Mr. Chairman, all of us are conscious of the fact that a strong Defence Force is very important. Money spent on one’s Defence Force, is money well spent, in spite of what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout thinks about it. I believe that every right-minded South African will agree with that. The Defence Force is important to different people for different reasons. For the ordinary citizen of the country it is important because it protects his security. For the liberalist it is important because to him it is an irritant and a waste of money. For the terrorist it is a deterrent. For industry it is a source of income. For the Western world it ought to be, in our case, the protector of the sea-route around the south coast of Africa.

In spite of plans to build a new Suez Canal, we know that the route around the south coast of Africa will still be very important in the future, because that new canal too may be closed quite easily. Therefore it will always remain important from a military point of view. How best can we now protect this route around the southern tip of Africa? I definitely think that there are a few ways in which one can do this. Firstly it can be done from the air, with a proper air force. Secondly it can be done from the sea, with submarines and a navy. I think that submarines are really the most important weapon for a navy. Then there is another way, and that is to retain proper and close contact with the military forces of the Western world, in order to make it possible to exercise proper control over the shipping around the southern tip of Africa. Now it is true that in these matters we have progressed very far. I just want to point out a few examples in this connection.

We have progressed very far in the air, in this respect, too, that we are building our own aircraft. We were impressed by this progress when we visited the factories of Armcor, where the Impala aircraft is also built. Now again, in the White Paper on Defence, we have read of the progress made there, and we hope that it will also be possible to build Mirage aircraft there in the future.

The second example I wish to mention, is the inauguration of the new Maritime Headquarters at Silvermine, which forms a very important link in our control over shipping and also as far as contact with military forces throughout the whole world is concerned. At the opening of this new Maritime Headquarters, the Prime Minister said something in his speech which I would like to quote to this House, because I think it is important that it should be recorded. He said this—

He went on to say that even in spite of the fact that the Western world does not want us to have the weapons, we will nevertheless continue to defend ourselves and the free world as far as is humanly possible.

Then I come to the third point I want to mention, and this is the success which we have achieved with our submarine fleet. If one considers these three small Daphne submarines, it seems a somewhat primitive start. In this connection I read an article recently in Paratus, the military publication. I may just say in passing, Sir, that I want to congratulate those involved on the standard maintained in this publication. For any young man who takes an interest in military affairs, a study of this publication is worth his while. For any person who takes any kind of interest in what is going on in our Defence Force, this publication is of very great value. We are making progress as far as the submarines are concerned, but there is a point I want to mention in this connection. In all the other spheres I mentioned, we are in the process of becoming self-sufficient. I have wondered whether the stage has not been reached when we should also consider building our own submarines. I know that there will be ample space in the Saldanha harbour for an undertaking of this nature. I know that it is a complicated task, Sir, but if we can build an aircraft, we can also build a submarine. Therefore I want to appeal to the Minister to ask Armcor whether they would not consider building submarines, too, in this country. We would then be fully self-sufficient in this respect, and we would be able to perform this major task which has been entrusted to us here on the southern tip of Africa, with success in the future.

Mr. Chairman, on Friday I offered to the hon. the Minister and to the Government the co-operation of this side of the House in respect of Defence. I want to make it very clear that I did not ask for a share of the control or the responsibility of running Defence. What we asked for was a channel of communication, and I quote what I said on Friday—

The hon. the Minister said that he was not prepared to share control or responsibility. That is natural; we accept that; nobody would ask him to do so. We left the form of the co-operation which we had offered open to discussion and to negotiation, and the Minister accepted this in principle. Sir, my purpose in rising this afternoon is to deplore what then followed. The hon. the Minister, in accepting the possibility of a better channel of communication, of closer liaison, reflected, I believe, on the integrity of my leader by making a conditional demand that the hon. the Leader of this Party would have to give an assurance to the hon. the Minister that we would not misuse information which he the Minister gave us in regard to defence. Mr. Chairman, we on this side of the House need no lecture in regard to our duty and our responsibility towards our country and its safety, and this was a reflection upon every member on this side of the House. The hon. the Minister himself said on Friday that he had on a number of occasions given confidential information to this side of the House. I myself referred to this. I referred to the lifting of the curtain which the hon. the Minister had permitted from time to time. I expressed my appreciation of the information and the co-operation which we had received. The hon. the Minister later listed various things which had happened. I specifically thanked him for those opportunities. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether on any single occasion on which he had given either myself or the defence group on this side of the House confidential information, that information had been abused or misused. If there had been such an occasion, then the hon. the Minister would have the right to impose conditions which imply that this side of the House would abuse or misuse for political purposes information that he gave us on security, and unless the hon. the Minister can give some indication or some reason as to why he should ask for that assurance from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, then I believe that he should withdraw the implication which questions the integrity of every member on this side of the House.

Then, Sir, the hon. the Minister imposed a second condition in an unbridled attack on the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. Why did he attack him? I believe that the hon. the Minister misconstrued what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout had said.

Purposely.

I cannot accept that he would have misrepresented it; therefore he must have misconstrued what the hon. member had said.

Order! The hon. member for Turffontein must withdraw the word “purposely”.

Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I did not say anything.

Who said it then?

The hon. member for Florida said it.

The hon. member for Florida must withdraw it.

I withdraw it.

The hon. member may proceed.

Sir, during this very session of Parliament I myself and, I think, the hon. member for Stellenbosch, or some other hon. member on that side, have stated in this House that the first line of defence of South Africa and our greatest guarantee of security is the loyalty of all our people towards South Africa, and that is what I understood the hon. member for Bezuidenhout to say. However that may be, he will have the opportunity this afternoon to deal with it himself. But I want to repeat that I deplore what I regard as a transparent political manoeuvre by the hon. the Minister. He must know that no self-respecting party can accept the condition which he laid down; that no self-respecting party can, in accepting it, imply that its integrity is in question, which it never has been on this side of the House. It is an insult to any member to ask him to give a pledge which implies that he does not know what his duty is to his country; which implies that he does not know what his responsibilities are in regard to any information that he has. I want to say that I repeat my offer unconditionally to the hon. the Minister, and I hope that that is the spirit in which we can negotiate. I do not want to chase hares or red herrings; we are dealing here with the defence and security of South Africa. I place no conditions on the loyalty and the co-operation of the United Party. Our country’s security, our country’s defence, is a matter of deep personal concern to every one of us. Our country’s safety is something for which we are prepared to work and to make sacrifices, and our co-operation is not conditional on the fact that the Minister does not get cross or say something which annoys us. He has said many things which have annoyed us, Mr. Chairman. I myself have attacked him in other debates. The security of South Africa is not a matter with which we should play politics or in which we should use political red herrings to try to evade the basic issue as to whether the Opposition should have access to information which will enable it to play a more positive and a more realistic part in strengthening the defences of South Africa. Having said that, Sir, I want to take the matter no further, because we want to return to what is before this Committee, and that is a proposed expenditure of R481 million which is necessary to secure our defence.

I want, first of all, to welcome the statement by the hon. the Minister that the investigation into the national service system has reached the stage of a preliminary line of approach. I welcome this fact particularly because for the last two years we on this side of the House said that we felt that this was necessary. We said that we felt that the scheme was not working as it should work and that there were directions in which we believed it should be altered so as to improve it. I welcome particularly the fact that we will have an opportunity to discuss the detail when the proposals are complete. As the hon. the Minister indicated, these proposals put forward by him are very tentative proposals, and as they obviously do not cover any detail there is no point in debating their merits across the floor of the House this afternoon. But I thank the hon. the Minister and we will certainly co-operate in that respect.

In the few moments left to me, Sir, I want to raise the question of hitchhiking and the withdrawal of railway concessions, and ask the hon. the Minister if he will not substitute bus transport at nominal rates or even free of charge for long weekends and special occasions. We agree that hitchhiking is dangerous. We regret the withdrawal of the rail concessions, and we feel that the Department of Defence could do valuable training for its transport organization by providing transport to trainees over long weekends.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban Point can argue as much as he likes, but the remarks made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in the Second Reading debate of the Appropriation Bill, reflect on this Defence Vote as such. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said—

A little further he said in regard to that remark—

How does the hon. member for Durban Point reconcile these utterances by one of his party’s most senior front-benchers with his own viewpoint and the viewpoint of his party on Friday when they expressed themselves in favour of this increase?

Read what I said further.

Sir, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has been adequately hauled over the coals by the hon. the Minister, and I just want to say that such a statement by such a senior front-bencher indicates either an absolute naïveté concerning the evaluation of the military threat with which we are confronted or else it indicates that he and/or his party have already given themselves over to that tide which aims to overwhelm us. In the evaluation of our defensive task, we in South Africa have no choice but to take note, firstly, of the broad communist plan for world domination. This is the most important long-term objective of communism. Secondly there is China’s aspiration, as leader of the Third World, to consolidate this Third World. By the Third World is meant the countries of Asia, Africa and America South. Thirdly, against the background of these aspirations, there are, on the one hand Russia’s objectives and, on the other hand, the evaluation of China which directly affects us here in South Africa. As far as Russia is concerned, let me just briefly say this. In one of the secret protocols of the Four Power Treaty which flowed from the Ribbentrop-Molotov consultations of 1940, the following was stated (translation)—

Its aspiration is centred southwards in the direction of the Indian Ocean and this immediately involves us in Southern Africa. But I do not want to confine myself to Russia. I think it is more important for us to see what is happening in regard to Russia’s partner, China.

China says that to them Africa holds the central position in the Third World. A secret Chinese document puts it like this (translation)—

That is what this Chinese document says. The aim of Communist China is therefore to become a vital influence on the continent of Africa. For the purposes of their aim they must obtain a foothold in Southern Africa, they must penetrate into the traditional Western sphere of influence and undermine it, and in accordance with the traditional communist revolutionary pattern they must cause conflict in our part of the continent, here where we, with our multi-national set-up, are working to achieve harmonious and rewarding coexistence. Sir, against this background, how are matters faring with these communistic aspirations?

As far as Russia is concerned, since the early ’sixties, she has already obtained harbour facilities in one or other form in 17 countries having access to or bordering on the Indian Ocean, in accordance with her age-old urge to expansion. She did suffer a set-back in Egypt, but I do not think that is something for the West to rejoice about. The Russian merchant fleet is the seventh largest in the world and it comprises 80 large hatch vessels which could easily be converted into vessels for military purposes. The Russian merchant vessels also supply the Russian naval units with fuel at sea. During the year ended November 1971, 5 500 communist ships passed the Cape of Good Hope. Of them 3 900 were Russian ships. But how are matters faring with China?

Between 1954 and 1971 China made grants and gave aid, including military aid, valued at R758 million to 14 African countries. Of this R341 280 000 went to Zambia and Tanzania alone, almost half to only two countries in Southern Africa. The Tanzam railway is nothing new. A few years ago we were still discussing whether it would be constructed and, if so, when it would be constructed. Now we are asking when it will be completed. Our interest in South Africa in the Tanzam railway lies in its military value, for the conveyance of heavy war material and supplies from Dar-es-Salaam to our border. We foresee that this was one of the initial reasons for the construction of this railway. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North wants to make my speech or if I should make it myself, but I can hardly hear myself with him sitting here talking.

Order!

Looking at the map of Africa, we also see that the Chinese have already moved almost two-thirds of the distance over Africa from east to west through Tanzania and Zambia alone. West of Zambia lies Angola and north of Zambia lies Zaire. North-west of Zaire lies the small Congo-Brazzaville on the Atlantic Ocean. For a long time this country has been within the Chinese communist camp. In October, 1972, it was said in the bulletin of the Africa Institute with reference to Zaire that Zaire is the missing link in China’s sphere of influence in Africa. It went on to say (translation)—

In the first bulletin of this year it is said that Zaire, which is pro-Western and where American influence in particular is very clearly applicable, announced on 27th November that diplomatic relations would be established with Red China. In January, 1973, Pres. Mobutu paid a visit to Red China and very soon after his return attended a summit meeting with Nyerere and Kaunda whose states already form part of the Red Chinese sphere of influence. One asks oneself how long it will take before China will have a belt of influence stretching across Africa, how long it will take before heavy munitions unshipped in Dares-Salaam can be brought not only southwards by rail to our borders but also to the mouth of the Congo River on the Atlantic Ocean.

Apart from communist military infiltration into Africa there are also other African states which, while they could use all the money available to them for development, pump millions into their armies. I mention Nigeria alone. Nigeria’s 1972 defence budget amounted to R600 million as against South Africa’s R342 million. Nigeria has an armed force of 2 274 000. It is against this background, against this military build up in Africa, and also, in this instance, against the background of Russia’s age-old urge to expansion, that we should view our own military budget. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, if there is one matter in which politics ought to play no role, then it is the defence matters of a country. Since the hon. member for Durban Point proposed the establishment of a committee for matters regarding external security, I think the hon. the Minister should give that proposal serious attention once more before possibly rejecting it, no matter under which pretext. Let me tell the hon. the Minister that I do not believe that there is a single person on this side of the House who does not agree that the amount required to be voted, is necessary. I believe there is not a single person on this side of the House who will not give permission …

Except for the hon. member for Bezuidenhout.

No, that was not quite what the hon. member said. That is not so.

But he did say some of it. [Interjections.]

Order!

One should at least be fair. I disagree with some of the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. That is his business. I do not believe that the internal policy of South Africa would contribute greatly to the wantonness of other countries that want to harm us. I believe that as little as Israel will be able to avoid being attacked by the Arab states by changing her internal policy, as little as Portugal is able to contribute anything to her external state security in her colonies, as little as Rhodesia is able to do this, just as little will South Africa be able to do so. That is not the point. The question is—and I think that a good case can be made out for it and that the hon. the Minister should, therefore, take another look at it—whether the time has not arrived for such a commission or such a permanent committee to be established. Other countries are doing so and I think that it is high time for this to be done in South Africa as well. Hon. members know that if war from 1939 to 1945 was a game of draughts, today it is a game of chess. I should like to see the person who, if he is not in the Army, will be able to deduce from this budget and from the knowledge every member has, what is being done and what is not being done.

Japie knows.

I do not want us to be caught as we were caught in 1939 with a series of budgets which resulted in a “bush-cart defence force”.

Is this a “bush-cart defence force”?

Sir, the hon. member for Waterkloof apparently knows everything about these things, but I do not. AI! I want to say is that unless one has all the information, one cannot make any evaluation of the position. With regard to the budget itself, I should like to put a question to the hon. member who is a know-all. He must tell me what all this is about. Has he ever looked at the budget, and has he seen that the number of officers and men in the Army has increased by more than 1 000 and that although the wages have increased, the amount to be voted has decreased from R61 million to R59 million? What does it mean? Of course the hon. member does not know; no one knows, and nor did I until I went to the trouble of finding out. I am simply mentioning these aspects so as to point out to him that one should not be clever so precipitately.

If no one knows, from whom did you find out?

There are people who are not in Parliament from whom one can find out. I want to thank the hon. the Minister for having made it possible for me to find out, but I also want to say that it still does not solve the problem.

†Has this establishment, which has been set out here, been filled? I know it has not, but to what degree are we still under strength? It is not the sort of thing I would like the hon. the Minister to reveal in the House if he does not wish to do so. Surely, a case can be made out for a committee to know exactly what the strength is in terms of the establishment of the Defence Force.

*This is one case only, but there are other cases which I should like to mention here, but which I am not keen to discuss. I do not want to introduce more politics into the debate, but something which bothers me, is the question of the grants-in-aid to certain organizations. What I have in mind is especially the Red Cross, the “Suid-Afrikaanse Noodhulpliga” and the St. John Ambulance Service. According to the information at my disposal, the Red Cross receives R3 000 in this case, the St. John Ambulance Brigade, R6 000 and the “Noodhulpliga”, R45 000. All three of these organizations are excellent organizations but why does the Red Cross receive R3 000 while the “Noodhulpliga” receives R45 000? I regard these to be matters which I should not like to thrash out across the floor of this House, but there is no other place where I can do so. But where else am I to find this out? I do know what the position of the Red Cross is in terms of international agreements and I do know what role the Red Cross can play. Is there any role the “Noodhulpliga” can play which the Red Cross cannot play? It is generally said on the streets that this grant is a kind of “Boerehaat” grant. I do not believe that this is the case; I also hope that this is not the case; but I do think there should be opportunities when and machinery through which these matters can be discussed and through which we may inquire from the hon. the Minister what is happening. If there is one Vote in respect of which one does not want to make accusations across the floor of this House and in respect of which one does not even want to ask information which may give rise to misconstructions, then it is this Vote. One would like to discuss the position of the non-Whites in the Army, which I should not like to do. I mention here what is listed under the Vote and which is there for everyone to read, but to which no one has paid any attention as yet. It concerns the number of non-Whites in the Army and the position they occupy in the Army. Are they subject to military discipline? How many of them are there? What do they do? These are matters one would like to discuss. There are other matters, too, one would like to discuss, but I do not consider myself as being competent enough to go into them since I do not have sufficient information on them.

†In the old days we always received information from Great Britain in connection with possible and probable attacks, but I do not know what the position is today. I do not know how submarines, for instance, come into the picture. As far as I can see the submarine force will be of use mainly to other countries but not necessarily to South Africa. Why is it the position that the overseas countries today will not recognize our claim to allow us to properly defend ourselves in order to help them? I am no authority on naval warfare, but, with great respect, three submarines certainly cannot defend South Africa against a fullscale attack on the coasts or South Africa with the long coastline that we have. However, these submarines can contribute very greatly, in co-operation with other navies, to keep the route round the Cape open and free. However, we do not know what the position is in this regard. I do not know what information the hon. the Minister and his department have and I do not expect them to inform me across the floor of the House, but I do think there should be channels whereby he can inform a selected responsible committee so that it may justly evalue this particular position.

So one can go on. As a layman, with the information at my disposal would think that the greatest immediate threat to South Africa would be from Zambia, and I refer particularly to the railway line being built by the Chinese people who, as the whole world knows, may have aggressive intentions in other parts of the world. We have heard as much again today. To me that looks like the most immediate and real threat and danger to South Africa. We in South Africa are lucky to have a Defence Force and a Defence Force only. We have no war machinery. We have no intentions of attacking another country. It has been stated by the hon. the Prime Minister and by the whole Cabinet, as well as by this side of the House, that we have no hostile intentions towards any country in the whole world. Yet, notwithstanding that, the world is still hesitant to supply us with the necessary equipment to defend ourselves and to help defend the sort of free world which we believe in. I would like to know more about this. As I say, to me as a layman, relying only on the information that I can get from newspaper reports, it would seem that the immediate danger and the greatest danger to South Africa could come via Zambia and Tanzania on account of that railway line and the assistance of the Chinese people. If that is so, one would immediately consider it advisable to switch over a greater proportion of the Army’s equipment to land and air defences rather than sea defences. However, I am not in a position to know, as I do not know the full story. So, I say that the hon. the Minister must not dismiss the plea for an interparty commission so rapidly and particularly not on the grounds on which I believe the hon. the Minister dismissed it last time. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that the otherwise very good speech by the hon. member for Sea Point was marred by a reference to the so-called bush-cart army of Mr. Oswald Pirow. He does not seem to realize that the bush-cart was introduced for specific training purposes at the time. So I do not understand why he keeps using this story of the bush-cart, almost every year, to show how primitive National Party rule is in regard to its military training centres. This really detracts from a very good speech on his part.

†Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I do not want to labour very much the points raised by him during the Second Reading expressing suspicion and doubt regarding the excessive amount to be voted for defence in the Budget. He has expressed the view that the amount budgeted for is certainly not justified. Where one expresses such doubts and suspicion, it reminds one of the bats flying at twilight: They are afraid to come out with details into the open daylight. For this reason I say it is certainly detrimental to South Africa and probably the hon. member was deliberating this point on the excessive amount in the Defence Budget specifically for external consumption.

I would like to follow up that which the hon. member for Waterkloof expressed in his speech. I want to take it a bit further and say that on his visit to China, Pres. Nixon …

May I ask the hon. member a question? Can the hon. member quote to me where the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that this expenditure was not justified?

I do not have the Hansard before me, but I think everybody will agree that what the hon. member said was that he thought it was excessive … [Interjections.] I am prepared to withdraw it if the hon. member will read to me from his speech in Hansard. I now come to the point which I wish to raise in connection with South-West Africa. I want to start with Pres. Nixon of the U.S.A. who is quoted to have said that the primary goal of his trip was to re-establish communication with the Peoples’ Republic of China after a generation of hostility. “We achieved that goal”, said Pres. Nixon. But to the man in the street each side did an about face, did away with old prejudices and started anew. All of us who know the history of the relationship between China and the U.S.A. prior to 1972 will agree with me. I seem to remember reading in the newspapers at the time that the about face happened very gracefully at the beginning of 1972, known as the year of the rat, namely from the beginning of the Chinese New Year in February when the visit of Pres. Nixon took place. The symbolism of this animal is not as politically drastic for the Chinese as it is for us but it is certainly not a particularly good omen for us in South Africa. Rats are known to be very slippery creatures. However, the fortunes of the great can be equally slippery. With the balance of power changing in Asia, and I think we are all agreed that the balance of power has certainly changed in Asia, I would' like to pose the question whether there is an effort by China to neutralize America so that it can have unimpeded adventures on the Continent of Africa, a fact which is of course very important to us on the south point of Africa. If this is to be taken for granted, which is very likely, then we are in for generations of perpetual strife and struggle against Mao Tse-tung and his philosophy of uninterrupted revolution. This is borne out by the activities of the Chinese in Zambia in connection with the Tanzam railway line, the known presence of the Chinese in Botswana, a fact which is general knowledge to us in South-West Africa and the proposed bridging of the Zambezi as a connecting link between Zambia and Botswana. What is more, all this cannot be divorced from the recent success of terrorists in both the Caprivi and Rhodesia. Over the years they have certainly been better trained and recent experience has shown that they are using more sophisticated arms in their combat on the borders or inside South African—South-West African or Rhodesian territory. This brings me to my second question: Is the time not ripe for South Africa, or the South African forces, specifically referring to the South African Army, to take over the area in the Caprivi where it borders on Zambia. If it is not ripe now, at what stage of the terroristic activities is it going to be ripe? I do not expect a reply from the hon. the Minister, but it would certainly seem necessary that certain more stringent steps will have to be taken, even if it means scorching the terrain along the border with Zambia.

*In the light of my personal knowledge of that area in the Caprivi Zipfel and the northern part of South-West Africa, it seems to me that this will be the only solution in regard to this matter. One is really dealing here with children of nature who move about in the dark and in the dense woods of that region, where an open confrontation is not actually possible.

I now want to refer to another aspect of the Chinese exploration in Africa, if one may call it that. At the time the German statesman, Baron von Bismarck, obtained the Caprivi strip, i.e. the part from the Okavango across the Cuando up to the Zambezi, through negotiations at diplomatic level. He did so by exchanging with Britain that small strip of land for the Samoa Islands in the Pacific, which belonged to Germany. The reason why this small strip was acquired was to obtain access to Central Africa, as was stated at the time, so that he could make contact with the Zambezi and the then German colony, Tanganyika, which is known as Tanzania today. Now it is very interesting, in the light of this strategy on the part of Baron von Bismarck at that time, that the Chinese now have exactly the same end in view in the opposite direction, and are implementing it by building the Tanzam railway line in the direction of the Caprivi strip. I want to leave it at that. I just want to add that we regard terrorism with particular interest, especially those of us in the north of South-West Africa who have, as far back as 1967, been confronted by these terrorist activities, these murderous schemes. The events in Rhodesia today underline the fact that it is specifically the people on the farms who suffer the most and who have to live in the greatest fear. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member, who has just sat down, will forgive me if I do not continue his line of thought, for the simple reason that I want to speak about morale.

†Notwithstanding all the equipment, the uniforms and the training—some people call it indoctrination—everything depends on the morale of the man in the field, the man who is fighting. The Minister in the past has told us that all is well with the Defence Force, and we have been left with the impression that any criticism or query which we may give from this side of the House, is not patriotic and should not be discussed. However, we are discussing a very important aspect of our South African way of life because it is our children as well as the children of Nationalists who will be defending South Africa if and when it should become necessary. Living in this aura of, shall we say, self-satisfaction, the Government was no doubt somewhat rudely awakened when the past Commandant General of the South African Defence Force made a speech at Potchefstroom on 9th February. This speech was reported in the Press. I may say that it did not come as quite such a surprise to some of us on this side. What did surprise us was that it should come from a man who had held the highest post in the Defence Force of South Africa, and that he should have said what he did say on that occasion in Potchefstroom. To strengthen those qualms, I refer to paragraphs 41 and 108 (a) of the White Paper on Defence, which deal with the attitude towards national service and the importance of personnel respectively. When one looks at these two paragraphs, one can read between the lines that all is not as well with the personnel of the Defence Force as it should be. One is grateful that the South African Defence Force is aware of this situation and that it is no doubt doing something about it.

Before I go on to deal with this question, I should like to ask hon. members to consider the following questions which I shall put to them. What induces a soldier to risk his life bravely? We must remember that no man wants to die. What causes him to face death in a brave manner? Is it the hope of loot or glory? Is it because he is disciplined? Is it because of the tradition of the regiment in which he is serving? Is it devotion to a cause or to his country or is it devotion to a man, in other words, his leader?

We do not know.

You do not know? You will never know. The point is that glory or loot appeals to few these days, and in any case, there is not much to be had. Decorations or promotions count for something, but these must be carefully distributed, with justice. Belief in a cause may count for much, especially if fostered by the mass propaganda which we get today and by the training which is given at our bases. Devotion to a man or a leader has sometimes in the past inspired soldiers to die for them. Let us, however, come back to the fact that tradition and discipline are the real roots of the matter. By discipline I mean that justice must be fairly and reasonably administered, that the soldier is well fed and looked after, and that he too is well administered, that he gets everything … [Interjections.] Members may laugh, but they do not realize how important it is. The hon. the Minister made fun of my colleague, the hon. member for Florida, the other day when he pointed out that, during manoeuvres, men were being shunted around by umpires. The men did not know who they were, and they got browned-off. [Interjections.]

I shall tell you what “Browned-off” means, if you do not know. With all due respect to an Admiral of the Fleet, Sir, who has not done any footslogging, I should like him to put himself in the shoes of the soldier who has to run from A to B or crawl from A to B without quite knowing why he has to do it. Not only in manoeuvres does this happen, but also in actual warfare. I know this; I had it when I was in the ranks and when I was an officer. I know what it is therefore; the man in the field wants to know what is happening, and that can only come about through administration. Hon. members must remember that a man does not flee because he is fighting in an unrighteous cause; he does not attack because his cause is just. He flees because he is weaker and the odds are against him, and he conquers because he is stronger or his leader has made him feel that he is the stronger person. Sir, what has struck me for years past over this question of morale is that there seems to be a certain malaise going through the South African Defence Force. Whether the Minister of Defence will admit ir or not, it is there. I give full credit to the officers for their loyalty. They will not talk, but if you talk to their wives you will hear the grouses.

How do you know?

I know.

He also had a wife.

It has struck me in talking to these trainees that for every trainee you find who says that he had a jolly good time and that he would go through his training again, you find six or seven who don’t want to go through it ever again.

You are exaggerating.

There is something wrong somewhere.

Where did you make the test?

I made the test all over the place.

*I happen to be bilingual and I do not talk to English-speaking people only, but to Afrikaans-speaking people as well. Something is drastically wrong there.

†It is only right that the Defence Force should put its house in order. To me it is shocking that a man who has done his training should come away from a regimental institution feeling bothered about the fact that although he has completed his training he still has to go back to camp for a certain number of years. Why has regimental pride not been inculcated in that man? Some of them say—and this is where I have argued with them: “They are trying to turn us into young Nats.”

That is not true.

That is what they say. Sir, this is the crux of the matter. [Time expired.]

I think the hon. member, who has just resumed his seat, will surely not blame me if I do not try to follow up on what he said. I find it quite difficult; I think I should concede to him that I am simply capitulating here and now.

Sir, I should like to express a few ideas in connection with a speech the hon. the Minister made last year and also in connection with events in one of our neighbouring states, i.e. Rhodesia. I am referring here to events in the Centenary area. The trend of my thinking will presently become clear to hon. members. Sir, I do not think it is far-fetched if I express the opinion that whatever problems or difficulties may lie ahead of our Armed Forces or the Defence Force—I should like to emphasize the word “defence”—it is fairly generally accepted that conventional warfare is almost out of the question. There is every indication that they would deviate from that. Since we shall not be the aggressors under any circumstances, but will remain on the defence, we shall perhaps at no stage be able to determine what the nature of the task will be that we shall have to carry out. For that reason I believe that it is desirable for our Defence Force to extend its areas of preparation for defence as far as possible.

I now come to the idea which the hon. the Minister expressed last year at Kuruman, i.e. that we must also be prepared, particularly in our rural areas, for anything that could happen. We do, it is true, have our Defence Force with its various divisions, and at the present moment we are being protected by the Police Force in particular. It is also true that we can rely on our commandos, but these are all bodies that are situated in specific places. But in far-off and extensive rural areas where difficulties and problems can crop up—and not necessarily on the borders—attention must also be given to our defence and protection. I am thinking, for example, of the fact that in the Cape, where the rural areas are divided up into wards or divisional council areas, we should ensure in those areas that people are organized on a voluntary basis. That is where the terrorist, the evil-doer and the assassin swoop down. We saw what happened in Rhodesia. Where such onslaughts are made on citizens, it goes without saying that people are killed. In many cases there are wounded, and people who are seriously crippled who need help. In such cases it is also vitally necessary, in the very first instance, that help should immediately be summoned. We are aware of the fact that in such far-off areas, and elsewhere too, the first endeavour is to cut lines of communication. Telephone lines are destroyed. It could also happen that motor vehicles and other means of transport, which are necessary to bring help from the closest areas, are cut off.

I therefore think that it is necessary to give substantial thought to that and that an attempt should be made to see along what lines we can mobilize our rural population to also to be able to supply those necessary services in the case of an emergency. I know it is perhaps a matter that cannot be put into effect all that easily, but I nevertheless believe that there is a great deal of merit in the idea that we should get our people together. In city and town areas we already have our police reservists to assist the Police. Why can we then not also organize our rural civilian population to such an extent that they can stand together and be organized, particularly in the far-off areas, thereby to be able to contribute their share in the case of an emergency. I believe that we could perhaps even bring a measure of first-aid to the attention of the people there so that they could apply it. I am thinking in particular, in consequence of what I said a moment ago, of communication with others. There are so many ways to do this. I think it is probably not inappropriate for us to point out to the farmer in the rural areas that his saddle-mount should not go unconsidered at all in such cases.

I am very glad that our Defence Force is also specifically letting the horse come into its own again. If they strike at a farm dwelling and the telephone line is cut and motor vehicles have been put out of action, the farmer’s saddle-mount can still always serve a very useful purpose. I hope that, since the hon. the Minister has already pointed this matter out in his previous speech, he would Perhaps elucidate a little more on this occasion.

Mr. Chairman. I think a number of members have participated in the debate who are entitled to receive replies from me, as briefly as possible. The hon. member who has just resumed his seat, referred to the idea I expressed last year that there should be greater co-ordination between security forces available in the rural areas, and farmers’ associations. I did not mean by that all the rural areas, but was discussing Kuruman, and I had in mind those rural areas which are possible or potential danger zones as far as terrorist attacks are concerned. I said that I hoped that they would effect the necessary liaison between the farmers’ associations, the commandos and other local security forces, so that the necessary co-ordination would exist between the Police, the commandos and the farmers’ organizations to ensure that protection. I do not want to go any further than simply to express the wish that we should make use of the means we have at our disposal in those areas to plan in a co-ordinated way, and that if they should want advice, suggestions could be made by the Chief of the Army or the Chief of Civil Defence. I merely expressed the desirability of there being co-operation. I think everyone will agree that it is necessary. I did not have all the rural areas of South Africa in mind.

†The hon. member for Umlazi referred to the personnel position. All I wish to say is that I fully agree with the hon. member that we should do as much as possible to make our soldiers a happy and contended group. We are doing our utmost. I know that as far as housing is concerned there remains a lot still to be done. Annually we are pressing as far as possible to acquire the necessary funds for improvement and I think we have made strides ahead. I fully agree with the hon. member that a soldier and especially his family should be happy before you can expect the best of him.

*The hon. member for Etosha discussed the question of the threat in certain areas of our country. I do not want to discuss this in public this afternoon except to say that there is a proper understanding between the South African Police and the South African Defence Force, and that we are trying, in the light of our experience we have acquired to act in such a way that the South African Defence Force does not take over the work of the Police prematurely, and that the Police in their turn do not have to do the work of the Defence Force. I think the hon. member may rest assured that we are constantly trying to maintain that co-ordination.

The hon. member for Sea Point raised the question of auxiliary services. Let me say that there are very good reasons for the appropriations. In fact, I furnished the reasons for that last year, either by way of statement or by way of an elucidation which I gave here. I am not very clear on this point now. However. I did deal with the relationship between the Red Cross, the St. John Ambulance and the Noodhulpliga here. The facts of the matter are that organizations such as the St. John Ambulance Association and the Red Cross have other tasks to perform as well. It is true that they have certain obligations to the Defence Force, but they also have other tasks and obligations in the country. Not only do they have obligations to the Defence Force, they have other obligations as well. For that reason they cannot be placed exclusively in the service of the Defence Force. I think that one of them, for example, has major obligations to the Mines. Another has major obligations to the Railways, and I understand that the organizations in question is also in receipt of a subsidy from that source. The relationship between the Surgeon-General and the Red Cross, still exists, as in the past. This means that in a time of emergency or in a time of war the Red Cross will perform certain services for the Surgeon-General, and it is still being subsidized for that. The International Red Cross receives a considerable subsidy.

R8 000.

Yes. When the subsidies are reviewed from time to time, this will also be applicable to all. It is not correct to say that the fact that the Noodhulpliga is receiving a better subsidy than the other organizations is proof of Boer hatred.

No, I was just wondering.

The hon. member said he was just wondering, but it is the expression of little ideas like that which sets a lot of speculation in motion in the country, and which could easily result in chain reactions. The idea could perhaps arise that we are favouring the one organization over the other. I have the greatest appreciation for the work being done by the Red Cross, and they know it. Our relationship with them is an excellent one, and the same applies to the St. John Ambulance Association, but they have specific tasks, and so does the Noodhulpliga. The Noodhulpliga has been placed in the service of the civil defence organizations. They have undertaken to establish what are virtually voluntary organizations throughout the country for the sole purposes of civil defence and not to accept other obligations. For that reason we are subsidizing them as we are in fact doing. If they do not meet the requirements we have laid down, the matter will be reconsidered. My information is, however, that they are making very good progress. In any case, their services are exclusively geared to civil defence services. That is the reason why they are receiving that assistance.

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister? Does the hon. the Minister not think that since the Red Cross, by chance or however it came about, draws most of its members from the English-speaking sector, and the Noodhulpliga on the other hand draws most of its members from the Afrikaans-speaking sector, the difference in subsidies— R4 000 and R30 000 respectively—is slightly out of proportion, since both are serving or can serve the civil defence services?

They cannot both do the same thing. That is impossible. We cannot have both organizations in the service of the Surgeon-General, for there would then be confusion. Nor can we have both organizations in the service of civil defence. It is in fact true that the Red Cross does work in peacetime which to a certain extent duplicates that of the Noodhulpliga, but there is no question of the Red Cross doing the same kind of work for the Surgeon-General as the Noodhulpliga is doing. If the hon. member says the Red Cross is receiving an inadequate amount, that is a different matter. If the Red Cross comes to us and is able to make out a case as to why it is entitled to an increased subsidy, we will gladly consider that, but we must not confuse the work the different organizations are doing.

Mr. Chairman, may I put a question to the hon. the Minister? Is there no possibility of combining the Red Cross, the St. John Ambulance and the Noodhulpliga to form one body?

It is not for me to tell the Red Cross, the Noodhulpliga and the St. John Ambulance Association that they should combine forces. They are voluntary organizations and can arrange their own affairs as they think fit.

Could you not encourage them?

What I am in fact encouraging, is that the membership of all of them should be open to both population groups. That is what I am advocating, and I have succeeded in this. In fact, the Noodhulpliga, which originated as an Afrikaans-speaking organization, voluntarily and cheerfully amended its constitution in such a way, at our request, that they are making provision for both language groups.

There are Coloured divisions as well.

Yes, the hon. member has just stated correctly that they also have Coloured divisions. The same applies to the Red Cross. My point is that if hon. members or the organizations in question feel that their subsidies are not in order, it is for them to thrash out the matter with us, but we must not allow the work of these organizations to overlap in such a way that we subsequently create confusion among the voluntary organizations.

The hon. member for Sea Point also raised another question. In this connection there is just one matter I want to correct. We are constantly hearing that the poor Mr. Pirow made bush-carts. I do not know whether it was really such a terribly bad thing for Mr. Pirow to have thought at the time in terms of bush warfare. On the contrary; I think that he saw very far into the future, if this can be attributed to him, but I think it is quite likely that he was advised, inter alia, by his officers. In any case it was not per se such a completely wrong idea to think in terms of bush warfare, for today we are saddled in practice with problems in respect of bush wars, to which some of our modern weapons are not suited. For that reason not only South Africa, but some of our neighbouring states as well are now having to return, inter alia, to the horse, precisely in order to cope with certain facets of a bush war. Our neighbours are making effective use of horses, and we have proved in practice that the use of horses is by no means all that absurd. Mr. Pirow was therefore not all that wrong. We can say of Mr. Pirow what we like, but I do not think that this was all that foolish. Perhaps he realized that this could be a possible development in future. I reiterate that, in spite of what is said about Mr. Pirow, the fact of the matter is that the United Party government did not give him enough money to arm South Africa properly at the time. When I say that, I am not taking up the cudgels for him; in any case he was not at that stage a National Party minister.

The hon. member for Sea Point also raised the question of submarines and their use. He also raised the question of the relationship between us and Great Britain and other countries as far as sea warfare was concerned. All I wish to say is that there exist improved relations under the Simonstown Agreement and I hope that these relations will be developed positively in the spirit existing today. I do not think that we should spell out this matter too explicitly. But there are improved relations, and I welcome that. I think that we will have to do everything in our power to cause the Simonstown Agreement to work according to the spirit and the letter of that Agreement. I think it is of the utmost importance for South Africa, and also for the free world, that in so far as the Simonstown Treaty can make a contribution, it will make the contribution to the stability in the southern hemisphere, particularly in the Indian Ocean. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that I shall not hesitate to do what I personally can in this connection. In that sense our submarines are of the utmost value. But submarines are not only of significance in respect of the relations and the teamwork with other countries; they also have significance in this sense that they have a deterrent value for South Africa. Even though we do have a few, I do not think we have enough. If we had the money, we should have had a few more, for a country will think twice before it intimidates you from the seaward side if it knows that you have submarines. In that sense the submarines are of importance to us.

The hon. member also mentioned that people say that South Africa should concentrate on air defence rather than on maritime defence. In a situation such as the one we are dealing with, where one has to prepare for a possible unconventional attack which may escalate, or for a limited conventional attack, one must take both these elements into account. In such a situation it is, after all, not possible to say that we now prefer air defence, and that maritime defence will simply have to remain in the background.

But I did not say that.

I am not saying the hon. member said that; we are both referring to the people who do say that. My reply is, and we say this in the White Paper, that we must establish a balanced Defence Force. A balanced Defence Force means that there has to be a proper relationship between maritime defence, coastal defence, air defence and ground defence, with the necessary support for maritime and ground defence. In other words, one must as far as possible to the extent to which one’s funds allow, establish a balanced Defence Force. In South Africa’s case, with a 2 000 mile long coastline, and knowing what we do in regard to preparations which are being made for possible infiltration, it would be foolish not to establish the necessary coastal defence, against unconventional forces as well. For that reason it is wrong of people to ask what we want to do with a navy, or what we want to do with weapons to defend our coastline. This cannot be done from the air only, and for that reason it is becoming an ever-growing problem to establish a balanced Defence Force with our limited means. It is, in fact, not only our problem, but the problem of the entire world. I shall come to that again in a moment.

The hon. member for Waterkloof presented a very thorough survey of the threats against South Africa. I thank him for having done so, but it was a pity that he was not allowed to do so in such a way that everyone could hear. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having come to his assistance.

The hon. member for Humansdorp raised the question of the possible construction of submarines. I want to inform the hon. member that the submarine is the most sophisticated warship there is, and I do not think South Africa has reached that stage yet. What we did in fact do was, as the White Paper said, to institute a very thorough investigation into the potential of South Africa for constructing surface ships. That report is in our hands, but I cannot deal with that report before I have had an opportunity of discussing it with my colleague, the Minister of Economic Affairs, and giving consideration to it to see whether we cannot come to the Government with joint proposals. Know-how will have to be acquired, and the facilities will also have to be developed, for the experts agree on one thing, namely that one cannot construct surface ships for war purposes in the same shipyard as surface ships for commercial purposes.

At Humansdorp this can be done.

No, near to Humansdorp; it is a possibility. After all, the hon. member is a protagonist of the development of Port Elizabeth. I do not think it will be established there, but I do not think the hon. member for Humansdorp would want it to be built at Jeffreys Bay. But it is a very interesting study and we are presently engaged in making another study as well, viz. we are trying to obtain from the navy a projection of how they see the development of the navy over a period of 12/15 years. When we have that projection study, together with this report on the potential for constructing ships, we will go to the Government together with considered proposals. But that will still take time. I do think, however, that it is too early for submarines.

†The hon. member for Salt River once again referred to the correspondence I had with him and the point he raised last year in this debate in connection with the provision of standard equipment. I think the hon. member must just read that letter again. I cannot add anything to it. We have two tender boards. One falls under the control of the Armament Board and concerns equipment specifically required for defence purposes, for the acquisition whereof we need the agreement of our technical staff. As regards the ordinary State Tender Board, tenders are asked in public for standard equipment.

*There is nothing I can add to that. Standard equipment includes, inter alia, steamrollers, motorcycles or ordinary motor vehicles. Surely it is not necessary for the engineers of the Armaments Board to lay down specifications for this equipment.

The hon. member for Heidelberg made very kind remarks about the Civil Defence College. I agree with him. It is a very fine undertaking. I think we ought to have more of them, but we do not have the money. Nevertheless I thank him for his kind words in this connection.

The hon. member for Worcester referred to citizenship training and cadets. South Africa is not the only country which has started to include citizenship training in its Defence Force training. I have dealt previously with citizenship training here, and furnished an elucidation of this matter. It has nothing to do with party political influencing. It concerns the motivation of soldiers in regard to the defence of their country, and it is being done in both Western and communistic countries. We are trying to do this on a scientific basis, and constant attempts are being made to do this in such a way that more is constantly being done in this regard as far as the leisure time utilization of the young men are concerned. There is the old story that we want to turn them into young Nationalists. Well, Sir, if they have been in the Defence Force and have, through citizenship training become a Nationalist, I cannot help it. All that I want to say in this connection is that I trust the people involved in this matter. They are not engaged in party politics in the Defence Force; they are engaged in citizenship training.

The hon. member also referred to the cadet system. Let me inform him that the change in the cadet system took place as a result of talks held between the Defence Force and the Educational Heads. I am not very happy with the change. I honestly think—and I told my colleague this—that we should return to a broader basis as far as the training of cadets is concerned. If one considers the youth organization in a country such as Israel one realizes what one can accomplish at school to prepare the young people for service in the Defence Force.

Why did you abolish it?

But I have this very minute explained it, and I explained it last year as well. Was the hon. member not here? Surely I told him that it is a system which was worked out by the Educational Heads and the Defence Force, and that we wanted to give the new system a chance. The old cadet system did not work properly either. Let us concede that, too. But my time is limited. Surely I cannot keep on explaining the same things.

No, you have unlimited time.

Yes, but surely I cannot stand here the whole day talking. We are waiting for other people to talk. We are really looking forward to hearing what the heroes of the Second World War have to say.

Where were you at the time?

No, I was not in that war; I am not a hero of the Second World War, but neither are you! [Interjections.] I am a perfectly ordinary person who was opposed to the war, and the whole world knows it, but I have never boasted of having been in favour of the war and of therefore having had a duty in that regard. It was voluntary; you could join or not, as you pleased, and I preferred not to. What of it? However, we are waiting for the heroes. After all, they announced, Sir, that they were going to speak. [Interjections.]

To return to the hon. member for Worcester, I was referring, before I was interrupted, to the cadet system. All that I want to say is that I have already told my colleague that we should reconsider the entire question of the cadet system. We must find a new basis, and it must be done in the same spirit which exists in other countries. Let me state frankly that I am greatly enamoured of the way in which this is being done in Israel. In Israel there is a policy of motivation in regard to the youth movement. The Defence Force takes the young men and young girls at an early stage, and they are motivated for the task they will subsequently have to fulfil. I say that I like it; I am enamoured of that system. They have a motto, based on Psalm 127, verse 4, which reads as follows: “As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth”. If we want to oppose the forces of revolution, of chaos and of anarchy, we must begin with our young people at school. We shall, with the knowledge we have acquired, give attention to this matter; it is in the interests of South Africa and its Defence Force. I thank the hon. member for his contribution.

The hon. member for Potchefstroom informed me that he was unable to be here.

He is probably with the Rapportryers.

It might be that he is with the Rapportryers; if he is, he is engaged in very good motivational work. [Interjections.] It is strange that hon. members are always opposed to everything which originated in South Africa. There is always a question mark hanging over anything which originated in South Africa.

It is a sectional interest.

Yes, Sir, and do you know what? It is the sectional interests in which that hon. member should also take an interest. [Interjections.]

May I ask a question?

Sit down!

Order! The hon. the Minister does not want to reply to a question.

The hon. member for Potchefstroom put a question in regard to armoured cars. I think that on page 17 of the White Paper the question of armoured cars and also of guns is partially dealt with. I can inform the hon. member that we are engaged in a modernization programme for our armoured cars, and when we have completed the modernization programme, we will give consideration to acquiring new armoured cars, but that they are a very expensive item and we cannot spend too much in one specific direction.

Then, the hon. member for Cradock referred to the question of Greeffswald and what is being done there. I have no doubt that the hon. member is right about our having saved the lives of many young men by the steps we are taking, not only at Greeffswald, but throughout the Defence Force, to prevent the use and abuse of drugs.

The hon. member for Pretoria District expressed his appreciation for the chaplain services. Sir, let me say that I have the greatest appreciation for our chaplain services of all denominations. I want to emphasize that there is the most cordial co-operation among the chaplain services of all churches, and we wish to welcome the fact that these chaplains are making such a great contribution to the development of our Defence Force. I cannot omit to express my appreciation to the churches.

The hon. member for Durban Point referred to the White Paper and the only thing he seemed to be able to find in the White Paper which was not to his liking— I do not take it amiss of him—were the words we used here viz. “in support of Government policy”. Sir, I took the trouble to do a little reading-up over the weekend to determine whether we did not perhaps make a mistake. I consulted quite a number of dictionaries, defining dictionaries and encyclopaedias. I find that the official defining dictionary, the best one we are using today, states that “Government” means “ruler; authority”; “state” means “government”, and “state policy” means “plans, intentions in regard to the government of a country”. I then consulted the encyclopaedia and this is stated: “Government is concerned specifically with that side of social life which is focused upon consent, control, power and authority.” When I read those definitions and consult books on constitutional law, I can find no fault with the use of the word “government” in that sense, and it should have been clear to the hon. member that we are referring there to state administration. Sir, let me say this to the hon. member: Whether he likes it or not the policy of this Government is at the moment the policy of this State, and for that reason we were quite justified in using the words we used in the White Paper. I do not know what point the hon. member was trying to make.

The hon. member for North Rand referred to the short service staff in the Air Force. Sir, no one obliges any person to accept short service in the Air Force; the hon. member knows it. It is a free choice exercised by the individual, and if he therefore, to his detriment as compared to the Permanent Force member as far as his pension is concerned, prefers short service for himself, because he wants to leave the service at an early stage so that he is able, at a younger age, to make a new start elsewhere, then he does so of his own free choice. They do not contribute to the Permanent Force pension fund; I do not think we can allow that, for obvious reasons. We cannot allow that because they retire at the age of 45 years. Many of them prefer to do this and then enter another field. It is in fact true that it did have a detrimental effect in one or two cases where someone lost his life. I have notes here before me which indicate that in case of death the benefits under the Workmens’ Compensation Act for a member whose salary was more than R200 per month, are the following: A gratuity of R400 plus R60 per month for his widow and R30 per month per child, up to a maximum of three children under the age of 17 years. In case of injury compensation is paid according to the degree of disability. If the disability is more than 30% a monthly pension is paid out. I think what the hon. member had in mind was the death of one of our young pilots in this disaster on the slopes of Table Mountain. I am aware of that. In that case, I think one should try the course of taking the matter to the pensions committee in an effort to obtain relief. We cannot, for these isolated cases, now make a rule which will subsequently land the State in difficulties as far as its Permanent Force is concerned. But I sympathize with the point raised by the hon. member.

Then the hon. member also referred to Bantu wages. The procedure which is adopted is that we try to establish from all the official bodies in a specific area what the current wage in that area is, and on that basis the Bantu wages for the specific labourers are paid. I am even under the impression that some of them could be better paid, and I shall give more attention to that during the recess; I cannot deal with this matter now in the short time at my disposal.

†The hon. member also referred to the statement by the previous Commandant-General and he wanted me to make some comments on it. Well, the Prime Minister has already referred to that speech. All I wish to say is that I think it was an ill-considered statement, and I was disappointed when I read it. Furthermore, I wish to say that South Africa has no intention of engaging in an arms race with any other State or States, and that is stated specifically in the White Paper. I do not think we must expect our Defence Force to try to build up a defence force with equipment which can challenge all the super powers of the world. That is not the intention.

*What we are trying to do is firstly to establish a deterrent against an excursion against us, and secondly to ensure that we will have the means of protecting our borders against the kind of evils with which the modern world has to cope. I think the White Paper deals very clearly with that, and in view of this I do not think that we should condemn the speech made by the previous head of the Defence Force. I think we should leave it to him. He made it long after he had left the service and I am certain that if he had still been head of the Defence Force, he would not have made such a speech. But in any case I cannot agree with it. I do not think the hon. member can expect me to say more than that.

You replied to it very easily.

Of course. It is very easy to reply to something which is wrong. Then the hon. member for Durban Point referred quite correctly, at the outset of his speech made on Friday, to the fact that the amount we are budgeting for this year is a record amount, but the hon. member acted in a responsible manner. He acted in a responsible manner in the sense that he added at once that the Opposition had considered it in the light of the threats against us and that they supported it. No one will take it amiss of any person for saying that it is a record amount. Sir, even I am frightened by Defence costs, not only in South Africa, but throughout the world. The fact of the matter is that throughout the world there is concern today at the colossal rise in Defence costs. For that reason the various countries are trying to bring these costs down through rationalization and standardization. Let me say at once that we in South Africa also believe that we should not try to acquire all kinds of sophisticated armaments. We must try to obtain and manufacture effective armaments, but to keep the costs low. To achieve this we have recruited some of South Africa’s best business brains and scientists to serve on the boards of directors not only of Armscor but also of the subsidiary companies, the factories which fall under Armscor. The Armaments Board went out of its way to take into its employ a group of technical, mechanical and chemical engineers through which it could exercise cost and other control, precisely in order to prevent costs from rising unnecessarily.

In spite of the fact that we are budgeting for what is a record amount for Defence expenditure, it should be pointed out that the Budget as a whole is also a record one, for, after all, our country is making progress. Let us consider for a moment what is happening in other countries, and we find that Britain’s latest defence budget comprises 18,9% of its State expenditure. It comprises 5,75% of its gross national product, and that means R104 per capita. In France it is 17,7% of its State expenditure, 3% of its gross national product, and that means R104 per capita. In Germany it is 23,1% of its State expenditure, 3,1% of its gross national product, and that means R110 per capita. In the Netherlands it is 12,7% of its State expenditure, 3,7% of its gross national product, and that means R125 per capita. In Canada it is 13% of the State expenditure, 2,1% of the gross national product, and that means R67 per capita. In the Republic of South Africa it is 10,7% of its State expenditure—the lowest of all these countries—2,9% of its gross national product, and that means R22 per capita if one bases it on the entire population, but R122 if one bases it on the Whites only. In comparison with the Free World South Africa is therefore not overspending on Defence; to tell the truth, experts in this field come here from time to time and tell me straight out that they do not know how we are able to succeed in achieving what we are in fact achieving on such a small budget. I want to quote what Business South Africa had to say about this last year—

That is what authorities, such as our businessmen for example, think. Let us now consider the increase in respect of our Defence Budget this year. An amount of R22 million of the increase is a direct result of devaluation. We had to make provision for that. Rising costs in the previous year alone, up to the end of 31st March, were responsible for 23% of this increase. Inevitably there are tremendous increased costs in this field, more than in any other. In this increase is also included an amount of R12½ million, which was appropriated for the Special Defence Account for eventualities. I think it is a very good policy which is being adopted by the hon. the Minister of Finance, i.e. to make annual provision once more for an amount for the Special Defence Account so that we may be prepared, with a view to eventualities, to buy those items which we want to buy. Otherwise, if we cannot buy them, they have to be manufactured. Let me state further that we are not adopting a policy of large-scale expansion. There is no intention to expand on a large scale. All that we are doing is to apply a policy of modernization and replacement. Let me add that a further R70 million of this amount is earmarked for our own armaments factories. Surely it would be foolish not to maintain our armaments factories. What are we doing now? We have, inter alia, taken over the Atlas Company, under very difficult circumstances. I want to say today that with the help of the management and the board of directors of the Atlas Aircraft Corporation, the company is becoming a showpiece for South Africa. We must make it possible for the Atlas Aircraft Corporation to manufacture the sophisticated and modern aircraft we are going to manufacture. For that reason we have to make the necessary equipment available to them. That is what we have done. We are expending capital in order to make the Atlas Aircraft Corporation an efficient organization for the future. I have accompanied hon. members to the factories, and they have seen what is happening there, and I can inform them that we are not concealing anything.

As far as rifle production is concerned, we had to obtain capital this year, which was provided on the Loan Account, in order to acquire certain equipment and certain machinery to make it possible for us to increase our production of rifles. Why? Because we received so many orders from abroad for hunting and target rifles that we cannot satisfy the demand, and we must continue to render that service because we are earning money in that way.

Let me mention another item, something which entails expensive training, i.e. the training of Air Force pilots. Hon. members who know something about the Air Force will also know that it costs plus-minus R210 000 per individual to train a pilot to Buccaneer level. That is what it costs to train a Buccaneer pilot. After all, one does not find pilots growing on trees. The people flying around in the Mirages are not people one finds growing on trees. Very large amounts are being spent on the training of these people. That is what sends our Defence Budget soaring. Should we stop this training? Should we use a lot of novices to pilot these aircraft? People who are ignorant, who are superficial and do not know what they are talking about, are going about in South Africa gossiping about Defence expenditure, because it suits their political book. The hon. member for Durban Point and the hon. member for North Rand, who are responsible people, are aware that one cannot go about gossiping in this way. For that reason … [Interjections.]

How did he not do that when he was organizer.

Oh please, I hear an interjection here by the brave hon. hero …

The Knight of the Sunday Times.

All I can say about him is that I am still waiting for the “great truths” he wanted to proclaim today. I am waiting for him, because I sent him an invitation. Let me, just in passing, deal with him first, for I invited him to be here. I wrote him a little letter. The hon. member was sitting here on Friday, but later got up and walked out. He is too important to remain sitting here for such a long time. He is not a person who can spend the whole afternoon in Parliament; he is too busy. He walked out and, because I intended rising to speak, I sent a message to him through his Whip.

I received no message.

Then it seems that his Whip and he are no longer on speaking terms.

You are talking nonsense; no message was conveyed to me.

All I am saying …

I was not here.

Will the hon. “gentleman” now behave himself while I am speaking? He can say whatever he likes in a moment. The hon. member then set the weekend Press going. In this connection let me say the following: I am accusing The Cape Times in particular of having withheld information from the public of South Africa. This is not the first time they have done this, but I am now accusing them of having done so. They did not publish my standpoint in regard to co-operation with the Opposition. I have here the uncorrected copy of my Hansard, and according to that uncorrected copy I said that not only did I welcome co-operation, but I even thought it was essential. The hon. member for Durban Point has my speech in front of him. I went on to say that I thought the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should appoint a person …

Conditionally.

Wait a minute now; I am coming to the condition. I said that I had in the past gone out of my way— without his having appointed anyone—to make this possible. The only complaint which the hon. member for Durban Point has, he has only had for the past few months. Let me inform him that I have been very busy during the past few months. I cannot spend the whole day looking for the hon. member; he can also come to me if he has a problem. After all, he is not too important; after all, he is not made of the same stuff of which this eminent gentleman is made. After all, the hon. member is human; he knows that my doors are open to him. The hon. member for Durban Point and the hon. member for North Rand know that, if they phone me, I shall tell them immediately when they can come. The hon. member could have come again, and if he has problems he can still come, only he must promise me one thing, i.e. that he will not inform the hon. member for Bezuidenhout.

You can keep your information; I will have nothing to do with you. I do not want to serve on your commission nor on that of the Prime Minister.

Order!

I shall tell you, Sir, why I have said this. I do not think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will nominate the hon. member. I think that one knows this.

I do not want to serve on it.

Order! I am requesting the hon. member to keep quiet.

I reiterate: If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition appoints one or two responsible persons, I am prepared to keep them informed as far as my oath as Minister permits. There are certain things I cannot disclose. That the hon. member will admit. In the second place he said— that he accepts—that I cannot allow there to be any outside control over this department. But I am prepared as in the past to hold thorough discussions with the Opposition. Why did the hon. member, the important member for Bezuidenhout, broach this matter? I shall tell you why. We have, after all, begun to co-operate here on internal security in a good spirit. The Opposition has appointed some of its most responsible people to that committee. Surely that is the case. I am not saying this out of fondness for the hon. member for Yeoville or the hon. member for Green Point. Why should I be fond of them? They have only differed with me, but one can nevertheless act respectfully towards one’s opponents. I know that, when it comes to a choice between South Africa’s greatest interests and their own, the hon. members for Yeoville, Green Point, Durban Point and North Rand will choose South Africa’s interests.

All of us will.

Just wait. With what issue is the struggle in that party at the moment concerned. Let us be honest now. It concerns the activities of my friend here, together with Mr. Harry Schwarz, and the “Three Blind Mice” of the Sunday Times. That is the issue. After all, we do have a commission on internal security, and look what this hon. member did. He torpedoed that attempt.

He did not.

Of course he did; I have the Sunday Times here in which he said this. He did not like it at all. After all, we know what is going on behind the scenes. Why do hon. members deny it? Let us discuss the security of South Africa frankly. He said that he was not a Schlebusch fan; I did not tell him to be a Schlebusch fan either, but he was trying to get in a dig at that commission, and he is trying to cast suspicion on that commission because he wants to make the life of the hon. member for Yeoville hell. That is what it amounts to. [Interjections.] No, I am not talking nonsense.

I am not a Piet Botha fan.

I shall pray every night that the hon. member never becomes a P. W. Botha fan.

But I am prepared to work with you.

But that is not the issue. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout was after all not expressing his dissatisfaction with Mr. Schlebusch. Surely we are not children. I then said that if the hon. member wanted to carry on with defence matters as he is now beginning to carry on with this other security committee, then he is out of the picture as far as I am concerned.

Where is this commission?

It has already brought out three reports. Has the hon. member not read them yet?

Is that a security commission now?

Yes, the Schlebusch Commission. It was with reference to that commission that I made the speech, but the hon. member was not here to hear it. I do not want to go too deeply into this now; I want to give the hon. member a chance. But then he ran to the Press …

But surely you did not appoint a security commission.

I say that suspicion is being sown against the reports and against the commission as such, which is now taking action in regard to internal security. [Interjections.] But it is an investigating commission.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? The hon. the Minister referred to the Schlebusch Commission as a security commission, but in their terms of reference, reference is made to four organizations whose activities they have to investigate …

The hon. member is not putting a question.

The hon. member must not waste my time then. He knows as well as I do what I am arguing about now. I maintain that if the Opposition does not call the hon. member for Bezuidenhout to order, then a proper understanding cannot develop in regard to these matters.

Who must do that little job?

Your leader.

Gag me?

Yes.

There is no one sitting in this House who can gag me. [Interjections.]

I am only too well aware of that, and that is precisely what I am afraid of. Let me put it in this way then: It seems to me the hon. member has the right in that party to carry on as he likes. He says the Leader of the Opposition cannot call him to order.

That is not what I said.

He said: “There is no one in this House who can gag me”. I say my Leader can tell me when to keep my mouth shut. In any case, I am loyal enough to keep my mouth shut.

You are weak enough.

I have something called loyalty, which the hon. member does not have. All his life the hon. member has been doing nothing but undermine political leaders. His whole life is one series of undermining actions against political leaders.

That is a dirty remark.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the words “dirty remark”.

But may I …

No, the hon. member may not argue; he must withdraw those words.

I withdraw them.

Before I furnish any important information to the hon. member for Durban Point he must promise me something. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that the hon. member for Durban Point could not gag him. What assurance do the two of us have that he will not talk about it? The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that no one in this House will gag him.

That is correct.

In other words, he will not keep to himself any information which is given to the Opposition.

That is nonsense.

Of course, Sir, he will disclose whatever he likes.

I gag myself, when necessary.

I maintain that there is information which I am not prepared to see being messed about in this way. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Durban Point will simply have to deal with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout again.

May I ask a question? Can the hon. the Minister indicate one single occasion when any member of this Party, including the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, said or did anything contrary to the interests of the security of South Africa?

Yes, Sir. Here is the Hansard report of his speech. I have now furnished an elucidation here of how essential this expenditure on Defence is, and the hon. member for Durban Point, as a responsible person, said that he agreed with me. In fact, he said, that after a thorough study, he wanted to say that they endorsed the necessity of this. I appreciate that. But what did the hon. member for Bezuidenhout have to say? He said: “It is clear to all that this is not a Budget of confidence; it is a Budget of fear.” That is what he said, referring to Defence expenditure.

To everything.

He then went further and said that if we had spent this money on other work instead, we would have to spend far less on Defence.

Where is that stated? Read it out.

Order! The hon. member must not keep on making interjections in this way.

The hon. member said: “If we are able to satisfy our people, if we are able to create an order in South Africa—no matter how expensive it may be—which will satisfy the population groups within South Africa and will cause them to feel that they can give their full loyalty to South Africa, then all opposition abroad collapses.”

That is correct.

Now, Sir, just imagine! In other words, South Africa should now, in view of the threat, reduce its Defence expenditure and create a social situation here which will satisfy everyone. Then the mighty Russia and China and their satellites, and the terrorists will say: “Thank you, Mr. Basson; we shall now fold our arms and sit back.”

Even Jack Basson says he is …

For that reason it is to be welcomed that the hon. member repudiated him today. I appreciate it. I have the greatest respect for the hon. member for Sea Point for having, as a responsible man, repudiated the hon. member. But what did the hon. member for Bezuidenhout do then? He ran to the weekend newspapers.

That is untrue.

Of course, Sir. He made one statement after another. In one of the statements he then tried to insult me personally.

The only one he omitted was Zonk.

He spoke about my record during the Second World War. But, Sir, my record is well known. I did not participate in the war. But what did he do? My information is that he was a United Party secretary in Paarl.

No, in South-West Africa.

No, he was in Paarl when the war broke out. When the war broke out he resigned in protest at the war.

That is not true.

Yes, Sir. The chief secretary of the United Party had to go and persuade him to return to the United Party.

You are quite wrong.

Sir, there he was already beginning to undermine General Smuts.

That is untrue.

He resigned, and I have proof of this.

Your facts are quite wrong.

I have proof of this.

Order! I now want to make a final appeal to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout to refrain from making constant interjections.

I only get ten minutes—he has been on his feet for an hour already.

Order! The hon. member will have sufficient time in a moment; I am warning him now.

I have been sitting here for a long time this afternoon waiting for him to speak. Now I am going to speak. After he resigned as United Party secretary in Paarl he was not at the front; he was young enough to go and fight. He who is such a brave man and can slander other people on the part they played in the Second World War, why did he not go and fight?

Where were you?

No, I did not go; I was opposed to it. But I am not accusing any other people of not having done their duty.

But where were you?

I was in South Africa. I opposed the war effort. I said that it was not in the interests of South Africa. I said that it would place the communists in a position of power. That was my standpoint and that was what eventually happened. [Interjections.] I was at all times opposed to the national-socialists, and everyone knows that. Everyone knows that I took up a different standpoint.

What about the Ossewa-Brandwag?

I am now recounting how that hon. member behaved himself. In the second place, when he had an opportunity of doing his duty, he drove around here organizing. Just after the war he came over to us and then he availed himself of the very first opportunity to undermine his leader. He then availed himself of the very first opportunity of undermining that leader and then he pulled the wool over the eyes of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition by creating the impression that he had far more support in the country than he actually had. In that way he gained admission.

On a point of order, Sir, may I ask what those things the hon. the Minister is saying have to do with Defence? Is he allowed to talk such rot here …?

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

Very well, I withdraw it. I then want to ask what all this has to do with Defence.

The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Sir, I shall tell you what it has to do with that. I am in the process of proving that this hon. member drags things in, in an irresponsible way, which are harmful to this Defence Budget. His entire life has borne the stamp of that kind of conduct. I have now quoted something to the hon. member and in the second place I said that the hon. member was undermining the activities of the Schlebusch Commission. Arising out of that, I now want to put a last question to him, and the hon. member will probably not be unwilling to furnish us with a reply to this. There is a movement afoot in the country to free Abram Fischer. That movement emanates from the leftist elements. They want Abram Fischer released.

What about Robey Leibbrandt?

I am talking about Abram Fischer now. I am now putting this question to the hon. member. One of his provincial councillors in the Transvaal, Mr. David Epstein. M.P.C., of the United Party, who is a follower of Mr. Harry Schwarz, announced that he was going to organize a group within the United Party “intended to canvass support within the United Party for the release of Mr. Braam Fischer, the political prisoner who is serving a life sentence”. Now I am putting this question to him, Sir. This Mr. Epstein is quite probably a follower of Mr. Harry Schwarz, his friend. He must, if he speaks this afternoon, state whether or not he repudiates Mr. Epstein. In the second place there is Dr. Chris Barnard, whom they want to use against the hon. member for Sea Point. He has also announced that he wants Fischer released. Now I want to ask the hon. member what his standpoint in this regard is. He can easily say: “I shall resist any attempt to have Abram Fischer released”. I shall thank him for doing so. But if he does not say that this afternoon, he must tell us why he does not do so. I reiterate: I have no objection if the English-language Press, which lauds the hon. member as a hero, wishes to do so. Let them do so with pleasure, they will yet taste their sour grapes. All I want to say is that if they want to attack me in the process, then they owe it to the country to say what my standpoint in principle is on co-operation. If they do not do so they are being dishonest. For that reason I want to reiterate: There can be co-operation, but there can only be co-operation with people who are responsible, and then hon. members must do what the hon. member for Sea Point did today—repudiate the hon. member for Bezuidenhout; then we can make progress.

Mr. Chairman, I am under the disadvantage that the hon. the Minister may talk all afternoon long, while members such as myself on this side only get ten minutes in which to reply. I now want to say to the hon. the Minister there, that as regards those things which he held up here as facts concerning my standpoint in the war years—there was, as far as I was concerned, a question concerning General Hertzog which had nothing to do with the question of war as such—he is quite wrong. However, I am unable to reply to that now in the ten minutes I have at my disposal. I shall seek an opportunity to reply to those points in a subsequent debate. His last question concerning Abram Fischer is a ridiculous one. The hon. member for Durban North, who sits behind me, the chairman of our justice group, issued a statement. He did so on behalf of the party. It was discussed in the caucus and the party unanimously—and that includes me—approved the standpoint of the hon. member behind me. Therefore, the little bit of political suspicion the Minister wanted to create, is childish.

What did Epstein say?

But what do I have to do with Epstein? The hon. member may put that question to the Leader of the Opposition, not to me. What do I have to do with an M.P.C.? On Friday afternoon, just before we adjourned for the weekend, the Minister of Defence once again had one of his periodic attacks of political epilepsy in the House. Three weeks ago I spoke in the main debate on the Budget. The hon. the Minister then sent me a note. In it he said he would like to have “a word” with me when his Vote was under discussion, and after he had studied my speech of 5th April. I was here on Friday afternoon, for some time. I received no notification, after I had gone out, that he had called for me. But in any event, Mr. Chairman, I was here, and the hon. the Minister only rose very late in the afternoon. Unfortunately I had another appointment at that time. I am sorry that it happened that way. I am sorry that I was not here when the hon. the Minister gave his display. But this often happens with members.

According to the reports of his speech there were two matters—and he mentioned them again here this afternoon—which caused him to have the political shakes. The first was a very short reference I had made to our expenditure on defence. The second was what the hon. the Minister called “What he is doing with the Schlebusch Commission”, whatever he meant by that. Now, Sir, I do not know to what extent you will allow us to discuss the Schlebusch Commission here, but the United Party as a party did not accept the recommendations of the Schlebusch Commission in so far as it concerned a permanent commission, as contained in the report. Why then does he single me out? The whole party, including the leader, said that we stood uncommitted in respect of the recommendation regarding a Standing Commission. In fact, I can put it positively and say that this side rejected those recommendations, as they stand. We have a completely open mind; we are waiting to see what the Minister is going to suggest in that connection. Why should I, and not the party, be attacked on that score? But I shall go further. It is not we who must prove our bona fides in regard to the commission. When it was recommended to the hon. the Prime Minister that there should be a standing commission, it was in his hands not to play party politics, but rather, when he decided to take steps, to approach the members of the Schlebusch Commission or to the Leader of the Opposition first. If he had really been anxious to obtain co-operation, why did he not approach the Commission first? He was not obliged to do so, but why did he not act in the spirit of the recommendations and approach to the Commission or to the Leader of the Opposition first. He could then have said, “Look, it seems as though we are going to reach the point where we are going to co-operate on these matters. I am now submitting to you what I intend to do by way of action. Do you agree or not?” But no, Sir. He did not prove his bona fides. He came here and made an announcement with the object of forcing the Opposition into a corner. He played party politics.

Who is “he”?

I am referring to the Prime Minister. There is another point I want to mention; I do not have the time to go into it any further. Why may I not adopt a critical attitude because the bona fides of that side have not been proved to my mind? Since when have we had the situation that one may not criticize a commission? Is the Schlebusch Commission supposed to be the crux of our security in South Africa? Sir, I reject this as the most ridiculous attitude I have ever encountered in this House. All of a sudden it is a security commission; that, too, is news to me. I never knew that it was concerned with security only. But in any event, I leave the matter at that. Sir, I shall not hesitate to criticize a commission, even though I stand for the principle, which I expressed recently at a meeting in the Cape—and it was reported—of the creation of standing committees of Parliament as a condensed version of the House of Assembly in respect of all portfolios. I have never been opposed to that principle. In fact, we recently had a private motion in the course of which I proposed that there should be standing committees of Parliament which were to receive their terms of reference from Parliament and which were to study legislation and argue the actions of the Government. I have never yet rejected that principle.

Sir, in the first place I want to say to the Minister that I did not say that we were spending too much on defence. If I had thought so, I would have said so. I am not going to be intimidated by a member on that side or on any side from saying what I think. If I think that we are spending too much, then I shall say so; but I did not say so. I said precisely the opposite and Hansard shows this very clearly. But, Sir, what I find very strange is this: The Minister said he would study my speech. He, as well as other hon. members opposite, quotes long excerpts from it, but what kind of morality is this, that they do not quote what I really said? Talk about half-truths Listen to what I said (Hansard, 5th April, 1973, col. 4209)—

There we have the sting.

Yes, that is what I said, and I shall quote more of what I said; I am not afraid to do so. But what kind of morality is this that one’s speech is quoted but that the gist of what one says, is not quoted? What are the motives of a Minister and also of other members who do this? What I pointed out, was the imbalance in expenditure in respect of other matters in the country which also affect our security. I also said that our people should not run away with the idea that a country could buy its security with arms alone, and I shall continue to say that. We all know that there are countries with imperialistic eyes. Who does not know that? We know that Russia and China have imperialistic eyes. But, Sir, countries do not go around to see whom they can cheerfully attack. They seek exploitable situations everywhere in the world, wherever they may arise; and what I am advocating is that for our security we should do our best to ensure that exploitable situations do not occur around us and in our country. I also went on to say that the major cause of the opposition to us abroad was the political policy which the Government was following internally, and I shall continue to say this. I also said the best way to repel the onslaught, the agitations abroad, was to couple preparedness towards those abroad with a just order internally which would win the support of all population groups; and it is my opinion that everything spent by the hon. the Minister and the Government on physical defence measures, will be like the French Maginot line in the Second World War if he and his Government do not, over and above that, also succeed in gaining allies for South Africa; in winning the struggle on the diplomatic front; and in uniting behind the Government all population groups in the interior. I do not mind the hon. the Minister rising and saying that he differs from me. What is wrong with that? Sir, I do not mind criticism. It is his right to criticize me, just as it is my right to criticize him, but I take the strongest exception to there being Ministers who have political convulsions should anyone dare to scrutinize their policy and their budget. Why does Parliament exist? Why are we dealing with the Budget now? Does the hon. the Minister want to close Parliament down? Do they want Corporal Botha to govern the country according to his fads and fancies? Sir, when he was in opposition, no one asked him to join the Army. No one was forced to join. It was something voluntary whether or not a man joined the Army. But when he was in opposition, how did he act when South Africa was engaged in a war which affected the whole question of the continued existence of the country? [Time expired.]

The whole argument in this debate which gave rise to the discussion which is taking place now, was the request by the hon. member for Durban Point that we should have a bipartisan approach, virtually a committee, which would be informed on defence matters. But in consequence of that, the hon. member who has just spoken—is he now in the House or has he left?—and who was not present at this discussion, made the following statement in one of the newspapers over the weekend—

The hon. member makes a transparently untrue statement which fits in very well with the way in which local English newspapers are presenting the matter because they do not report what was said by the hon. the Minister. The hon. member does not know in how many spheres we on this side of the House co-operate with hon. members on that side of the House in regard to this kind of situation. Then the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is upset when the Minister of Defence says that he is the one who casues us to have misgivings about whether one can go further than one has gone so far, as a result of his behaviour in connection with other security matters. Sir, I do not want to play politics with this matter but I do want to remind hon. members what happened in the same debate last year. At that time I spoke to the hon. member for Durban Point. We understand each other’s language as far as this subject is concerned. I congratulated him on the most positive and responsible speech he had ever made on defence. I congratulated him very sincerely, then a voice came from a back bench of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central: “That is the kiss of death”. In other words, if an hon. member on this side of the House gives credit to another hon. member who deserves it and who has genuinely sided with one as far as the security of one’s country is concerned, it is then referred to as the kiss of death. He does not desire co-operation, and I want to go so far as to say today that the behaviour of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout proves exactly the same thing. The hon. member said here and also to a newspaper—

I think that this applies to the hon. member himself. It is an attempt which is being made to make political capital out of this matter, namely the security of our country, while we have a Minister who, in the opinion of an English-language journalist, Allan Forest, was descriebed as follows on 18th December, 1971—

This is the true state of affairs, but now the hon. member for Bezuidenhout makes a remark here to suit his political game, for purposes other than the security of the country. The hon. member has made three speeches recently. On the 23rd March there was a motion before the House introduced by the hon. member for Algoa, a motion concerning the world-wide phenomenon of terrorism and revolutionary warfare and ways of combating it internationally. Sir, the hon. member started off in a high and mighty manner asking why we are unable to make any progress in this matter at U.N. The fact that we are persistently being threatened by terrorists here is attributable, according to this member, to our domestic policy. This compelled me to tell the hon. member that he was acting as apologist for U.N. and that he came very close to acting as apologist for leftist undermining elements in this country. The hon. member made another speech. During the Easter recess of Parliament he addressed the students of the University of Cape Town. The hon. member denies this afternoon that he took a standpoint against the Schlebusch Commission in which his party’s representatives served. After all, the objection is not concerned with the standpoint taken by the hon. member against the legislation which must be introduced as a result of the necessity for a standing commission. The hon. member said before the students of the University of Cape Town that as far as he was concerned he was no Schlebusch “fan”. Very well, let him say that, but this does not concern the person of the gentleman Alwyn Schlebusch; this concerns every member of that commission and four members of his party are serving on it. The hon. member said even more than that. Not only did he say he did not like that commission; he says he does not think there is any justification for any action whatsoever. In that he also differs from his party representatives, because the commission recommended unanimously that action should be taken. The hon. member was opposed to that. What game is the hon. member playing?

We had yet another occasion. The hon. member also took part in the Budget debate and is now performing an egg-dance on what exactly it was he had said. What he did say was what he has just quoted. However, read his speech in its full context. Does the hon. member still want to suggest that because the hon. the Minister of Finance did not understand it so well he responded as he did in his reply to the speech of the hon. member? He furnished the hon. member decisive figures and he also brought home to him the basic fact that the threat against us does not concern our domestic policy. The hon. member for Sea Point quite rightly said the same thing this afternoon. It concerns our presence here.

I want to say to the hon. member this afternoon that even though his party were to take over, the threat, as far as I am concerned, would probably intensify because the policy of his party has latent tensions. Even though the party of the hon. member for Houghton were to take over, if it were humanly possible, that threat against us would not diminish, because this is a threat which manifests itself throughout the Western world.

Let us deal with the Budget figures mentioned by the hon. member. He said he listened with great interest to the colossal increase in the Defence Budget. He then said it was a budget of fear. Why a budget of fear? Because what he is trying to bring home, he tries to bring home within the circle of his party. The hon. member went on to say, and I quote from Hansard, 1973, col. 4209—

I concede that the hon. member said that. He then continued—

This insinuates that the policy of this Government is responsible for the necessity for increased defence expenditure. Is that not so? The hon. member went on to say—

Now listen very carefully—

In other words, this amounts to saying that if you can satisfy all your people—which government in which country has ever satisfied all its people?—one need not spend a cent on defence. If I argue about it in this way, I really think that I am correct. I therefore want to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that he must give very serious attention to that hon. member, because the hesitation on the part of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to cause his team to speak with one voice on matters enjoying the highest priority, such as the security of our country, whether on an internal level or on the level of defence, will be an encouragement for people like the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and others to speak as they do. This will not only affect the security of our country, his words will not only water down the motivation of young people to perform their national service, but will also harm that party.

Why are you so worried about that?

The hon. member asks why I am so worried about it. We are dealing with a matter which affects the highest interests of our country, namely the security of our country. When we point out the bottleneck which exists here, we are accused of wooing certain hon. members on that side of the House. After all, things do not work out that way. Either hon. members understand each other concerning matters of security, as the hon. member for Durban Point and I understand each other, or they do not understand each other.

Why are you playing politics?

Now it is being suggested that we are wooing certain hon. members opposite. We do not need them politically. They have every right to differ from us and to take whatever standpoint in politics they want to, but we request their co-operation, and we get it from some of those hon. members, in connection with this very important matter. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout made a very interesting statement in this House this afternoon, a very sensational statement, because he said here that the United Party rejects the report of the Schlebusch Commission in respect of its recommendations about a permanent commission.

No, you were listening with half an ear again.

The hon. member first said that he had not adopted a standpoint. But to tell the truth, he said, the United Party rejects the report. That is a very interesting statement, because the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said on various occasions that their party has not yet adopted a standpoint in respect of this report. That is what he said after pressure had been exerted upon him by the Transvaal leader of the United Party in connection with this matter. He said the United Party had not yet adopted a standpoint. But here the hon. member for Bezuidenhout comes along and says this afternoon that they have already rejected this report. I want to point out that this report was signed by four of the most senior members of that party after months of consultation.

Order! I want to point out to the hon. member that I allowed the hon. the Minister to speak about it, because the whole argument arose as a result of that, and that I allowed the hon. member for Bezuidenhout to reply. However, I do not want us to argue exclusively about the Schlebusch Commission now.

It is in any case a very interesting development and a very significant statement.

I want to come back to Defence matters and I should like to express great appreciation for the colossal and comprehensive work being done by our Department of Defence in respect of the training of our national servicemen. If one bears in mind from how many different quarters and from how many different social circles the people come and how many different dispositions are brought together in the Defence Force, and if one bears in mind that these boys are formed, within a few weeks, into a disciplined military unit which we can be very proud of, one realizes how important the work is that is being done here. Unfortunately newspapers frequently prominently publicize accidents, etc., that affect national servicemen—and this is necessarily so because national servicemen are newsworthy—and frequently create a disjointed image amongst members of the public in respect of what is going on in the Defence Force. The task which the Defence Force is carrying out in respect of the training of our national servicemen is a very comprehensive one. The spiritual welfare of these people is taken care of, and a welfare division looks after adjustment, family and financial problems. The sports division sees to a tremendously large variety of sports which they can take part in. There are no less than 30 organized kinds of sport that national servicemen take part in, ranging from deep-sea diving to parachute jumping. There is a division for the utilization of leisure time which arranges for places of entertainment to be visited which arranges for theatrical productions to be attended and which arranges for sighteeing tours to be undertaken. Music concerts are presented and operatic performances can be attended. We must express our appreciation to members of the public and to private bodies who entertain these young boys in various ways. We must also express appreciation to the SABC which presents the programme “Op die Plek rus”. I have briefly tried to indicate how the Defence Force goes out of its way, in fact, to try to care for the human being as a whole and how national service, in actual fact, also carries out a colossal educational task in our country.

Next I very hesitantly want to broach a matter which has been watched with great interest by thousands of fathers and mothers, i.e. the unfortunate death of a national serviceman by the name of Leon Muller, from my constituency, and the court case which resulted from his death. Two inspectors were charged, after the death of this young man, with culpable homicide and with contravention of the Military Discipline Code. Both were found not guilty last week and discharged. One of the accaused testified to the fact that he had recommended punishment drill because certain members of the squadron concerned were in possession of unused ammunition. According to evidence eight bullets were found on a few men, but the whole squadron had to do punishment drill. According to the evidence they had to run a distance of 3 000 metres in a temperature of 27° Centrigrade in full battledress and do physical exercises periodically without being allowed to rest. Leon Muller, ostensibly a healthy national serviceman, collapsed and later died of acute liver and kidney failure as a result of heat exhaustion, according to medical evidence. I want to point out that the military authorities did not gloss over anything, and that there was immediately an exhaustive inquiry into this matter. Acting on the grounds of the available data, the relevant court found the two accused not guilty, however, and I do not want to find any fault with that. I must point out that the necessary legislation does, in fact, exist for the protection of national servicemen. The magistrate specifically confirmed that the authorities had done and are doing everything in their power to also protect the national servicemen’s interests in this connection. In this connection, after the conclusion of the case, I nevertheless want to say here that I find it extremely reprehensible that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central has stuck his nose into this matter, which is a matter for my constituency, having tried on various occasions to make political capital out of this unfortunate incident.

That is something you never do!

No one can expect our military discipline not to be strict and no one can expect those who contravene the rules to be given kid-glove treatment. Strict discipline and obedience are absolute requirements. What does make this case appear unfortunate is the fact that the whole squadron had to endure severe punishment for the rules contravened by a few. There is no certainty that the deceased had done something wrong. The question that must also be asked is whether the punishment in this case was not perhaps a little excessive. Bearing in mind these circumstances, I nevertheless think that it is in the public interest to ask here whether there is not perhaps room for brushing up the control over this kind of punishment drill. I am asking this in the knowledge that this kind of accident can easily happen and also in the knowledge that good judgment, responsibility and understanding, which are so necessary in such cases, depend on the availability of good quality officers. It is nevertheless desirable that the hon. the Minister, who is known for the fact that he pampers and mollycoddles these young men as if they were his own boys, and for the fact that they are very close to his heart, should again just issue a statement to the effect that no stone will be left unturned to ensure the safety and health of these national servicemen, and that strict discipline will also be applied from the top.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to reply to the remark made by the hon. member. I did not say that the United Party had rejected the Schlebusch report.

Did not?

The hon. member is free to consult Hansard. I definitely did not say that. To tell the truth, it is common knowledge that the chairman of our caucus, the hon. member who sits next to me, issued a statement after we had discussed it. In it the party stated that it accepted the facts of the report, but that the recommendations—and this is what I said—on the standing committee, as contained in the report, were not accepted by the party.

You used the word “rejected”.

Yes, precisely; I am coming to that. On the principle of a parliamentary standing committee the party has a completely open mind, but the recommendation as contained in detail in the Report was not accepted by the party; it therefore rejected it. That is not how it was put here by the hon. member. If he refers to my Hansard, he will find that he is wrong.

I should just like to dispose of the few points I was dealing with in reply to the speech by the hon. the Minister of Defence. I was saying that he was also in opposition at some time or other. How did he act on matters of defence when he was in the Opposition? I have already said that no one asked him to join up. There were hundreds of thousands of people who did not join up; it was their free right, but when South Africa was engaged in a war and many South Africans were being killed on the battlefield … I was a candidate for the United Party in Moorreesburg in those years. At that time the hon. the Minister was an agent of the National Party and he then came to put questions to me. I hope he still remembers the meeting we had in the town hall of Moorreesburg. He came there to put questions to me. What was his major attack on the United Party Government? It was that we were spending too much on the war. He went further. His major attack on me that evening was that we were paying the Coloured soldiers too much. This he said when he was in opposition and when we were involved in a war; those were the attacks made on the security of the country. Then he is the man who comes along here and says sanctimonously that I am playing politics with the security of the country.

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

I withdraw it. Sir. What is more, that member and his whole party—I would not have raked up these old stories if he had not come along with that, because how far back did he not go, and on top of that three-quarters of his facts were wrong—went from platform to platform during the war years advocating that we drop our allies and conclude a separate peace with Hitler, with whom we were at war. [Intellections.] That is how they played politics with the security of the State, and then he arrogates to himself the right to accuse me, because I simply made a reference to Defence expenditure, in peace time, of endangering the security of the State. Parliamentary language is, unfortunately, inadequate for expressing my feelings and what I think of that member. I want to ask him to refer, before criticizing this side or anyone in this way, to the Defence debates which took place in this House in the war years and to see how his party voted against the Defence expenditure. [Interjections.] For him to set up a hue and cry at this stage and attack my integrity because I made a remark about Defence expenditure, is the most reprehensible thing I have ever heard of. I do not wish to continue in this vein because I could mention a great deal; I could mention how he and his party even took up the stand that they would not fire a shot nor pick up a rifle to defend South-West should Hitler want it back. In time of war that was their attitude to Defence expenditure, and then we have this type of speech; then this hon. article who is the Minister of Defence comes along and attacks my integrity in the most unrestrained terms; then he talks of a two-faced policy and that I use Defence expenditure for political gain. I say again, I do not have words to express my condemnation in parliamentary language. The hon. the Minister said he did not trust me. But surely I have not asked him to trust me, nor do I seek that. What would I do with his trust? He did not bring me to this Parliament. I seek the trust of the public, not his. I do not seek his trust and I hope he does not ask me to trust him. South Africa is fortunate in that it has at the head of the Defence Force someone who absolutely enjoys the fullest confidence and support of the entire country. However, for a long time there have been misgivings in the country as to whether a jumpy, quick-tempered, unstable member such as the hon. member for George should be trusted with the office of Minister of Defence. There is a fear—and I share that fear—as to what the position would be when we would really be in danger one day. Then, I tell you, a man like that would be a national risk for South Africa. I express the opinion—it has already been proved over and over that what I am saying now is correct—that he is temperamentally unfit to be Minister of Defence.

*Mr. D. J. L. NEL; You are talking rot!

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

I withdraw the word and substitute “nonsense”.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word unconditionally.

I withdraw it unconditionally.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout may proceed.

I want to say that I regard the hon. the Minister as temperamentally unfit to hold the office of Minister of Defence. He has repeatedly proved this in this House. I think that the time has arrived for him to be removed from his office, for him to be reappointed as a party organizer, or for the Prime Minister to send him to New Orleans.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who has just resumed his seat, is most certainly the last person to refer in this House to the Minister of Defence as being too temperamental a person to fill this important post. I know of greater Temperamental opportunist in this House than specifically the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. He is really a political hitchhiker and nothing more. And then he is the person who, with a great fuss, levels allegations at the Minister of Defence. But that hon. member has now had two opportunities in this debate to intimate whether he does, in fact, support the defence expenditure or not. He did not do so. He did not intimate, in one single sentence, like the hon. member for Durban Point, who supported the defence expenditure on behalf of the Opposition, that he also supported it. His allegation in the Second Reading debate of the Appropriation Bill is therefore still an open one, i.e. that this is a Budget of fear. Whatever fine words he now attempts to contrive to imply that he nevertheless supports the defence expenditure, are an absolute farce.

I have never before heard so irresponsible a statement in this House from a senior member on that side as the statement which the hon. member made in the Second Reading debate of the Appropriation Bill. In fact, I do not even expect this from a back-bencher of that side. The statement which the hon. member made has caused South Africa incalculable damage in Africa and overseas. But that is precisely what that hon. member is striving for. South Africa’s image must be destroyed, and South Africa’s friends must become its enemies. The whole world must condemn South Africa; because this would discredit the Government as far as the voters at large are concerned, and that is what the hon. member is striving for. I can go as far as to say that the hon. member is prepared to destroy South Africa and everything we have if he could thereby destroy the National Party. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not repudiate that hon. member’s standpoint and statement, then I include the whole United Party when I say that they are also prepared to destroy South Africa if they could thereby destroy the National Party. [Interjection.] Sir, the hon. member for Florida, who has such a big mouth, must not sit there and cry now.

I have more experience than you.

Sir, I shall still come to a statement he made on Friday, but he must not sit there and cry now.

Sir, they surely know that the statement and the standpoint of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout are being lapped up by South Africa’s enemies. They surely know that our enemies are using this to offset our good intentions towards our neighbouring states and towards Africa. But, Sir, that is of course another aim of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout; everything that is black in the world must hate South Africa, thereby to imply or to prove that our policy of separate development is unacceptable. And, Sir, if that hate does not exist, it must be kindled, in Southern Africa as well amongst the non-Whites we have here. This is an ideal which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has made his life’s aim.

When are you getting to defence?

I am proving what the hon. the Minister said about that hon. member, i.e. that he is not reliable enough to share defence secrets with the Government.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is in a unique position. He has the whole English-language Press behind him, and they are building him up to give him the appearance of the new leader of the United Party. In his standpoints in this House, he has the full opportunity, in respect of defence as well, to rise up to that image they want to give him, but what does he do? He has shamefully failed in this connection. He is not the man, and the English-language language Press will realize this very quickly too.

Get to defence now.

Sir, the hon. member is, without equal, pre-eminently suited to make statements in this House which are, in the worst degree, detrimental to South Africa, and outside the House he makes statements destructive to his leader and to the United Party.

On a point of order, what has this speech to do with the vote?

Order!

Sir, I also want to repeat, as other hon. members have already done, what the hon. member said in the House in that connection. Even though he now makes the excuse that he said that we would need every cent that is being voted here and that we would need more because this Government is in power, what he meant was that our Defence Budget is too big, whatever he may say. He said—

Sir, thereby he has implied, as far as Africa and our own Black people are concerned, that we are arming ourselves. What for? We are arming ourselves against the Black people whom we fear. That is what he said. Sir, I cannot display sufficient abhorrence for what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout implied about South Africa’s intentions towards its Black people in South Africa, its neighbouring states and the rest of Africa.

I want to ask him again if that is his standpoint; and if the hon. the Leader of the United Party does not repudiate him, I also want to ask him if it is the policy of the United Party that the Defence Budget should be considerably reduced. To what amount must it be curtailed to extract from it the elements of fear and to have the hon. member’s allegation, to the effect that it is a Budget of fear, fall away? Sir, he meant that we are spending too great a percentage of our total state expenditure on defence. I want to tell him, Sir, that he has completely lost contact with reality around him. He no longer has any contact with what is going on around him. I want to draw his attention to the fact that this year’s defence expenditure, as a percentage of our total state expenditure, is smaller than in 1966-’67 for example; then it was 14,4% of our total state expenditure; this year it is 12,9%.

But, Sir, what is the position in a small country like Zaïr, for example, where Pres. Mobutu is giving his country one of the most powerful air forces in Africa? He is building up three squadrons of altogether 60 Mirage jets, which will be assisted by 30 long-distance Puma helicopters. Sir, I am just mentioning this to give you an idea of what is going on in Africa. Pres. Mobutu uses 18% of his total state expenditure for defence; and then I am not including those amounts which Russia and China has freely given Africa in order to arm them. What does the hon. member say, then, of the 12,9% which we are spending on defence?

I want to give the hon. member a few more illuminating figures in case they could possibly give him a better understanding of the matter. But I doubt that, however. Informative figures are published, in respect of the percentage annual growth in defence expenditure for the past ten years up to 1970, by the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. The average annual growth in defence expenditure for the whole of Africa, for example, is 16,6.% For Uganda it is 52,3%. That is the annual increase over the past ten years up to 1970. For Tanzania it is 42,5%, for the Sudan 23%, for Zaïr 22%, for South Africa 16,5% and for Zambia 14,2%. That is what the picture looks like around us, comparatively speaking. Then again I want to ask the hon. member if, in view of these figures, he is still dissatisfied, angry and temperamental—because that is what he was—in respect of South Africa’s defence expenditure of 12,9%. One could go on giving these figures. The Minister also mentioned a number of figures. I could perhaps just add one or two. Israel’s 1971-’72 per capita expenditure was, for example, R379. For the U.S.A. it is R305 per capita. [Time expired.]

By now we have become so accustomed to hearing the uncontrolled language used by the hon. member for …

Order! Is that a reflection on the Chair? I will see to it that uncontrolled language is not used.

For that reason we do not take much notice of the hon. member. But I want to come back to the Defence Vote.

†I want to deal with the question of national service. The Minister of Defence in his first speech said that the whole system of national service would be looked at again. I, and I am sure many others in this House, are very pleased that this is the case because there is no doubt about it that there are plenty of difficulties being experienced not only by the Defence Force but also by the trainees who are undergoing training. It must be improved and I would like personally to make some suggestions to the hon. the Minister in his office, because I have not time to do so tonight, as to how I think the position can be improved. But at the moment the whole national service system including the Commando system, is not working properly. I was also very pleased to hear this afternoon from the hon. the Minister that the question of the school cadet system is being looked at again. Sir, I am one of those people who believe that the time when we cut down the schgol cadet detachments was a sad day in the history of South Africa, and a very sad day in the history of those schools. The cadet detachment was very often a source of pride at these schools. They had pride in their units of cadet detachments and it was also a source of engendering a spirit of patriotism among the school-going youth. These schools have undoubtedly lost something. I would like to tell you, Sir, that I recently, and during the last couple of years, had to attend the exhibition platoon ceremonies at a leading school in Cape Town and I was shocked and horrified at the standard at this once proud school in the cadet display on those occasions. It seems to me that those schools which have been allowed to have only, for purposes of exhibition, one platoon, that they have lost a certain amount of morale and that they have lost something that the schools were very proud of in the past. I think that the sooner the cadet detachments are reinstated at the schools the better.

Now I want to refer very briefly to a couple of matters. The first is in connection with the Westlake communication centre. I think that is a communication system of which we in South Africa can be very proud and a system which will be of inestimable value to the West. I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that during that opening ceremony, which was a very impressive ceremony, mention was not made of two men who, I believe, played a large part in the planning of that communication centre. I refer particularly to Commander Siddicomb and Commander Kelly. Both of them, I understand, are overseas but I think tribute on an appropriate occasion should be paid to those gentlemen who had a very large share in the initial planning of this centre.

I cannot every year refer to the situation in the Navy in detail but I just want to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister once again that until such time as we have more houses for the Defence Force in Simonstown and for the dockyard workers, until some of the people who are having to rent houses at exorbitant rentals which are causing them to fall into debt have their rentals subsidized, until there are more recreational amenities and after-hour amenities for national servicemen, until the servicemens’ concessions on the Railways are improved, and especially a concession for national servicemen as well as for dockyard workers, and until there is a more effective bus service at Da Gama Park, you will have discontent in the Navy and a morale which should be improved and which could be far higher if these elementary facilities, without an enormous expenditure, were to be provided for the people who are proud to serve in the Navy.

I must move on quickly to the Civil Defence Act of 1966 and the amendments thereto by Act No. 5 of 1969. As the hon. the Minister is aware, the purpose of the Civil Defence Act is to provide for the Republic and its inhabitants in a state of emergency with the greatest possible measure of protection and assistance and to combat in the most effective manner civilian disruption during a state of emergency. In section 3 it sets out a number of services that should be rendered in such times of emergency, the first of which is fire-fighting. Under section 3A which was introduced by the amending Act the Minister is empowered to appoint certain people as he deem necessary to assist him in the performance of his functions and duties under the Act. One of those people is the Administrator. In section 8 the Minister is also empowered to appoint, if necessary, committees to report to him and to advise him on matters of civil defence. As I have said earlier, inter alia, the question of fire-fighting is one of those functions to be performed by this Civil Defence Division in times of emergency. Times of emergency, in terms of this Act, only occur when a state of emergency has been proclaimed, but the emergencies to which I want to refer this afternoon are not necessarily when a state of emergency has been proclaimed.

I want to deal with the hon. the Minister in terms of the powers given to him under this Act. In the first instance I want to ask him what steps he has taken to deal with a state of emergency, what people has he appointed, for example, in the Peninsula region, to deal with these functions which have been entrusted to the Civil Defence Division, what officers have been designated and what committees, if any, have been appointed by the Minister. Lastly, I should like to ask him what is the state of preparedness of Civil Defence here in the Peninsula.

I said that the functions to be discharged by the Minister under the Civil Defence Act, 1966, as amended, take place in times of an emergency, but there are times, like the recent fires in the Southern Peninsula, which endangered the Naval base at Simonstown, when there appears to be little or no co-ordinated fire-service with which to protect our Naval base at Simonstown. I was present at the scene of the fires on all of the five or six days that they lasted and I can tell that some of the units of the Defence Force at Simonstown, national servicemen and permanent force units, did a magnificent job of work. However, I got the impression that their services were being rendered in isolation; they were not part of any co-ordinated plan, any co-ordinated Peninsula-wide or Simonstown fire-fighting plan. The hon. the Minister will know that one of our magazines was seriously endangered by one of those fires.

I am not satisfied in the slightest with the present system whereby in a loose and independent way it appears that our Defence Force units at Simonstown are being used in combating fires which are a threat to our Naval base. I have asked, as he knows, the Administrator to appoint a commission of inquiry, not only into the fires in the Southern Peninsula, but also the fires which have taken place more recently in the rest of the Peninsula. I believe that until such time that there is an inquiry either by the Administrator or, if necessary, by the Minister of Defence himself, we are not going to bring about a co-ordinated fire-fighting system here in the Peninsula.

It is bad enough that our flora and fauna should be destroyed, but it is worse when our Naval base and other military installations in the Peninsula are endangered by, what I can only regard as such, a lack of preparedness and a lack of giving effect to the organization which is envisaged in terms of the Civil Defence Act.

I am absolutely satisfied that a small municipality like Simonstown is completely unable to cope with fires of the magnitude that we had in the Southern Peninsula over the Christmas period. They were unprepared and ill-equipped to fight those fires. The hon. the Minister cannot sit back and say that the municipality of Simonstown must improve its fire-fighting force, because there are numbers of people in the Navy who are living in different parts of Simonstown whose houses were in jeopardy as a result of those fires. In addition to that you have the situation that if fires are deliberately started on the mountain above Simonstown then, as the hon. the Minister will appreciate, the Admiral in Simonstown cannot call out from the ships the various personnel of the Navy to fight those fires, because if you do, then you have no idea whether an enemy is not perhaps using the opportunity to attack our Fleet in Simonstown. That is just one of the problems and I call on the hon. the Minister publicly to give serious attention to this matter. I understand that there is some departmental committee which is investigating this matter, but I cannot stress enough the urgency of doing something about regional co-ordination and co-operation, particularly to include the Defence Force units in the Peninsula.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Algoa raised in this House the matter of the death of national serviceman Muller, who died during training. I want to say at once that I am just as concerned as the hon. member is about incidents of this kind which occur from time to time, although they occur very seldom. We have not yet in a single case stood in the way of proper investigations. The hon. member will recall that in regard to the case of the death from gas poisoning of a few young men a number of years ago I simply adopted the attitude that the law must take its course. In this case the first charge was that of culpable homicide. The second charge was that of a contravention of section 16 of the M.D.C. in respect of the ill-treatment of subordinates. The third charge was in regard to deliberate disobedience to commands in defiance of authority. The first alternative charge was the contravention of certain regulations dealing with disobedience to orders. A further alternative charge related to the failure to carry out certain commands. The verdict was given on 18th April, as the hon. member knows. Neither I nor the department could do anything before that time. When the law takes its course in regard to matters of this kind, we must wait until such matters have been disposed of. What was the verdict of the court? The court found that private Muller died as a result of heat exhaustion and that the causal connection between running, the physical exercises, and his death was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also found that both accused acted unlawfully when they subjected the national servicemen to punishment exercises, but found further that the aspect of guilt in regard to the offence of culpable homicide had not been conclusively proved. Consequently the two accused were found not guilty. Surely I cannot now, after the court has found them not guilty and after they have been found not guilty in the execution of their duties, take steps against them; surely that is impossible. What did the magistrate say in his verdict? He said: “They must be condemned as individuals, for their behaviour was in conflict with the public interest, however, one must guard against a single isolated event of harsh behaviour being regarded as the pattern of all training circumstances.” This was an isolated case, and I do not think they could have foreseen that he would die of heat exhaustion. I have a great deal of sympathy for the case, and the hon. member knows it. I know that the hon. member did not raise the matter out of hostility, but because he is really interested in this case. Let me say this: I think we should refer to law infringements in the Defence Force in the second place. We find that from January, 1968, when the actional service system was introduced, to August, 1972— that is a period of more than four years —there were four law infringements in the South African Army, four in the Air Force and none in the Navy. All in all there were, therefore, eight law infringements. I think that that is a colossal achievement. I am now referring to serious law infringements, and not to minor offences, i am referring to those law infringements which led to the death or the serious injury of persons. I want to pay tribute today to the instructors of the South African Defence Force, and there is a shortage of these people, for the work they are doing. It is not an easy job of work that they are doing. I wonder whether hon. members know how exacting the work of the instructors is, how much repetition is involved. Take, for example, the person who has to train 200 young men in unconventional warfare, and who has to put each of them through certain exercises individually; I attended such exercises, and I saw for myself to what degree the patience and endurance of that person was tried. Although I do want to express my commiseration here in regard to this specific case, I want to say in the second place that in reality there are few serious law infringements. I really want to tribute to the instructors, of whom, as I have said, there is a shortage, and I want to express the hope that we will, in passing judgment, not act in such a way that we create the impression among even more instructors that they should preferably leave. We should, instead, try to find more instructors, in order to facilitate their work. I have nothing further to add, except that I want to say that I really cannot imagine that I can take further steps now, after the court has given its verdict. I honestly do not think I can.

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister? Was it the finding of the court that they were not guilty of man-slaughter but that they had violated military regulations?

The court found that private Muller died as a result of heat exhaustion, and that the causal connection between the running and physical exercises and his death had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found further that both accused had acted unlawfully when they subjected the national servicemen to punishment exercises. They therefore did not have the right to impose punishment exercises. Must I now, after the court has acquitted them, take further steps and let those people suffer further? I do not think so. I think that we should simply issue another warning; we do so regularly, but I simply cannot continue to establish an intolerable situation for all instructors. That I cannot do. Nor am I prepared to do so.

The hon. member for Simonstown made a critically positive contribution, and I thank him for doing so.

That is usually the case.

The hon. member has a large part of the Defence Force in his constituency, and it is right that he should be critical. But the hon. member constantly pleads for increased expenditure in regard to the Navy, in other words for an increased budget, because he realizes that, if we want efficiency, we shall have to make more means available to the Navy, and create more facilities for them. Let me say that we have gone out of our way to create all the facilities at the submarine base that could possibly be created. The hon. member knows that it is being planned to create even further facilities at Silvermine, as a result of which the staff will live under very pleasant circumstances, and this will also be accomplished over the years. I think that the working conditions there are very good, but it is the other conditions to which I am referring. The hon. member knows that with the acquisition of the former Rhodesia-by-the-Sea, we found a tremendous solution in respect of accommodation. The hon. member also knows that there were other developments in regard to the Navy, such as housing, and that we are doing everything in our power to establish conditions gradually so that we can, throughout the Defence Force, get away from the old quarters with their shortcomings in which some people are still living. I agree with him, and I do not think we shall be able to satisfy everyone until we have provided proper housing. My department knows that I sometimes persist in emphazising this to my colleagues to their considerable annoyance. But they, too, have interests they have to see to, and I cannot walk off with all the money. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout says that I am receiving too much as it is.

The hon. member raised a matter which is of great importance, and that is the question of fire-fighting. The facts of the matter are that last year, during the Parliamentary session, when the Administrators were here in Cape Town, I held talks with the four Administrators of the provinces and the Administrator of South-West Africa and their chief officials in my office. I pointed out to them at the time that I had on a previous occasion, a few months prior to that, drawn the attention of the country in a speech to the tremendous danger which fires constituted, and that we lost millions of rand every year through fires. I also pointed out to them that the Government, through Civil Defence, had paid out approximately R1 million in subsidies to certain city councils to acquire fire-fighting equipment. I also pointed out to them that we had trained quite a number of national servicemen as fire-fighters, and that we had in that way made our contribution to creating the means for fighting fires. But I told them I was not satisfied because the Civil Defence Division and the Fire Brigade Institute, which had held talks with me, had convinced me that there were still local authorities in the country whose fire-fighting equipment was inadequate. I then decided that it was no use everyone proceeding on his own. I asked the Administrators whether they would not agree to an inter-departmental committee being established between the Department of Defence and their Administrations under the leadership of the Chief of Civil Defence, and to this committee conducting a thorough survey for us in a short time and making recommendations as to how we could cope with the problem so as to enable us to see whether we could not effect more effective co-ordination in the combating of the fire hazard in the country. The Administrators were immediately prepared to co-operate, and this committee was constituted, and is proceeding with its work. Under the leadership of the late Gen. Retief, who died tragically last week, I think that very fruitful discussions would have been held. I regret his passing away, but I have already requested his deputy to proceed with that investigation.

Who is the successor?

No, no successor has yet been appointed, but the deputy is Brig. Bosnian, and he is continuing the investigation. I hope that we will achieve rapid results. I want to make two remarks here, and it is my personal opinion that I am expressing here. I also believe that there should be co-ordination. I do not think we can establish effective machinery for every local authority, but I do believe that more effective co-ordination must be brought about, more effective co-operation between local authorities and units of the Department of Defence. In the second place I think we can be of particular assistance in combating fires against the slopes of Table Mountain by trying to get more helicopters, and by using helicopters in this process, even if it is just to convey fire-fighters from one point on the mountain to a point higher up on the mountain. In fact, we have already tried to do so, and it was successful. I therefore hope that when I ask for money for more helicopters to be able to do this, I will not be reproached that I am spending too much money.

Who reproached you?

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I am coming back to the hon. member in a moment for the grand finale.

Will these helicopters then belong to the Defence Force?

I cannot stand in for the helicopters of other people; if other people want to buy helicopters, it is their affair. I say that we can consider this, if we have enough helicopters in a place like Cape Town and can set aside a few for that purpose. Another possibility which we are having investigated—I am not saying that this is going to happen—is whether we cannot install waterspraying equipment to aircraft or to helicopters to fight fires in the initial stages. But then this must be done near to bases where the helicopters are available. I hope the Committee will clear up this matter for us. In any case, we are looking into the matter. I hope it will not be a protracted process. We are very sorry the death of General Retief caused some delay.

†Then the hon. member also referred to two gentlemen who had a prominent share in Project Advokaat. I agree with him. I understand that one of them has been decorated …

Both of them.

… or both of them, but I will go into the matter to see what the head of the Navy advises us in this connection.

*Sir, in conclusion just a few words to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. If he read the White Paper he will recall that we began by making this statement in paragraph 2—

Sir, I endorse every word written here. But the fact of the matter is that external defence is intimately bound up with internal defence. We are living in an age in which we are dealing with total onslaughts on the Free World, which means total war in every sphere. If there are people in this country, such as the hon. member and his friends, who want to tell us that one can separate internal security and external threats, they are either ignorant or wilful. For that reason when we talk about internal security as we did here, it is thoroughly bound up with the steps which are being taken by the Defence Force to ensure external security. I was attacked by one of the friends of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. One of his Sunday friends attacked me for having made the statement in the White Paper under my own name. But this statement is the considered opinion of people who know what they are talking about. It is not merely my own statement. I do in fact accept responsibility for it, but it is the considered opinion of people who have made a study of this matter, and who occupy top positions in the Defence Force. I do not want to hide behind them and I am accepting responbility for this; but I say it is a considered opinion. Sir, we have a good witness to how Cummunism utilizes things, and I am referring hon. members to Winston Churchill. In Great Contemporaries the following is stated—

That is to say, of the communists—

… is as much a part of the communist faith as the doctrine itself. At first the time-honoured principles of liberalism and Democracy are invoked to shelter the infant organism. Free speech, the right of public meeting, every form of lawful political agitation and constitutional right are paraded and asserted. Alliance is sought with every popular movement towards the left.

‘Towards the left”—

Sir, he described it for us and we are seeing it before our own eyes in South Africa. He then went on to say—

Sir, we are witnessing today how they are doing this—

But you did not give him the same respect in his warnings against nazism.

Sir, I am coming to that story in a moment. Sir, we must take cognizance thereof that the internal security of this country and the external security of South Africa go hand in hand.

We have been saying it for years.

I said again in this Parliament this year that an attempt is being made to erode the national will. I have been saying it for years. Sir, I have the speech made by the hon. member here and I am coming to it now. His entire speech and his conduct as a whole was calculated to cast suspicion on the steps the Government is taking with a view to national internal security, and he did this because he has the kind of friends Churchill was talking about; because he has left-wing friends in South Africa; because he has activistic friends, and because he has become their spokesmen in this Parliament.

Mention names.

Harry Schwarz is one of them. He is a left-wing liberalist. [Interjections.] Of course he is, and what is more, the people who hold such a brief for him over the weekend are his friends, they are the leftists; they are the precursors of that kind of situation Churchill warned against.

The Epsteins.

Sir, the hon. member may carry on as much as he likes, he has become the champion for the liberalists and the leftist elements in this country. He has become the champion for those elements which oppose measures to ensure internal security.

You are cuckoo.

[Interjection.] The hon. member can shout as much as he likes, but that is what he has been stigmatized as. Sir, the hon. member, to excuse himself, made a personal attack on me; it was like coughing against the south-easter. I want to tell him that I am only taking notice of him in one respect, and that is because of the fact that the United Party still endures him. If they did not have him and endure him as a front-bencher, very few people would take any notice of him because he is equally unpopular on both sides of the House. But I want to read to him, in the words of the hon. member for Durban Point, whether the hon. member for Durban Point thinks I have been according co-operation or not. The hon. member for Durban Point said this—

But that hon. member said I was not suited to the position of Minister of Defence owing to my fickle nature, as if he could be an expert in that sphere and owing to my jumpiness. The hon. member for Durban Point went out of his way to express appreciation, and let me inform the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that more important people than he hold regular talks with me, people outside this House as well, on Defence. The organized industry in South Africa knows what co-operation they get from me. They know that we are co-operating today in drawing up industrial registers in order to determine precisely what South Africa’s potential would be in time of war. Businessmen of South Africa serve as directors of companies, some of the most important business people in South Africa, English-speaking South Africans as well, are serving as directors of munitions factories and armaments factories, and they co-operate with me. They do not kick up a fuss about it. Not that I am so wonderful, Sir, but those people are patriots and they tell me that we should spend more on the security of the country. Now, in the first place I say that if one reads the speech made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout one can arrive at only two conclusions: Firstly, that this Defence budget was drawn up by the Government because it feared the internal population of South Africa.

I was not referring to the interior.

Of course, the entire point centred around the internal position only and the entire impression the hon. member wanted to create, and I object most vehemently to this—is that we are arming against the Black or Brown people in South Africa.

That is not true at all.

What did the hon. member mean then by saying that we should spend more on their upliftment, and that we would then need less money for Defence?

Read it again; you did not read it properly.

I read it a moment ago. But the hon. member is an irresponsible little man. He is a political klipspringer, who has already perched on every political stone. If the hon. member now wants to belittle me let me tell him this: Both of us have been in Parliament for almost 25 years. I still represent the constituency I represented 25 years ago, and I am treated with respect by the Opposition in my constituency as well, among whom I reckon some of my best friends. But, Sir, he has had to run from one constituency to the other …

This is only my second constituency.

… because he changes his political colour like a chameleon from day to day to suit him, because he is an opportunist.

This is my second constituency in all the years …

And he got that under the cloak of having strong support in South Africa. But he is a political klipspringer, and I want to tell the hon. member that he is not only a burden to his own party; he is not only a stone in the belly of his party, he is becoming a burden to South Africa, and the sooner he has the courage of his convictions and joins his little liberal friends, the more respect we will have for him.

Votes agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 14.—“Foreign Affairs”:

Mr. Chairman, it might be beneficial to the debate and help to keep it at a high level if I were to make a few observations and deal with a few matters at this stage. I want to start by admitting that the international vendetta against South Africa is being continued just as was the case in the past, and that in recent times there have also been inevitable disappointments for us.

One of those disappointments was the termination of the fruitful co-operation which we had with the previous Government of the Republic of Madagascar. However, that Government was unseated as a result of internal troubles with which we had nothing to do. I am sure we all feel very sorry about the termination of that co-operation which, on the part of South Africa, was specifically concentrated on solving the economic problems which contributed to the downfall of that Government. There is one consolation for us in this regard, and that is that the new Government of Madagascar has already repaid us in cash all the moneys we advanced to Madagascar.

Another disappointment to which I want to refer here, is that the decision taken by the South African and Lesotho Governments, to which I referred last year, namely that we would exchange consular representatives with each other, could not be implemented in practice as a result of factors beyond our control. As hon. members know, Prime Minister Jonathan has over the past few months been effecting major changes in his country, which eventually resulted in the establishment of a new Parliament, which met last week. I want to give the assurance that the matter of opening consulates in the two countries, which is to my mind very important, will receive our further attention as soon as the Government of Lesotho has solved the problems it has in that regard.

I want to admit that the outcome of elections held in recent times in various parts of the world has not been very encouraging to us. There has definitely been an increasing swing to the left—with a few exceptions, of course. This swing to the left may possibly lead to the pressure against South Africa being increased.

Moreover, the entry of Red China into the U.N. and Red China’s membership of the Security Council does not augur well for us in South Africa.

At the U.N. the extremists and communists once again used their preponderance of votes, just as they had done previously, for piloting through numerous resolutions in the General Assembly, resolutions condemning us and our policy and urging the Security Council to agree to sanctions against us, to give more positive support to the terrorist movements and in general to bring greater pressure to bear against South Africa in order to compel change here in South Africa. If hon. members want to form an idea of the methods applied there and the language used there, they should take a look at the document I tabled in regard to our relations with the U.N.

Speaking about change, I may say in passing that our enemies do not realize or refuse to admit that there is continuous change in South Africa, that change is inherent in, basic to our policy of separate development, for what is “development” if not “change”? After all, development pre-supposes change. Our policy is not static; development is organic, but the change which our policy leads to, is systematic and orderly and takes place within the framework of certain fixed guiding principles about which there is or should not be any doubt in any person’s mind.

†A typical example of the vicious campaign at the United Nations against South Africa is the abuse of the Office of Public Information, commonly known as O.P.I., against South Africa. Right at the beginning, in 1946, the General Assembly laid down certain principles governing the activities of this body. Basically its purpose was to promote a better understanding in the world about the work and the objectives of the Organization. It was not an office for propaganda and certainly not propaganda against member states like South Africa. This policy with regard to the O.P.I. was never formally rescinded, although, over the years since the ’sixties, the General Assembly from time to time instructed the office to disseminate propaganda against South Africa. This the office has certainly done. Over the years, especially during the régime of the previous Secretary-General, U Thant, I myself or our permanent representative in New York on my instructions, regularly lodged the strongest protests against this abuse of an organ of the United Nations against South Africa for propaganda purposes. Our protests were of no avail. The Secretary-General always sheltered behind the mantle of the General Assembly resolutions that are constantly being passed against us. It is most disturbing that the O.P.I. propaganda against South Africa is still continuing today. A new publication came to my notice recently, the so-called Namibia Bulletin. This is a publication purporting to deal with South-West Africa which will apparently be issued quarterly. The first issue which has just come out is riddled with distortions and misrepresentations. One of the most blatant examples is the assertion that South African troops invaded Zambia towards the end of 1971. Nothing whatsoever, not even the outcome of the debate in the Security Council towards the end of that year—the debate in connection with the Caprivi incident in which I participated—justifies a falsehood of such proportions. The authors of this publication were connected with the so-called office of the United Nations Commissioner for Namibia —incidentally their name for South-West Africa. It was apparently of no concern to them that the publication took place at the very moment when serious and genuine efforts were being made to resolve the South-West Africa issue in a peaceful and sensible manner. It is obvious that neither they nor the office they represented wanted to see these efforts succeed. Actually the so-called United Nations Council for South-West Africa has done its best to sabotage contact between the Secretary-General and ourselves. Needless to say, I personally protested to the Secretary-General, Dr. Waldheim, about this publication when I saw him two weeks ago in Geneva. I have instructed our representative at the United Nations to address a very strong written protest to the Secretary-General, to be circulated as a United Nations document.

*Mr. Chairman, I should also like to refer to another most unprecedented and dangerous step that was approved during the past session of the U.N. I am referring here to the admission, as observers, of representatives of terrorist movements to certain committee meetings of the Organization when South African affairs are discussed there. It is not necessary for me to emphasize that South Africa vehemently objected to this step. Speaking of terrorism, it is just as deplorable—yes, it is shocking—that the terrorists also received unexpected support from various other quarters, including the World Council of Churches. One does indeed hope that this Organization and its supporters, all over the world, will take cognizance of what happened again recently on our northern border and in Rhodesia. I am referring to the murderous action which they took there and which led to the death of nine persons, five of whom were South African non-Whites. One hopes that they will take cognizance of it and that the world will take cognizance of it, and one hopes that they will also take notice of the reaction of non-White leaders, not only in the Republic but also in South-West Africa— reactions in which this murderous action is being condemned in the strongest terms.

Although up to now not much has come of the large number of anti-South African resolutions passed by the U.N., we are obliged to take cognizance of these resolutions against us becoming progressively more vicious and dangerous as we ourselves are making progress, as we are in fact doing. South Africa’s enemies may definitely not be underestimated. They keep a very close watch on our activities as well as everything we say and everything that is written about us. They study these. They are doing so in an attempt to use those things against us. Furthermore, the militant members of the Special Apartheid Committee of the U.N. are constantly in touch with anti-South African elements and organizations throughout the world with a view to co-ordinating the actions of those organizations on a world-wide basis. In this regard one calls to mind the conference on apartheid recently held in Oslo, which was a direct result of that co-ordinating task. One also calls to mind other similar conferences which are being envisaged.

More encouraging was the Secretary-General’s initiative, his effort to induce the international community to condemn and combat terrorism. I may tell hon. members that to me personally it was really encouraging to sit there and listen to the unconditional condemnation of terrorism by numerous foreign ministers and other representatives of foreign countries who participated in that general debate. I am thinking, for instance, of the speech made by Mr. William Rogers, the American Minister of State. Although nothing has actually been accomplished up to now through this effort on the part of Dr. Waldheim, further attempts are being made and we hope that those attempts will not be of no avail. We all know that the activities of the terrorist movements in Southern Africa have been intensified over the past year. These have, inter alia, given rise to the closure of the border between Rhodesia and Zambia, and in view of the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister did refer to this matter in this House early this year, I do not think that it could serve any good purpose if I were now to comment on it further. I hope that hon. members as well as the outside world will take cognizance of the strong standpoint taken up by our hon. Prime Minister in his statement when he reacted to the closure of that border, and also of the strong attitude adopted by him in regard to terrorism. I want to emphasize that we must accept one fact, namely that terrorism complicates and clouds relations between neighbouring states. In spite of the hard words of Dr. Kaunda and his lieutenants and the reproaches and the threats that are levelled from that side, there are occasional indications from Zambia that others are beginning to realize there what the dangers of the escalation of this terrorist action can be. In this regard I want to quote what was said in the Zambian Parliament by the Zambian Minister of Defence, Mr. Zulu, on 28th February, i.e. after the closure of the border—

Over the weekend we read and heard how the Zambian High Commissioner in London, Mr. Phiri, spoke in the same vein. He denied once again that assistance was being given to terrorists by Zambia, but he said that all they were doing was to grant asylum to these so-called freedom fighters. These are very fine words, but what value can be attached to them if these words are not substantiated by acts? As long as the terrorists attacks to the south from Zambian bases continue and are intensified instead of decreasing and ceasing altogether, tension between Zambia and the south will increase and become more serious. This is most detrimental to the whole of Southern Africa and it may not only lead to serious confrontation in Southern Africa, but it also hampers co-operation in many spheres, it hampers growth and development and it renders a peaceful coexistence in our subcontinent very difficult if not impossible. Unless the words of Mr. Phiri and his Minister of Defence are followed up by acts on the part of Dr. Kaunda and his government, the tension will not diminish and the danger of confrontation will not be reduced, which is what these speakers I have just quoted apparently desire.

Of course, the dangers of terrorism are not confined to Southern Africa. We find this evil in other parts of the world, as we all know. What is more, it is being imported from elsewhere to our part of the world. It is like a contagious disease. It contaminates one part of the world after another and it spreads like an epidemic. In the long run it can only be stamped out in one manner, namely through joint international action. Action must be taken against it on a broad front. Those who are collaborating with the terrorists, must bear in mind that if one assists in the attempt to export the disease from one’s country to another, one cannot safeguard one’s own country against contamination. I think it is obvious that we supported the efforts of the Secretary-General of the U.N. and of others to have this evil combated internationally. Only a few weeks ago, further to the events at that session of the U.N., I conveyed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations South Africa’s views on this problem, inter alia, as follows. I quote—and I think it is a good thing that this be placed on record—

This is what I went on to say—

In this communication I went on to suggest that the best way to combat and stamp out this evil would be to enter into an international convention which ought to be respected and implemented by the vast majority of the peoples of the world. In that document I also emphasized that there could no longer be any delay in tackling this problem and, in view of the tremendous increase in terrorist activities in many parts of the world, that a solution was imperative at this stage.

In spite of numerous threats and disappointments, I am pleased to be able to say that there has nevertheless been progress as far as our relations with foreign countries are concerned. As hon. members all know, it is the ideal of our enemies to isolate us internationally so that we may stand alone and so that it may be easier to crush us. Now I want to say that we have, generally speaking, succeeded in frustrating this objective of theirs. I want to substantiate my statement by making an analysis of South Africa’s representation in foreign countries as it has developed over the past 10 years. The statistics in this regard are most interesting. They show that our purely diplomatic representation of 1963 has been extended from 23 countries to 29 in 1973. Over the same 10 years our consular representation has been extended from 13 to 21 offices. Our honorary representatives—you know, Sir, that all countries throughout the world have honorary representatives—increased from 12 to 38. Now, if one looks at the grand total of diplomatic and consular representation, one finds that there were 48 in 1963, whereas in 1973 the grand total comes to 88. This is almost twice the number we had in 1963. I want to tell you, Sir, that further extension is not being ruled out. In this regard I also want to say that contact with the outside world is taking place to an increasing extent on the ministerial level and on the level of important officials. Fortunately the number of distinguished official and non-official visitors to South Africa is still growing rapidly. Such personal visits to South Africa are heartily welcomed by the Government, and they are encouraged as far as possible. The results of such visits are obvious. For instance, I have here in my hand a report which appeared in the Rand Daily Mail on 13th October of last year. It deals with the visit of seven French senators—

This is an interesting, a very encouraging report, and was described by the correspondent of the Rand Daily Mail “as one of the most highly favourable official documents on the Republic ever published in France”. Amongst other things, these senators said the following—

Sir, I want to refer here to the Government guest house in Pretoria. I want to tell hon. members that this was really an excellent step on the part of this Government. It was a very valuable investment. It is often being used, as became apparent from a reply which I recently gave to a question that was put to me here in the House of Assembly. What is more, it involves a great saving, and all guests of the Government and the large number of people who have already stayed there, are speaking most highly of the place, and in particular they have appreciation for the quiet atmosphere and the beautiful surroundings in which it is situated. Sir, may I also add something here about the residential area for diplomats in Pretoria. That, too, was an excellent investment. If the State—this Government or any other government—should ever want to dispose of that property, it could make a profit for the State of several million rand. I am sure that this will not happen in the future, since more and more interest is being shown by foreign governments in the acquisition of premises in that particular township. I do not blame them for beginning to show interest as they discover the place, for I was personally involved in the selection of those beautiful premises near Waterkloof, and I was very ably assisted in that task by, amongst others, Dr. Albert Hertzog.

Sir, apart from the influential foreign visitors, our own people, South Africans and South African bodies, can of course make an important contribution to promoting South Africa’s image and its foreign relations. In this regard I just want to mention in passing that after the terrible, shocking earthquake which struck the capital of Nicaragua last year, the South African Government decided to send food supplies from the Republic to the stricken area. This effort on the part of the State—and what I am going to say now, is actually what I want to discuss—was splendidly supplemented by about 12 South African firms and other bodies which, on their part, made approximately 140 000 kg of food available. We owe them a great debt of gratitude. The South African Railways and a South African shipping company also rendered very valuable assistance in this regard. This spontaneous readiness to help was to me as the Minister of Foreign Affairs and to my department a most encouraging sign, and it just goes to show what can be done on the part of the private sector as far as South Africa’s image is concerned.

†During the past year the concept of dialogue which South Africa has been advocating for some time and has been practising for some time took on a wider meaning and is applied by some of the great powers with a measure of success. This led, as is generally known, to a spirit of détente instead of tension and confrontation. It is very significant that in spite of widely divergent internal political and social systems, some of the major powers have not been deterred from reaching an accommodation with one another. I will at a later stage deal with the implications of this détente policy for us here in South Africa, but I would like, however, to add at this stage that not one of those major powers has found it necessary to change its own internal political system or to try to impose such an adjustment on others. The progress so far made was unfortunately only marginal, but as I said in my statement in the General Assembly at U.N. last year—

Sir, I was able to assure the General Assembly that we in South Africa also continue to believe in contract and communication, to assure them that we are in fact not out of tune. I can refer to our efforts to find a peaceful solution for the South-West Africa issue through contact with the Secretary-General of U.N. I could repeat once again that we remain ready to enter into dialogue with all those who reciprocate our genuine interest therein. I was also in a position to state that dialogue with our own peoples in the Republic of South Africa was taking place on a wider scale and with greater success than ever before. I concluded my statement as follows—

Now it is true, Sir, that dialogue with the African states and ourselves did not develop in the manner and to the extent which was expected by some. Unfortunately dialogue with us is also discouraged by some at U.N., but this attitude is mainly confined to a number of militant African leaders, assisted and abetted by the Communists. But there are a number of Black African leaders who continue to carry on dialogue with us and who continue to advocate it strongly. I would in this context like to refer you to a speech which Dr. Banda delivered at a State banquet in Blantyre in October last year. The banquet was in honour of the members of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, which held its annual conference in Malawi last year. Dr. Banda took this opportunity to make out a very convincing case for dialogue and co-operation between African states and the Republic of South Africa. I saw some of the delegates after this conference, and according to them most of the delegates who had attended that conference became convinced that dialogue provided the solutions to the problems of Southern Africa. Sir, let us hope that the efforts of Dr. Banda, and those who share his views, will not be in vain and that their statesmanship and vision will bring about a turning point and a new era of peace and progress in our sub-continent. In the meantime, discussions between ourselves and certain Black African states continue. These discussions are mostly bilateral and of a confidential nature. I believe that, for some time at least, this pattern, i.e. bilateral and confidential, will be maintained and that the time is not yet ripe for dialogue on a multi-lateral basis. Multilateral co-operation in existing regional organizations in Southern Africa will, of course, continue as in the past. There are quite a few which I shall not mention now. In this context I should like to say that as a result of discussions with Western colleagues and Ministers from Black African states I have come to the conclusion that Africa’s attitude in general is changing and that it is today generally accepted that we in South Africa are part and parcel of Africa and that we are regarded as no less Africans than the Moroccans or Tunisians or Egyptians, many of whose skins are as white as our own.

I should also like to refer to a recent statement by another Zambian Minister, the Zambian Foreign Minister of State, when he said—

If this is the spirit in Black Africa there is still hope for the continent provided this spirit is accompanied by a change of heart in respect of terrorism.

As far as the attitude of the Western world towards dialogue between South Africa and Black Africa is concerned, the majority of the Western powers show a very keen interest in it, they welcome it. Some of them encourage it; some do it in public; others render valuable assistance, usually behind the scene. There is no doubt that the outside world is impressed by the progress which we have made in our relations with the Black African states, although this progress, admittedly, is still limited and in spite of the setbacks to which I have referred. Even our desire, our willingness to co-operate has helped to improve South Africa’s image abroad.

*It is not necessary for me to deal exhaustively with what has already resulted from dialogue and its implementation and everything that is continually being done as a result of dialogue, for we are not only practising dialogue, we are not merely talking about it, but we are translating into actions. It leads to deeds in practice. However, I do not want to deal fully, as I did in the past, with all the things we are doing and so take up the time of the Committee. I just want to refer to a few publications, inter alia, a very interesting and illuminating publication called “Cooperation for Development in Southern Africa” by Prof. Leistner. I advise all hon. members who are interested in our activities in Africa to study this document. Nobody will read it without becoming tremendously impressed by the wide scope of South Africa’s extensive co-operation and numerous activities in Southern Africa in virtually every possible sphere To mention a few examples, fruitful co-operation is taking place in spheres ranging from soil conservation, agriculture, veterinary science to staff research, tourism, transport, the generation of power, medical services, water affairs and numerous other aspects. Those who are interested in details would also be well advised to take a look at the annual reports of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, to mention but one example, or even at the annual report of the South African Bureau of Standards.

In the light of what has already been accomplished and is being done in respect of dialogue and co-operation, I want to make an urgent appeal tonight to hon. members on both sides of the House to control themselves when they talk about dialogue in this debate. In the first place, we may not indulge in exaggeration. We are in fact making progress, but there are still major challenges for us on the road ahead. There are still long, steep hills ahead. We may therefore not indulge in self-satisfaction and in exaggerating the success we have achieved. Nor may we on the other hand pretend, however, that nothing has been and is being achieved. We dare not pretend that dialogue is dead, as is being done by some hon. members and bodies in South Africa. We may not do this, for this is definitely not the case. Then I must say that apart from what is known and what is on record in publications to which I referred hon. members, many things are also taking place behind the scenes, things which I cannot discuss now however much I may want to do so, for one is fond of blowing one’s own trumpet, not so? Hon. members should therefore not refer disparagingly to dialogue, please. We should not try to make political capital out of setbacks which South Africa has suffered in this regard. That could only hamper our further efforts and impede progress. Hon. members opposite should rather, as some of them did in the past, emphasize that they support the Government’s efforts in this regard. They should rather say that they endorse the invitation which I have repeatedly extended at the U.N. to Africa. Hon. members on both sides must never lose sight of the fact that anything that detracts from dialogue amounts to playing into the hands of our enemies. In this regard I want to refer hon. members to the sharp attack made by the Chinese representative at the U.N. after my invitation to African states to enter into dialogue with us. He called my words a downright lie. Incidentally, at the U.N. there is no prohibition on unparliamentary language and we continually call one another liars there. Frequently such an accusation is in fact a well-founded one. This Chinese representative condemned our policy of dialogue as a wicked plan ultimately aimed at dividing our enemies and deceiving the world so that South Africa might continue with its policy of oppression. I must remind hon. members of the resolutions of the Oslo Conference by the U.N.’s Council for Namibia, resolutions which hit out at Dr. Waldheim because he had discussed South-West Africa with us and which urged him to cease that dialogue at once.

There is one other matter which I want to raise here, to a certain extent because I became involved in it during my visit to Britain two weeks ago. This matter is the political implications—please note, political implications—of this campaign for increased wages for non-White workers in South Africa in the case of foreign companies operating here in our country. As hon. members will perhaps know, several pressure groups and the United States have over a period of years waged such a campaign against us. Now this phenomenon has also reared its head in Great Britain and, according to reports received this weekend, in West Germany as well. As hon. members may perhaps know, the British Labour Party insisted on and also succeeded in ordering a parliamentary sub-commission to inquire into this whole matter. The object of this commission is to inquire into labour practices of British firms doing business in South Africa. Of course, the relations between the British Parliament, the British Government, on the one hand and the British industrialists on the other hand, are no concern of ours, but quite a different complexion is put on the matter if a parliamentary committee of another country should want to come here—I am not saying that they want to do so —which is what some people want, to inquire into a matter which is a purely South African domestic affair. I discussed this matter fully with the British Foreign Secretary when I saw him a few weeks ago. We do of course have nothing to hide in this regard. Now it appears that the Department of State of the United States of America published a guide which is being distributed among American firms doing business in South Africa, a guide urging, inter alia, that higher wages be paid to non-Whites employed by these American firms. I want to say here that there ought to be no uncertainty or misunderstanding in the mind of any person as to what the South African Government’s policy in regard to wages is, for this has repeatedly been made clear, here in this House as well. It should be remembered by those waging this campaign that we in South Africa have a system of free enterprise, and that foreign firms are receiving the same privileges here as do South African firms, and that we accept that they ought to undertake the same responsibilities. This includes the obligation to improve the welfare of their employees and to ensure equitable labour practices. There would be no objection if the Department of State of the United States of America were merely to encourage such firms in general to treat their people well. Nor would that clash with our Government’s policy, but it is a horse of a completely different colour when such a channel should be used for interfering in our domestic affairs, for criticizing us or for dictating to the South African Government in this regard. Improvement in conditions of service, narrowing the gap in the wage structure between Whites and non-Whites, has been Government policy for a long time, although our hon. Prime Minister has rightly warned against excessive and reckless action in this regard. A great deal has already been accomplished in this regard. We are telling the outside world that we are proud of it. Notwithstanding our exceptionally difficult problems as a result of our heterogeneous population, we have accomplished great feats in this sphere. It would therefore be incorrect and misleading—yes, it would even be presumptuous —to want to pretend that improved labour practices in South Africa had their origin in foreign firms.

However, in particular I want to address those people who have caused the search-light to be focused on South Africa in this regard. In the first place, they should display the courage and admit to the fact that it was South Africa itself which took the initiative. In the second place, I want to put a very pointed question to those bodies, including the British publication The Guardian. I want to ask them whether it is not time to display the same interest in regard to the lot of millions upon millions of workers in other parts of the world. Can we accept that their humanity will induce them to cause the searchlight to be focused on other parts of the world, too, where workers are worse off than is the case here in South Africa? If they are really so philanthropic, they ought to be just as and even more concerned about workers elsewhere in the world. Incidentally, I understand—and having said this, I am going to resume my seat—that a certain religious denomination in West Germany, which also took part in the campaign in South Africa, has landed in very serious trouble and is being criticized vehemently for the fact that their non-White pastors who are working here in Southern Africa, are being paid much less for the same work than pastors working in Europe. In this way the double standard, the double criterion, is even being used against us by churches. One hopes that others who are applying this double criterion will similarly come to grief.

Mr. Chairman, it is too late now to take the half hour, and therefore I only want to say a few words, firstly to thank the hon. the Minister for his statement. It is always a pleasure to listen to him, and I think he speaks too seldom. As far as he is concerned, I can certainly say that nobody has ever suggested that he is not a good advertisement for South Africa abroad. I want to make one remark in respect of his last words. We on this side of the House are, of course, very much in favour, as has been said quite often enough, of South Africa closing the wage gap as fast as possible. I think nobody can have any objection to people from abroad coming to South Africa and having a look at conditions in our country. As the Minister said himself, we have nothing to hide. But I fully agree, that when it comes to an organ of another Parliament wanting to conduct investigations in our country, it would be improper, unless, of course, they are invited by the South African Government. Our attitude on this point is that normally people belonging to other governments should be welcome to South Africa, to see what they want to see; but I fully agree that it would be improper for an organ of another Parliament to come and hold an official investigation in South Africa without being invited to do so.

The Minister referred to some of the international set-backs we have had. There are several others which he did not mention, and I will probably come back to that tomorrow. Let me just say that, looking at the general picture of our international situation, there are quite a number of questions which we would like to ask the hon. the Minister. There is, for instance, the matter on which he touched very lightly, namely the expanding problem of South-West Africa. The Government has conceded that the Territory has an international status. They have entered into negotiations with the United Nations which previously they were not willing to do. The door to South-West Africa has been opened for the United Nations, and the Security Council is insisting on a timetable: November for this, and April for that. Further, the Government has committed itself to the principle of self-determination and independence. Very recently the hon. the Minister has had discussions with the Secretary-General, Dr. Waldheim, and as we know, today is the 30th April which was set as the deadline for Dr. Waldheim’s report-back to the Security Council. That being the case, I feel that not only should we be freer to have any discussion that may be necessary, but I would like to ask the Minister whether it would not be possible for him tomorrow to give us more information on what the score is, and on what point of development we have reached. As things are, we here have no information about what is likely to happen. I detected a note of concern in the minds of several Governments represented here in South Africa. We would like to know what is happening to and in connection with South-West Africa and what is likely to happen. This is a matter which is of the deepest concern to every South African and not only to the Government and to Parliament. It may affect the whole future of South Africa, adversely or otherwise. Therefore we feel that the time has come for the hon. the Minister to play open cards with South Africa and play open cards also with Parliament. We hope that it will be possible for him to make a frank and clear statement on where we now stand with the United Nations, how the Government view the road ahead and, as I have said, for what we must prepare ourselves. It is also time, in the interest of everybody, that the Government tell us precisely how they interpret the concepts of self-determination and independence, and how the Government would apply them in practice in the conditions existing in South-West Africa. The Minister will agree that, basically, there is no disagreement in South Africa as to what sort of future we would like to see for South-West Africa. But it is self-evident that only if we are properly informed, only if we know precisely what the Government has in mind, will it be possible to assist the matter where we agree, and to offer such positive criticism as we may have on this side of the House.

Mr. Chairman, I really expected the hon. member for Bezuidenhout to speak until seven o’clock and therefore I really do not want to say at this stage what I had intended to say. But in the few minutes remaining, I should just like to reply very briefly to the question put by the hon. member. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout ought to know that Dr. Waldheims’ report will be submitted to the Security Council, and that it will not be in accordance with international practice for us in South Africa to make public a report of this kind and bruit it about before it has been done over there. I think the hon. member should be fully acquainted with these practices under international law. But I nevertheless want to say to the hon. member that as far as I am concerned and as far as South-West Africa is concerned, we have the fullest confidence in the conduct of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and of the hon. the Prime Minister in the matter of South-West Africa. I think the population of South-West Africa ought to be very thankful to the Prime Minister for the way in which he took this matter further and initiated this dialogue with Dr. Waldheim and his personal representative, and also for the brilliant manner in which he dealt with not only Dr. Waldheim and Dr. Escher, but this whole question. I want to say to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that we in South-West Africa—and I include the members of the United Party there—have every confidence that we may leave the matter in the hands of the Prime Minister and of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and that they will eventually know best. It is not necessary to say more at this stage. We can, of course, argue the report once it has been made public over there by Dr. Waldheim. I doubt whether this will occur in the course of this debate; because it is conceivable that he will want to submit it to the Security Council first, and that it will then be publicised by that body. I do not think that before the report is made public, we should talk about matters which are still in the air. I think we should not even argue them. I think we should leave the matter with the greatest confidence in the hands of the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Since it seems to me, Sir, that we have just about reached the time of adjournment, I shall let this suffice.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.