commission for Administration:

The report goes on. Could it be that people of colour are excluded because we cannot reach that salary scale? [Interjections.] I think that when it comes to a sound national administration, one must take a person’s competence into account. I am not asking the hon the Minister today to moderate the conditions when people are appointed as members of the Commission for Administration. What possibility of promotion does that kind of person have, however?

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

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to afford the hon member the opportunity to utilise the remaining part of his allotted time.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

I request that the composition of the Commission for Administration be considered so that everyone can achieve that position and everyone can receive equal opportunities and benefits so as to promote the Public Service.

I should like to draw the hon the Minister’s attention to a specific point. We understand that members of the Parliamentary staff fall under the Vote of Parliament. While Parliament is in session, there is enough work for messengers and other members of staff who work here, but many of these people are appointed on a temporary basis because the session does not last all year. My request is that these people be placed under Public Service so that they need not be appointed on a temporary basis, but can be transferred to other departments during the recess, because they are public servants. It will be difficult to do this, but it is going to benefit many of these people if they can be employed for 12 months of the year instead of being employed on a temporary basis of six months.

When one thinks about this, one remembers that these people have families who have to be supported. I do not think the salaries of these people are such that what they earn in six months can keep them going for 12 months. I want to ask the hon the Minister to consider the matter so that when Parliament goes into recess, these workers can be transferred to other Government departments. They can be moved back again at the beginning of the Parliamentary session.

Mr Chairman, I request the privilege of speaking for 20 minutes.

Order! I should like to draw the attention of the hon member to the fact that the privilege of the half-hour lapsed when the new Rules came into operation. In cases where a Whip has granted an hon member a 10-minute turn to speak, the speaker must adhere to that. If the Whip gives an hon member 20 minutes to speak, the Whip must still rise after the first 10 minutes to ask for the hon member to have the privilege of using the next 10 minutes. Hon members themselves may not ask for the privilege of speaking for half an hour or longer. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I should like to address Vote No 4, Commission for Administration and Vote No 5, Improvement of Conditions of Service. There are still hurtful practices in the Public Service to which I wish to refer today. Firstly I just want to give a brief review of the development of the Commission for Administration.

According to the annual report for 1987, the Public Service Commission was established on 1 August 1912. Since those early years it has served as a staff institution which has increased its status within the system and has extended its authority. In addition, it was made possible for the Commission to liaise with the Government via the Prime Minister. Today, however, the Commission has its own Minister in the Office of the State President.

The chairman of the Commission, Dr De Beer, was present when we went to consult interested representatives of the Government in 1984 in Pretoria on objections within the Public Service League and the Union of Teachers’ Associations. In particular we discussed the lack of promotional opportunities for persons of colour within the Public Service. The fact is, however, that there is still apartheid within the Public Service. We have asked for a say in the Commission for Administration. Today we know that the Commission consists of actively serving heads of departments. We do not have such officials in our ranks, because they are not appointed to such positions as a result of disparities in the staff measures adopted. This, again, is the result of the Government’s policy of apartheid which still applies. There are different salary scales for the various race groups, even for those who hold the same qualifications or do the same work. The iniquity of the policy of apartheid is that one population group is always favoured above the other. We must be aware of the fact that this could have a boomerang effect, and in fact does have a boomerang effect, because we do not get wholehearted support from all population groups.

I want to ask the hon the Minister today to create opportunities for promotion for persons of colour. Unfortunately it is only in education that there are a significant number of senior officials. We have no effect on the Joint Advisory Council. The Minister is our channel of communication, and we feel that the time is ripe for him, as the Minister responsible for the Commission for Administration, to ensure that our children not only get a place in the Public Service, but also that there are promotional opportunities for them.

The number of directors in the Department of Education and Culture is limited, but in the non-teaching sector they are even more limited, and this is not satisfactory.

To give us the opportunity to serve on the Commission for Administration, we must be offered the opportunity to become heads of departments. I should like to speak about privatisation, and in this connection I just want to quote from an article that appeared in the business section of The Weekend Argus this weekend, and I want to spell out the banner headline on the front page:

This is the result of privatisation and deregulation. In the year under consideration the Government put forward seven aspects that must be privatised. I hope that the hon the Minister will be able to tell us today about many more aspects destined for privatisation.

We are witnesses to the fact that municipalities have done away with red tape in order to privatise and deregulate. The economy in Cape Town, in particular, began to flourish when the rigid control over the informal sector was terminated. Privatisation cuts costs and improves competence. Privatisation gives the Black man hope, whereas the formation of monopolies puts the economic power in the hands of a few.

The Third World still stresses decentralisation as a means of stimulating the informal sector, and we should follow that example. Economic considerations and the effects on the shop floor lead to more relaxed and humane conditions.

As far as deregulation is concerned, I shall skip a few pages of my speech, although I shall have to leave out some very important facts, so that I can address a few fundamentals. Deregulation is successful in the Black areas today. We only have to think of the Golden Mile Centre in Crossroads. Home industries flourish there, and as a result business undertakings also flourish. Until recently it was still taboo to have home industries there.

These days motor mechanics work in their backyards. One such motor mechanic can supply job opportunities to four or five people. In this way he facilitates circulation of more money, promoting welfare in his community. The Black taxi industry is a success. There is a great improvement in the transportation of passengers and goods between towns.

Twice a week I have seen huge trucks being packed with fruit for the Rand in the constituency of the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to kill two birds with one stone today. The one is privatisation and the other the Commission for Administration.

There were indications in the hon the State President’s opening address this year that new structures were being created with a view to dealing with privatisation. The hon the Minister of Finance and the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs also mentioned this. This makes one wonder why the Government suddenly wants to give its inheritance away. Naturally we welcome the Government’s initiative as far as privatisation is concerned. I believe we should make more use of measures that apply in the private sector. The envisaged steps are alarming, but also gratifying, since the private sector can make a large contribution.

Proper privatisation and deregulation will give many of our Blacks an opportunity to participate in the free-market system. It will also give the economy a boost and cut down on unemployment. The initiative the Government is taking in respect of privatisation is also welcome because our businessmen can now be motivated by means of entrepreneurs’ programmes to produce on a large scale. I must add, however, that the red light still flickers when one takes Government institutions’ share in these programmes into account.

It is important that there be protective measures in order to maintain standards, control price increases and ensure security of employment. I realise that we are in a transitional phase. That is why it is important to keep an eye on the abilities of the private sector. Proper privatisation, in which one strives for a variety of objectives, also means that the base of shareholders is extended. Once the machinery is functioning properly, privatisation can contribute to the welfare of the whole country and the economy.

I want to draw hon members’ attention to a report which appeared in a newspaper on Sunday, 31 April. The report’s heading was: “Gaan die radio privatiseer?” It reads as follows:

It goes on:

I should also like to quote from a report headed “Twee wil teen SAL meeding” in Die Burger of 11 May 1988:

I should like to come back to the administration that consists of various departments. It consists of departments for general affairs, own affairs and provincial affairs. [Interjections.]

We know that the issue of public servants is a hot potato these days, because their salaries were not adjusted. I realise that there is a negative feeling among the officials of the Department of Education at the moment about the announcement that they would not get salary adjustments. My request is that the hon the Minister should consider legislation to eliminate this kind of dispute. Officials should be able to use legislation to fight for their rights and to protect themselves against the authorities when an incident of this kind takes place. We must realise that these officials are part of the Government machinery, and that if their engine seizes up, we are going to have problems.

Mr Chairman, I am glad that I can participate in this debate. The Commission for Administration sent out circular 5/4/b on 17 August 1987 to all departments and administrations to identify all the workers within their service who are performing tasks which can be ascribed to that of permanent identifiable posts.

We have problems with this circular because no one is monitoring it. That is the problem. We can send out correspondence all day long, but if nobody monitors it, it is actually a waste of time. I shall tell hon members why I say that. In the process our people have been employed for 20 to 30 years and are still being exploited. We are supposed to have parity. “Parity” is a beautiful word, but what does it actually mean? According to the Commission for Administration it means that our people are being exploited and will be exploited. If the hon the Minister can get up this afternoon and tell me by whom the situation is being monitored, I shall accept his answer, but until such time as we have the answer as to the monitoring process, with respect, we cannot accept what he says here.

I want to continue by saying that in spite of that circular many of our people are not in permanent employment. Many of our people work for wages of R200 to R300. Many of our workers suffer because they are not appointed to posts even though they are qualified for those posts. We are using retired White people instead of appointing people who are not White—Black people. I am going to refer to “Black” people, and by that term I mean anybody who is not White. On the platteland it is worse. This is apparent in the department’s own correspondence.

*It is said that if one does not say “master” or “madam”, one is told to leave. This matter must be addressed. Things are bad in the rural areas. In spite of the economic reasons which are being advanced for people’s not getting increases, we must have increases in the rural areas, because the people in the rural areas have been working for a pittance for many years now. The situation there is dreadful.

†I often ask myself what White people would do if they were to work for the same salary under the same conditions. If we look at the history of the Public Servants’ League, we will see that it was established because the White Public Servants’ Association would not admit non-Whites. That is basically why it was established and only after fighting for eighteen years did they get recognition the other day. Let us look at that recognition. Let us look at the composition of this important body.

*Let us consider the constitution of the Commission for Administration. This is a serious matter. I do not want to refer now to what I have read in the newspapers about the salaries of the people— this is a side issue—but I want to point out seriously that the constitution will indicate whether we are progressing or retrogressing.

†I want to tell this House that if there are no Black people on the Commission for Administration, we can forget about it. We can forget about sending circulars left, right and centre, because they will not be heeded. We must have somebody at the top to see to the interests of the Black people. The sooner we get that the better. [Interjections.] What do we mean when we talk about reform in South Africa? We talk about equal opportunities. The redistribution of wealth will come automatically, but we had better start looking at equal opportunities for everybody. Until such time as we have reached that goal, circulars will mean absolutely nothing. [Interjections.] When a person with authority receives a circular, he throws it in a basket. That is all he does. He is not concerned about a circular.

I want to appeal to the Commission of Administration to expand and to put some people in the platteland. I have correspondence here which was addressed to the Commission for Administration and I just want to say a few things about it.

*The people write:

I have a reply here which deals with the position of employees at White schools and hostels. However, before I come to that I want to talk about the people who work for the Department of Manpower. I have never seen anyone who is not White in a top post in that organisation.

†I am referring to the top posts such as those of Assistant-Director and Director. All the non-Whites are in clerical posts, and some of them have been working for 40 years in that position in that one department. I want to say this afternoon that one of the hon the Minister’s tasks is to see that those people are promoted. In the final analysis, it is those clerks who train the men who eventually become the directors. Fortunately for the organisation, transfers have been taking place left, right and centre. So what happens when a position becomes available? What happens is that somebody gets transferred from one department to, for example, the Department of Manpower—I am merely using that as an example—and I think it is time this was changed.

I want to ask the Commission for Administration through the hon the Minister to see to it that their circulars take effect, that their circulars are translated into meaning. It is only when their circulars are translated into meaning that the Commission for Administration plays fair.

*Sir, I do not want to dwell on the rural areas for long. I think the hon the Minister knows what is going on in the rural areas, because he goes on holiday there. He therefore knows what is going on there. I merely want to talk to him about promotional possibilities. I want to quote from a letter as follows:

The reply to this reads as follows, inter alia:

[Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to associate myself with hon members who congratulated the hon the Minister on his new appointment. I believe that the process of privatisation is in good hands, since this hon Minister gained the necessary experience when he was Minister of Trade and Industry. I think—I speak under correction—that the White Paper on Privatisation and Deregulation was tabled under the hon the Minister’s “reign”.

At this point I also want to congratulate Mr Robson on his promotion to Secretary of the Commission for Administration, and I want to wish him the best of luck. I shall not congratulate the other gentlemen, because I understand that their appointments were purely horizontal and did not really entail any other benefits.

The hon member for Rust Ter Vaal referred specifically to privatisation. Personally I regarded it as the advent of a new economic era in South Africa—a watershed in our economic history. In those terms I see a way in which one can provide for the justified requirements of the underprivileged groups in South Africa. I believe that then the State will have the means to discharge its social obligations in respect of the depressed communities.

In this connection I am thinking in particular of housing, education and especially health services. I saw the other day that health services made up 11,7% of the total Budget during the 1975-76 financial year, whereas it has risen considerably to 17,8% this year. It can only continue to increase in future. I also see that because of privatisation, the Government will have the means to provide an urban infrastructure. South Africa has accepted urbanisation as its policy, and an ordered urbanisation policy will have to be applied scrupulously by means of deregulation in particular.

The new dispensation came into being with a great flourish in 1984. It is rather a pity, however, that “own affairs” has become a farce. I mention that because we are experiencing staff shortages at head office and regional office level, and that is the direct consequence of a moratorium that was placed on new appointments. This impedes the task of the respective own affairs administrations considerably, and it is those own affairs administrations that have to deal with a community which has been neglected terribly over the years. [Interjections.]

When Mr P W Botha came into power as Prime Minister, he undertook that a rationalisation of the bureaucracy would take place. This step was largely necessitated at the time by the world-renowned Information scandal, but nine years later we realise that instead of a scaling down in the size of its bureaucracy, South Africa has actually experienced an explosion of its bureaucracy during the past nine years. The years between 1980 and 1983 were characterised by incredible salary increases. It goes without saying that the remuneration packages of the Public Service grew exponentially during this period, and that is why there is so much bureaucratic opposition at present to salary and post freezes as well as meaningful reform.

Since 1984, under the new dispensation and in the name of the broadening of democracy, more and more people of colour have been admitted to the Public Service. The immediate consequence of this is an uncontrollable siege mentality among a large percentage of public servants who feel that their professional security is being threatened by people of colour. I am not surprised, therefore, that conservative political ideas have begun to find a fertile breeding ground in bureaucratic halls. According to information that I have at my disposal, only 24 Coloured or Indian officials have been transferred to general departments since 1984, and no White official has any well-founded fear of an influx or of being crowded out. What is even worse is the fact that no Black person holds the rank of director or any higher rank in the Public Service. No, the Public Service is ideal for White employment creation, and mechanisms have been built into the Public Service Act to ensure that it remains lily-white. Where promotion does take place, people are differentiated by designations, as the hon member for Outeniqua said.

I should like to put a few questions to the hon the Minister in the short time at my disposal, and I sincerely hope that he will react to them. In the first place I want to refer to a report published by the Commission for Administration. Page 24 says:

The hon member for Rust Ter Vaal mentioned that salary freezing was a wrong decision, and I support him in that.

Can the hon the Minister really justify the freezing of salaries while the spectre of inflation is running amuck in South Africa? This very report mentions that approximately 60% of public servants do not come into consideration for notch increases, because many of the public servants have either reached their ceiling or are remunerated in terms of a fixed salary.

My blood boils when I look at page 15 of the report and realise that the State pays 32,6% of its employees salaries below the breadline. According to the report, 13 335 earn between R1 and R2 000 per annum, 47 348 between R2 001 and R3 000 and 230 279 between R3 001 and R6 000. I want the hon the Minister to tell me whether the 290 962 or 32,6% of the State’s employees are all coloured and whether there are Whites among them too. [Interjections]

Another problem is the buying back of years of service by public servants which gives rise to an enormous financial burden on the taxpayer. Public servants could buy back years of service up to the age of 16, and then, as the employer, the State had to make its threefold contribution to the pension fund. It was testified before the Joint Committee on Finance, however, that this practice was going to be stopped and I should like the hon the Minister to tell me exactly what has been decided concerning this matter and whether further buying back is going to be permitted. I should also appreciate it if the hon the Minister could tell us what the deficit on the State pension fund amounts to.

I do not want to go into detail on the following matter, but I should like to ask the hon the Minister to explain to this House why a communication gap between the State Tender Board and the Commission for Administration led to the alleged unauthorised purchase of interactive video systems by the Department of Education and Training. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I want to associate myself with the introduction to the hon member Mr Douw’s speech in which he congratulated the hon the Minister on his appointment to this new post. I also want to congratulate the Director-General.

In his speech at the opening of the present Parliamentary session, the hon the State President said that privatisation in various forms was being implemented in almost all Western countries today. He also pointed out that privatisation held certain promises for the country. The hon the State President also said, with reference to the Preamble to the Constitution, that the Republic was committed to the promotion of private initiative and effective competition. The policy of privatisation is therefore in glaring contrast to socialism and nationalisation and it comprises the elimination and replacement of socialism by a proper free-market economy which is of great importance to South Africa.

I believe that the hon the State President was not drawing any distinction, and that he was talking to the whole of South Africa irrespective of race or colour.

Sir, a survey which was made by a well-known bank in South Africa indicated that there were a number of possibilities for privatisation in the country. The value of public assets which can be privatised exceeds R80 billion. The revenue which can be obtained as a result of privatisation will make an enormous difference to our country’s Treasury.

I believe that in addition to obtaining greater revenue from privatisation, this will also have certain political and socio-economic advantages and, unfortunately, disadvantages for the country. Although there will be advantages, we shall have to be very careful in considering the disadvantages involved. I want to mention a few of the advantages and disadvantages to the House.

Privatisation provides the possibility of reducing taxes or State loans. The reduction in taxes can give the economic growth a good boost which will be to everyone’s advantage. I believe that privatisation gives the individual a one-time opportunity to make large investments, particularly in spheres such as subeconomic housing schemes, new school buildings and the urban infrastructure, to which the hon member Mr Douw referred.

In addition I believe that if privatisation is implemented and applied effectively, it will provide the private sector with an income basis on which taxes can be levied. I also believe that private ownership of assets will yield profits because of the fact that the private owner will display greater efficiency in such an enterprise.

There are a few disadvantages which we must keep in mind as well, however. One of these is that privatisation can lead to unemployment if enterprises that were operated by the State previously are forced to brave the rough climate of competition in the private sector. Certain political risks are involved too. During the recent by-election, the NP lost an enormous number of votes to the right, because voters were told that nationalisation was much better than privatisation, and that that was the answer to the South African problems we were facing. Sir, I believe that this problem can be overcome if we can guarantee pension benefits to public servants, and if we sell share blocks in enterprises which are going to be privatised to public servants at preferential prices.

After the announcement earlier this year that no salary increases were to be granted, the public servants had reason to be very dissatisfied. Things did not end there. In the hon the Minister’s own ranks, the teachers revolted, and petitions demanding salary adjustments were sent to the Minister in question. I believe that these things can be overcome if these people can be given frank explanations, and if privatisation is implemented properly and in the correct way.

In conclusion I want to put a few questions to the hon the Minister. In the first place, how much progress has been made with the investigation into the viability of privatisation in the South African dispensation? Secondly I should like to know how the formulation of the privatisation plan has progressed. Thirdly I want to know how sure the hon the Minister is that privatisation is practicable in the South African situation. Last, but not least, I believe that where the State implements privatisation, it must do so according to a system of equal opportunity, irrespective of race, colour or culture. This will prevent the economy from being dominated or monopolised by a certain group.

I believe that the freezing of posts has had a negative effect on the general economy of the country. I believe that the creation of new posts will crack down both on the upswing of the economy as a whole and on the inflation rate. This will happen if we once again create new posts and adjust salaries anew.

Mr Chairman, it is said, “Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown”. In the case of the Commission for Administration I am never sure if it is the hon the Minister or the Commission—the Commission being composed of inter alia Dr J de Beer, the Chairman, Dr J du Plessis, a member, and Mr I H Robson who occupies the dual post of Secretary and Deputy Director-General. I ask who wears the crown, for I am convinced that this State Department, more than any other, is really the power behind the throne. The Commission not only acts as an agent and advisor to Government institutions with regard to policy-making, organisation, and finance and administration, but is also responsible for the development of policy, overall planning and control. When necessary the Commission also communicates directly with the hon the State President, as it is he who appoints the members for five years.

I want to place the emphasis on three words taken from the Oxford Dictionary, namely the words “power”, “authority” and “recommend”. These three words are used in the passage that I am going to read now, and we can perhaps discuss that further. On page 9 of the annual report the following is said about the Commission—

It is further stated that:

The Oxford Dictionary defines “power” as “a person or thing having authority or influence”, “authority” as “delegated power” and “to recommend” as “to advise a course of action”. I find it difficult to interpret the sentiments expressed in the annual report, because it seems as if even the hon the State President has to conform— within limits—to advice and recommendations of the Commission. I believe, couched in words, this is an awesome power devised by constitutional lawyers. To me such power is awesome when I consider that of an economically active population of 10,459 million people, some 1,679 million, or 16% of people in South Africa are either directly or indirectly employed by the Government and thus fall under the control of the Commission. If one adds all the other bodies advised by the Commission and one then takes all the dependants of those people, one gets a mind-boggling total of South Africans dependent on public sector employment.

Is the State President not your friend?

Yes, he is my friend. I hope you think he is your friend as well.

†In a developing country like South Africa with its diverse and growing population, it is necessary to have a reasonably sized public service. After all, the Public Service is an extension of the executive authority and its task is to administer Government policy embodied in Acts of Parliament. We on this side of the House, however, are not always convinced that all those Acts, most of which were on the Statute Books before we got to Parliament, are always fair. We, the people of colour, have always received only the smallest slices of the cake.

As far as disparities are concerned, I want to quote from page 20 of the annual report:

I do not have to tell hon members what population group that is—

Although the Government has promised to eliminate salary disparities as from 1 March 1988, we are not convinced that this is the actual position at present. Only when we are shown actual figures of then and now, will we be able to make these comparisons. I also believe there should be ongoing investigations as far as promotions are concerned. I will even go so far as to say that a public enquiry should be held, because there are still far too many complaints—and too much dissatisfaction—from people of colour throughout the Public Service. I say a public enquiry should be held because people are too afraid to complain to their department heads for fear of being intimidated. If a person complains, he becomes a marked person. I mention this because I cannot believe that of all the coloured people working in the Public Service, only a small percentage is able to hold down promotional jobs. I refuse to believe that most of my people who work in the Public Service are of labourer class. This reminds me of what my colleague, the hon member for Mamre, said when he quoted from The Argus of 20 January 1987. I quote from Hansard: Representatives, 27 August 1987, col 2549:

This was also said in the own affairs department and in this regard I want to quote the retired Minister in the State President’s Office. I quote from Hansard: Representatives, 27 August 1987, cols 2547 and 2548:

We agree!

If people can be assured that the sentiments expressed by the retired Minister are factual, I am sure his wishes can come to fruition. The Citizen of 1 March 1988 reported that “Public Service moves to end fat cat image”. I will not read this article because I do not have the time.

Another report which I would like to quote from appeared in The Argus of 28 July 1987, and it reads as follows:

Mr Chairman, I want to conclude by saying that it is reports like these which do not enhance the Commission’s image. May I appeal to the Commission to act very judiciously in future, because what is good for one, is good for all, irrespective of rank.

Mr Chairman, when the introduction of privatisation was announced by the State, I thought it was going to be something to the benefit of the ordinary man in the street, and to me it meant that the country’s economy would improve, whereas to the State it meant taking the State’s monopoly and placing it in the hands of a White monopoly in the form of private White companies. This can be seen throughout the private sector, even if one looks at the road system. The road system is being privatised and toll roads are being created, and the owners of these toll systems are only big White companies. The ordinary man is being left out of the picture, and that is why I say the State monopoly is merely being pushed onto a private White monopoly, which is not going to benefit the economy of the country in any way.

Let us look at the privatisation of roads. That is something which I am opposed to. I am not in favour of the privatisation of roads as the users of the roads pay for the use of the roads well in advance. Every time you put petrol into your car, you pay for your roads. The roads were all paid for, when the State came along and privatised a section of the roads, and because money now has to be appropriated to finance the roads, the people have to pay twice for the use of the roads.

Let us look at the effects of the introduction of toll roads. It causes people to hate the State, because a person now has to pay twice to use a road via which he gets to work every morning. I am referring here to one of the toll roads in my constituency, where a person has to pay to go to work and pay again to get home. If it is a family on a joy ride or a chap going on holiday, I do not mind, but people should not be paying a toll every morning and every evening on those roads, because then it is not helping the State in any way, nor is it assisting the country’s economy and nor is it promoting the relationship between the public and the State, because the public is now accusing the State of bleeding them to death financially. Therefore, I recommend to the hon the Minister that they look at all the circumstances involved before they privatise any section of our roads.

Certain State representatives went overseas to have a look at toll road systems elsewhere. In some countries there are specific provisions with regard to taxing people who live on the outskirts of town. There it is the richer, more upper-class person who lives in those areas. Here the opposite applies. The wealthier people, who are the Whites, stay closer to town, while the poorer people stay further out of town because they are affected by the vicious Group Areas Act.

Now this latter group is once again being penalised. They have to pay, on their way to work, at toll gates in the areas where they live. I do not think that this is acceptable to any of our people. There have been many objections from the various communities to the toll system. However, without even listening to the people’s objections, the State simply carries on. They have started planning more toll roads. In one section of the road they plan to have three toll gates—one at the border between the Orange Free State and Transvaal; one close to the Ennerdale area; and one slightly higher up, towards the Uncle Charlie’s area. They are even planning a further toll gate on the new road to Pretoria.

Sir, I think this is uncalled for. I believe that the toll road system and privatisation are running away with the Government. Therefore, in closing, I want to recommend that the Government forget about opening new toll roads. Because of the money that has been spent, we will have to carry on using the existing ones, but the Government must abandon the new system and forget about the idea of privatising roads, since they have already been paid for. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the hon the Minister on his appointment to this new, very important post. I also want to take this opportunity to wish his officials, who will have to assist him in these difficult times in the department in the coming years, every success.

Sir, privatisation and deregulation are going to be debated a great deal in the years ahead. If one wants to have a meaningful discussion on this topic, one must first take a look at what gave rise to this step. In the course of my speech I shall refer time and again to the White Paper on Privatisation and Deregulation in the Republic of South Africa, which was tabled in 1987.

The public sector in South Africa—ie the State organisations at central, provincial, regional and local government level, as well as public cooperatives and semi-government institutions— has, owing to a variety of factors, transferred many of its activities to the private sector over the years. Privatisation is therefore nothing new in our country.

In view of the changing circumstances and the fact that the population is growing rapidly, increasing demands are being made on the public sector as regards the provision of essential services. This increases its participation in the economy of the country. In addition various overseas and local events have adversely affected the South African economy. These factors caused the Government to decide to reinvestigate the ways in which the public sector’s share in the economy could be reduced or restricted.

On 5 February 1988, in his opening address to Parliament, the hon the State President placed particular emphasis on the aspect of privatisation, and we shall now have to continue on this course. I should like to quote what the hon the State President said in his opening address on 5 February of this year regarding privatisation (Hansard, 5 February, col 6):

I have already quoted from it—

I now want to disagree somewhat with my colleague the hon member for Klipspruit West regarding the privatisation of roads. I quote from the hon the State President’s opening address:

• — Firstly, on the privatisation of the Hendrik Schoeman Highway between Springs and Krugersdorp.
• — Secondly, on the privatisation of a section of the national route between Kroonstad and Johannesburg and a section of the national route between Pietermaritzburg and Alberton.

I consider the following remarks of the hon the State President to be important:

I continue to quote from the hon the State President’s speech under the caption “The Proceeds of Privatisation”:

• — basic infrastructure and services in developing areas; and
• — the creation of capital funds for the development of small industries and small business enterprise by the IDC and the SBDC.

I do not have much time at my disposal and would very much have liked to have discussed other matters too. I should like to quote from the editorial of Finansies en Tegniek. The editor asked the following important question:

The next statement by the editor is important. It reads:

This is the most important point. If there is no real enthusiasm and deliberate efforts to get the policy of privatisation and deregulation implemented, we are again going to get bogged down in fine plans which are formulated and then shelved. For that reason I consider the writer’s saying “Dit kan al die verskil maak” important. I quote:

The hon the State President’s discipline as applied to State departments—

For that reason—as I have said before in this House—I strongly support the concept and policy of privatisation.

Certain people who look after their own businesses or organisations are not very happy and are criticising this policy. I should like to quote from the magazine of the Public Carriers Association, PCA Focus, vol 5, May 1988. The director, Mr Ian Moss, said:

He went on to say… [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is a privilege to participate in this debate. I want to tell the hon the Minister that he, as a former rugby player, knows what certain things are all about. He played in the scrum-half position, and he knows that when he crouched behind his pack, he called for a good ball. He also knows that if the pack of forwards do not let him have that ball in the way he wants it, he is going to have problems. Today I want to tell the hon the Minister that when he puts the ball into the scrum, we shall get a good clean heel for him. We want the hon the Minister to pass the ball out and move it across the field. If he gets the ball moving across the field, the whole of South African society is going to participate in this game. He will understand that if the opposition, sitting over there, get the ball, they are merely going to kick it out of play and no one is going to get any pleasure from it.

We who want to bring pleasure to the South African society, want to distribute the ball; we want to take the game to the open areas of the field, and we would like to play the game right across the field. We want everyone to be involved; we all want to be part of the game. We want to bring pleasure to everyone.

This Official Opposition of ours does not know rugby. That is why they cannot understand what I am saying to the hon the Minister. We shall have to show them a few films of the game so that they can understand it. The members of the Official Opposition have not yet learned how to make their own speeches either. They come here and object to good speeches. It is almost like the man with the whistle. He is not a player, but he stands on the sideline and blows his own whistle, just as those hon members blow their whistles. This is just the way it is; let us accept it and let us carry on.

He was probably assistant manager.

You could not even be a ball carrier.

You are a reserve spectator.

Sir, I want to carry on and express my appreciation to the Commission for Administration for the privatisation process to which the Commission is giving its positive attention.

In the first place this is an activity which to my mind is absolutely important since the scaling down of the functions of the Public Service has become a dire necessity. It is a well-known fact that the size of the Public Service has become a matter for concern and that the financial burden it places on the Exchequer will be accommodated with difficulty in future. Consequently I should like to express the hope that each public servant will co-operate enthusiastically so as to carry out the privatisation campaign successfully.

Secondly, I want to express my appreciation for the application of the so-called personnel standstill policy by the Commission for Administration. It is truly encouraging to know that the Public Service is prepared to make sacrifices in order to establish a more functional Public Service. What is cause for concern, however, is the fact that the Administration: House of Representatives, which is a relatively young and growing department, is also being included in this policy. Other hon members have already touched on this matter, and I want to emphasise it. Over the years our community has been subjected to major handicaps in respect of services such as housing and education. At present we are trying to eliminate these handicaps, and I want to make an appeal today that attempts be made to make our administration more flexible and that they be assisted in discharging those functions.

It is significant that it is the people who are not involved in the Public Service who live in the communities in which backlogs exist. We do not want to keep on reproaching people about the past, but the hon the Minister will know that this is in fact the case. We had no political power. There was no political recognition, and that was why we were not able to make those political inputs. Today we also understand South Africa’s problems. We also realise that it is necessary to scale down and curtail certain things; nevertheless we must remain aware of the backlogs in South African society in general.

Surely you are discussing own affairs now.

Consequently I want to advocate that the hon the Minister should be sympathetically disposed to our hon Minister of the Budget in respect of this problem. We have a function to fulfil, we have services to render, and we need the staff with which to do these things. This applies in particular to welfare, where regional offices are situated far apart so that the services do not reach the people who need them.

The hon member for Border, who is talking about own affairs, would do me a great favour if he would use his common sense when he makes speeches in this House.

It is half-time.

Those members make no contribution; they turn people’s misfortune into political issues. They do not even understand what is happening. I also want to thank the public servants for having reconciled themselves to not receiving any salary increases this year. Nevertheless this is a problem because it is people from the depressed communities who fill those posts in the Commission for Administration which are not permanent. We want to assure those people of permanent appointments. We want to define their post levels. Many of them have been in the Public Service on temporary appointments for years. We must give them permanent appointments. We cannot wish them away. We must help them.

I would also appreciate it if the hon the Minister would consider increasing the loan capital at present available in the Public Service for housing from R50 000 to R60 000, so that it is possible to keep pace with inflation and house prices. We know that everyone would like to own his own home, and that the Public Service is doing its best to accommodate its people. Nevertheless they are struggling to obtain loans because the loan capital is so low.

The Commission for Administration must help South Africa to create the climate for the new South Africa. I will not harp on the same themes, since other hon members have already referred to them. However, there must be greater motivation for the various population groups in this country to be part of the Public Service. The Public Service must offer us the things we desire for the future. It is the duty of the Commission for Administration to do the spadework for the newly integrated political dispensation. The hon the Minister will realise that we shall not succeed as long as we divide the Government sector into compartments. We cannot classify it into groups of Indians, Coloureds, Whites and Blacks, because then we are not going to achieve our ultimate objective, the new South Africa.

The Commission for Administration must come forward with visible proposals of what we desire, and this will motivate and spur people on to take part in the discussion on the new South Africa.

Order!

I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon member, but his time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to afford the hon member an opportunity to utilise all the time allotted to him.

I thank the hon member for Diamant.

The Commission for Administration will have to create the foundation for political participation. Political participation is not going to come about as the result of a new law, but simply because people want to claim a right for themselves; the Commission for Administration will have to promote this reform process. In that way the Commission for Administration will also give all the people of South Africa greater permanence in the Public Service. Let us move away from the view that the Public Service is reserved only for Whites. We cannot deny the facts; the numbers testify to this. The promotion posts indicate this. The appointments made by the Commission for Administration confirm this. We cannot argue away the fact that the impression is being created that all power and control is placed in the hands of the Whites.

If we carry on in this way and if that is the pattern on which we want to create a new South Africa, we have no hope of being successful, and we will not be able to prove to the outside world that we are engaged in reform. Reforms will have to be convincing to the people of South Africa before we can convince the Western World and occupy our rightful position there once again.

Mr Chairman, I am pleased to be able to take part in this House again, in my new capacity today as the Minister for Administration and Privatisation. The last time I was here, it was still in my capacity as the Minister of Trade and Industry.

I believe that we shall conduct many fruitful debates in this House on the new responsibility entrusted to me, namely Administration and Privatisation, as we have done this afternoon. I want to thank hon members who participated for their congratulations to me and also to Mr Robson. The hon member for Outeniqua, the hon member Mr Douw, the hon member for Vredendal, the hon member for Mamre and other hon members all congratulated us and I should like to thank them. We can hardly differ fundamentally in principle with one another on these matters for which I am responsible. To tell the truth, it emerged clearly from the discussion this afternoon that we were all seeking effective Government administration which would serve the best interests of all the people of South Africa. We are all striving for a sound economy which will grow and in so doing create more job opportunities for people. Deregulation and privatisation play an important part in that regard. This afternoon various hon members referred to this and their contributions on this complex subject left a positive impression on me. The opinions expressed here this afternoon are of great interest to me because I like listening to hon members’ views and experiences and obviously also to criticism which we may apply in intensifying our endeavour towards our ideals. I have only recently been appointed to this post and am still learning. As the hon member for Mamre said, however, if I get good balls I may be able to do something with them. To use his idiom, I shall pass such balls and try to do it well. What the hon member did not say, however, and what is equally important, is that success is ultimately possible only if we play together as a team. Good passes, but also the necessary support, will eventually lead to our scoring points and winning the match.

We have a winning team here.

I thank hon members and I think this afternoon’s debate showed that we can really be a winning team when it comes to these matters. There are no fundamental differences.

A considerable number of questions were put to me and I shall not be able to reply to all of them in full, because time is limited. Nevertheless let me say immediately that this new responsibility poses great and exciting challenges. The hon member for Vredendal spoke about a new accent as regards privatisation since the hon the State President’s speech. That is true. The process of privatisation actually began to take shape when the White Paper appeared last year.

It was the hon State President’s speech at the beginning of the year, however, which provided the entire process of privatisation with new momentum. This was followed by the institution of a Ministry which would be responsible for administration and privatisation. This is further proof of the Government’s commitment to carrying out this policy. I believe that as we show progress, it will also be clearly apparent that this policy is to the benefit of everyone in South Africa. It takes time to get off the ground properly. Hon members can look at other countries which followed a programme of privatisation. It took them a number of years finally to get that process into full swing. It is not a matter which can be concluded overnight. Although valuable work has been done by the Commission for Administration and other experts over the past year or two, there are still a considerable number of tasks waiting and investigations which have to be conducted. Nevertheless there is no doubt that there is a determination and purposefulness to carry out this policy successfully.

I should like to say a few words about the Public Service. Various hon members referred to the Public Service which affects the lives of all inhabitants of South Africa through its extensive activities. We find public servants throughout South Africa furnishing their services to the community. We all claim with justification that these should be quality services, because the quality of such a service in turn influences the quality of life in South Africa. We must therefore aspire to providing our people with services of the highest quality. During my experience as a Minister over the past almost eight years, I have come into contact with public servants in various ways. My experience was…

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister whether rural areas will also benefit from privatisation and whether he intends privatising the State Diggings at Alexander Bay?

Mr Chairman, country districts have been discussed and I shall come back to the subject later. I hope to return to the hon member when I have reacted to other hon members’ speeches.

I referred to my experience in Government over the past eight years and the positive experience I have had of the Public Service. Today it is no restful and easy matter to govern a country. I think one often loses sight of the fact that public servants, just like us, are under pressure. We live in a time of change; a time in which adjustments have to be made. These are adjustments which filter through to our Government administration too.

It is frequently necessary for public servants to effect successive changes quickly and we expect them to do this efficiently. They are given new instructions, new structures are created and they are faced with new challenges. I believe that in the past few years in particular, in which we have experienced great changes in South Africa—we may think of the establishment of this House and the new Parliament—considerable demands have been made of Government administration to reorganise and to adjust, and they have shown that we have a Public Service of high quality which could handle these changes with great efficiency. That is why I should like to express my thanks to our officials for the service they frequently furnish throughout South Africa under difficult conditions. They often work under conditions dangerous to life and limb, but it is quality service.

I think that appreciation for the work of our public servants is not always adequate. It is easy to criticise and the public at large often makes unreasonable demands of people who generally furnish excellent service. Unfortunately there are obviously a few individuals who err. Obviously in a large service there are those who do not always act correctly or who are negligent. We should bear in mind that there are 1 679 million public servants in the broadest sense of the word. That means 1 679 million people in the various branches of the Public Service in the broadest sense and one can then assume that there will also be few individuals who have to be reprimanded and against whom steps have to be taken.

While speaking about the large number of people employed in the various Government services, I want to refer to this very useful publication of the Commission, Skatkispersoneel 1988/Exchequer Personnel 1988. I think this is a very simple but clear explanation of the Public Service. If we take into account that approximately 16%, or 16,1% to be exact, of all economically active people are in the public sector—these are the 1 679 million people to whom I referred in the general public sector—it does not compare unfavourably with other countries. If one goes further, however…

Order! The hon member for Diaz is not to read the newspaper. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Yes, Mr Chairman, I became so excited about the number of people in the Public Service that I actually expanded my millions a little. We are obviously talking about 1,6 million people and not 1 600 million people. Our country is not as big as that.

This 16% or 1,679 million people in the general public sector may be reduced further. If we refer to those who strictly speaking are remunerated from the Treasury, we are actually referring to a staff corps of 9% of the economically active population. If we further consider the staff of the departments and the administrations of the central Public Service, which strictly speaking comprise the Public Service, we are talking about 6,9% of the economically active population. These are definitely not the huge numbers to which reference is made so easily and so frequently as if an enormous Public Service exists in which millions of people are most actively involved.

I should like to thank the Public Service for the quality of service which is furnished. When one compares our Public Service and the service furnished by our officials with many services provided by the private sector, it is clear that our Public Service does not need to take a back seat in any respect. Criticism is often expressed in respect of a few officials for negligence or the inefficiency of a service. How many of us have not also had experience of members of the private sector, which is so highly regarded, who in the same way frequently fail to provide a quality service in repairs which they have to do, the services they have to provide or the workmanship they have to render? That is why I say that our public servants in general furnish excellent service. I should like to thank them for this. If one considers further that new demands are continually devolving upon them, one appreciates the position even more.

I now want to refer to drastic economy measures which have been instituted over the past year with a view to clamping down on Government expenditure. These economy measures could only be introduced with the co-operation of public servants who had to carry them out. In reality it comes down to our wanting to save without decreasing or in any way detracting from essential services through this. Of course, this has placed a greater burden and workload on our officials. The same applies to the programme of rationalisation of functions which was instituted. According to this programme an investigation is currently being instituted in every department into every function which is carried out to determine whether that function is really essential, whether it should be continued, whether it may possibly be privatised and whether it is possible to scale it down and offer it at a lower level with fewer members of staff. We are also trying to establish whether such a function cannot possibly be furnished in a profitable way, that is to say whether a contribution cannot be recovered from the public which benefits from it. This investigation into the rationalisation of functions will ultimately be carried out in all departments and demands a positive attitude from officials. We are really optimistic that a great deal may arise from this which will contribute to further rationalisation in the Public Service as well as the more efficient functioning of the Public Service.

The same applies as regards staff standstill measures to which the hon member for Mamre referred and which have placed our public servants under even greater pressure. The Government wished to take further steps to curb the increase in the Government expenditure as well as the expansion of the Public Service. It was decided to announce a personnel standstill for that reason. I can assure the hon member for Mamre and other hon members, however, that where there is merit, the Commission for Administration will not be unwilling to permit expansion. Nevertheless, we should like to apply the discipline of not permitting automatic increases in staff on establishments unless this is essential.

I can also announce in this regard that we are taking the programme of measures to economise on staff even further and that vacant posts for which we have not budgeted will be abolished immediately. All vacant posts in respect of which departments have not budgeted are being abolished too. The Cabinet has also decided that posts which are vacant at the moment and which are not filled within six months will be abolished as well. If there is an exceptional case of merit, however, and it is submitted to the Commission, we shall certainly regard it sympathetically.

In the light of all this one has greater appreciation of the situation in which the official finds himself if we bear in mind that he is not to receive a general salary adjustment this year either. This makes further high demands of public servants. Nevertheless I can assure all public servants that the Government is watching developments related to the national economy very closely. As soon as the economy permits it to any degree, priority will obviously be given to a meaningful general salary adjustment. The measure was necessary, however—we also explained this earlier this year—in an attempt to place our economy on a sound basis and specifically in that way to surmount our economic problems in the longer term, to the advantage of every public servant and South African.

Of what value would a salary increase really have been if a situation of hyperinflation were to occur in the longer term, which would send costs soaring—a situation in which the benefit of the increase would soon be nullified. That is why, painful as it may be, I believe that we should approach this matter positively too and that the Government would like to help in this regard when it is within the capabilities of the country’s economy and the economy has improved to the extent that we are able to attend to this.

Various hon members referred to the Commission for Administration, but I do not want to go into detail now on all the questions which were put. The hon member for Outeniqua stated clearly that the House was aware that the commissioners had to be appointed by the State President and that a certain level of promotion had to be reached, especially in the senior management corps of the Government—the Directors-General, from whose ranks the commissioners are appointed. These facts are common knowledge. The reason why the commissioners are appointed from the ranks of the Directors-General and departmental heads is that they are the people with most experience, people with years of expertise as regards management. Various hon members—including the hon member for Outeniqua—said that they could not provide people at that level. I want to say that the Commission for Administration was constituted precisely because of its expertise and objectivity—to be able to judge matters related to the Public Service from outside the Public Service and to advise the Government from that position.

I should like to curtail the debate at this point by saying that the door is open to any population group for final consideration when members of the commission are appointed, but this is not done on a group basis, Mr Chairman. If we were to appoint minority groups—such as women, and people from religious and population groups—to the commission, one could imagine that the objectivity of the commission would be jeopardised. Here the specific issue is expertise and experience, so that an objective view may be expressed in the interests of all officials of the Public Service.

It is equally true that enormous progress has been made as regards the position of members of other population groups in the Public Service, and I think that is where we should start. It is not true— as a few hon members said—that unnecessary stumbling blocks are placed in the way of promotion of public servants from other population groups. I should like to issue an open invitation to hon members of this House: If it comes to their personal attention that obstacles are placed in the way of promotion of officials from any other population group, they are welcome to bring this to my attention. I should like to take it further.

Facts provide evidence to the contrary, however. I want to quote from the staff publication of the House of Representatives—Roeland—in which the Director-General of the administration himself writes the following.

What does he say? [Interjections.]

He makes specific mention of the progress which officials from the Coloured population have made over the years and, after stating that there has been general promotion and growth in the staff corps, up to high levels as well, he says the following:

Consequently it is clear that progress is being made.

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

Would the hon member permit me to finish the argument? I shall give him an opportunity to put his question then.

This progress takes time. Hon members must bear in mind that expertise as regards administration is built up gradually over a period of years. The hon member for Mamre pointed out with justification that there were backlogs, but we should not look backwards.

[Inaudible.]

As regards general affairs, any member of any population group may apply for posts.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon member for Mamre must give the hon the Minister the opportunity of finishing his speech first. The hon the Minister may proceed.

I shall give the hon member for Mamre those figures, Sir. As far as general departments are concerned, only merit, qualifications and experience count. [Interjections.] I specifically want to point out to the hon member that our staff policy under this dispensation makes rapid promotion of members of the other population groups possible. It is the administration itself which is responsible for the promotion of these people.

We don’t see that. Seeing is believing!

Hon members want to criticise me, but have they tackled their own Minister at all?

Oh, yes!

Ask him; he is sitting over there! [Interjections.]

Then that is all right.

I want to tell the hon member that 15,5% of all officials in the Public Service are members of the Coloured population group.

Only 15,5%?

Yes, Sir. Ultimately the point at issue is not merely promotion per se. I do not believe that any hon member in this House would want us to promote people because they belong to another population group. After all, the quality of service is also involved. [Interjections.] The point at issue, therefore, is the merit of the promotion.

What is our policy regarding promotion? There is discrimination in favour of members of the other population groups where the administration for own affairs is concerned.

That cannot be true!

Yes, Sir, it is true. [Interjections.] Consequently preference is given in the respective administrations…

But they do not get the opportunity…

No, Sir, there are opportunities specifically for them. I have just furnished hon members with figures. [Interjections.] They are appointed to those departments by officials who belong to their own population group.

Who promotes them? [Interjections.]

There is a system of promotion on merit. I want to ask hon members in all fairness not to confuse two matters. Sir, I honestly think that hon members do not differ with me. I do not believe that they simply want to see officials appointed even if they do not have the necessary ability to do the specific work. I believe hon members agree with me that this cannot happen. [Interjections.] That is precisely why our staff policy makes provision for preference to be given on the one hand to the promotion of members of a specific population group, whereas on the other hand there is a provision that qualifications and merit have to be taken into account. [Interjections.]

†While we are talking about the House of Representatives I want to say that approximately 80% of all posts within the Administration: House of Representatives are occupied by members of the Coloured population. More than 1 200 Coloureds are receiving salaries in excess of R40 000 per annum.

[Inaudible.]

I shall come to that matter. About 30 Coloureds occupy posts in the managerial echelon or posts which are on management level salary-wise. To give hon members the statistics: 25 of these officials are employed in the Administration: House of Representatives, 16 in the educational field—an hon member here said that there are opportunities only in the educational field—three in the health services and another six are concerned with administration. The remaining five officials are all connected with health services in some of the provincial administrations.

How many are employed in general affairs departments?

It can be accepted that progress for top achievers will in future be more rapid as a result of the establishment of the own affairs administrations.

*I want to make another positive suggestion to hon members. [Interjections.] The Peninsula Technikon and the University of the Western Cape fall under the Administration: House of Representatives. I should like to advise the House to hold consultations with these institutions to determine whether courses in public administration could be offered there. This would enhance the abilities of public servants greatly and really offer them an opportunity to improve their qualifications by means of further extramural study and finally in this way to improve their position in the administration too.

In the time at my disposal I should like to return to a few questions before I say a few words on privatisation. I shall obviously not be able to do justice to all hon members’ questions, because I have too little time at my disposal.

I think I have dealt with the commission. The hon member for Outeniqua also spoke about the question that it was made out that disparity had been eliminated in the Public Service, but that it still existed. When we are speaking about the elimination of disparity, we mean specifically that the same remuneration will be paid for the same work and for the same qualifications. The Commission for Administration has already sent a directive to all departments that all forms of disparity are to be eliminated according to specific guidelines. If disparity still exists anywhere—perhaps officials have the opportunity of establishing this better than anybody else—hon members must please bring it to the attention of the Minister or head of department involved. The directive was issued and guidelines laid down and, if hon members wish to bring any matter regarding this to the attention of a Minister or even the Commission for Administration, they are welcome to do so. [Interjections.] The intention is not that this policy remain only on paper. It must be carried out and I request hon members to assist us in this regard.

The hon member for Grassy Park also spoke about disparity. I think I have already reacted to that. The hon member referred to the lack of adequate opportunities for promotion in the Public Service as well. I think I have indicated by the figures I have mentioned what promotion has taken place. I think there are further opportunities for hon members in the Administration: House of Assembly too.

The hon member for Grassy Park discussed deregulation and privatisation as well. I thank hon members for the positive approach to this matter because there is no doubt that it is in the interests of all—as hon members said—to give the economy back to the people, to free the economy again and to increase access to economic activities. The main consideration in privatising is not to obtain funds for the Treasury, but to improve the effectiveness of the economy, to increase opportunities for private entrepreneurs, to reduce the part played by the Government and in this way ultimately also to reduce the taxpayer’s burden. Its purpose is to place the economy on a sound basis. As the hon member for Grassy Park aptly indicated, if a person can deregulate, one decreases costs, increases competition, creates job opportunities and ultimately contributes to a sounder economic climate which must certainly be conducive to general entry to the economy.

The hon member referred to the taxi industry. I think this is a splendid example of how literally thousands of new people entered the market through deregulation and today there is a multitude of people for whom job opportunities have been created by this industry. If one adds to this the spinoff to garages, mechanics, etc, it is a good example of how deregulation can certainly create opportunities in the economy.

The hon member for Rust Ter Vaal also welcomed privatisation and quite rightly pointed out that it increased effectiveness too.

†The hon member for Haarlem spoke about parity and referred to the letter sent out by the Commission for Administration. He then asked what was being done to monitor the situation concerning parity. I would just like to refer to that particular letter. I have the Afrikaans version of that circular here—it is circular 54B of 7 August 1987—and I want to refer him to the last paragraph. The last paragraph is very important, because it is stated quite clearly there that departments must report back.

*I shall read the Afrikaans to hon members

I therefore want to point out to the hon member that it was not merely left at that. The circular was not only sent out; departments were specifically requested to report back on the matter.

The hon member also referred to the Commission for Administration, but I think I have said enough about that. The hon member is concerned about country districts. We all share his concern about rural areas. He said with justification that I liked spending my holidays in country districts. There is not much opportunity for holidays, but we all want to see rural areas stabilised. His question was how privatisation would benefit such areas. Any step which ultimately places the South African economy on a sound basis benefits town and country; it benefits everyone in South Africa.

That is why privatisation is not directed at cities or rural areas, but the intention is to place the South African economy on a sound basis, to restore vigour and thrust to it and to give it the power to grow so that job opportunities can be created for people in cities and in rural areas. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Diamant must please lower his voice. The hon the Minister may proceed.

The hon member Mr Douw informed me that he could not be here this afternoon. He spoke about personnel with an income of less than R6 000 per annum. This includes all population groups. They are obviously unskilled and temporary workers. This is one of the most important reasons behind the Government’s extensive training programme which is being launched by the Department of Manpower. The Government envisages enabling unskilled people in particular to qualify themselves better. As the hon member for Mamre said, we shall then be able to place them better and remunerate them better and in so doing ensure a better life for them. I shall leave it at that. The hon member Mr Douw asked various other questions, but I am afraid that if I still have to answer other hon members, time will not permit me to go into all those other questions properly.

The hon member for Southern Free State asked me what we were doing about the co-ordination and marketing of privatisation. He also asked whether it was feasible in South Africa. I want to tell the hon member at once that he is quite right. If we do not market privatisation properly, we shall not be able to sell it. There are various parties we have to take with us along the road. In the first place there are the employees. I think we should thoroughly consider employees’ interests in connection with this matter. When we think of privatisation actions overseas and particularly in the United Kingdom, we see that they were also efforts to induce the largest number of employees to take up shares and participate in the privatisation action. One of the very important and successful privatisation actions in Britain was that of British Airways. More than 90% of British Airways personnel have shares in the company. The company therefore now belongs to people who work for British Airways. From the nature of the case it is true that, if one works for oneself, one has that little bit of extra incentive and dedication. After all, that is why socialism can never really succeed. If everything belongs to the State, what incentive is there for the individual to improve his own position through his hard work, his input and his effort?

I think that is the positive aspect of privatisation—that we specifically furnish people with opportunities to enable them to improve their own positions through their hard work, their entrepreneurship and their skills. That is why I want to tell the hon member for Western Free State…

Southern Free State.

…that places him a little nearer to Cape Town. [Interjections.] That is why I want to tell the hon member for Southern Free State that he is quite right. We shall market this policy in the right way. We shall market it to the workers among others and try to take them with us. We shall also market it to investors who ultimately have to invest in these bodies. We shall try to create new job opportunities through this.

The hon member for Southern Free State also asked how practicable this policy was in South Africa. Obviously we cannot simply compare ourselves with Britain or any other country. The situation in South Africa differs from that in Britain; since the thirties Britain has followed an active policy of nasionalisation under different governments. In this way several industries have been nationalised in Britain over the years. In Britain the policy of privatisation is aimed chiefly at restoring the position—to return nationalised industries to the private sector where they were originally.

Our history is different, however. We did not have a history of nationalisation in South Africa, but this does not mean that the privatisation programme will not hold great advantages for South Africa either. Nevertheless we cannot use the British recipe unchanged in South Africa; we have to take our particular circumstances into account, the nature and size of our economy and the distinctiveness of the various industries which can possibly be privatised. If we do that thoroughly, I believe I can tell the hon member for Southern Free State that it will also be possible to carry out privatisation successfully in South Africa.

†The hon member for Retreat referred to the power of the Commission for Administration. I would like to tell the hon member that if the commission’s recommendations could be accepted and rejected at will, it would not really be able to carry out its responsibility, which includes a fundamental responsibility for the protection of personnel against nepotism or any other abuse. Therefore, they have to stand up. Their prime responsibility is also to protect the civil servant and in that regard they are not merely an advisory body whose advice can be turned down in any way. I believe that should not be seen as constituting excessive power—it is really the power of protection of the people employed by the State.

I am glad the hon member referred to a previous Minister who made the remark about a positive attitude towards the Civil Service. I agree wholeheartedly with that particular Minister. There should be a positive attitude towards the Civil Service. There is certainly sufficient scope and there are many opportunities for promotion in the Civil Service and, as in so many walks of life, it is really one’s attitude which eventually determines one’s success or one’s failure; and I am sure that if we can change people’s attitudes we will also reap the benefit. That applies to the Civil Service as well.

The hon member for Klipspruit West referred to the privatisation of roads. My colleague, the hon member for Vredendal—he represents a very good constituency—has pointed out that there will always be an alternative route whenever a road is privatised or when a toll is put up at a particular road. It is therefore not forced down people’s throats. However, one must also bear in mind that if we cannot employ and utilise the funds of the private sector to build roads, then eventually—if we want better roads and tunnels through mountains—the taxpayer will have to provide that money. That will also increase the burden on the ordinary taxpayer or user.

Order! I regret having to interrupt the hon the Minister, but the hon member for Klipspruit West has had an opportunity to participate in the debate. If he wishes to put further questions now, he must do so in the proper way. The hon member had ample opportunity to put his point, but he keeps on making interjections. This is not conducive to sound debating. He is to put his question in the proper way. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister has just said that the private sector has to pay for new roads, but is it fair to put a toll gate on an old road and then charge the people for it?

Mr Chairman, the principle basically is—with the exception of a small piece in one particular case—that there must be an alternative. [Interjections.] In the one particular case to which the hon member referred, it was also part of the package of building a new road down to Natal. There is an alternative, and the fact is— I believe this sincerely—that we must get to the point where in the end the user is more directly responsible for the cost of a service.

We must move in that direction although we should introduce it in phases. In that way we will mobilise more funds and encourage investments which, in turn will contribute to economic growth and development in this country. In so doing we will make the end-user pay for that expense.

*I now come to the hon member for Vredendal. He not only represents a good constituency, but also made a good speech. I thank him for it. He referred in particular to the new emphasis on privatisation and welcomed it. The hon member is quite right in saying that if privatisation remains an intention only, nothing will come of it. In his speech, however, the hon the State President very definitely committed himself to the policy and we in the Ministry intend carrying out the policy with the enthusiasm to which this hon member referred. At this point I do not want to discuss the way in which we shall do it, because possibly there will be more time available for this on another occasion. We want to apply the expertise in the private sector to the best possible extent to help us make a real success of privatisation in South Africa.

At the moment we are drawing up a programme of action and a timetable. This is no easy task because various investigations still have to be made but we are working on it. When the time comes to announce our programme, I think it will provide further direction to the entire undertaking. I thank the hon member for his positive contribution.

In the last minutes at my disposal I want to reply to the hon member for Mamre.

Order! The hon the Minister is replying to the hon member for Mamre. The hon member must not conduct a conversation now.

Thank you, Sir, for acting as the referee between the hon member for Mamre and me. [Interjections.] We have to be separated by the whistle from time to time; otherwise we play well together.

The Commission for Administration pays continuous attention to temporary employees, to whom the hon member referred, and I want to assure the hon member that we shall take this further.

I particularly appreciate the fact that the hon member views our situation and the problems we are experiencing realistically and that he pointed out the necessity of our having to “scale down”. We shall have to live within our means and this simply demands certain painful adjustments of us at certain levels. It is not always easy, but we have to apply our scarce natural resources, our manpower and our funds, as well as possible and as effectively as possible. That is why it is sometimes necessary to take painful decisions too. The staff standstill to which the hon member referred is such a decision. It places certain restrictions on departments in furnishing certain services. The fact that we could not grant salary increases was a painful decision, but it should also be seen against the broad background that we have to scale down our economy in the general interest in order to live within our means. If we do this, we shall be able to look forward to the future with greater confidence. The hon member also made a very positive speech on the future and I should like to agree with this. He did not merely discuss the problems ahead of us, but also frequently spoke about our building a new future. That is also the spirit in which we have to work in the department for which I am responsible now. We are building the future and this can only be done by teamwork, by working together. After all, we have a common future.

If we tackle our programme in a spirit of cooperation and build our future in that spirit, I have no doubt that a splendid future awaits everyone in South Africa.

I thank hon members for their positive contributions. I am sorry that I could not reply to all the questions, but I believe we shall be able to continue this debate profitably in the same positive spirit on another occasion.

Debate concluded.

Mr Chairman, section 4(1) of the Temporary Removal of Restrictions on Economic Activities Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the Act), stipulates that the Act shall cease to have effect on 31 March 1989.

Deregulation is a time-consuming process, involves all three tiers of government and affects a number of laws and subordinate laws. The Temporary Removal of Restrictions on Economic Activities Amendment Bill provides for the duration of the Act until 31 March 1994. It is necessary to deregulate in order to promote the development of the small and informal sectors. Until such time as deregulation has been brought about effectively, the Act is a necessity.

We on this side support the legislation.

Mr Chairman, I thank hon members for their support of the legislation. This is really a negligible amendment which increases the duration of the Act. As the hon member for Heidedal rightly indicated, the Act as it stands ceases to have effect on 31 March 1989, at which time the authority of the hon the State President to take deregulatory action will cease as well.

The process of deregulation is more difficult and involved than it initially appeared, however. One cannot simply cut through everything with a measure of this nature, because what one actually envisages is balanced, responsible reform, and the removal of unnecessary measures, while retaining measures which will maintain order. Consequently hon members may judge, now that the Act has been in force for longer than two years, that numerous steps which have been to the benefit of the small business sector—especially the informal sector—have been taken in terms of the Act and that the Act has been implemented in a responsible way. Although the Act vests the hon the State President with exceptional powers, it has been implemented in a responsible way. It is necessary, therefore, that this Act be in force for a longer period so that it can be implemented if necessary. I want to thank hon members for their support.

I have no doubt that if we persevere and continue with the process of deregulation, we shall ultimately establish better opportunities for the small businessman. The greatest restriction experienced by the small businessman is that of access, in that he experiences problems because of a wealth of unnecessary rules, regulations and restrictions.

These are the problems that we want to eliminate, not only by making use of this legislation, but by persuasion and negotiation. If that does not help, we shall implement this legislation. Of course this legislation lends itself to the taking of action in certain localised areas and places in such a way that it is possible for the small entrepreneur to act without the restrictions of a whole wealth of legislation. The extended duration of this legislation will also make it possible to act in the same spirit in future to the advantage not only of the small businessman, but of economic development in South Africa. I thank hon members for their support.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Order! Before I call upon the hon the Minister to speak, I should like to mention to those members who frequently refer derisively to the Free State that the Minister who is about to speak is a Free Stater. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I am a Free Stater, but I am married to a Namaqualander! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, before I discuss the Bill, please allow me to express my sincere thanks and gratitude to all my hon colleagues, both on this side and on the other side of the House, who expressed kind wishes, and sent cards, bouquets and telegrams which we received at the time of the birth of our newborn baby. [Interjections.] A special thanks also to you, Mr Chairman, to our hon leader and Mrs Hendrickse for the same expressions conveyed to both me and my wife. Last, but not least, a special thanks to my cricket colleague, the hon the Minister of Finance, for his expression of the same wishes.

Order! The hon member must return to the Bill under discussion. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon members want to know what his name will be. His name will be Mikhael Raoul Reinholdt which, in effect, relates back to my German descent.

Coming back to the Bill, I may mention that the standing committee had no problem with this amendment Bill, because it is merely of a technical nature. [Interjections.]

Order! Let us give the hon member for Elsies River an opportunity to deliver his speech.

The Bill is merely of a technical nature and the amendments are necessary to adjust the Central Energy Fund Act, 1977, to changed circumstances. Since its inception, this Act has been amended several times.

The most important amendment has been the change effected in 1985 to the control of the affairs of the Central Energy Fund (Pty) Ltd, making it the parent body of CEF associations as well. CEF (Pty) Ltd is a private company and its board of directors is appointed by the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology. The board manages the affairs of CEF (Pty) Ltd which includes both the accounts of the Equalisation Fund and the Central Energy Fund. This Bill provides that a member of the National Energy Council will also be appointed to the board.

The Central Energy Fund and the Equalisation Fund are governed by ministerial directives issued by the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology, with the concurrence of the Minister of Finance, and the books are audited by the Auditor-General. A report is also tabled in Parliament. This is an effective way of exercising overall control.

The Central Energy Fund is used for the following purposes, viz to finance and/or to promote the acquisition of coal, the exploitation of coal deposits, the manufacture of liquid oil, fuel and other products from coal, the marketing of the said products and all matters connected with the said acquisition, exploitation, manufacture and marketing.

The fund is also used for the generation, manufacture, marketing or distribution of any other form of energy and research connected therewith and any other object for which the fund may be applied and which has been designated or approved by the said Minister, with the concurrence of the hon the Minister of Finance. The application of the fund is for the financing of oil from coal production and synfuel products.

We have learnt that the Mossgas project will, in fact, continue and I want to wish the hon the Minister everything of the best with the finalisation of this huge project which will definitely stimulate economic growth. I want to conclude by saying that I support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the hon member for Elsies River most sincerely for his very detailed exposition and support for the piece of legislation. I also want to congratulate the hon member and his wife most sincerely on little Mikhael. I wish them everything of the best and hope that he will bring them a great deal of joy. I see the hon member can still blush! I also want to thank him most sincerely for his good wishes as regards the Mossel Bay gas project. I think it is correct to say that if it had not been for the Central Energy Fund, this project would not have been possible at all. We accumulated the funds over the years so that we could tackle the Mossel Bay project in order to create a major asset for South Africa, as well as many employment opportunities, particularly for people in that area.

I want to thank the hon member, as well as the House, for their support of the Bill.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, the main object of this Bill is to amend the Nuclear Energy Act, No 92 of 1982, so as to provide for the establishment of a juristic person to be known as the Council for Energy Safety. This council will take over from the Atomic Energy Corporation the control over the licensing of certain nuclear activities in the RSA. This will enable the corporation to devote itself solely to the purpose for which it was originally established, viz to undertake research in the field of nuclear or atomic energy, the production of nuclear or atomic energy and also to develop, promote and make available nuclear energy technology and related expertise, to enrich source material and special nuclear material, and to exercise control over certain nuclear activities in the Republic. The Council for Nuclear Safety is established under clause 10 of the Bill. In terms of clause 11 of the Bill—

The functions of the Council are, inter alia, to:

1. (a) hire, purchase or otherwise acquire or alienate…

Order! The hon member must please help me. Let us not simply read out what is said in the Bill, because this has been distributed to us so that we could study it. It is not really right for us simply to read it out as it stands. The hon member may proceed.

The section reads further—

In terms of the new proposed section 27 in clause 11 of the Bill, the Council is also answerable to both the Minister and Parliament in that it has to submit as soon as possible, but not later than six months after the end of that financial year, a report to the Minister, together with the audited financial statements. According to the new subsection 27 (2):

Order! I will have to call the hon member to order, because he is actually reading precisely what is in the Bill. Will the hon member please help me by not reading the whole Bill.

Mr Chairman, I do not agree with you, but…

Order! I cannot allow this, because the Rules do not allow it. [Interjections.] Order! We shall give the hon member an opportunity to proceed.

Mr Chairman, in terms of clause 12 of the Bill:

1. (a) except under the authority of a nuclear licence granted to such person by the council on application.

Mr Chairman, the rest of the Bill deals with details with regard to the establishment of the Council, and makes provision for the nomination of an executive committee which may perform the functions of the Council in between meetings of the Council, and the appointment of an executive officer to assist the Council in the performance of its functions.

These aspects have been fully discussed in the standing committee, and were agreed to after the relevant explanations by officials of the department. We therefore support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the hon member for Belhar for supporting this measure. I think the main objective of this measure—as the hon member so rightly pointed out—is to vest the authority for the licencing and safeguarding against nuclear radiation in one organisation only. I think that is the main objective of this Bill.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, the main purpose of this Bill is to provide for the regulation of housing development schemes, including the regulation of facilities for retired persons.

During recent years various schemes have been introduced in terms of which interests in so-called retirement villages have been sold. Due to the undesirable conduct of some developers of these schemes, retired persons have on occasion suffered substantial financial losses which, in view of particular circumstances, were not always recoverable from the developers concerned. As a result, the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Works, Administration: House of Assembly appointed a committee during 1986 to inquire into and report on this specific matter.

The committee found that the development of retirement villages by the private sector should be encouraged, but that such development should to some extent be regulated, inter alia to protect the interests of retired persons. In the course of its investigation the committee identified four problem areas and recommended that these be addressed by way of appropriate legislation.

The problem areas concerned are the following: Firstly, protection of the interests of individuals in regard to retirement villages; secondly, protection and utilisation of funds; thirdly, facilities and services at retirement villages; and fourthly, contracts pertaining to the acquisition of interests in retirement villages.

All these points have been accommodated in the proposed legislation, which I now wish to discuss in more detail.

Firstly, in view of the definition of a housing development scheme, it should be realised that it is intended that the Bill should only be operative in respect of a housing development scheme where interests in such a scheme are alienated to retired persons only or mainly to retired persons. The Bill would therefore not be applicable to any other similar scheme.

I should also like to draw hon members’ attention to clause 4 which prescribes the contents of a contract. It is interesting to note that this clause provides inter alia that a seller must stipulate in such contract the latest date upon which he shall provide a purchaser with an architect’s or quantity surveyor’s certificate to the effect that a particular unit in a development scheme is ready for use and occupation by the purchaser concerned. This particular date shall not be later than two years from the date of conclusion of that contract. Should the seller fail to deliver such a certificate on the date so stipulated, however, the purchaser will have the right to cancel the said contract.

A very important matter—if not the most important—is the provision of adequate protection concerning money paid to developers by retired persons. In this respect clause 6 provides that a developer shall not receive and utilise such money for his own purpose, unless a quantity surveyor or an architect has certified that the dwelling unit concerned complies with officially approved building plans, a particular town planning scheme and local authority by-laws. Furthermore, the utilisation of these funds is subject to the delivery of a copy of the said certificate as well as a copy of a signed contract to the purchaser concerned.

Clause 6 also contains exceptions to this stipulation. It provides that until these conditions are met, consideration may be received in regard to the sale of the unit concerned, but then only on behalf of the developer and in the trust account of an attorney or of an estate agent. Alternatively, a developer may receive such consideration if he arranges for an irrevocable and unconditional guarantee to be issued in favour of the purchaser by a banking institution, a building society or a registered insurer.

The practical effect of these measures is that, for example, in the event of the insolvency of a developer, any consideration kept in a trust account or which is properly guaranteed, shall immediately become payable to the purchaser concerned by either the attorney, the estate agent, or the institution which issued the relevant guarantee.

†In order to ensure that only retired persons will continue to exercise control over a particular scheme intended for occupation by retired persons, clause 7 of the Bill provides that only retired persons may occupy or use the relevant land. A deviation from this stipulation would only be possible if all purchasers in a specific scheme agree thereto.

Clause 9 of the Bill is another necessary protective measure and sets out the relief a court may grant to a purchaser who suffered prejudice as a result of a developer’s not having complied with either certain specific provisions of the proposed Act or with the regulations to be promulgated thereunder. It could, for example, be found that a particular developer, although he complies with all the formal requirements of the Bill, nevertheless breaches the contract in certain respects with serious consequences for a retired person who would not necessarily be in a position to avail himself of the common-law remedies for that breach of contract. It was, therefore, considered appropriate to provide that in the event of such breach the retired person would be entitled to petition a court for relief inter alia for an order declaring the particular contract void ab initio.

Another problem which had to be attended to was the possibility that an owner of the land could register a bond or a further bond over that land to the detriment of a purchaser, where the land concerned is utilised for purposes of a housing development scheme. Clause 10-of the Bill could in certain circumstances obviate any detriment to a purchaser in this regard. This clause will have the effect that in the event of a bond or a further bond being registered over the property concerned, after a purchaser has signed a contract, the mortgagee shall be deemed to have consented to the discharge of his mortgage bond or the release of the land from his mortgage bond.

Finally, in terms of clause 11 of the Bill, the Minister is deputed to make regulations pertaining to various aspects concerning the protection of retired persons. The Minister also has the authority to apply regulations to existing housing development schemes inter alia in relation to the proper management of existing schemes.

Mr Chairman, the Housing Development Schemes for Retired Persons Bill, which is aimed at protecting retired persons, should never have been submitted to this House, because our own pensioners experience similar problems, whereas this Bill is formulated to protect the Whites. Although no mention is made of race groups in this legislation, we are not yet privileged to have retirement villages. Because we are not spiteful and do not have the attitude of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, we shall support this legislation, because it does protect the senior citizens of the country who have worked hard over the years although they were well-compensated for this.

The hon the Minister has already said a great deal about the Bill and there is actually nothing left to say, except that I want to add that there are many people—this may include Whites—who are taking the aged for a ride. The elderly person is quick to sign a contract, his money is taken at the end of the day and the developer soon becomes rich. Previously, we dealt with the Kubus affair in the standing committee and again there are people who are taking the aged for a ride.

To ensure that it is not so easy to steal money from the aged, a heavy fine of R10 000 or imprisonment not exceeding five years, or both, is being imposed in terms of clause 6(2). [Interjections.]

With these few words I support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, we have thrashed out the Housing Development Schemes for Retired Persons Bill. The Committee on Trade and Industry worked very hard to make a success of this Bill so as to protect our retired people against developers, irrespective of race or colour.

In the long term we will also benefit by this and I therefore take pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I…

Order! The hon member for Border wanted to put a question to the hon the Deputy Minister. Is the hon the Deputy Minister prepared to take a question?

Yes, Sir.

Mr Chairman, I want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether this Bill is not unconstitutional in as far as housing was declared an own affair. This Bill relates to housing, being the Housing Development Schemes for Retired Persons Bill, and it is my submission that it is not a general affair and should have been handled as an own affair.

Mr Chairman, I should like to reply first, after which I shall react to the question of the hon member for Border.

Firstly I want to thank the hon members who served on the Standing Committee on Trade and Industry very much for their contributions. Every time Bills come back from that standing committee, hon members have effected substantial improvements. An entire clause was inserted in the Bill we are discussing and various lesser amendments, which were of great value, were effected. I am under the impression that hon members of the House play their part and make the contributions one would expect from MPs.

As regards the remark by the hon member for Border, I want to say—I am not a lawyer—that this Bill could have been placed on the Statute Book by each House separately as an own affairs Act, but it was felt that the matter being dealt with here should apply in the same way to housing schemes for Coloureds, Whites or whatever population group, and that the rules for the protection to be afforded to the aged should be the same, irrespective of the population group. In that sense it is a general measure which can be used by each of the administrations, and personally I have no problems with it.

The hon member for Newclare said it was actually a piece of legislation for the protection of the White aged. This is not true. The aged of all population groups for whom housing schemes are developed run the risk of being cheated.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I merely want to make a rectification regarding what the hon the Deputy Minister says I said.

Order! Once the hon the Deputy Minister has completed his line of thought the hon member can draw my attention to this. The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

Mr Chairman, any aged person in the country, irrespective of his race or colour, is protected by the provisions of the Bill.

I am responsible for all consumer protection in the country and all the legislation in this regard, and later on in this session we shall come to very important legislation, which forms the basis of all consumer protection in the country, namely the Harmful Business Practices Bill. At present there are approximately 15 Acts on the Statute Book which are aimed at protecting consumers, and constantly there are new facets which make it clear that adequate protection for consumers does not yet exist. In that sense the Housing Development Schemes for Retired Persons Bill is further legislation to protect retired persons. It makes provision for protection. It affords the same degree of protection to any person from any population group.

I also want to thank the hon member for Heideveld for his support. Sir, the hon member for Newclare may now put his question if he wishes.

I said it appeared that the Bill made provision mainly for Whites, because at the moment only Whites participate in these schemes, but I realise that our people will also be involved later.

Mr Chairman, I thank hon members, also for the friendly welcome in this House. I am always proud to meet other Free Staters in Parliament.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, the Close Corporations Act, 1984, provides that it shall be the function of the Standing Advisory Committee on Company Law, appointed in terms of the Companies Act, 1973, also to make recommendations to the responsible Minister concerning amendments to the Close Corporations Act that the Committee deems advisable.

Accordingly, the amendments to the Close Corporations Act proposed in this Bill were recommended by the Standing Advisory Committee on the basis of representations submitted to it mainly during 1986 and 1987.

The Bill contains proposals for amendments covering various subjects provided for in the Close Corporations Act and I shall now explain the more important aspects of these proposed amendments.

The first amendment is aimed at removing an uncertainty which has developed in our courts regarding the question concerning which court has jurisdiction to liquidate a close corporation. This uncertainty originated in various conflicting Supreme Court judgments in the Witwatersrand Local Division and the Provincial Divisions of Natal and the Cape. The result of these judgments is that in the area of jurisdiction of the Transvaal Provincial Division of the Supreme Court, only the magistrate’s court may handle liquidation matters concerning close corporations, while in the area of jurisdiction of the Cape Supreme Court both the magistrate’s court and the Supreme Court may handle these matters.

On the other hand, a judgment in the Natal Supreme Court has the effect that in Natal only the Supreme Court may liquidate a close corporation. This situation gives rise to serious insecurity of justice, causes several practical problems and inconvenience for both litigants and the courts and may also give rise to unnecessary legal costs.

The original intention with section 7 of the Close Corporations Act was not to interfere with the inherent jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, but to confer jurisdiction also upon the magistrate’s court in connection with any matter in the Act including the liquidation of close corporations. The said judgments frustrate this intention.

In the period since the implementation of the Close Corporations Act, practice has shown clearly that the Supreme Court should also have jurisdiction to adjudicate matters concerning close corporations. The proposed amendment makes it clear that both the Supreme Court and the magistrate’s court have the necessary jurisdiction to adjudicate any matter in the Act, including liquidation matters. The parties concerned will therefore be in a position to select the most appropriate court for the specific case.

This amendment is supported by the Chief Justice of South Africa and the Judge President of the Witwatersrand Local Division of the Supreme Court and should remove the uncertainty in respect of the jurisdiction of courts over close corporations.

A difference of opinion also exists in legal circles regarding the continued corporate existence of companies which have been converted into close corporations. If a new juristic person is in fact created, close corporations which converted from companies may suffer financial and other losses, for example by having to reregister patents and trade marks held by them in other countries. This would discourage conversions from one to the other. These negative implications can be avoided by amending the Act to state clearly that the conversion will have no effect on the corporate existence of the close corporation concerned. In order to afford the same protection to close corporations which have converted from companies in the past, the amendment is made retroactive to the date when the Close Corporations Act came into operation.

†The Close Corporations Act does not expressly allow the trustee of a trust inter vivos to acquire membership of a close corporation in that capacity. It was never the intention that such trustees should be able to become members of close corporations. In principle only a limited number of natural persons is allowed to become members of a close corporation.

Should trusts inter vivos and juristic persons such as companies be allowed to become members, the simplicity of the law relating to close corporations would be adversely affected and complicated provisions such as in the Companies Act regarding group formation etc, would have to be introduced and the whole object of the Act would be frustrated.

Following a recent judgment of the Supreme Court, there is uncertainty now and the view is held that the trustee of a trust inter vivos may, in his official capacity through a nominee, acquire indirect membership of a close corporation. In order to preserve the simplicity of the close corporation legal system, it is now explicitly provided that the trustee of a trust inter vivos may not in his official capacity become a member of a close corporation, either directly or indirectly.

As a result of this judgment of the Supreme Court I have, by way of a news release on 13 April 1987, made known that the Act will be amended effectively to prevent trustees of trusts inter vivos from acquiring membership. I have also clearly indicated that in order for this amendment to be effective, it would have to be made retroactive to the date of the said news release.

The last amendment relates to the approval and signing of annual financial statements of close corporations. The Act presently requires that these financial statements be approved and signed by, or on behalf of, every member of the corporation. This requirement can in certain cases be difficult to meet and can give members holding a minority interest in the corporation the power to manipulate the other members.

The general principle that resolutions and approvals should be decided by a majority vote, is consequently introduced in regard to this measure.

Mr Chairman, the first object of the Bill is to make it clear that the Supreme Court shall have concurrent jurisdiction in any matter relating to close corporations in which the magistrate’s court has jurisdiction.

Section 27 is also amended in order to place it beyond all doubt that there is no interruption in the existence of the juristic person where a company is converted into a corporation.

It was never the intention that the trustees and trust inter vivos may become members of close corporations. It is now explicitly provided for that such a trustee may not become a member of the close corporation in his official capacity, either directly or indirectly.

The Act requires that an annual financial statement of a close corporation must be approved and signed by, or on behalf of, every member of the corporation. This requirement can in certain cases be hard to meet and can give members holding a majority interest in a close corporation the power to manipulate the other members. The principle is that the solutions and the approval should be decided with a majority vote, consequently introduced. I support the Bill, Mr Chairman.

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon member for Strandfontein for his contribution. This is a very technical Bill and hon members who did not serve on the standing committee may have been a little bored by the tenor of our debate and our business here. However, it is essential for Parliament to give attention to this. I thank hon members for their courtesy and their support.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, the Companies Act, 1973, makes provision for a Standing Advisory Committee on Company Law, and it is inter alia the function of this Advisory Committee to make recommendations to the responsible Minister concerning amendments of the Act that the Committee deems advisable.

Accordingly the amendments to the Companies Act proposed in this Bill were recommended by the Standing Advisory Committee as a result of representations submitted to it by interested parties, mainly during 1986 and 1987.

As the Bill contains proposals for amendments covering a number of subjects embodied in the Companies Act, I shall single out and explain the most important aspects of these amendments. At present only a judge or a senior advocate of the Supreme Court may be appointed as chairman of the Standing Advisory Committee on Company Law. In the past a judge was always appointed to this position and in view of the fact that there is no remuneration attached to such an appointment, this practice will in all probability be continued. However, problems arise when a judge who has been appointed as chairman retires as judge before his term of office as chairman expires and the Standing Advisory Committee wishes to retain his services as chairman. In order to ensure continuity, provision is now being made for a retired judge also to be appointed as chairman.

Furthermore, as far as the Bill is concerned, a difference of opinion exists in legal circles regarding the continued corporate existence of close corporations which have been converted into companies. If a new juristic person were in fact to be created, companies which converted from close corporations may suffer financial and other losses, for example, by having to reregister patents and trade marks held by such close corporations in other countries. This would discourage conversions from one to the other. These negative implications can be avoided by amending the Act to state clearly that the conversion will have no effect on the existence of the juristic person of the company concerned.

In order to afford the same protection to companies which have converted from close corporations in the past, the amendment is made retroactive to the date when the Close Corporations Act was implemented.

In terms of the Companies Act any person having a direct and material interest in a specific name may obtain a registration of that name as a defensive name. This affords the holder thereof protection against the use of that name by any unauthorised person.

However, the registration must be renewed annually and it is generally felt that a longer registration period will be advantageous to both the private and public sectors. Accordingly it is intended to extend to two years the registration period as well as the period for which registration may be renewed.

†The next amendment relates to the notice to be given of general meetings at which special resolutions are to be passed. The Act provides that a special resolution may be passed only and will be registrable only if proper notice of the meeting, and of the contents and effects of the special resolution to be passed, has been given to all members.

This requirement of the Act is aimed at protecting the interests of members, but can place an unduly heavy burden on companies with one or very few members, especially in those cases where all the members are willing to waive their right to receive such notice in respect of a specific special resolution. Provision is therefore made also to allow a special resolution to be passed at a meeting of which no notice as required by the Act has been given, provided that all the members of the company have unanimously consented in writing to the passing of the special resolution concerned.

The last amendment relates to the powers of liquidators of companies to open banking accounts. In the first place, the type of current account which a liquidator has to open with a financial institution is described more accurately.

Order! The hon members for Bishop Lavis and Bonteheuwel must please return to their seats. The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

Sir, with regard to the other amendments of the provisions concerned, the Act presently requires that the liquidator of a company must obtain the Master’s approval before he may open a savings account or place money on an interest-bearing deposit.

Practice has shown that this requirement is unnecessary and it is accordingly abolished. The latter amendments will bring the relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 1973, in line with the corresponding provisions of the Insolvency Act, 1936.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Deputy Minister elaborated fully on the Companies Amendment Bill and everyone agrees that such a Bill should definitely be passed. Companies as well as individuals are protected by this and we wholeheartedly support the amending Bill under discussion.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank hon members for their support for the Bill.

The Companies Amendment Bill deals with very technical matters and, as I said in my Second Reading speech, it was proposed by the Standing Advisory Committee on Company Law. This is a formidable body which always comes to light with well-considered legislation. It is always easy to deal with such legislation and consequently it was a pleasure to be in this House today. I again thank hon members for their support.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.