Mr. Speaker, after the Defence Vote has been disposed of the Bantu Administration and Development Vote will come up for discussion. After that the House will follow the Order Paper as printed for today.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister made an earnest appeal here yesterday to the people of South Africa to engage in a total national campaign, a national campaign in regard to defence bonds. I fully support this call of the hon. the Minister. When I listened to him and asked myself what the basic reasons for his appeal was, I could find no better answer than to read what the great military strategist and writer, Von Clausewitz, wrote. I quote one paragraph that he wrote—

So I am pleased that the hon. the Minister of Defence knows what it is all about. He has appreciation and insight. I really do not want to quarrel with the Opposition but there was a time when the difference between the NP and the UP on defence matters was basically the fact that the UP did not understand what the reason was for the struggle. Without intending it as a reproach, I just want to refer to the fact that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition a few days ago levelled one accusation after the other at the hon. the Prime Minister because the hon. the Prime Minister has ostensibly made a complete about-face and is now implementing the policy of that hon. leader. I want to read what appeared in The Cape Times of 20 March 1962 about the attitude of the UP. This is not an accusation; I do not want to cause bad feeling. I mention it to show how circumstances have changed and how we have converged on one opinion and one line of thought. The Cape Times wrote at the time—

We can see from this how times have changed. The whole spirit and content of the present debate show that we have come to a stage where we all know what we are fighting for. That to me is important. We all realize what we are fighting for at the moment, and because we understand I can say this morning not only with great pride but also with the purpose of encouraging others that my town council, Carletonville, will hand over to the highly respected Gen. Magnus Malan and Gen. Webster an amount of R200 000 for defence bonds next Wednesday, 27 April 1977, in the presence of the hon. the Minister of Defence. This is because we realize the essence of the struggle, as Clausewitz puts it.

I want to say today that I cannot wait for this Parliamentary session to come to an end. I cannot wait; I am afire; my pants are burning! [Interjections.] What am I going to do, Sir? I am going to start a national campaign in my constituency. I want to say now that I am going to call on each party branch. I am going to visit every school. I am going to visit every agricultural union and every agricultural union branch. Sir, I am going to visit every women’s organization. [Interjections.] Yes, you have to have that too to give some flavour to life. Sir, I am going to pester my constituency, and we are not only going to try to collect R200 000; I want to try to collect another R300 000 besides this R200 000. I want now to ask the hon. member for Yeoville, the leader of the PRP, and every member of the UP sitting there: “Do you want to follow my example? You talk, but let us now translate our words into actions.”

Can we also see who will contribute in this House? [Interjections.]

I am sorry; I cannot hear what you are saying.

I am speaking of people in this House.

It makes no difference. I am not concerned with personalities. Sir, I say I shall visit every school and every organization. I shall visit the churches. I shall visit my chambers of commerce. And, Sir, I do not say this for nothing. I associate myself with the appeal the hon. the Minister made yesterday. We are concerned here with a total national campaign because we realize the essence of this struggle.

While this spirit is abroad in our country, I must refer to something else as well, and I mention this on the basis of the testimony I have from senior officers in the Defence Force. This testimony is to the effect that although as a result of circumstances and the changes in our social structure, we find less independence among our schoolgoing youth, their adaptability when they have finished matric and go to the training camps is simply amazing. It is as plain as a pikestaff. I say this with pride in regard to our youth. But, Sir, there is something else we can do. The knowledge of what it means to be mentally and economically defensible must be brought home to the children by the parents. I think that if we can draw parents, particularly the mothers, into the total national campaign we are launching, we shall create a climate of mental defensibility which will have a salutary effect upon our children. It is for that reason that I am so pleased that the training period has now been extended to two years. The officers are already saying that the training period is having a salutary effect upon our youth. The parents also testify to this, and when they return after these training periods our young men testify to it themselves. Young people returning from army training have often said to me: “Oom Cas, it is the best training I have ever had in my life. I would not have missed it for all the money in the world.” People even come to me and say that although they have just come from the border, they want to go back. [Time expired. ]

Mr. Chairman, I know a nice little saying that is very true. It is that one small fly can make the chemist’s ointment smell.

I think that this debate started yesterday on a high note. We are dealing here with a very important Vote. I think hon. members on this side of the House, on the side of the official Opposition and on the side of the IUP are prepared to conduct this debate on that high note. But I want to ask the hon. member for Yeoville what he did. He need only read certain parts of his speech, especially the second part. Then he will have to admit that he should be ashamed of himself.

It is all very well to talk of improving social conditions. It is the earnest desire of all of us to promote housing in this country and to see that there are sufficient houses for everybody. But this cannot be done at the expense of the defence of our country. For the defence of our country no amount is too great or too high. So we should be glad when an amount is asked for such as that now being asked for, for the defence of South Africa. We have unfortunately, to deal with man’s inhumanity to man. We must be realistic and realize that the disfavour of nations compels us to take precautions and to remain in a state of preparedness. We are sincere when we say that we do not covet or want to take anything away from other nations. As opposed to that, we do not want to be robbed of what the Good Lord has given us to use here at the southern tip of Africa. It is essential that we remain more militarily defensible to enable us to defend our country when satanically inspired forces seek to deprive us of our freedom in South Africa. I want to say in passing that when we speak of military defensibility, where our internal security is concerned it is exclusively a matter for the police. When the police call on the Defence Force for help, the Defence Force will act, but only until such time as the police can take over again. We can be proud of the fact that our police force acted so efficiently last year at the time of the riots in the country, and that they restored order so soon.

The Defence Force’s main field of activity is in the international sphere. It is an acknowledged fact that a national military force historically and traditionally forms a strong component of what is fundamental to international good order. Our national military force always guarantees a situation in which the Government of our country can continue to use all its other power resources feasibly for the progress of our country and the achievement of our national aims. In this connection we accept the strategy of deterrents which will dissuade a potential enemy from using armed force but, what is more, it is essential that if war should actually break out, our armed military potential should be so effective that the escalation of the conflict can be confined and controlled at once. In other words, there are a few requirements which are absolutely essential. Firstly, we must ensure that we have a prepared Defence Force and that it receives the best training. The training must be excellent. South Africa has such a Defence Force. Secondly, there is the requirement of a strong war potential. This includes a vital arms industry and general military self-sufficiency. South Africa has that potential. Thirdly—something which is important—the State must be prepared to actively use its striking power. That willingness will always be shown by this Government.

It must be made obvious to our potential enemies by way of a crystal clear message that the Government will not hesitate to use its military strength in time of crisis because our Defence Force is ready to defend the inviolability of our country’s borders. In this regard I say to each potential enemy: Just touch South Africa, and we will make things so hot for you that the heat of the hot place will perhaps be more bearable for you. But our policy is certainly not to boast of our military strength. It is not our policy to threaten other countries. But to those who are ignorant we say that South Africa is prepared to defend its borders. We extend the hand of co-operation to countries, but we do not do so because we are weak. We do so from a position of strength and in obedience to the command to love our neighbour, especially those who are less well-endowed with insight and wisdom.

The task of our military force is clear, viz. the protection of our national interests here at home and the defence of our air space and territorial waters; and, if necessary, the protection of areas beyond our territorial waters as well. That is why we maintain a strong Defence Force, a Defence Force which makes a variety of demands of our country. What are those demands? In the first place we are in actuality already involved in an insurgency struggle of low intensity in South West Africa, but this struggle could arise at any time in the Republic of South Africa as well. This requires military preparedness on a permanent basis over wide-spread areas. In the second place we must at this stage, because of the possibility of a conventional power build-up against us in Africa, maintain and expand our own effective conventional power.

What is more, the searchlight is turned on our economic and industrial competence as elements of our military defensibility. We are in the favourable position that by reason of our raw materials and the work done by our Armaments Board, we are able to manufacture sophisticated weaponry ourselves. We have the expertise and the technical knowhow for this. Our manpower potential is an important element of national military defensibility. Our national service system makes it possible for us to maintain a military presence throughout in crisis spots, and with a longer service period we can ensure that we shall be better prepared militarily to ward off hostile action. In this regard I refer to the extension of the period of service which was announced yesterday by the hon. the Minister. What is important in our ability to maintain a permanent military presence in crisis areas, is also of course, the use of women soldiers to replace men in administrative posts. In addition there is the training of Coloureds, Indians and Bantu to do certain work in the Defence Force so that more national servicemen will be available for essential operational duties.

A further element of national defensibility is the qualitative characteristics of our Defence Force organization, the development of military strategy and tactics to enable us to cope with the demands of our own situation, the efficiency of our military systems and the quality of the training of our soldiers. I refer to this also just in passing. South Africa has the manpower. South Africa has the weapons. What we do not have, we get, and what we cannot get we manufacture ourselves. To crown everything, we have the will and the moral courage and we know that we can fulfil our calling in this country.

Mr. Chairman, in the ten minutes at my disposal it is impossible for me to react to everything that the hon. the Minister of Defence has discussed in nearly an hour. However, I should like to refer to a few matters, but before I do that, I want to refer to the plea of the hon. member for Carletonville that an example should be set.

†I am sorry he is not here at the moment, because I should like to tell him that whilst I appreciate his spirit and his desire to persuade others to do something, I think he should also follow the example some of us have set in not asking other people to do things, but doing them ourselves, as I have done, by joining the commandos to try to set a personal example—rather than just to tell other people what they should do while one is not prepared to do it oneself. In this process, of course, I break all sorts of regulations—even by standing up here making representations which I have not put through my commanding officer! However, I hope the hon. the Minister will not put me under close arrest for breaking that particular regulation.

The hon. the Minister referred to the West and our interdependence. Of course, we on this side of the House have always taken that view and it stands on record in Hansard. In fact, I think I even used stronger words. I told a certain gentleman who tried to dictate to us from Lusaka just where he could go to, to a certain hot place!

Who was the person?

A former Secretary of State of a Western country. I told him to go to hell, and I am not ashamed of it, because South Africa is a proud country and we are a proud people. Nobody dictates to us and nobody can treat us with contempt as though we are serfs or something who can be told what to do. The hon. the Minister knows that in this party, if not in all Opposition parties, when it comes to pride in South Africa and refusal to be dictated to by other countries, there is no difference between us and the Government.

I want to turn to the major issue which the hon. the Minister raised, that of national service. We will still have a Bill before us when this matter can be debated more fully. So I shall deal now only with the main principles. I want to say at once that this party, the official Opposition, accepts that we have no option but to extend the initial period of national service. I want to emphasize what the hon. the Minister mentioned and what seems to have been missed in most Press reports—namely that it is the intention to call people up for 18 months and not for the two years for which provision will be asked. The additional six months is a flexibility period, and we on this side of the House hope and believe that this additional period will not be needed and will not be forced upon us by the escalation of the threats against us. We therefore accept that the increase to 18 months is something which we cannot avoid, and we accept that there must be a measure of flexibility. I want to repeat what I said in my first speech, i.e. that we see this as an interim measure until we can make full and meaningful use in the military services of the young men of all races in South Africa. We welcome the steps that have been taken but I believe that they are still inadequate. The announcement of a Coloured service company is welcomed, but the hon. the Minister talks only of “considering” or “thinking about” an infantry regiment. I think we should have passed the thinking stage already and should have been doing it by now. I hope we are not going to play the numbers game—quoting numbers—but I don’t want to question numbers now. I would like to see realistic action being taken in bringing in all the peoples of South Africa into our defence on a far wider scale than is taking place now and at a far greater tempo than is, in fact, happening. I am thinking in terms of thousands, not hundreds, because if we are to make meaningful use of all our potential, we must think in terms of thousands and not hundreds.

Now I come to the other aspect of the announcement. I am referring to the extension of the periodic camps to eight camps of 30 days each. Here I want to ask the hon. the Minister to think again. I do not think this has been given full consideration. I am not thinking only about the strain on the men themselves, the men who are subject to the law, but I am thinking of the extended service for voluntary leadership groups in the citizen force regiments. Granted, it is natural that commanding officers want their men under their control as often and for as long as possible. It is also natural that the army sets an ideal of what it requires to keep men trained and up to date. We as a Parliament, however, have to look at other aspects, and one of these is that the average commercial and industrial leave period is three weeks a year, fifteen working days or three calendar weeks. It is an exception if it extends beyond this. Public Service departments for example, teachers and others, are the exceptions. Generally, however, the leave period is three weeks. Under the old 19-day camp system, a person could take his annual leave, do his camp and suffer no financial hardship. It was not a period which disrupted family life or financial obligations to any serious extent. Whilst this sounds a mere trifle, a small matter, that difference of a week imposes a financial loss and causes difficulties which tend to create totally disproportionate resentment than the time, in terms of days, really warrants. I have not yet been satisfied that the additional week is, in fact, required. This also applies to the additional three years of camps, because it is at these camps where one finds the resentment against wastage of time. One does have new men each year, but those who have done two or three camps, have done it all before, and we do not want to create the impression that we are calling men up simply for the sake of calling them up. I say this because the Citizen Force and the Commandos are the backbone of our defences in a war, and we have to be careful that we do not slip a disc in that backbone by extending the service period unnecessarily. Even now the new promotion courses are too long for many Citizen Force officers, and I am very concerned about that voluntary group.

My time is running out, so I want to refer quickly to two matters. One involves the treatment of the parents of casualties as far as transport is concerned. If a casualty is on the “dangerously ill” list, transport is provided and the army does a wonderful job. However, there have been cases of seriously wounded or seriously injured people who are not on the dangerously ill list. In such cases there is no provision for transport for the parents to visit them. Then when those boys go home on recuperative leave, they cannot travel by air. They have to travel by train. I have had cases—one boy with no arms—who would have had to travel by train because the army regulations do not provide any discretion for air travel. I am taking this up with the hon. the Minister merely to ask him to reconsider the situation.

There are national servicemen who will now do a longer period of service and I believe that we also have to do something about providing travel facilities and concession fares for them, particularly by air when they are far from their home bases. This is another matter which requires interdepartmental co-operation. I believe we owe a duty to our men. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I hope I shall be excused for not reacting to the previous speaker. We all agree that South Africa is experiencing one of the most difficult phases in its history today. It is literally and figuratively caught in the jaws of a mighty vice. The one jaw represents the pressure being exerted by an unparalleled and stubborn recession and the other is the growing and ominous military threat from beyond our borders. The Government tried to decrease the economic pressure by means of a brilliant budget and was able, moreover, to earmark the fine amount of R1 711,7 million for increased defence expenditure. This represents 19% of our estimated Government expenditure and 5,1% of our gross national product; the latest figures indicate that it represents only 4,9% of our gross national product. However, this is still far too little. As far as I am concerned, it should exceed the R20 milliard notch before the end of 1977.

If we want to win this struggle for survival, we shall have to exploit new sources. To my mind these resources are to be found in the sphere where millions of rand are spent and wasted annually on less important and even quite unnecessary things. It is estimated that R500 million is spent annually on illegal gambling and lotteries. These are immense amounts of money which are leaving the country and disappear down bottomless pits in the casinos beyond our borders in our neighbouring states and elsewhere. Let us take a look at the amounts which are spent on horse racing, which is legal. In the 11 months of the financial year 1976-’77, R323,7 million was bet on horses in the four provinces. During the same period, R31,763 million was collected in provincial taxes. If we want to see even more interesting figures, we must take a look at private consumption expenditure in South Africa. In 1976 R916 million was spent on alcoholic beverages alone; R471 million on tobacco; R320 million on sport and recreation; R478 million on refreshments and meals at cafés and accommodation in hotels; R287 million on books, newspapers and magazines; R677 million on motor vehicles; and R1 219 million under the heading entertainment, cinemas and cultural services. The sum total of these items comes to the immense amount of R4 368 million.

Today, the average South African spends an alarmingly high percentage of his total available income, after income tax has been deducted, on less important and unnecessary things. The following percentages for 1976 ought to provide convincing evidence of this fact: 5% on alcoholic beverages and 2,5% on tobacco—i.e. 7,5% on these two items alone; 1,7% on sport and recreation; 2,5% on hotels and cafés; 1,5% on newspapers, magazines and books; 3,6% on motor vehicles—I am making special mention of motor vehicles in this regard as the excessive use of motor vehicles for recreational purposes fits in well here; and 6,4% on entertainment and cultural services. This brings the total to 23,2% which represents an immense percentage of our national income.

One does not begrudge our people their right to pleasure and the right to spend their money where and as they wish, but I ask myself whether, in anxious times such as those which we are experiencing at the moment, part of that money ought not to be channelled to the costs involved in making our fatherland safe. The hon. the Minister addressed a serious appeal to our country in this regard yesterday. A saving of 10% on the consumption of liquor alone will mean a saving of R91,6 million and a saving of 1% on our private consumption expenditure will mean R43,68 million. If this could be increased to 10%, it would mean R436,8 million. A saving in this region from this enormous expenditure really is so little that I feel at liberty to request the people of South Africa today to contribute without reservation, complaints or criticism, a small percentage of it to the extremely urgent financing of our defence expenditure. This we may invest as soon as possible with spontaneous generosity in the existing defence bonds, or in the new bonus bonds when they are issued.

I do not think that there will be any opposition to this well-motivated plan anywhere in South Africa. Active and positive contributions from this category of national expenditure will have so much more meaning, will be appreciated so much more, because it will have an intimate, personal character and will call for personal sacrifice in which our Coloured people in this country will also be able to participate. A little less backing on horses, a little less drinking, a little less smoking, a little less gallivanting by car over weekends and on public holidays and a little less going to cinemas, and then we can invest those savings with the Government to be used for protecting our fatherland in this unique struggle for survival in which we have been caught up. To my mind this is a new source which can be exploited, not by new increased excise duties, because this will not have the meaning which it can have in this case. This should inspire people to exercising the highest degree of discipline and thrift for an exalted purpose.

Including South West Africa, our Defence Force has to defend 6 612 km of borders on land and 4 501 km of coast today. Including the borders of the Transkei, the figure comes to 12 180 km of borders. For this purpose South Africa needs a 100% equipped and effective Defence Force, well-trained officers and men and modern weapons for land, air and sea operations and for defence purposes. The purchase, manufacture, maintenance and effective use thereof require millions of rand. An Agosta submarine cost R32,25 million in 1976, a Corvette R25 million; a Mirage fighter R2,106 million; a Hercules R3,578 million, and an Alouette helicopter R250 000. In addition there is the high costs of manning the sophisticated weapons in all sections. It has been said that training a Mirage fighter pilot alone costs R1,058 million and training a Buccaneer pilot R 1,293 million, to mention a few examples only. I wish I had the time at my disposal to point out the immensely high purchase, manufacturing and maintenance costs of the essential equipment of an effective, full-fledged, prepared Defence Force. The cost structure upon which a modern army is built is immense, especially in the inflationary climate prevailing here and in the economy of the world at the moment. Therefore I should once again like to plead for the development of new sources of income, also from the sphere of expenditure I have mentioned and have indicated by means of convincing figures and have stressed. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the appeal which the hon. member for Marico made in the earlier part of his speech for people to save on some of the luxuries and to invest in defence bonds, is obviously something which one can endorse. I would like, however, to ask the hon. member why he suddenly finds this year that it is much easier for him to make an appeal for people to buy defence bonds than last year. What is it that makes the defence bonds so much more attractive this year than they were last year? If the hon. member answers that one, perhaps we can get down to what really is going on in his mind.

The hon. member drew attention to another factor with which I want to deal now. The sort of atmosphere that is developing now is that everything must be given up and that everything has to go into defence. If that is the philosophy, our enemies have already won half the battle, because the whole intention is to get us into a state where we divert funds from the things we have to do in South Africa towards things they want us to do, things which, although necessary in many cases, are unproductive. I want to issue a warning that, whereas we must devote our energies to ensuring that South Africa is properly defended, we should not fall into the trap which our enemies are setting for us, to divert so much of our resources and so much of our manpower to defence. This is unnecessary in particular circumstances at the moment, and it could land us in a situation where we will not be able to do the things which we have to do in order to win the political and the socio-economic battle. This is a matter which, I believe, is absolutely vital. Our enemies want us to do that, and we must not fall into that trap.

May I also react to the hon. the Minister in respect of what he has said in regard to the West? It is perfectly true that South Africa has a history of standing by the West, often in very difficult circumstances. In many respects history tells us where South Africa has stood by the West. However, history is history, and we are now dealing with a current situation. What we have to do today is to make it easy for the West to support us, to take the steps which are necessary in South Africa, to make it possible for Western politicians who have to carry their own countries and their own people with them, to give us the support we need. There the hon. the Minister needs the support of his colleagues, because it is vital that we put our internal policies in order if our defence effort, in the long term, is going to meet with the success we wish for it.

One other thing I would like to touch on, which applies to the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Aliwal, is the question of whether it is desirable to attack a political party in this House without substance to the attack, merely to get a little bit of political benefit from it somewhere along the line, when, in the process, one is damaging the Defence Force and damaging the defence effort of South Africa. [Interjections.] Is it in fact desirable to do so? The hon. member for Aliwal is the best example. He gets up and says that this and that are bad, but he never mentions one single fact on which to base his attack. It is the kind of smear generality that we have to face in this House time and time again, which, in fact, is destructive of the defence effort of South Africa. [Interjections.] That is what it is all about. It is a smear technique for petty political advantage, something which only jeopardizes the defence effort of South Africa. That is what it is all about.

I would like to come back to the hon. the Minister. I want to refer again to the issue of a larger Permanent Force, something to which the hon. the Minister has not adequately responded. I hope he will, because it is fundamental. I want to put the simple premise to him that, in so far as we are concerned, we can keep the same number of people in full-time service in the Permanent Force at the same cost to South Africa as is the annual intake for national service. That does not involve even one-eighth of the total defence expenditure in so far as the budget is concerned. There is no doubt that a large, mobile Permanent Force, in a fighting context, is more effective from a military point of view. There is also no question about the fact that it helps our economy more. I am talking about full-time units. I am not talking merely about fulfilling the leadership, the administrative and the training functions. I would ask the hon. the Minister to pay some attention to this.

In respect of the announcement that was made yesterday in regard to the extension of national service I want to ask the hon. the Minister to clarify certain aspects for the public’s benefit. It is apparent from newspapers and questions that are directed to one that there is already some degree of confusion as to how people who start their national service at the July intake are affected and how people doing their national service at the moment are affected and also how people who, for example, have done half of their camps, will be affected. I would ask the hon. the Minister to make a clarifying statement in this respect.

I would like to come back to the South West Africa kidnapping. I want to plead today with the hon. the Minister and I want to ask him to plead with his colleagues and, if necessary, have money made available to deal with the issue of the no-go zones on the borders and in particular the borders in Owambo and Kavango. With great respect I submit that a one km no-go area is not an effective barrier. If one wants proof of that, one only has to read the report which appeared in the newspapers this morning of an interview with one of the priests who was involved, in which it is quite clear that one can move through that one km zone at night with hardly a chance of being caught. If one is going to stop people, if one is going to make that no-go area effective, one has to have a wider barrier. It is true that it may cost money in order to compensate people who have to move and it is true that one may even have to have islands in a no-go area where one has a curfew situation in order to control it, but I would appeal today to the hon. the Minister to apply his mind to the fact that a no-go area of one km, while it is something, is to my mind from a military point of view not adequately effective. While we are doing that, I believe that we should be planning the no-go areas on other borders which will become effective in the future so that we do not find ourselves in this situation. We have a classic example here of people who can infiltrate into an area, arrive there in the middle of the night and have enough time at night to take not only themselves, but also prisoners, out. With respect, that is something which, to my mind, requires urgent attention.

The last thing I want to touch on deals with a report which has now been tabled in regard to the insurance industry. I am gravely disappointed, not only in regard to the recommendations contained therein, but also in regard to certain of the attitudes which the Department of Defence took in respect of the amendment to section 38 of the Insurance Act. I believe that there is a duty on the hon. the Minister to ensure that serving soldiers can get life insurance without any restriction. If the intention is to repeal section 38, then I believe it is doing a disservice to servicemen. One must bear in mind that there has been legislation in the House to deal with employers who will not employ people because they are going to have to do national service, and to have a suggestion from a commission of inquiry that all that the insurance companies have to do is to decide that they are not going to issue policies to people who are going to do national service is, I think, a disgrace. In my view something has got to be done to put that right and to allow people to be insured and to get the same life cover as if they were not servicemen. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, we have a peculiar situation in the Chamber. We have two members sitting next to each other—unfortunately one of them is not here—namely the hon. member for Simonstown and the hon. member for Yeoville. They are both very loyal members. The only difference between the two is that in everything he says the hon. member for Simonstown projects an image of loyalty. Therefore he does not find it necessary to build up his loyal image, but the hon. member for Yeoville has to say something every now and then to build up his loyal image. However, he is faced with a special dilemma. His dilemma is with his leader, who maintained in the present debate that South Africa was a militarist country. That is where the problem of the hon. member for Yeoville lies. Because he is a Progref, he has to be refractory now and then. During the budget debate he said that this Defence budget was inflationary. I now challenge him to prove that the way in which our defence expenditure is financed this year, are inflationary. During this debate he has, however, done something else. When he started his speech, he made a big fuss about this expenditure being a money eater, money which could have been used for housing and so forth. Now he is attacking the hon. member for Aliwal because he attacked him. He is thus creating the image of militarism and therefore he has to project his dilemma. However, after having projected this moneyeater image of his, he argued for nearly 15 minutes that the Defence Force should be enlarged and extended. If these hon. members of the PRP want to create such a dynamic image of loyalty, why do they not also say to the country and the people that over and above the operating expenditure, and the armaments purchased, the Department of Defence also does a great deal of good in the field of industry and creates job opportunities—something about which he had much to say yesterday—and that they do a lot for the development of expertise? Indeed, they do outstanding work for the RSA and its people. I want to state why he does not do so. It is because they, as the PRP, know that that would improve to some extent the negative image of the Republic which they are always trying to project.

However I just want to refer to one example from the many fields of arnaments. I want to deal with it to illustrate the opportunities which this Department of Defence creates for the RSA and its people. What I say about this field, also applies to all the other armament matters. The field I want to single out, is the question of communication, security and electronic equipment. We know that a decade ago armaments of this kind were only delivered to us by the agents of subsidiaries of overseas companies. Today we have three large companies with a turnover of nearly R40 million per year, companies which fulfil the needs of the Defence Force.

Let us, however, look at six good things resulting from this whole effort. The first is that these enterprises are South African—controlled enterprises. The second is that these enterprises fulfil the needs of the Government as to equipment, equipment which is superior to anything else available in the world in that particular field. It is equipment with a local content of 70% or more. The third is that this equipment is supplied at prices lower than that of similar equipment available abroad. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North should listen to this, because he only spoke nonsense in this House yesterday. The fourth is that these three companies create more than 4 000 job opportunities, not only for Coloureds and Indians, but also for electrical engineers and technicians. Job opportunities are created which would otherwise never have been available to this type of person in South Africa, if it were not for the Department of Defence. Fifthly, it gives the people in the operational area moral support in the sense that what they use there, is to be ranked with the best available in the world. Sixthly, as a result of this industry, sophisticated integrated circuit and thick film facilities were created in South Africa.

Now, however, I shall be told that this is too complicated. I shall however point to a few aspects to show why it is important. Which good things result from this? The first aspect is that these facilities now manufacture strategic components, components of vital importance for this electronic equipment. The second aspect is that here again, job opportunities are being created for engineers, scientists and technicians, job opportunities which otherwise would never have existed in South Africa. The other very important point—Gen. Rodgers also referred to this recently—is that with the help of these facilities we can make the electronic control system of rockets and guided missiles possible in South Africa. Thus we are now approaching that field as well. As a final point in this regard I should like to point out that these facilities are not being established for the Defence Force only, because in the process we can now also make a bigger contribution to the steel and other metal industries, as well as the mining, textile and sugar industries where such computer control systems are of the greatest importance. I could carry on pointing out such examples which are beneficial in other fields as well.

A few years ago Atlas was taken over by the Department of Defence as a financially and technically bankrupt estate, and where is Atlas today? It is one of our most progressive industries and Impalas are manufactured there more cheaply than abroad. It also creates job opportunities for aviation technicians and engineers which would otherwise not have been available in South Africa. A similar example—the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North would do well to listen to this—is that the seven Armscor organizations make use of more than 1 200 private organizations, but of those 1 200, 400 basically only work for the Armscor subsidiaries. They produce nearly 60% of our armaments and 80% of this 60% is produced by the private sector.

I think we must congratulate the hon. the Minister, the Armaments Board and the Department of Defence on these fantastic technological achievements which are unequalled anywhere in the world. I believe that I know what I am talking about because I know this industry very well.

I want to close by pointing out to South Africa’s friends as well as to other noncommunist States who are interested, that the Government is prepared to sell armaments to them and we are in the position to sell them armaments which are not only better than those they can buy anywhere else in the world, but also cheaper. Those who want to hear, those who have ears to hear, must hear what we in South Africa are prepared to offer them.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a statement on another development in so far as the S.A. Air Force is concerned.

It has been decided to construct a new Air Force base at Hoedspruit in the eastern Transvaal. The establishment of a new Air Force has become necessary in view of the high concentration of aircraft at existing bases, especially at Waterkloof and Swartkop in Pretoria, caused by the Air Force’s modernization programme and the resulting high density of aircraft traffic in the air above Pretoria. The reduction of aircraft at Waterkloof and Swartkop will not only bring about a considerable relief with regard to living space and aircraft movement for the two bases, but will also result in a meaningful reduction in aircraft noise over Pretoria.

After a thorough investigation the choice fell on Hoedspruit for the following reasons: (a) The suitability of the terrain for the construction of a modern Air Force base on a cost effective basis; (b) the high work efficiency which can be obtained of aircraft at low altitude as a result of height above sea level; (c) the location in an area with the necessary infra-structure, roads and railways; and (d) the low concentration of aircraft movement in the area.

The planning of the base has already reached an advanced stage and provides for its functional adaptation to fit the role and function of the aircraft which will use it. Construction of the base will take place in different stages according to the availability of funds.

*This is a very important step forward for the Air Force.

What is the altitude of the projected air-base?

I do not know. The hon. member can look it up somewhere, in some book or other. However, the base must have radar protection and must be so situated that this is taken into account. It will be at a much lower altitude than would be the case anywhere else. I want to make it very clear that we are not prepared to accept any contradictions in this regard. Other localities were also considered and the best locality was selected. Talks were held with persons and bodies elsewhere who thought that the base should be accommodated there. Reasons as to why this could not be done were given to them. It was because of operational considerations, considerations which I cannot mention here. For that reason the decision concerning the locality where the base is going to be constructed is final.

†The hon. member for Durban Point raised the question of travelling facilities and privileges for casualties. I wrote to the hon. member on 1 September 1976 …

I asked for those not on the DI-list.

… and explained all our problems. I cannot undertake anything more than what I undertook on 1 September 1976. I am prepared, however, to discuss this matter with the hon. member, but I do not have the time available to go into detail now.

*Before I continue to deal with the matters raised by the hon. member for Durban Point, I want to exchange a few ideas with the hon. member for Yeoville. He informed me that he had a very good reason for leaving.

For good, I hope.

No, he is not going for good.

*The hon. member is sometimes annoying, even to the official Opposition.

†I want to tell the hon. member that I am rather disappointed with him because I had always thought that he was an enthusiastic supporter of a better equipped and developed Defence Force.

What made you change your mind?

I thought the hon. member, in the light of the attitude which he usually displays, would have read the White Paper more properly than he did. If he did read the White Paper he would have seen the following in paragraph 2—

The whole idea that we are now concentrating only on military preparedness, is therefore totally untrue.

When did I say that?

The hon. member said so just a few minutes ago. He said the Government should be careful not to create the idea that it was only concentrating on defence.

That is not so.

The hon. member argued the very point this morning. That is why I am reacting to it. I made a note of it.

It was not in my speech.

The Department of Defence is merely a body responsible for the achievement of certain national security goals.

*We have never said that the Defence Force is the only decisive factor in our national strategy, and we are constantly emphasizing this. That is why we are asking for greater co-operation between all Government departments and for greater coordination, and that is why we are working in this direction. The Department of Defence does not wish to dominate anyone. It is merely seeking teamwork in order to succeed in deploying an overall strategy. The hon. member went further and objected to paragraph 22—“National policies”. What does he have against this? Just imagine! One would swear that the hon. member was governing. Surely the Government has to state the basis on which it is developing its policy for surely we are primarily responsible for the security of the State. The hon. member cannot accept that responsibility until he is in that position. Until he does so his responsibility is secondary. Here we are spelling out what the aspects of our national policy are in our endeavour to safeguard South Africa. We state inter alia—

Does the hon. member deny that we are a “plural society”?

Go on!

We say—

That is separate development!

Does he not want them to be free?

We are not fighting for separate development. We are fighting for South Africa.

No mention is made here of separate development. It is stated here—

And the next paragraph?

I am coming to that. Is the hon. member opposed to our people developing along those lines?

I am interested in fighting for South Africa, not for apartheid.

I quote further—

Does he not want that?

That is not my argument!

Then I accuse that hon. member of advocating Black majority rule.

Oh, rubbish! That is nonsense! You know it is nonsense.

If he does not want to lead the Black homelands to independence, then he stands for the opposite.

You are much more intelligent than that! [Interjections.]

Order!

Listen to this now. He objects to the following—

Is he opposed to that?

We want Coloureds represented.

Does he not want to give those people their own forms of government and take counsel with them on matters of common interest? Is he opposed to that? He asked whether that was what we were asking our troups to fight for? We are asking the troups to fight for this, yes!

You are asking us to fight for this?

Yes.

We fight for South Africa and not for apartheid.

Very well. Then the hon. member must have the courage of his convictions, the convictions which he actually has in his heart, and say to this Parliament: “We profess our loyalty, but in our hearts we do not really want to fight.” [Interjections.]

That is a scandalous statement!

I am becoming tired of these Prog politics now. South Africa is also tired of it.

†That hon. member must make his choice. Either he is with South Africa or he is on the side of the enemy.

I am on South Africa’s side and not on apartheid’s side.

As long as this Government is in power, and it is going to remain in power for many years to come, this policy will be implemented.

You are not entitled to tell people to fight for apartheid. You are entitled to tell them to fight for South Africa. [Interjections.]

Order!

Does the hon. member want replies or not?

I want replies.

Very well, then. Then the hon. member must keep quiet, otherwise I shall not reply to him any further. [Interjections.] I shall not allow myself to be shunted around in this House by that hon. member. He is far too insignificant to do that! I come now to another paragraph, dealing with South West Africa, and I quote—

That is what we are asking the troops to fight for. Is he in favour of it?

He is silent!

Then we state, under “External”—

1. (i) through dialogue and assistance, from a position of strength, to normalize relationships, wherever possible, with all countries in Africa, particularly those in Southern Africa.

Is he opposed to that? I read further—

1. (ii) to achieve understanding by Governments and citizens of other countries of the RSA’s internal policies and the Western humanistic tradition upon which they are based.

Do you agree with the words “Western humanistic”?

No. There is an objection to them, and I am going to reply to it now. The hon. member for Sea Point has the mentality of a person who is able to think only in terms of swimming baths. A question was put to me across the floor of this House yesterday concerning the word “humanistic”. My reply is that I think it is an incorrect word which crept in during the translation. I quote further—

1. (iii) to emphasize the strategic importance of the RSA, the danger of Marxist infiltration and the extent of the threat of revolutionary take-over in Southern Africa in order to prevent, through Western diplomatic action, the build-up of Marxist influence and military power in neighbouring States.

Is the hon. member opposed to that?

May I answer?

No. The hon. member has said enough. I am replying to the hon. member now so that he can pick up his belongings and depart.

The hon. member also came forward with the suggestion that a larger Permanent Force was needed. We do need a larger Permanent Force, and that is why we are asking for more money. A larger Permanent Force is necessary, and the blueprint of the posts which have to be created, already exists. I have approved a larger number of blueprint posts in respect of virtually every division of the Defence Force, but in the case of each one the condition that it may only be implemented if the necessary money is available applies. A larger Defence Force is therefore necessary. As I see it, we need a larger Defence Force to provide more specialist services and leadership services. We are in the position of Israel, Switzerland and other countries in which there has to be a national army, where the Citizen Force and the Commandos will always have to play their part. I do not agree with the hon. member that we should establish large coloured units to cope with this problem in an absolutely irresponsible way—for that is what he really wants. I am not in favour of that. Let me say now that as long as I am Minister, this will not happen. In the Permanent Force there are fighting units, for example the reconnaissance commando, that are being trained in the best possible way. If the hon. member knows nothing about it, I shall make certain that he gets to see it, if he is still on my side.

I cannot subscribe to the standpoint that the Permanent Force should provide the fighting elements of the Defence Force, with the Citizen Force as supporting elements. We differ on that score. For irregular warfare it is necessary for the Citizen Force and the Commando Force to be employed in the best possible way.

I discussed the 240 days question here. What I am now saying will also serve as a reply to the hon. member for Durban Point. We can debate the 240 days question when the relevant legislation is being introduced. Let me point out, though, that what we are referring to are maximum periods. In respect of national service there will be greater clarity when the legislation in question is introduced in a few days time. Now is not the time to discuss the details. The hon. member came to light with a new suggestion, viz. “there must be a wider barrier in the operational area”. Why should the “wider barrier” be on our side only? Why should only Ovambo cede a larger no man’s land? Why cannot there be a “barrier” on the other side? I think the responsibility should, on a diplomatic level, be placed on the Angolan Government to state what its standpoint is. Does it want to reserve to itself the right to maintain Swapo camps within sight on its side, and does it want to reserve to itself the right to say that those Swapo camps should be left in peace? I think it should reply, and we are prepared, with the help of the Ovambo Government, to release a certain area on this side of the border and leave it unoccupied, and the Ovambo Government has not been slow in responding to this point. However, it should not only be Ovambo from whom we are asking sacrifices in order to keep people apart. After all, the Ovambo also have rights in their own country, and I think the time has come for us to take up the cudgels for them. In any case, this matter may best be left in the hands of the military authorities dealing with it.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question to clarify this matter? What I have in mind is not a criticism of creating a no man’s land by mutual agreement with Angola. I recognize the point which the hon. the Minister makes. What I have in mind is a no-go area for defence purposes, to make our defence more practical and possible. That is what I have in mind.

Order! That is rather a strange question.

I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, it is a rather strange question. Let us take a distance of 10 or 15 km. Say, for example, there is a mission station there. Some of those mission stations are virtually on the border. Those mission stations must make a choice. They must either ask for the protection of the Defence Force, leave that area, or expose themselves to this kind of rapacious and criminal action on the part of people who are protected by certain circles in the West. That is all I want to say to the hon. member on this point.

The answer is to wipe out the bases.

The hon. member for Durban Point said yesterday that he was dissatisfied with my treatment of the Press. I do not think the hon. member has grounds for objection in that regard. There is an agreement with the Press Union, and in our recent talks the Press Union, through its chairman, presented the relationship between the Defence Force and them as the ideal relationship between a Government department and the Press Union.

That is possibly the owner. I get the complaints.

Yes, you get complaints from individuals, but you should not deal with individuals. We are dealing here with a body. In the second place I want to tell the hon. member that weekly discussions with the Press are taking place. We have a system of military correspondents who are accredited by the Defence Force, and regular meetings are held with them. This week intimate talks were again held with the Press on a very high level. I do not think that the hon. member should handle the Press’ case for them. The way they treat him is just as shabby as the way they sometimes treat me.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister why it sometimes happens that approval is refused in regard to a particular report, and that the same report is subsequently made available to other newspapers? Could we not at least eliminate that kind of thing?

This is a matter which could be discussed with the Press Liaison division of the Defence Force. However, the hon. member and I cannot raise it. Sometimes there are very good reasons for acting in that way. Sometimes there are very good reasons why a report cannot be released at a particular juncture. I should prefer not to give examples, because I would then have to mention the newspapers by name. I should prefer to deal with the matter in general. The hon. member should rather leave this in the hands of the Press Liaison division of the Defence Force, which could reach an agreement with the newspapers. If representatives of newspapers come to the hon. member to complain, he should rather refer them to the Press Liaison division of the Defence Force.

The hon. member also raised the question of postal articles, and of payment. The S.A. Defence Force is a Government department. The Defence Force and the armaments organization are the two institutions which, together, make the most use of computer services. In the case of 95% of the services provided to the Defence Force by computers, there is no problem. A small percentage—5%—is giving problems. As far as the paying of wages is concerned, the Defence Force is confronted with inherent problems. In the first place it was an entirely new experience for some of the commanding officers. In the second place—and the hon. member is aware of this—there is that problem with regard to the differing categories as far as remuneration is concerned. However, it is not a matter which we can thrash out here this morning. It is also a question of money. If I could eliminate that dividing line, so much the better. As far as I am concerned, it is a completely incorrect approach.

Accept my suggestions.

Yes, I could accept all the suggestions put forward by the hon. member. However, he must then ensure that I receive approximately R400 million more, and he should do so without complaining about it. I want to state the Defence Force experiences no problems whatsoever with 90% of its computer services. The Defence Force computer is in operation 24 hours of the day and seven days a week. The Defence Force is an enormous organization. Therefore, when minor problems arise in regard to underpayment or overpayment …

These are not minor.

Of course it is only a small percentage.

It applies to all Citizen Force members in all units over a period of 11 months.

That is not correct. The hon. member is quite wrong. The percentage and the figures was submitted to me. They are small amounts, seen in the light of the tremendous amounts which are being paid out. We should not exaggerate these matters to such an extent. The most important factor of all was that when the Defence Force discovered what was happening, it immediately took steps to rectify the matter. After all, the Defence Force is not an organization of little angels that never make mistakes. Good heavens, even an angel has fallen! [Interjections.] Surely mistakes have to occur, and when they do, we rectify them. One would swear the world would come to an end if mistakes were made in the Defence Force. The Defence Force consists of people, and there is always the human element. Therefore I maintain that I am not going to condemn the Defence Force because errors creep in when one is working with these tremendous numbers.

I am merely asking that the mistakes be admitted.

Yes, they are admitted. They admitted the mistake to the Minister and I took them to task internally. Externally, however, I shall defend them to death. [Interjections.]

The hon. member again raised the question of programme budgeting. He said that I took all the responsibility upon myself for the defence of the country.

I did not say that.

The hon. member said the Minister was taking all the responsibility and was not prepared to accept a joint responsibility.

*I want to spell it out to the hon. member again that I have a Command Council sitting behind me here with the best military brains one could possibly have at one’s disposal. In the second place I have a top management in Armscor with a top-notch board of directors which consists of the most prominent people in South Africa. Serving on the subsidiary boards I have some of the best industrial leaders in the country. Everything is dovetailed to ensure that the money is spent properly. The accounts which are audited by the Auditor-General are reported on to the Select Committee on Public Accounts. If the hon. member now wants me to take another group from Parliament, also from the ranks of the Opposition, to join me in keeping an eye on everything …

On financial control.

… it means that I will have to reveal everything which is happening in the Defence Force to them. [Interjections.] That means that all our purchases, all our negotiations and all the secrets of the Defence Force will have to be revealed to them. I shall have to call in that hon. member, as well as the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Simonstown. No matter how much I trust them, I want to know whether each one of them is prepared, as a Minister has to do, to swear an oath that they will reveal nothing which should not be revealed. In other words, they will have to be prepared to refrain from informing their parties about it. If that is the case, surely they become Ministers. [Interjections.] What the hon. member is therefore advocating in effect is that I should appoint three Deputy Ministers from the ranks of the Opposition. [Interjections.] Nowhere in the world is this done. I keep the Opposition informed. The hon. member will not deny that I keep them confidentially informed to the extent to which they should be informed.

Have we ever abused it?

No. But is that not enough? Does the hon. member also want to help me administer my department now? My reply to that is a decided “no”. Any Minister of Defence who does so, is making a fool of himself. If the hon. member were to become Minister of Defence tomorrow, and I were to ask this of him, he would have to say “no” to me as well.

I shall.

Never mind. He will not become Minister. [Interjections.]

The hon. member says that he will say “no”. I know he will, because he is an honest man. Then why does he ask things of me which he is not prepared to do himself? [Interjections.]

The amount in respect of welfare has not been reduced. My information is that it has been increased.

It remains the same.

No, it has been increased. I shall discuss civil protection with the hon. member at another time, not today. The hon. member’s facts in regard to information is incorrect. The amount of R510 000 is the secret fund. This is the secret fund, and the hon. member wants to know more about it, according to his plea of a moment ago. But he himself will not disclose the information. The amount which is being spent on the Main Staff Intelligence division has been increased from R4,4 million to R5,4 million. It is the secret fund which remains the same.

Progress is being made with the Pro Patria medals. We had a little trouble getting this under way, not owing to any inability on our part, but because we experienced problems with the tenders. Eventually the Mint was selected to proceed with the initial minting. New tenders will be called for soon. According to my information considerable progress has been made with this matter. The hon. member need not be afraid; it seems to me as though we will be able to proceed with the awarding of Pro Patria medals within the foreseeable future.

The hon. member discussed mail matter. Sir, I just want to give the hon. member an idea of the kind of problem we have to contend with here. Over the two weeks ending 12 March 1977, 57 110 postal articles were received in the operational area. During those two weeks 12 334 postal articles were dispatched. Therefore, a total of 69 444 postal articles were handled and as far as financial transactions were concerned, money orders, commissions, savings bank deposits and postal orders to the amount of R3 861 were issued. As far as money orders, savings bank withdrawals and postal orders were concerned, an amount of R3 518 was paid out. The total financial transactions therefore amounted to R7 379, and there were a minimum of complaints.

I conceded that it was now in order.

Very well. After all, the hon. member has been in the operational area a hundred times and he is aware of the situation there. I cannot establish a post office at every advance base. Surely that is not possible. All possible attention is, however, being given to postal matters. We must simply tell the people who are complaining that they should, for heaven’s sake, cease their complaining and do their duty to South Africa instead. That is the spirit we should evince.

Make him postmaster there.

The hon. member for Umhlanga raised the question of the motivation of our youth. I agree with him. We are doing everything in our power to motivate our youth. However, it is not only the responsibility of the Defence Force to motivate the youth. We have them available for only a year, later perhaps for a longer period. It is also the responsibility of members of Parliament, of the provincial councils and church leaders to motivate our youth instead of trying to get them to evade their responsibility. I wish to speak on this matter for a moment. It is a tragedy that there are certain church leaders who come forward, when attacks are made of the sort we had a few days ago, and tell the youth that they must object to doing their national service. It is a scandal.

I agree with you.

I am not preaching to the hon. member now. I am asking for his support.

*We are devoting a great deal of attention to the leisure time utilization of these people. They have appointed a professional officer in the operational area especially for this purpose. He is in charge of leisure time utilization in the operational area. Since November we have spent R400 000 on leisure time utilization in the operational area.

The S.A. Defence Force Fund is doing a tremendous amount in this sphere, but now people return from the operational area and because they did not see the Southern Cross mark on every item they received in the operational area, they say that the Southern Cross Fund is not doing anything. The Southern Cross Fund deserves support from all of us, for they are collecting money for us for this purpose, and I want to express the hope that the public will support this fund.

The hon. members for Cradock, Waterkloof and Malmesbury made positive contributions to the debate, for which I want to thank them. I have already replied to the arguments raised by the hon. member for Simonstown.

†The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North referred to a certain accident. I have asked my department to let him have the particulars.

*The hon. member raised the question of Government shares in Armscor again. The hon. member is completely wrong on this score. I want to say a few words about Armscor to the hon. member again. The so-called circular to which the hon. member referred gives a complete misrepresentation of the facts. One of our Sunday newspapers picked up the circular. I do not wish to mention the name of the poor little female now—sometimes she writes about matters which she knows absolutely nothing about. She revealed her authority on this matter in one of our Sunday newspapers.

Fleur de Villiers?

No, it is not she; it is another woman who is exactly like her. I want to ask the hon. member not to take any notice of that circular. Any information which he desires he can receive from my department. I do not want to discuss the matter in details now, I have other important matters to reply to. But what is stated in that document is not correct. The hon. member should not pay attention to everything he receives through the post. The hon. member should first verify his information at the source.

Concerning the hon. member’s other problem, I have to inform him that the funds are invested in Armscor, as a State corporation, which in its turn invests in subsidiaries. I explained the basis to the hon. member yesterday. It is used to acquire fixed assets which the private sector does not have at its disposal. Is that clear to the hon. member? In the first place we make sure whether a matter can be dealt with by the private sector, and if it is not possible, we do it. In that way we invested money in propellent plants, ammunition loading grounds, missile plants, cannon manufacturing equipment and equipment for the maintenance of sophisticated aircraft.

Armscor has a limited purpose, i.e. to stimulate the armaments industry and in the second place to make provision for the strategic sectors in which private industries are not interested, owing to their restricted nature or unprofitability. In the second place we are doing this in view of strategic considerations and in this case the State must have control. The hon. member will agree with me that as far as propellants and explosives are concerned, the State cannot leave such important items as those in the hands of private industry. That is why the State took over these industries. Earlier it was in the hands of the private sector, and do hon. members know what the return was? It was 21%, and what is more, the State supplied the machinery and bore the responsibility for all losses. We could not continue like that. The situation was then changed by Armscor. If the hon. member wants to know more about Armscor, I want to suggest that he arranges an interview with the chairman and general manager of Armscor so that they can give him the information he requires. Then he will see what a fine organization it is.

I have already done that, thank you.

The hon. member for Wonderboom, who speaks knowledgeably of this matter, made a very positive contribution, for which I thank him. In just a few words he sketched a very fine picture of the task which Armscor has set itself.

The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet requested that we should entrust people who live in the rural areas with their commissions there. I think it is the general policy to bring about a division between the commandos and the Citizen Force so that the rural areas do not become depleted. The hon. member also emphasized that experience in the operational area is absolutely essential, and with that I agree.

The hon. member for Albany discussed the word “humanistic”. I have already replied to him on that score. As far as the question of research is concerned, we clarified the matter in the White Paper. We have not scrapped essential research. There is very close cooperation between the research undertakings in South Africa and us, and I hope that we can find more money for this purpose.

The hon. member for Worcester raised the question of heavy industry, and I want to support him in that. I think we are moving in that direction.

The hon. member for Umlazi said: “You do not get security for nothing.” I agree with him. However, he also said: “The Governments of the past, the predecessors of this Government, broke the morale of the SADF.”

†I do not agree with him. I know to whom he is referring. He is referring to a personal friend of mine who is not alive any more. I disagree with him. Simonstown would never have been in the possession of South Africa had it not been for that Minister. It was he who made the first moves to bring about a proper Navy for South Africa. It was he who established the Military Academy, where officers are trained today. He established the gymnasiums for the Air Force, the Army and the Navy. No. He did not break down the morale, but laid the secure foundations on which we are building today. He was criticized, and he made his mistakes as everyone makes mistakes. However, I am not prepared to allow people to say that he broke the morale of the SADF because that is not true. I think we owe him gratitude for what he did, especially for the Navy in South Africa.

*I shall not stand here and do nothing while the memory of a personal friend of mine is dragged through the mud in this way. I shall stand up for him.

How noble of you!

There was great appreciation for him in the Defence Force among many officers. I shall give hon. members their names if they want them.

I thank the hon. member for Malmesbury for his speech on financing. The hon. member for Carletonville raised the question of defence bonds. I think the hon. member for Yeoville did that hon. member an injustice when he said that he was suddenly advocating defence bonds now. The influence of the hon. member for Carletonville contributed to his municipality deciding, long before the second group of defence bonds were announced, that …

I referred to the hon. member for Marico, not to the hon. member for Carletonville.

If the hon. member says that he did not refer to him, I accept it. I hope that it has been correctly stated in Hansard.

The hon. member for Aliwal referred to a Defence Force that is in a state of preparedness. In general the hon. member for Marico made a positive speech.

I think that I have, with this, dealt with most of the matters. However, one matter remains.

Money for sport.

Money for sport? A few years ago, in consultation with bodies on the Witwatersrand, I personally launched an extensive fund-raising campaign, something for which I am very grateful. The public contributed a major share; we contributed our share and numerous sports facilities were established as a result. The S.A. Defence Force Fund is also being utilized to improve indoor sport. It is true that we have to economize. We asked R1 881 million, but did not receive it. The State could not give it to us. We were granted the right to incur certain obligations in this regard, but we also had to launch a savings campaign. Hon. members cannot simply ask, and then say that I am militarizing when I ask for more money.

There is just one other question which I should like to deal with briefly, and that is the question of dealers who purchase commercial arms and ammunition from Armscor. I have now found a document I was looking for a moment ago. There are six of them—the writer of the letter is one of them—who submitted complaints to Armscor on the distribution and price policy of Armscor because the profit margins allowed on products distributed by Musgrave was too low in proportion to the profits made on imported arms and ammunition. The profit margin on local products is 33% plus, with a further 10% on large purchases, while the mark up on imported items is as much as 80%.

In the letter there is a complaint to the effect that Armscor undertakes local manufacture but secondly, that Armscor does not produce enough. Armscor does not produce ammunition for sporting purposes only. There was a time last year when preference had to be given in another sphere. On 31 March I caused a survey to be made of the imported arms and ammunition on dealers’ shelves. There were arms of all calibres and ammunition for those calibres available, in spite of what was stated in the circular. Armscor does not influence the importing of arms and ammunition at all. They may import as much as they can. All we are doing is to say that they should not import arms and then ask us to supply ammunition if they are unable to get hold of ammunition. That is the first aspect. In the second place, there is an arms boycott against South Africa I do not know where that hon. gentleman gets his information from that one can obtain weapons in abundance everywhere. One cannot. Armscor is in fact rendering a very good service to South Africa. In spite of that there were other calibre arms and ammunition available. Armscor should not be expected to supply ammunition for every calibre of imported rifle. I am satisfied that Armscor is not playing the role which that circular, which is an irresponsible one, professes it does.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister’s announcement in connection with the establishment of a new airforce base is probably welcomed generally. It is a sign of our Defence Force’s constant preparedness and of its planning in advance as is necessary. We also owe the hon. the Minister a debt of gratitude for rejecting the proposal of the hon. member for Durban Point to create a co-Ministership in the Department of Defence.

Yesterday and again this morning the hon. the Minister dealt with the statement made by the hon. member for Sea Point that South Africa was militarizing very widely. Comparing defence expenditure per capita, and as a percentage of the gross national product, shows that South Africa is not out of step with other countries, especially other developing countries. According to a report by the USA’s Arms Control and disarmament Agency entitled World Military Expenditure and Arms Transfers, we find that the world’s gross national product was $5 trillion in 1974. Approximately 6% of this was utilized for military expenditure. South Africa’s expenditure in this field at present, three years later, is still below that percentage.

As regard defence expenditure per capita, the comparative figures for 1976 are as follows: Portugal $85; Greece $138; the USA $477; Britain $190; Germany $242; France $241; Turkey $70; the Netherlands $205; Norway $228; Belguim $204; Denmark $168; Italy $68; and Canada $140. Compared to this South Africa’s per capita expenditure for the year 1976 was $57. That of Israel, which was the highest, was $1 201 in the same year.

As regards defence expenditure expressed as a percentage of the gross national product, the picture for 1975 is as follows: Portugal 7,5%; Greece 6,9%; the USA 6,7%, which dropped to 5,4% in 1976; Britain 5,7% which dropped to 4,4% last year; Germany 5%; France 4,6%; Turkey 4,1% and the Netherlands 3,9%. I do not think it is necessary for me to give the others as well. That of South Africa was 4,9% last year, and, if I have to accept the figure given by the hon. member for Durban Point, it is 5,8% this year.

I might just add that the figure in Israel was 35,9% in 1976. The expenditure of the Soviet Union in this respect was 12% in 1976. There are many sources who claim that it was rather 15%.

South Africa’s expenditure was not a leap from little to much. It was increased gradually. In the last three years it increased from 4,1% to 4,9%, and now it has increased to 5,8%. Furthermore we may have regard to the fact that in 1964-’65 the defence budget represented 21% of Government expenditure. After that it decreased drastically. In the year 1975-’76 it was 15%, the year after 17%, and this year it is approximately 19%. This is not militarization on a wide front; it is simply responsible action.

While the Nato countries spent $135,5 billion on defence in 1974 as against $79 billion in 1965, the Warsaw countries spent $119 billion in the same year as against $60 billion in 1965. The defence expenditure of the oil producing countries, the so-called Opec countries, and of countries in Latin America, Africa and Asia showed a sharp increase in the past few years. Between 1965 and 1974 the following increases took place: The expenditure of the Soviet Union was nearly doubled from $52,4 billion to $103 billion; that of the USA from $51,8 billion to $85 billion; Nigeria’s expenditure increased virtually tenfold from $86 million to $850 million; that of Egypt from $479 million to $2,1 billion; that of Israel from $269 million to $5,84 billion; that of France from $6,1 billion to $10,6 billion; and that of Britain from $5,9 billion to $10,1 billion. In the period 1965-’74 armament worth more than $64 billion was transferred from one country to another. Developing countries received $46,5 billion of this, whereas developed countries only received armament to the value of $17,8 billion.

The total armed forces throughout the world numbered 25 740 000 men in 1974. Ten million of these were in uniform in the developed countries and 15,6 million in the developing countries. The armed forces of the Soviet Union increased to 3 650 000 men in 1976, whereas the forces of the USA decreased to 2 086 000 men. While the rate of military expenditure in developed states shows a decrease, it is increasing considerably in the Third World. We also learn from other sources that Russia in particular has changed its methods in the immediate past in that today instead of supplying obsolete armament and equipment to countries which depend on it for military help, it supplies modern equipment, even at prices below cost price and on exceptionally reasonable terms. Before only obsolete equipment was supplied.

The armies, navies and air forces of virtually every country in Africa is growing from day to day in striking power. Their potential should not be underestimated. The training of Blacks is sophisticated at present. During the past 10 years the military picture in Africa has changed drastically. Every country in Africa evidently feels a need to arm itself and to be militarily prepared.

In this regard we very often hear from our military leaders that the men of the S.A. Defence Force are being trained very well indeed. Further to that I should like to say that the training which is being given, will boomerang if it is not followed up by the very best equipment. In the Defence Force occupational frustration is a factor which is to be avoided at all costs. To use an absurd example: One cannot motivate and train a young man intensively to defend South Africa against the diabolical powers against us and then, when he has completed his training, put an air-gun in his hand. He must have the sophisticated arms with which he was trained to use after such training. This holds good for all aspects of Defence equipment. The armament which he must handle, must fit in with his training, otherwise one will find occupational frustration which can have a very negative effect on our whole Defence Force, on the permanent as well as the temporary component thereof, officers as well as other ranks. Therefore we simply have to make those means available to make that type of armament available to arm our men properly, not only for the sake of the relevant armament, but also for the sake of the man who uses it. Gen. Viljoen, Chief of the Army, recently said that the alpha of victory in battle was to be found in the heart of every soldier and the home supporting him. Those sons of South Africa must not only know how well-equipped the enemy is and how well the enemy is trained; he and his relatives at home must also know that his own equipment and training is the very best we can afford.

We want to be prepared, and as far as training and equipment is concerned, we want to see and feel the muscles under the skin, because that brings confidence and security, it discourages the enemy, it inspires confidence and it guarantees stability, peace and quiet. It also guarantees a calm economic rearrangement and growth for South Africa. Therefore I hope that the funds voted in this Budget, although they are not sufficient and not the full amount which the Defence Force would have liked to have, will help the South African Defence Force to a large extent to ensure the desired preparedness.

Mr. Chairman, I want to raise with the hon. the Minister a matter which I touched on briefly last year. That is the question of the commando unit which has been raised in my constituency and in other parts of the Natal Midlands. The unit—which is somewhat facetiously called “Dad’s Army”—consists of the older members of our community, members of the farming community who have volunteered and who have been given uniforms, who are undergoing training and who are being armed. The point I want to raise with the hon. the Minister is that I believe this is a very important psychological move that has been made on the part of the Defence Force and on the part of our local community. I want to bring it to the attention of the hon. the Minister in case it may not be applied in other areas. The point I want to make is this. When the Kaalkloof section of the commando was first raised, at the first meeting that was held, the question was asked what the local Black population was going to feel when they saw the local White farmers parading in uniform, armed and attending shooting practices at the rifle-range. It was decided then that two members of our commando—two gentlemen by the name of McKenzie who are fluent at the Zulu language—should take the opportunity to address meetings throughout the area of our commando, meetings of Black people on the farms and at all the other local population centres such as those at Cedara College and at factories elsewhere in the area, meetings of selected Black members of the community, in order to point out to those selected leaders that the White farmers were not arming to protect themselves against the local Black community, but that they were arming to protect themselves and the Black community against people who would come from across our borders. The point was made, and very well made indeed, by these two gentlemen, that people coming from across our borders were not coming with any liberatory intent, but were coming to impose upon the entire population, Black and White, their will and what they wished to see should happen in South Africa. They were told that the people against whom they were to be protected were determined to remove, not only the property of the White people, but also the meagre property owned by the Black community themselves. A further point which struck home very deeply indeed among our Zulu community, was that these people were against religion and that they were totally irreligious. We found that, in our area, this was a matter which struck home very deeply indeed.

It was necessary to call together selected people, and in the course of what must be nearly a year now, several thousand Zulus have been addressed by these two gentlemen. People have been addressed in places ranging right from the south coast, at Umzinto, through parts of East Griqualand, and right up to Bergville, Cramond, Greytown and throughout the Midlands of Natal. These men have had a very good reception. The point that I want to make to the hon. the Minister is this. There have been reports throughout my constituency during the last six to eight months, of cars coming into the area at night—usually with Johannesburg number plates, sometimes driven by White people—off-loading people in the area, people who go about among the kraals, talking here and there, leaving literature and discussing things. It is important to realize that these occurrences are reported to the local White community and to the police. However, I want to make the point that we are seeing—I have said this before and I am repeating it now—in a place like Soweto today, an incipient state of revolution. We are seeing people girding themselves for a struggle which they will not lay down. I believe it is absolutely vital for us to mobilize, where we can, the counterrevolution. That is what is being done by the two gentlemen I referred to, and by the entire community in my area. They are reaching out to Black opinion. They are instructing the Black opinion as to the realities of the political situation. They are mobilizing them, gaining their goodwill and support, and they are doing an outstanding job of work, while they are doing it.

If there is one thing which the White community in this country can ignore at its peril, it is the inherent conservatism of the countryside. People have said that counterrevolutions very seldom succeed. However, historically it has been proved that they will succeed if they are motivated, if they are fed, if they are kept going. This is something which, I believe, has started in my area. I believe it is one of several factors which has meant that, during the disturbances we have had over the last year, the area of Natal has been relatively free from this kind of incident.

I think if ever there were two people who deserved commendation from the hon. the Minister and his department and of the entire country it is these two people who have done all this at their own expense and who have asked nothing. They are not politically inspired and do not give a damn for the hon. the Minister or for myself. They are not party affiliated in any way, but have done it for the love of their country. I believe they have done a very good job indeed. What they are asking, and what is being asked throughout the area—as I understand it, it has been referred to by the head of the army and the hon. the Minister himself—is when the members of the Black community will be included in the commandos, when they will be able to undergo training and when they will be able to play their part in what will amount to local defence of the entire community, Black and White. I was fortunate to go on a trip to Kosi Bay at the beginning of the year. We met a whole lot of people, White and Black. In discussing the movements of the army, patrols and that sort of thing in the area, one sensed a feeling against them. It is a vague feeling. It did not come out in protests or anything like that, but the fact is that there are army patrols moving continuously through the area, some of whom do not speak the local language, some of whom do not have the same empathy with the local population that the White farmers in our area have with our local population. When our commandos are engaged in their patrolling duty they search for places in the area where guerillas can hide. They have to make sure that the places that they spot are not being used for any subversive purpose. On their way through the countryside they have to visit kraals, and I believe that if armed local Black men can go with them, it will have an absolutely fantastic effect on the morale of the local Black population. This will bring home to them the fact that this is not a case where the White man stands alone, and that he is enforcing his opinion and domination upon a country which is hostile to him, but that we have the whole of the population, Black and White, protecting their homes, however humble they may be. They will be protecting their homes together.

You are still a conservative.

A conservative is a person who mobilizes the goodwill of the people. I know my hon. friend agrees with me that the conservatives of the countryside are the Black people whom we have to inspan and use. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that the people in that area are more than ready for this. They are waiting for the day that they can use the local people. Again, it is obviously a question of selecting certain people from the Black community. We cannot take them all and, obviously, the people will select those that they trust and with whom they can work. There are obviously certain problems associated with this. There is the question of arms. I would be unhappy if it should happen that Black people are able to take their arms back to their kraals, because they would then automatically be targets for people coming from outside wishing to do them harm. In the normal Zulu kraal there is no place where arms can be protected and preserved. I think it may well be that we will have to evolve a different system than that used by the White commandos, who take those arms home and keep them under lock and key with the parts separated so that they cannot be used straightaway by anybody coming into the house. There are problems, but I think they are merely of a technical nature.

The other question is whether there should be a separate unit for the Black people or whether they should do training in the same units as the White people and this kind of thing. This is a matter which I am not competent to discuss. I think the members of the armed forces can tell us what will be the best way of handling such a situation. I do, however, make a very earnest appeal to the hon. the Minister on behalf of all our people that this should be brought to an early conclusion because it is being freely mentioned. One of the points that are made by the Black people themselves when they are addressed at these meetings is “When can we take part and what can we do?” The stake of the Black people is as vital to them as the stake of the White people is to them. I would ask the hon. the Minister whether there is anything he can tell me about this. I am absolutely serious when I say that I think this is one of the things which is of the utmost importance. This is the only case I know of where we are actually reaching out to the mind of the Black man and mobilizing a counter revolution. It is important to realize that in Natal, from the countryside, there are threads of families and connections which go into every single urban area.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Mooi River has made a very positive contribution. He may have emphasized something here or there with which I do not agree entirely, but in general he made a very positive speech.

“Yes, but.”

It is not a question of “yes, but”, but a question of differences in emphasis. If those differences had not been there, the hon. member and I would have been in the same party. As a member of this side of the House I say to him, as a member of the UP, that he made a positive contribution, although I do not agree with everything that he said or emphasized. It is my privilege to say so. In general I agree with what the hon. member said. I have looked with some attention at the White Paper which has been laid on the table. I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his department very much on the particular excellence of this White Paper. If we look at White Papers which have been laid on the table over the years, I think that we are dealing here with a very comprehensive and lucid White Paper.

I think that we are dealing with a cost presentation in paragraph 36 on page 13 of the White Paper, which is an entirely new concept which has been introduced. I notice that, as in the case of the Americans, it has become necessary to distinguish between an obligational authority against the account and the cash outlay voted as a contribution to the account. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he cannot give us more clarity in this connection, and if possible, an explanation of the advantages—if any—which may stem from this.

It has become increasingly clear to me in recent years that the great battle against communist domination in Africa will be fought in Africa Furthermore, it has become clear to me that the last line of defence of the West will be this line in Africa. The Republic of South Africa is a developed African State and has practically unlimited natural resources. It is a State which lies on the most important sea route on earth. I believe that this State is of strategic importance to both the Western and the Eastern nations. It may not seem to be so, but if we look at certain recent occurrences, it does not seem as if the West always realizes the strategic importance of South Africa to themselves. In the meantime Africa has succeeded in putting itself in a position where it can dictate conditions to the so-called super powers. The powers to which I am referring are of course the USA, China and Russia. Certain African States have succeeded in acquiring bargaining power for themselves. Against this background, I ask myself what bargaining power the Republic of South Africa has. If we look carefully at the Republic’s geographic situation on the globe, its established infrastructure, its developing economy, its strategic mineral and metal resources, the fact that there has always been a stable Government over the years, its good human materials and its military power, I should say that our country does indeed have bargaining power. To these things we can add the will of a people to survive, its faith in the future and its willingness to keep that faith in its future. Therefore I can freely allege that the Republic of South Africa will have very great bargaining power in the East-West set-up.

A strong and indispensable component of our bargaining power is our strong Defence Force. All things considered, we can speak of a Defence Force which, if not the strongest, is the second strongest in Africa. This Defence Force must be kept strong in order to protect our country against aggression from outside. This strong Defence Force will also assist in maintaining political stability and economic progress in Southern Africa in particular. Furthermore, a strong Defence Force promotes the circumstances in which the existing differences can be solved politically rather than by means of violence. I do not have time to discuss this at length, but for the information of persons in South Africa who are alienated from their people, I repeat that a strong Defence Force promotes circumstances under which existing differences can be solved politically rather than by means of violence.

In order to carry out its task successfully, the Defence Force needs equipment and manpower. In order to obtain this, the Defence Force has to turn to the private sector and that is why it has become necessary—as a result of circumstances beyond our control—to spend ever greater amounts on defence. We are sometimes asked whether these amounts are truly necessary, and the answer is “yes”, because we are involved in a real struggle. We must see that we do not merely maintain our bargaining position, but that we improve it. Although greater financial contributions are being requested from our people, certain figures—which were referred to this morning—indicate that South Africa is able to make an even greater contribution towards its defence. I was delighted to hear that since our first bonds were issued on 1 July 1976 until three days ago, we have been able to collect the fine amount of R114 800 000. I believe that the people of South Africa will make their contribution by means of our national defence savings bonds.

Furthermore, the people of South Africa will have to change some of their priorities. They will have to increase exports and productivity. The people of South Africa will have to see that the large number of people—25% of the population, in my estimation—who are work-shy are made to do their share. According to the survey which I made, 25% of the total population of South Africa, White, Brown, Asian and Indian, are work-shy. We cannot afford to have the rest of the people support a quarter of the population, those who are not prepared to work. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just sat down, certain other members and the hon. the Minister have referred to the West in terms of a military and strategic point of view. There are two things that we should accept One is that the West is not unaware of our strategic minerals and our strategic importance. Western observers, strategists, institutes for strategic studies and other people examine this and they are aware of the situation. Perhaps we can impress them still further. The second point is that we should not assume that the West does not have a strategy. I believe that South Africa has unfortunately missed the bus as far as being locked into the Western strategy is concerned. There was indeed a significant re-think of Western strategy, which did not commence this year, but commenced in the latter part of 1973 during the fuel crisis when there was a radical shift of the importance of the industrial power of the West which up to that stage had based its strategy on the cheap and instant availability of an unlimited quantity of energy and fuel. The 1973 fuel crisis caused Western people to re-examine strategy. I do not want to try to be wise after the event, but in early 1974 I was involved in a series of discussions in European capitals on this very issue. I had discussions, inter alia, with Dr. Joseph Luns, the Secretary-General of Nato, who is certainly a hard-headed, conservative type of military man. These people all made this point quite clear and I quote from a statement which I made on my return—

This is the tragedy of the situation of South Africa having missed the bus at the very time when the West was in the process of reexamining its strategy.

I must say to the hon. the Minister—and I think he is aware of this—that sitting in these benches and watching him look after his Vote in this House, is like looking at a dormant volcano and wondering when it is going to erupt. We had one of these volcanic eruptions, to which we have now become accustomed, from the hon. the Minister when he spoke about the hon. member for Yeoville. I think it was quite unnecessary and undeserved, and the personal innuendo was certainly unbecoming of a Minister in that high position in this House. The hon. member was saying, as I said in an earlier debate, that the more one diverts resources, either voluntarily or under pressure, into military operations, the less resources are available for the other part of the strategy which must be significant economic and social reform. This is a problem and it is our view, when one looks at the White Paper and the trend of Government behaviour and the absence of significant social and economic reform, that the scales are being tipped further in the direction of militarization, total control of resources and total control of the people and not sufficiently in the direction of fundamental social, economic and political reform. Let me read the report of a statement made by a military man—

This was Gen. Boshoff expressing the very same views, viz. that whatever one is doing on the one side, on the other side one must go for more fundamental, more radical and quicker social, political and economic reforms. We believe that this Government should constantly keep the balance between these two aspects of strategy under review in South Africa. There is a tendency that the one strategy of more and more authoritarianism feeds on itself and becomes self-generating and it is very difficult to stop the cycle of events which flows from it. I want to touch on the White Paper from a different point of view and to refer, more particularly, to paragraphs 1 to 22, to leave out the more direct, detailed military manpower strategy and to look at this document as a document of general intent as far as the Government is concerned. The hon. the Minister indicated that security is not exclusively a defence matter, that the defence force has a part to play but that the over-all picture is much wider than that. In the circumstances I am therefore surprised that a White Paper on security, emanating from the Government, comes from the Department of Defence and is introduced by the hon. the Minister, and does not come from the Prime Minister, from the State Security Council. I believe that since one is looking at security in its broadest form—and the hon. the Minister admitted that defence was only a part of it—it would have been better had a document, setting out the Government’s attitude towards security come, not from his department but from the Prime Minister’s department. Secondly, I should like to know from the hon. the Minister what the status of this document is as far as its chapters on national security are concerned. Is this a statement on behalf of the Government and does it reflect the Government’s view? Does it commit the Government, or is this a statement of views of a department within the Government? We should like to know the status of this document, leaving out the specific military implications, because I believe that this document, in terms of total national strategy, has a far-reaching impact, not merely on policies and our life in South Africa, but possibly also fundamentally on our form of government.

It is on this particular subject that I want to address the hon. the Minister, more particularly because he is the chairman of the Cabinet Committee going into the question of a departure from the Westminster system. What this advocates is a total national strategy formulated at the highest level. It is regarded as absolutely vital, and there is a definition of what this total national strategy is. Perhaps it should be recorded. I quote from paragraph 6, on page 5—

In other words, this is a statement of intention to the effect that there should be total control over the resources and the direction of the State and that all the State machinery should be used. The White Paper then goes on to set out the national objectives and some aspects of national policy. The hon. member for Yeoville referred to some of these policies. However, what is noticeably missing from this document, are the kinds of priorities and objectives stated by the hon. the Prime Minister. There is nothing about the removal of race discrimination as one of the objectives or one of the policies. There is nothing about strengthening our free enterprise system by making sure that it is relevant to the needs of South Africa today. There is nothing about the dignity of the individual. When one looks at paragraph 22, one sees that it is frankly little more than a rather naive statement of National Party policy at a particular moment in time. I think the hon. member was quite correct to say that South Africans will fight for South Africa and die for South Africa, but that they are not prepared to fight and die for apartheid. The hon. the Minister should say that that is also his point of view. [Interjections.] He should say that; he should take a leaf out of the book of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs who says: “Ons moet bereid wees om sekere dinge prys te gee om lewend aan die ander end uit te kom. Ek is bereid om vir Suid-Afrika te sterf, maar nie bereid om te sterf vir ’n apartheidsbordjie in ’n hysbak nie.” A very significant statement appeared in the Sunday Times, a statement by the head of the Defence Force, General Malan, and I want to say that I appreciate very much indeed the frankness, honesty and integrity with which he put his case on this issue. What he said—and one has to read it in conjunction with the White Paper—is the following—

What he posed was the following: If one is going to apply strategy, then we must recognize that there is a conflict between the needs of this total strategy and a democratic system of government. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Sea Point who has just resumed his seat, gave very clear proof of two things this afternoon. The first is that his comprehension of the spirit of the White Paper tabled in this House, is very limited. Secondly, in saying that our young soldiers are fighting for apartheid, the hon. member is subtly undermining military service in the eyes of the general public and persuading people not to do their military service because they have to fight for apartheid.

In conjunction with this, the Opposition together with the English-language Press, reproached the Government yesterday, the day before yesterday and on preceding days, for not being able to depend on the support of its so-called friends in the West if it came to a military threat from outside. The motivation for this was that those people did not like our internal policy. It is a false motivation and the hon. member for Yeoville proved this effectively when he said during the discussion of the Prime Minister’s Vote on Wednesday evening that Europe would not become involved in Russia’s military intervention in South Africa for fear of Russian tanks washing over the borders of Europe like a tidal wave. In other words, what is involved in this as far as Europe is concerned, is an element of fear and not South Africa’s internal policy. He went on to say that America still remembered Vietnam. Once again, this is proof of a fear they are harbouring. South Africa’s internal policy, therefore, is being used merely as a smokescreen to motivate the non-involvement of the West in South Africa.

What does Pik Botha say? [Interjections.]

To avoid disturbing the supposedly good relations between East and West, the West, is following an interpretation of detente which makes it shy away virtually in terror policies that would bring it into conflict with Russia. This enables Russia to establish communism effectively all over the globe. Angola is the latest example of this.

The hon. the Minister said yesterday evening that the West had left South Africa in the lurch in Angola at a particularly critical moment. Surely this implies American and Western involvement irrespective of South Africa’s internal policy. We also know that certain States in Africa were favourably disposed towards this attempt of South Africa’s—irrespective of South Africa’s internal policy. Therefore, what the Press, together with the Opposition, said, i.e. that the West did not want to become involved because of South Africa’s internal policy, was a lie. They are using this as a smoke screen, however.

What does Pik Botha say?

The hon. member for Yeoville went on to say that because it did not like our internal policy, the West would not support us in any attack or attempted attack. This is perfectly correct. I agree with him, but I repeat that the motivation for this is the West’s own fear.

Russia puts a particularly high premium on détente because this assures her of a variety of indirect political actions against Europe and against the West that are not inclined to disturb the “good relations” between West and East. Small wonder, therefore, that an influential person like Gen. Browne of America said he was concerned as to whether America still had the courage to stand up to Russia. His resignation was demanded. He was seriously reprimanded and he had to apologize as well, but I believe Gen. Browne was honest in his concern about this attitude of America’s. Whilst Gen. Browne was very euphemistic in his statement, I want to state unambiguously that America is playing a supreme game of bluffing when, for example, she warns Russia against military involvement in, inter alia, Africa. If Russia were to decide to take no more notice of America’s game of bluffing, I am convinced that America would not lift a finger to oppose Russia. We received proof of this in Angola and now once again in Zaïre. America need not be afraid, however. Russia will not call her bluff. It suits the Soviet Union far better to promote communism by means of indirect action instead of by direct involvement of Russian soldiers. Fidel Castro’s Cubans who fought in Angola, and now in Zaïre as well, have once again given proof of this. In this entire process, America is washing her hands in innocence. Russian soldiers are not directly involved. Détente between East and West remains, but one communist stronghold after another is being created. America’s image and influence, as well as her credibility as the leader of the West, has diminished in the Southern Hemisphere by quite a number of degrees of latitude. But still she persists with her policy of peaceful co-existence with Russia, about which Brezhnev said the following—

By means of the agreement that Russia concluded with Angola in October last year, she gained a strategic foothold on the West Coast of Africa. She did the same thing with Mozambique in March this year and according to reports, she is building bases on two Mozambique islands. This is flatly denied, however. And higher up in Africa, she concluded a treaty as early as 1974 with Somalia, where she established a naval base. What does America have to show for this? Absolutely nothing! Only détente with Russia which, according to the Brezhnev doctrine, means the following—

It is Russia’s objective to gain control of the sea routes that are of vital importance to the West and thereby dominate the whole world. To this end, she has successfully established herself on the coasts of Africa. Now she is fixing her gaze on the narrow strait of Hormuz, a strip of water between the Persian Gulf in the West and the Gulf of Oman in the East.

If she blocks this strait effectively, she will cut off the West from the oil-producing countries of Iran, Kuwait, Katar, Abu Dhabi, Bahrein and other oil-rich Gulf States. I may just mention that West Europe gets 50% of her oil from this area Japan gets 90%, Australia, 60%, and African countries, 80%. Even in peace-time, the West’s oil route is extremely vulnerable owing to the fact that the shortcut through the Mozambique Channel could easily be blocked by extremist coastal States. The defence of this sea route requires South Africa’s co-operation. But what are the West and America doing? They tremble and shake in Russia’s presence and at the influence Russia has already established in the Third World and in Africa as well. Then they leave old, firm friends of the West, inter alia, South Africa, very badly in the lurch.

Russia is playing a cat-and-mouse game with the détente concept, the concept that was born of a mutual fear, on the part of both East and West, of a nuclear war. But despite the limiting influence that nuclear weapons do have, Russia has a considerable advantage over the West. If it were to come to a confrontation resulting in a nuclear war, the West would have to rely heavily on atomic weapons in such a crisis, due to the weakness of its conventional military power, whilst Russia, aware of the mastery and excellence of her conventional forces, could declare with a shrug of the shoulders that she was not interested in using atomic weapons except as a response to such a nuclear war. And so it has happened that the cat-and-mouse game has changed into the reality of cat-eats-mouse. It would appear to me now that America is the mouse, because she is totally blind to Russia’s objectives in the world, and terribly naïve in not taking counter-action, or are we to assume that she is the unwilling leader of the West, throwing in the towel in the fight against Russia as proof of the fact that Gen. Browne was justified in his concern? Russia is exploiting this unwillingness of America’s and under the guise of detente, she is tightening her grip on the entire globe with the aim of dominating all humanity, including the mighty United States of America. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Umhlanga asked for a reply on two matters to which I did not reply earlier. Firstly, he wanted me to reply to the question of medical officers serving in the Defence Force. No medical man can embark on specialist training prior to his having completed two years’ general practice.

National service is accepted by the S.A. Medical and Dental Council as one of these years of general medical experience. This is applicable to a profession, and holds good also for other professions. They are employed as young officers in their professional capacity.

But not housemanship.

No, not yet. I hope we will reach the stage when we have our new military hospitals available. I do not want this to be taken as a promise. I merely express the hope that we will be able to move in that direction.

Service rendered by qualified engineers during their national service in their professional capacity counts for practical experience towards the period of practical training they have to do for qualification as professional engineers. The fact that all professionally qualified national servicemen do not become officers, is basically because all manpower required does not fall into this category. They are, however, still used in their professional capacity, but as privates or as noncommissioned officers. With this reply, I believe, I have adequately replied to the hon. member.

*The hon. member for De Aar raised an interesting matter, i.e. that of over-obligational authority. Reference is also made to this in the White Paper. I mentioned it in passing earlier, when I was replying to the question put by the hon. member for Durban Point. Hitherto it has not been possible to place orders, the cost of which exceeds the approved amount. We were limited to the approved amount. It has already been said that “military hardware is not to be found in the supermarkets”. Therefore advance planning is rather an important element in the planning of the Defence Force. It sometimes means that orders have to be placed long before the time and take several years to finalize. This means that the payments for orders are frequently not finalized in the same year and that the cash amount which is voted, remains unproductive, i.e. when provision is made for it. Let us take this year’s budget as an example. It will be possible to place orders to an amount of only R1 654 million, while orders to the amount of R1 500 million may perhaps be received and will be paid for. Under the present economic circumstances, we cannot adopt such a procedure. That is why the technique of an over-obligational authority, a technique which is already being applied in other countries, is also being made applicable here. The Minister of Finance and the Minister of Defence form an authority committee and investigate this matter from time to time. Similar methods are being applied by the Americans and also by Israel in regard to their defence budgets. This means that Defence may in effect process defence needs to an amount of R1 883 million, while the amount which is contributed in the year in question for this purpose by the tax-payer still remains at R1 654 million. However, it is an amount which is paid out productively in its entirety. For the same price Defence is therefore able to undertake and receive considerably more, and also plan more effectively, while all cash is utilized to the maximum. This is my reply to the hon. member; I hope it satisfies him.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein West raised the question of White girls and the training of women. I want to say a few things about this. As hon. members know the Civil Defence College has been converted into a South African army training college for women. The intention is to train approximately 500 women per annum there. A start has already been made. We already have 6 000 women in the commando forces, and there is great enthusiasm among women to become involved in the Defence Force, and also in the Permanent Force. [Interjections.] Women feel threatened by the prevailing circumstances and want to fulfil their accomplishments in the Defence Force as well. I should very much like to encourage this. A system of voluntary military service for women can make additional manpower available, and that is why we welcome it. Since the establishment of the college 2 900 applications have already been received from women who wish to undergo training at the college. To date we have only been able to train 865 of these women. The achievements which have been accomplished there prove that we should continue with the system, also in its new shape.

In regard to the Pro Patria medal, I just want to give the hon. member for Durban Point another piece of information. The rate of manufacture at the S.A. Mint is 500 per month, and the expected date of completion of the present order at the Mint will be the end of 1987.

Oh no!

The hon. member should not say “Oh no”. Tenders are being called for a further 90 000. The number of medals that have to be issued is 59 000. That is not child’s play.

The hon. member for False Bay, quite justifiably, referred to a problem which Africa and the Third World have to contend with, namely that instead of utilizing their strength and energy for the development of their countries and production of foodstuff, they are being overstocked with rifles. It is the super powers who have to bear the responsibility for this. The super powers are overstocking Africa with weapons instead of technical assistance, guidance and food. It is a tragedy that there are so many weapons lying around in Africa. I think the hon. member was quite correct.

†The hon. member for Mooi River raised the matter of commandos in communities on the platteland. The creation of a position of trust between a commando and the local population is the policy and an accepted principle as far as the Defence Force is concerned. We are not only doing it in the commandos. As the hon. member will know, it is a policy which is also applied in the Citizen Force. We are making headway in this direction. It is a policy which is, with good success, also being applied in the operational areas. Commandos are trained in counter-insurgence, and recently they had quite a lot of practical experience. Commandos can, under control of higher authorities, make use of selected Black and Brown people. That is already the policy, and instructions in this regard have been given. I suggest that if there is any uncertainty on this matter, the commando concerned should contact their higher authority for the necessary instructions.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether “make use” means involving training?

Yes, in specific directions.

Fourthly, it is of the utmost importance that good relationships should exist between the commanding officer of every commando and the commanding officer of the police stationed in his area. That is absolutely necessary. Unless one has that, there may be strained relationships.

I think the hon. member also referred to the question of weapons. That is a matter they can locally arrange as it suits them, with the necessary protective measures.

It must be quite clear that there is no objection to Blacks being armed …

For specific purposes they must be armed to defend themselves. But we cannot distribute arms on a very large scale without the necessary control measures. I do not want to be misunderstood on this point. The distribution must be under the strictest regulations prescribed by the head of the Army.

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether in view of the delay in the minting of the Pro Patria medal, he will not issue the ribbons so that the men can wear them on their uniforms to differentiate themselves, without waiting for the medals, as happened during the last war?

According to my information there are enough ribbons available for all who earned them, A total of 10 050 persons have already been authorized to wear the ribbon. The ribbons are available.

The last reply I want to furnish is to the hon. member for Sea Point. I asked myself why that hon. member participated in the debate today. It could be for one of two reasons. Either he was dissatisfied with the way in which the hon. member for Yeoville handled the matter, or he wanted to throw a little smoke-screen over an incident which occurred here this morning. I think both reasons are valid, because I do not think the hon. member for Yeoville always agrees with the hon. member for Sea Point on all military matters. The hon. member for Sea Point knows it. In his heart the hon. member for Yeoville feels affection for this Defence Force undertaking. In the second place the hon. member for Yeoville was, up to a certain stage very positive in his actions. Then he began to seize upon paragraphs from the White Paper, until he eventually made the irresponsible statement that the troops ought not to be asked to fight for the Government’s policy. I hauled him over the coals for doing so. The hon. member for Sea Point is now saying: “We are used to the hon. the Minister’s usual eruptions.”

If one can at least still “erupt” it is surely a sign of strength. I am afraid that the soul of the hon. member for Sea Point is frozen. That is why he is no longer able to warm to South Africa’s interests, For that reason, after the positive attitude adopted by the hon. member for Yeoville—except in regard to the one aspect on which I admonished him—the hon. member for Sea Point, as the hon. member for Parys correctly stated, had to make a subtle attack on the entire question of military commitment. I want to react briefly and point by point to what the hon. member said. The hon, member said: “The West is not unaware of our importance. ”

Does the hon. member want to deny that there are voices in the West that are trying to gloss over our importance? Will the hon. member deny that there are prominent people in the West who deny that South Africa is of strategic importance? The hon. member cannot deny that there are indeed prominent people in the Western world today who are trying to underestimate South Africa’s military importance. What is happening now? The political leaders who are trying to underestimate this, are the kind of people who are like the hon. member. They are being contradicted every day by prominent military leaders in the Western world. My point is that they should listen to their military leaders. A prominent military expert, Gen. Yabero—he will probably not mind my mentioning his name—is advocating all the time that the West should wake up to South Africa’s importance. In this connection there is also Gen. Graham. Why are these people protesting, and why are they coming to South Africa to fetch information with which to bombard the West, if it has not become a matter of the utmost seriousness to them? Should the hon. member for Sea Point not rather side with these people, instead of buttering up to people here who have closed their eyes to the reality? Yesterday I quoted what Gen. Ginsberg said in The Strategic Review of people who want to wipe out the boundaries between nations, and are in that way committing their greatest error. The hon. member is also one of them. The hon. member went further and said: “The statesmen in the West object to the race policy of this Government.” However, this does not prevent them from co-operating with the 18 to 20 Black military dictators in Africa. Nor does it prevent the hon. member from going along with them. There are certain Western leaders who are applying double standards, in exactly the same way as the hon. member for Sea Point is doing. When it suits him he stands for integration, but when it does not suit him, he wants to keep his swimming baths White. Then the hon. member and his female companion at his side—she who is always muttering in, an undertone—come here and complain about the Minister who allegedly erupts. I am not prone to eruptions; I am merely pleading the interests of South Africa. It is a pity the hon. member did not participate in the debate earlier …

You know I had to give up my place because the other gentleman was leaving. You know the circumstances.

No, I have no knowledge of all the ramifications within that party. This Parliament introduced the principle of national service, and this Parliament imposed on every young man the obligation to fight for South Africa whenever South Africa was attacked. Does the hon. member for Sea Point reserve to himself the right, under given circumstances, to tell people that they should not undergo national service?

I do not know what you are talking about.

That is precisely the point. After all, it can happen that South Africa finds itself in a real conflict. If there should be a power that came along tomorrow and said: “I cannot get this Government out constitutionally because Colin Eglin and company are too weak to do so; now I have to do so by violent means.”

I fought when you did not.

The hon. member must not tell me that, for then I will have to tell him how my grandfather fought so that he could live. It is no use the hon. member telling that he fought and I did not, because I can compile a long list of names of members of my family who were ready to lay down their lives for South Africa. However, that is not the level on which we should argue with one another. Those children of mine who had to do so did their national service. If the hon. member wants to know anything more, I can tell him that they are still in the Defence Force as volunteers, because they are not softies. I asked the hon. member to adopt a clear standpoint on this matter. This Parliament has imposed an obligation on every young man to do his national service. Does the hon. member reserve to himself the right, under given circumstances, to tell them that they should not fight?

I do not know what you are talking about.

That is what the hon. member said a moment ago. Now he is in a corner, just as the previous speaker from his party was.

You are talking nonsense.

Now I am talking nonsense and he “erupts”. The hon. member asked whether the White Paper was a Government document. The reply is “yes”. The Cabinet has a joint responsibility and I shall not table a document in this House which does not meet with the approval of the hon. the Prime Minister. Nor will the hon. the Prime Minister allow me to table anything in this House which he does not approve of. The Defence Force approached the question of strategy from the point of view of the Defence Force. That is what was done. What is the point now? What does it want to prove? By now the hon. member is going so far, because his arguments have been depleted, as to drag the Chief of the Defence Force into this debate, and I register the strongest objection to that. It is not the practice in this House that the Chief of the Defence Force is mentioned across the floor of this House. It is bad taste, the taste of a person who does not have good taste. What did the Chief of the Defence Force say? The Chief of the Defence Force said that the application of a total strategy as a counter-strategy to the one which is being deployed against us is more difficult to apply under a democratic system. What is wrong with that? Surely it is a fact that under a democratic system one cannot employ a strategy to the same extent as a dictator is able to do. The hon. member is now taking it amiss of the Chief of the Defence Force for having stated a fact. I protest against this, and I want to tell him that he showed poor taste and that he ought to be ashamed of himself for doing so.

Vote agreed to.

Vote No. 6 and S.W.A. Vote No. 1.—“Bantu Administration and Development”:

Mr. Chairman, we now proceed to discuss the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, a Vote of a department which controls the lives, welfare and destiny of millions of people in this country. It is a department which handles in the course of the year an amount of money in excess of R600 million. That indicates that it is the second most important department in terms of money to be dealt with in this budget. But anyone who has any knowledge of South Africa’s affairs will know that, in terms of humanity, it is probably the most important department of them all.

I want to begin by expressing my extreme disappointment at the report of the department, the report for the period April 1975 to March 1976. I do not propose to go into that report in detail. That will be done by others who will speak after me. Suffice it to say that its content is inadequate, that its presentation is confusing and dull and that it is generally a thoroughly inadequate document. Bearing in mind what I have just said, permit me to point out the fact that the hon. the Minister is administering one of the most important departments of State, a department that is handling in excess of R600 million. Almost a year ago, or not quite a year ago, this country was disrupted by events which began in the Witwatersrand and endured over a period of six to eight months, riots and disturbances, amongst principally the urban Bantu dwellers of the Cape and the Transvaal, on a scale this country had not seen before.

In brief, in order to refresh memories, let me point out that tens of thousands of young people, students from the schools of the Witwatersrand, banded together on an expedition of violence, initially in the areas in which they lived, violence directed at institutions of a public nature designed to serve those communities. Schools, clinics, post offices, banks and institutions belonging to various Bantu Administration Boards, institutions dealing principally with the sale of liquor, were for the most part or in large parts either severely damaged or destroyed. There appears to have been organization and leadership involved, and in a resultant attempt to maintain law and order there was large-scale police activity over a long period of time with consequent injury and death on a comparitively large scale. All this took place amongst people, and within an area of jurisdiction, falling within the ambit of the hon. the Minister who is in charge of this Vote. Since that took place, nearly a year has elapsed. One of the remarkable features of these events is the fact that during that period of time, even when we discussed this as a matter of urgency in this House last year, the hon. the Minister in charge of the people, the officials who administer to their needs, the physical property which was damaged and the administration of the area we are concerned with, has been noteworthy, not for his utterances but for his silence. I would have expected—and I say this with respect—the first speaker in this debate, on this occasion, to have been, not myself but the hon. the Minister. I would have expected him to seize the first opportunity to give this House clear and in-depth reasons and analyses of what has taken place. I hope that during this debate the hon. the Minister will take advantage of the opportunity to give us the benefit of his knowledge, his experience and his analysis of these events. The House is entitled to know the hon. the Minister’s views. He is, after all, in charge of all this. I am not suggesting he was in charge of the rioting, but he is in charge of the entire area in which it took place. We are entitled to know the part played by his department prior to the riots; the extent to which they were aware of what was about to take place; the steps that were taken by them to try to avert what took place; the extent to which they were able to control, or not to control, what ultimately took place; the extent to which they were able to extend their protection to people who did not wish to be involved in all this, and to their property; the extent to which attempts in that direction failed and the reasons for it; the attitude of the people concerned to his department and the attitude of his departmental officials to the events that took place.

I know as well as anybody else that there is a commission of inquiry sitting in this regard and that we are awaiting its report, which apparently will not come during this session and, in any event, too late for it to be adequately discussed here. However, life has gone on in the year that has elapsed since then. The hon. the Minister has had to continue to administer these urban African areas. He has had to continue to administer, to control, to implement his policy and to attempt physically to repair what has taken place. We are entitled to know what has been done in that regard. He has continued to plan ahead, presumably with greater energy and vigour, to avert this type of thing in the future. We are entitled to know what those plans are. We are also entitled to know what the attitude is of the people he is administering in regard to these events and what their attitude is to his department and his policy. Furthermore, we are entitled to know whether any changes in his policy are contemplated, or have indeed been implemented, in that regard. Even the report I have already dealt with has indicated that as at March 1976 there had been changes for example in the administration of the pass laws as a result of the recommendations that stem from the meeting with the Bantu leaders in January last year.

Students, teachers and parents are three of the categories whose interests were involved in these riots. What has taken place in so far as departmental relations with those three categories of persons are concerned since the riots took place? Have relationships been healed where there was a breach? Has there been a re-establishment of confidence between one and the other? Has there been a rebuilding of morale? As I say, I am astonished that in all this period of time the hon. the Minister has not seized on the occasion of, for instance, a symposium or a budget debate to give us the details of the extent to which he is successfully handling the administration of this vast mass of people and their affairs in the light of the events of those eight months. Has the hon. the Minister taken steps to strengthen his administration of the urban African areas? Has he taken steps to strengthen the authority of the local communities involved in so far as they have representative institutions? Has he new ideas and has he taken new steps on the basis of restructuring his relationships with those communities?

That brings me to the next phase of what I believe should be discussed in this debate, viz. the involvement of the Bantu in the free enterprise system. I believe implicitly that rioting such as took place in Soweto is less likely to happen if the people concerned are damaging the private property of their own community than if the damage is being done to the property owned by a faceless public authority such as the Bantu Affairs Administration Board. What progress has been made in this regard?

I can recall last year, when we had our short debate, emphasizing to the hon. the Minister the urgency of bringing the retailing of liquor into private ownership and free enterprise, into the hands of individuals. What steps have been taken in this regard? What steps have been taken, and is there any intention to move towards the direction, not merely of home ownership—and we have heard precious little about that since it was announced—but of freehold ownership of land in the established urban Bantu areas? After all, if it can be done in Umlazi which, by an accident of history, although it is on the doorstep of Durban, happens to be a homeland, then for heaven’s sake why can a formula not be devised—and I do not mind how artificial it sounds—to provide the same amenity of freehold ownership of land to the people of Langa and Soweto? There is no more intention of changing Soweto from Black to White occupation in the foreseeable future than there is of changing the face of the earth. The whole basis of the free enterprise system—and to me it is axiomatic that our future welfare depends upon instilling an acceptance of that and its benefits into the Bantu mind—is the ability to raise capital upon the basis of land ownership. That is where it starts. Until that is achieved I am afraid the talk of home ownership on some other basis is not going to be the same. I believe in free enterprise, which means capitalism, which means the ability to save money on a capital appreciating asset and the ability to raise money upon a capital asset. To do that one has to give them ownership of their businesses, ownership of their homes and ownership of the land on which they are situated. I do not want it to be thought that this has to be given gratis. Let them work towards acquiring an asset of that kind.

That then takes one to the question of homelands and the question of the free enterprise system in the homelands. I have pleaded before, and I do so again, that we should start moving in the direction of freehold tenure of land in the homelands amongst the rural community. If one looks at the estimates of expenditure, one sees large sums being spent on the purchase of White-owned land to be incorporated in the homelands. That is land which has never been part of the traditional tribal structure and to convert those areas from White freehold ownership into probably smaller units for Black freehold ownership is not going to impinge on the traditional tribal structure at all. I cannot for the life of me understand why some effort is not being made to move in that direction.

The next point to which one is automatically led, is what assistance is available, of a capital nature, to the Bantu farmer in the rural areas. If the White farmer wants to raise money he has a bit of freehold land, his farm, upon which he can raise it. He can raise it through private institutions or through the Land Bank. Because of the system of tenure these sources are not available to the Black farmer. While I am the first to appreciate that agricultural advancement is immensely slow amongst the Black rural communities, there are exceptions who are making progress in this regard. It is for that reason that the sugar industry of its own volition has made available something like R1 million or more by way of loans to aspirant farmers to grow sugar in the rural areas of Natal. That has been successful. But what is available from Government sources? Why is there not the Black equivalent of the Land Bank to establish bona fide farmers on the land on the same basis as applies to Whites?

Any discussion of the homelands brings one to the question of peasant farming. With all the will in the world, the majority of rural dwellers in the homelands and their wives are likely to be peasant farmers for the foreseeable future. When one sees what takes place in the Middle East and the Far East at the level of peasant farming, the skills, the intensive agriculture, the considerable production of food which takes place, not under a modern system of farming, and not in large scale systems of farming, but under peasant farming conditions, in the Japanese islands and in China and other areas of the East, one wonders why there has not been a scientific study made by people from this country with a view to introducing those techniques into the peasant farming system that we have in the rural areas of South Africa, because I am quite sure that if a start could be made in that direction we could immensely increase the output of food—which is what we want—in the rural areas.

I quite agree with what the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development said when he addressed one of the agricultural congresses. He pointed out that, to a large extent, the food in this country was produced in the White areas, and that it was going into the Black areas, and not vice versa. The hon. the Deputy Minister, in his speech, made some interesting points, points, however, of which the direction is not entirely clear to me. He suggested—and I put it no higher than that—that emphasis should be placed upon developing the land that the Bantu has rather than acquiring more land. He suggested—and I put it no higher than that—that White private enterprise, farmers in fact, should be somehow introduced into the Bantu homelands in order to kindle the fires of efficient agriculture in those areas. These are novel concepts from a Deputy Minister of the Government benches, and I hope we will hear in greater detail his views in this regard during this debate.

There is something else that I wish to raise with the hon. the Minister, something which I hope he will deal with. There is a paragraph—one of the many bland and rather platitudinous paragraphs in this report—which says, as though with a wave of a wand, that resolutions have gone through the House and that consolidation, in so far as the planning is concerned, is now complete. What is the position in regard to the Black areas, those Black areas which, in terms of the Government’s proposals, are to be excised? These are areas which, as a result of the Government’s consolidation proposals, are to be excised from the homeland areas, are to be handed over to the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, ultimately to be disposed of, presumably, to White settlement. I know of areas, which are clearly demarcated on the Government’s maps as areas which are to be excised, where Black settlement continues apace, where Black people are building homes, where schools are being built or rebuilt, and where vast sums of money are being spent. With what object? To what extent have the Government officials, the magistrates and the Bantu Affairs Commissioners, been informed that these Black people who are spending their life’s-savings building new homes, are going to have to give it all up and move elsewhere, and that the private money which is being used to assist with the building of schools is in fact not being spent for the benefit of the Bantu, but that those buildings are going to be demolished, because these areas are to be excised? To what extent is warning being given that this is about to take place?

I think that people in this country, both Black and White, and particularly the people in the areas concerned, are entitled to be told what the planning is in this regard. What indication has been given to the people concerned as to what their future is in this regard? May I remind the hon. the Minister, as I have done, I believe, every year since those resolutions were passed, that we still await the long promised list of priorities, a list which was promised to us by the hon. Minister Raubenheimer during those debates, both in respect of the areas to be excised and in respect of the corresponding White areas which are to be bought out. This famous list of priorities was hawked from public meeting to public meeting at the time of the general election in 1974, but has never seen the light of day from then until now.

Due to the shortage of time in this debate, it is necessary that I now close. However, there is one other factor that, I hope, the hon. the Minister will deal with. I have only time to deal with it in principle. I would like to hear about the extent of control, and where the control lies, in respect of the various boards and corporations which operate under the auspices of the hon. the Minister’s department. I have in my hand the reports of the various institutional bodies, boards, corporations and things of this kind, which fall under the hon. the Minister’s umbrella.

And that is only what has been tabled this year.

That is what has been tabled this year, as my hon. friend reminds me. A bundle almost as large was tabled last year, a bundle which I have not dealt with. Who controls this enormous amount of money, effort and bodies to see that the money, which is public funds, is efficiently used, to see that a profit emerges and that the whole thing is done in a businesslike manner? In the short debates that we have in the House it cannot be done. I would like to be reassured that there is some body or organization within the hon. the Minister’s department, that ensures that these enormous sums of public money are properly spent.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana really disappointed me today. [Interjections.] I had expected the hon. member to come up with policy statements etc. but apparently the chief spokesman on the Opposition side gave the fundamental aspects of the Bantu policy a wide berth today. I have a suspicion that there is serious tension between the hon. member for Umhlatuzana and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout at the moment. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana quite intentionally evaded discussion of policy. Up to now I have always heard him talk about federalism and so on but the hon. member wholly ignored the issue of fundamental policy. He picked at this and that, but he kept away from policy. I have an unpleasant feeling that there are really serious tensions between the hon. gentlemen opposite. The hon. member went on to put a few pertinent questions to the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister, questions to which they will react in time. I shall not reply to them.

I should like to turn to a previous debate in which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had the following to say—

Here he is referring to an interjection made by the hon. the Minister of Finance. He goes on to say—

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana also referred to the free enterprise system and a few days ago the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens also spoke along these lines. If we were to abolish all restrictions and movement of labour, capital and entrepreneurship in South Africa, I want to state categorically in this House today that we would not be helping the Black man in this country but would in fact be leading him towards economic disaster. A few days ago the hon. the Prime Minister pointed out to us how the policy and the limitations that have been established are to the benefit of the Black man. The hon. members opposite argue that the control measures are to the detriment of the Black man. However it is undisputable that due to the undeniable fact that the cultures of the Black people and the Whites in South Africa are so totally different and that the Black man is a long way behind in the economic sphere, he will never be able to hold his own in competition with the Whites in an overall free system. An open economic system in South Africa would be to the detriment of the Black man. The Government’s policy is aimed at affording the Black man a great deal of protection in the homelands and also in the White areas to enable him to cope in the economical sphere. I have already said that the hon. the Prime Minister indicated here how this system is to the advantage of the Black man. Expansion in economic activities, something which will only be guided by the market mechanism, will also tend strongly in the direction of the already existing concentrations in White areas.

If we no longer take into account this question of planning to which the hon. the Prime Minister referred, the present growth poles in South Africa with their strong centripetal tendency, exercise a very strong drawing power and we should have an influx of Black people to the metropolitan areas which would be to the detriment of those people. These concentrations can pose many dangers to us. With reference to the statement made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, I just want to ask, since he advocates the freedom of movement of capital and labour, whether it is his and his party’s plea that the Whites should also be able to purchase land in the homelands? I should like the hon. member for Umhlatuzana or the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to furnish us with a reply to that specific question. The hon. member asked for the freedom of movement of capital and entrepreneurship. I now want to ask him whether he wants to give the Whites a full right to open business undertakings freely in the homelands? I ask this with reference to the statement by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I am taking the hon. the Leader of the Opposition at his word. I should like to have a reply to these pertinent questions. He states, and I want those hon. members to listen to this: “I believe that we shall have to remove the restriction on labour, on the use of capital, on the planning and development of our country and make that available to all races in the same way.”

That is right.

That is right. I would ask the hon. member whether he wants to open up the business areas in South Africa so that the Black entrepreneur can open a shop here in Cape Town too, for example.

We say “yes”.

The PRP says “yes”. However, I am asking this of the UP. Their hon. leader states: “ … and make that available to all races in the same way”. I want to ask the hon. member for Umhlatuzana whether it is their policy that the central business area in Cape Town, for example, should also be thrown open to the Black people so that they can open business enterprises here, in this free enterprise system of theirs. [Interjections.] I just want to know whether the hon. member for Umhlatuzana follows his leader’s lead in this connection? I now quote an extract from a speech by his hon. leader in Hansard. I want to repeat that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said: “… and make that available to all races in the same way”.

What is wrong with that?

I do not know whether the hon. member for Mooi River has the courage to reply to me on that score. Would he throw open the central business areas in South Africa to the Black entrepreneurs and Black businessmen? [Interjections.] I should appreciate it if one of the hon. members who will speak after me would reply to my pertinent questions with reference to the statement made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout has said on occasion that one cannot have development while there is separation. Today I want to look at the position in our homelands in particular. Much criticism has been levelled at our homelands and at our homeland policy, and in general the statement is made that nothing is happening in the homelands.

Today I should like to indicate briefly what is in fact taking place in our homelands. We must test the facts at our disposal and we must see whether or not the statement that nothing is going on in the homelands, is correct. Today I want to test the development in the homelands against certain norms.

The first norm is: What is the national income per capita of our homelands? Today I want to test the success of our policy against the norms and in comparison with other countries of the Third World and with the other countries of Africa. If we take the national income per capita of the inhabitants of the homelands in South Africa—we exclude the Transkei because it is now an independent state—we see that for the year 1974-’75 the per capita income of inhabitants of our homelands was R210.

Order! The hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the hon. member be afforded the time to complete his speech.

Thank you very much. The per capita income of the inhabitants of the homelands—I want to stress the figures today—is higher than the per capita income of 30 other African countries. I want to compare the per capita income of our homelands with that of other countries in Africa. There are 12 countries in Africa with a per capita income of lower than R100 per annum. There are 15 States in Africa with a per capita income of between R100 and R200 per annum. If we take the national income per capita—and this is generally accepted as a criterion by which to measure the welfare of a country’s inhabitants—it means that the standard of living of the inhabitants of the homelands of South Africa is higher than the standard of living of 30 other States in Africa. The norm being used is an honest and objective one. It is an internationally recognized norm which is used to determine the standard of living on the basis of the gross national income per capita. In this regard our homelands are better off than 30 other countries in Africa. I know that the hon. member for Durban Central will not feel proud of that, but on behalf of South Africa I feel proud of it.

What makes the hon. member think that the Bantu in South Africa do not want to compare their standard of living to that of the Whites in South Africa?

I will not even waste my time answering the question. If the hon. member had listened to me, he would have known that I said that the only valid norm is that we should compare the Black man in South Africa with Black people elsewhere in the world.

Why?

Because we have a dualistic economic system with a history which those hon. gentlemen know just as well as I do. Indeed, they created it and must be accountable for it.

The president of the World Bank said recently that the per capita income of the poor countries of the world in 1975 was R131. There are 1 200 million people in the world with a per capita income of less than R131 per annum. In contrast, let me quote the per capita income of the inhabitants of the homelands—I am now referring solely to inhabitants of the homelands—which amounts to R210 per annum. If we wish to investigate further whether our policy has been successful and whether it has worked, we must look at what is happening in the homelands and whether the standard of living of the people living there is rising, remaining constant, or dropping. The recognized international method of determining this is looking at the growth rate, measured by the real per capita income of the inhabitants of the homelands. It is of interest to note—to draw another comparison with Africa—that the average growth rate per annum in the homelands as regards the real per capita income of the population is higher than that in 45 African States. This proves that the standard of living of the inhabitants of the homelands is rising faster than the standard of living of the inhabitants of the rest of Africa, which, in many cases, is in fact dropping.

We are faced with the rising standard of living per capita, in spite of a very high rate of population increase. Furthermore, it is rising more rapidly in the homelands than in the rest of Africa. The national income per capita of the inhabitants of the homelands increased by 14,6% per annum between 1970-’71 and 1974-’75. In the corresponding period the consumer price index increased by 8,4% per annum. In real terms, this means that the real growth rate per capita of the inhabitants of the homelands was 6% per annum. This is one of the highest known growth rates.

Let us, however, consider a different norm. What happens to the national income of our homelands? Here we have just as rosy a picture, because since 1970-’71 the national income of the homelands has increased from R719 million to R1 477 million in 1974-’75. This denotes an increase of 19,7% per annum. If we look at the gross domestic product of our homelands, we shall see that there has been an increase of 20,8% per annum from 1970 to 1975. However, if this figure is deflated with the GDP deflater of the Republic, we shall see that the gross domestic product, viz. the growth rate in the homelands, was 9% per annum in real terms. It is interesting to note that this growth rate was higher than the growth rate realized in the White area of South Africa. This shows that something positive is going on in the homelands.

If we look at mining development in the homelands we shall see that there were 57 mines in operation in 1972. By March last year 74 mines were already in operation in our homelands. In 1972 those mines employed 43 000 workers, whereas today they are already providing employment to 63 593 Black people. This is indicative of immense expansion and immense growth. The value of the minerals produced and sold amounted to R60 million in 1975-’76. If one goes on to look at the vast mineral potential of the homelands it is clear that there are great possibilities for further growth in this field.

I just want to refer briefly to agriculture, and I just want to compare the two years 1974-’75 with the years 1975-’76. From 1974-’75, the gross value of the sales of agricultural products in the homelands rose from R5,2 million to 11,9 million in the following year. Surely this is an indication of substantial growth.

It is often asked what the Government aims to achieve with its policy, and whether it is succeeding. If I could just formulate the objectives briefly, I could say that it is our aim that the various Black peoples in South Africa should be able to live and work to the maximum extent in their own homelands. Where this is not always practicable in every case, they must live in their respective countries and must work in the White areas on a daily commuter basis. Where it is not possible for them to commute daily, they can work in the White areas as migrant labour without their families. One can ask oneself what success we have achieved with this policy up to the present. In 1976 about 50% of the Black population were already living in the homelands. The homelands therefore accommodate 50% of the Black population in this country. Here I include 639 000 commuters, but not the 1 000 000 migrant labourers living in the White areas. However, let us look at the period 1972-’75 to see what the course of this pattern and this policy of ours has been. In those three years about 100 000 Bantu persons have entered the labour market every year. In other words, about 100 000 Bantu persons became available to come and work. Let us see how this picture has unfolded. Of those 100 000 workers who became available every year, 28% were provided with employment within the homelands. 36,8% of those people who enter the labour market annually were provided with employment in the White areas bordering on the homelands. Those people were daily commuters to the adjacent White areas. This in fact means the following: 64% of the people who became available for the labour market were employed within the homelands and on the borders of the homelands. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, a good deal of the hon. member’s time was spent in arguing with the hon. member for Umlatuzana, so I shall not touch on that part of his speech. As far as the rest of his speech is concerned, I just want to say three things. I have seen some figures comparing the earnings of Africans in South Africa with those of the rest of Black Africa, figures compiled by Prof. Sadie of Stellenbosch, and those figures are very different indeed. He puts the Republic’s Blacks 13th on the list of per capita earnings as far as the African States are concerned. I would also imagine that the figures the hon. member is using include the earnings of migrant workers in the White industrial areas in South Africa and, of course, that makes a very big difference to the overall picture of the earnings in the homelands. The third point is that none of this is really relevant. What is relevant is simply to what extent the homelands have been developed so that they can provide the minimum of 50 000 jobs per annum required by the Tomlinson Report. I think it was 30 000 in industry and 20 000 in tertiary occupations, or the other way around—I am not too sure. Anyway, the figure is 50 000 per annum, excluding agriculture, and these jobs must be provided to keep up with the minimum requirements of the “tuislande” policy. We know that that target has not even remotely been reached. Those are the really relevant factors.

You have not listened to my figures, or you did not understand them.

I now want to come to my own address to the hon. the Minister. I want to say that I have asked a great number of questions in this House over the years and that I have received a great number of very surprising answers. However, perhaps the most surprising answer I have ever received was the one I received on 4 March this year when I asked the hon. the Minister whether he or any of his Deputy Ministers had visited Soweto during 1976 and if so, when, and if not, why not. The reply I received was: “Yes, on 23 June 1976.” In other words, between the four of them—I have not established which one of the hon. gentlemen went to see Soweto or whether they all went en masse; perhaps the hon. member will tell us—they managed to pay exactly one visit to Soweto in the whole of the time from the start of the riots on 16 June 1976 up to January of this year. I do not know whether they visited any of the other riot-torn townships. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will tell us that. We know that they took one look at Soweto and then to all intents and purposes disappeared from the scene entirely. Some of them no doubt took to the hills. The hon. the Minister, I believe, took to the Greek Islands. I want to say quite categorically that we in these benches consider their behaviour to be the grossest possible abdication of responsibility and dereliction of duty at a critical time. One would surely have thought that the hon. the Minister and his Deputies would have made repeated efforts to contact, negotiate with and consult with the leaders of the Black community to try to defuse what was obviously a highly dangerous situation. Instead, they left their huge constituency of Soweto with over a million inhabitants, not to mention the other townships in the rest of the country, to the tender mercies of the hon. Minister of Police and his riot squads.

You are speaking in ignorance.

No, I followed events very closely. Apart from one or two meetings at the beginning, nothing further happened after that.

The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education, who is now interjecting, glibly brushed aside the telegrams of warning which were shown to him by my friend, the hon. member for Parktown, less than two weeks before the riots began. He was shown telegrams—I have copies of them here—warning him, and I quote—

Later there was another telegram which said—

STOP!

Yes, it was indeed “stop”, because absolutely nothing happened. The hon. the Deputy Minister brushed the whole thing aside. He was ignorant of what was going on in Soweto. Either his officials had not told him or, if they had told him, he did not believe them.

Do you really believe that that was the cause of the riots?

Yes, I really believe that was the trigger-point that set off the riots. One would have thought that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education would have called together a conference of headmasters, parents and senior students of the schools in Soweto in an attempt to placate them and to explain, perhaps, that the Government had a few far-reaching plans which might affect the whole situation as far as Bantu Education was concerned, plans such as the contemplated issue of free school-books, the upgrading of teachers, etc. Instead of that, they stood by silently while the Minister of Police clapped every leader, whether parent, teacher or school child, into goal or into detention, while those were the only people with whom they could have consulted; they were utterly paralysed. The situation went from bad to worse as the riots spread from township to township with a disastrous loss of life, an extremely high toll of wounded and damage to property amounting to millions of rand, all of which has done incalculable harm to South Africa’s name abroad and to her economy and human relations at home.

In the no-confidence debate we suggested that the hon. the Prime Minister should kick the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development out of his post and that he should do the same to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education, because of their pathetically poor showing during the unrest. In the absence of any really fundamental changes, it is very possible that we are going to have more unrest in South Africa in the future. I do not believe that any of the changes mentioned by the hon. the Prime Minister the other evening, are fundamental changes. I believe that the substance of discrimination remains and that it is only the shadow of discrimination, some of which, anyway, has begun to disappear. We in these benches have no confidence in these gentlemen and therefore we do not believe that they are capable of handling any future situation. As they, apparently, are to retain their portfolios, there is only one parliamentary method with which we can express our extreme dissatisfaction and that is to move the reduction of their salaries, which I now wish to do, as follows—

We are more than halfway through this session, and so far there has been absolutely no sign of any measure which is going to give hope to Africans in this country that there is going to be a new deal on its way for them. There have been—I want to say this immediately—some useful changes announced as far as Bantu education is concerned, although I do not believe they have been fully implemented yet. That includes the issue of free school books. Many of the schools do not even appear to be aware of the fact that these free books are available to them. I can only say that the PRO work of the Department needs tightening up as far as this is concerned.

The other day, the hon. the Prime Minister told us that many millions of rand had been allocated to the building of houses for Coloureds in the Cape Peninsula, a belated effort to repair a lot of the damage done by Group Area removals. But will the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development tell us what his intentions are regarding housing for Africans in the urban townships? There is nothing in the Estimates to indicate a crash programme which is so desperately needed. I also want to say that I am in complete disagreement with the statement in the last departmental report to the effect that “the department and the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards have made good progress towards solving Bantu housing problems throughout the Republic”. I do not know where they get that from when we know that there is a minimum shortfall of 20 000 houses in Soweto alone. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, we have listened attentively to the hon. member for Houghton, and listening to to her, you would swear that the only people who know the Blacks in this country are the members of the PRP. If one has to judge by what she says, one would think that the Government and this side of the House have no contact with the Blacks in the White urban areas. Surely that is utter nonsense. In the first place it is hard to discuss at this juncture the circumstances of the riots of the past year. As we know, the Cillié Commission has been appointed and we shall have the findings of the commission in due course when the report is published. To adopt a final standpoint today, to come to certain conclusions and to decide that this or that was the cause of the riots, would therefore be untimely. However, I want to give the hon. member the assurance that we have just as much contact with the Blacks in the White urban areas. I want to add that I have never been chased out of a Black area like that hon. member has. That is the difference. The hon. member now wants to imply that they are speaking on behalf of the majority of the Blacks. However, I maintain that they are speaking on behalf of a small minority of Blacks. The hon. member asked whether the hon. the Minister had visited the Black areas. There is, for instance, the Sebokeng area, where more than 300 000 Blacks are living. At the invitation of the leaders of that area a group of us visited them. We know them. The hon. the Deputy Minister accompanied us. In those days we felt at liberty to drive through that area. Other members who also accompanied us, are sitting here. We were received in a very friendly manner by the Black people, and by the Black children, of that area. We sat down at a table with them and held discussions. Their strongest representations that afternoon were that we should approach the hon. the Minister of Bantu Education and insist that the schools in that area should not be closed down. Those were the representations they made to us. The well-known Sharpeville is also situated in that Bantu Administration area of which I am speaking. The parents of Sharpeville went to guard their schools at night. They accompanied their children to school. That is what they did. That was the attitude of those people.

However, that there are others, that there are minor factions that are instigators and trouble-makers, is something I certainly do not deny. In the area to which I refer, nothing came to a standstill. Nothing whatsoever came to a standstill. On the contrary. The Saturday after the start of the riots, or the week afterwards, the people of Sharpeville offered to organize a big soccer match in Sharpeville, which was to take place in Soweto. The match took place. Thousands of Black people were present at that soccer match that Sunday afternoon. They carried on with their normal sporting activities and absolutely nothing happened. However, the hon. member for Houghton makes the accusation and the hon. member … Oh, I do not even want to talk about him. I think he is inferior.

Order! The hon. member is not allowed to say that other hon. members are inferior.

Mr. Chairman, I have not said it about anyone in particular. However, if the cap fits anyone, let him wear it.

Order! The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark referred to an hon. member and said that he was inferior.

Mr. Chairman, that hon. member can decide for himself who he is. I think he has the opportunity now to decide about it.

Order! The hon. member is not allowed to say that other hon. members are inferior.

Mr. Chairman, then I shall have to withdraw it. However, I want to know from the hon. member why there was no trouble at that stage. Why was there this co-operation? It is because the necessary machinery was established by the Government and by the Bantu Administration Boards. There is always very close liaison between the Bantu Administration Boards and their officials on the one side, and the Black leaders on the other. There are also the Bantu Advisory Committees, the Urban Bantu Council, as well as a consultative council in an area which does not yet have its own advisory committee. For instance, when the budget is dealt with—and this year an amount of R38 million is involved—those Blacks are consulted. When decisions are taken about territorial expansion, those people are consulted. From time to time representations are received from those Blacks. However, my experience has been—and now I am referring to Blacks with whom I have dealt—that in many cases, they act far more sensibly than the hon. member for Houghton. [Interjections.] They also have their problems, but when one discusses their problems with them and reaches an agreement with them, they approach their own people, communicate the views that were exchanged and put matters right.

Now the hon. member wants to know what has been done with regard to housing. In that area—I am referring to the Vaal Triangle—more than 28 000 houses for Blacks were built in recent years. What did the old Evaton look like? The hon. member for Houghton should please not talk about that. On the contrary. She is always the very first to run to the newspapers. When properties in that area are expropriated, when proper housing is provided for the people concerned, and when it is sometimes necessary to demolish some of those shanties, mole-hills, one could call them, the hon. member for Houghton is usually the first to run to the Press. What is the situation like in Evaton today? There are still slums. I do not deny that. However, we know that Blacks own land in that area. We also know that there are a great many people living in some of those shanties. There are parts where the population is just as dense as in Hillbrow. That is due to the fact that Black people let houses and rooms to tenants who, in turn, sometimes sublet them to others. However, since this party came to power things have been looking up. She talked about housing. I should like to invite the hon. member to come with me, although I am not sure whether I want to be amongst Blacks in her company. But I should like to show her the existing hostels. Whereas formerly one built a hostel bed for R120 to R180, the finest hostels are being built today with the assistance of institutions like Sasol, Iscor, Karbochem and African Explosives and Chemical Industries and others. One bed costs up to R1 000. Then the hon. member maintains that there is no progress. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana wanted to know what was happening with regard to the home ownership schemes. Apparently he is ignorant about his own country. Recently the first houses were built in my constituency with building society bonds. The hon. the Minister himself was there to hand the keys over to the occupants.

As far as planning for the future is concerned, it is a fact that better houses than the old 51-9-type house are also being built and planned. Apparently the hon. member is unaware of that. We can look back with pride on the years past and the progress that has been made. A sports stadium which will cost a few hundred thousand rand, and which will accommodate 60 000 people and where international sport can be played, is being planned in that area. Then the hon. member for Houghton still asks what is being done for the Blacks. I think she really has no contact with the ordinary Black person. One can go to the existing areas and have a look at the facilities where they can take part in indoor sport, sports like karate, darts, snooker, tennis and all the other things that they are interested in. They get everything they want. However, the hon. member always uses the example of the agitator and the instigator in the country, while the Black people themselves have often pleaded with us to take more stringent action against the agitators.

I want to conclude by placing on record that I have the highest appreciation for the Black leaders of the community in the Vaal Triangle, and I want to pay tribute to them. They bear themselves like dignified people. We see our way clear to going forward together. We know that in time there will be changes in the method of governing the Black people and of decision-making in the Black areas. That is not a strange or new idea. Only last year the hon. Minister said that he was going to introduce certain amended legislation. If only we are prepared to sit around a table together properly, we can co-operate, we can build together and be happy together. We have the greatest respect for each other as White and Black. We meet regularly. The leaders and businessmen of the Black people meet regularly with the Afrikaanse Sakekamer and the Chamber of Commerce. Dialogue is taking place. There is no friction or hate. There can only be friction and hate when it is stirred up, and I think the hon. members of the PRP should stop doing that. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, allow me to say that the House was probably very grateful to hear from the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark that there is such a good relationship between the Black people of Sebokeng and the other people in that area. None of us wants to put a spoke in the wheel of any effort to improve relations. I am grateful to hear that such a relationship does exist. However, it does not affect the core of the accusation made by the hon. member for Houghton. I made the same accusation in this House at the beginning of the year when I said that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and the hon. the Deputy Minister entrusted with Bantu education had shamefully neglected their duty to build effective channels of communication with the urban Black throughout the years and had therefore not been able to intervene when the riots started in Soweto in June last year and later in other areas. For that reason I should like to support the motion of the hon. member for Houghton on behalf of this party. On a later occasion I shall reply to some of the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Lydenburg. I shall deal with those which are not dealt with by my colleagues. He also disappointed me—since he can say that about the hon. member for Umhlatuzana—by actually evading some of the basic policies. I shall return to that later on.

I want to associate myself with the comments made by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana with regard to the annual report of the department. I should like to devote my speech to this report. As the hon. member for Umhlatuzana has pointed out, the Department of Bantu Administration and Development is in fact—in my humble opinion—engaged in the most important activities of all Government departments in our country. The millions of Black people in our country are in the hands of that department. Therefore, what that department does or neglects to do has enormously wide implications, implications which are very far-reaching and which in fact affect the survival, security and order of the country. Therefore it is natural that people should at least take an interest in the functions, the activities of this department. We have the greatest appreciation for the work done by officials in the department. Often they work in very difficult circumstances and show great unselfishness. I also want to express my personal thanks and appreciation for the sympathetic treatment I received from officials when I took up personal matters with the Ministry. In particular, I want to express my gratitude for the several opportunities I had to approach the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Affairs about several matters with regard to several problems which I wanted to bring to his attention. I appreciate his positive attitude in this regard.

However, I was very disappointed with this report. It is superficial and incomplete and it is totally impossible to get any accurate idea from it of what the department is really doing.

It is because the hon. member is stupid and cannot understand it.

If the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke doubts his own intelligence, he is welcome to do so.

Because the report is incomplete, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister a few questions in the hope that he will illustrate in his reply some of the developments upon which the report is silent. I take into consideration the fact that this report covers the period until 31 March 1976. I refer to page 2, which deals with the closing of the gap in pensions. I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister how much progress has been made with that in view of this year’s budget. I should like to know what is meant with the third last paragraph on page 1. I quote—

My third question deals with page 3, and I quote—

Can the hon. the Minister tell us when we may examine the report of this committee? My next question deals with page 8, and I quote—

That is, in 1975-’76—

How much progress has been made in that connection, and why did the section apparently not do its job properly with regard to the settlement at Thornhill? I refer the hon. the Minister to paragraph (b) on page 10, which refers to agricultural potential. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana has already discussed this, but it appears to be essential that the reports resulting from the investigations be published, because surely it affects a wider circle than only the department. In this regard I refer to the investigation done by the University of Fort Hare.

I want to subscribe to the comments made by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana with regard to the necessity for a new approach to agricultural planning. On page 11 of the report mention is made of political and economic “independence” in the English text and of “selfstandigheid” in the Afrikaans text. Surely it is absolutely unthinkable to talk about economic independence for the homelands. On page 12 reference is made to discussions between the department and certain members of the private sector. We should like to have further details about that as well. On page 17 of the report reference is made to the planning of professional welfare services by a section established by the department. If there is any planning at all, I should like to know what planning has been done …

In what connection?

In connection with the professional welfare services and social care. Have surveys been done, has there been any planning, will the services be provided over a specific period? On page 18 reference is made to the medical university at GaRankuwa and we request further particulars about this as well.

What is the question?

I request further particulars.

It falls under the Bantu Education Vote.

Then the question will be repeated under that Vote. I merely referred to it because it is discussed in this report. As far as the Bantu Administration Boards are concerned, I should like to hear from the Minister what effect is being given to the establishment of full-fledged governing bodies for the Bantu in the urban areas. On page 26 reference is made to the zoning of Alice, Butterworth and Port St. Johns, and I should like to know what provision has been made for the buying of land belonging to Whites. On page 27 reference is made to the telefacsimile system between Johannesburg and Pretoria. I should like to have further details about that as well. I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister why he has decided not to establish further aid centres.

There are quite a number of other questions I want to ask, but time does not allow me to do so. However, I shall make a few further comments in a later speech. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is true that I am now in the unenviable position of the hon. member for Houghton wanting to deprive me of part of my salary, but in case the House should become restless about the matter due to the possibility that this could be carried into effect, I want to assure hon. members that I have had a number of offers of maintenance and aid in the event of my being reduced to begging. Perhaps I could also get more support than the hon. member for Houghton if I were to send a collection list through Soweto.

This hon. member adopted the premise that nothing has been done. I should not like to act towards the hon. member in a manner that could betray that I have no respect for her, but I do think that it is as well, before making specific statements, to determine in advance whether they are true or not. As regards knowledge of the circumstances in Soweto, I want to point out that hon. members opposite placed questions on the Order Paper. Those questions were replied to. When the hon. member for Parktown sent me a note, I replied on the basis of information emanating from the Secretary for Bantu Education. The secretary assured me that although difficulty had been experienced at a few schools, in some cases the position was under control and the children were back at school. Subsequently, however, there were fresh outbreaks. The Secretary for Bantu Education was kept informed of the circumstances by his officials. One thing that the hon. members should not do is suggest that we should have been as well acquainted as they were with subversive activities.

That is unworthy of you.

That hon. member has a pontifical manner about him that would put Andrew Murray in the shade.

As far as interviewing these people are concerned, I want to point out that I accompanied the hon. the Minister when we met members of the Urban Bantu Council when we visited Soweto. I also accompanied the hon. the Minister when we met other members of the Council together with members of the parent-teachers’ association. I was also present when the hon. the Minister of Justice met a number of these people in his office and listened to their problems.

The hon. member for Houghton simply goes on referring to Afrikaans as the cause of the riots.

She ought to know that that is rubbish.

Even at that stage the question of Afrikaans as a medium of education was irrelevant. If she had listened to her bosom friend, Winnie Mandella, she would have known the truth. I also took the trouble to go specially to the University of Zululand—I do not know whether the hon. member for Houghton has been there …

I have been there.

When?

After the arson? She says no. It would have been worth the trouble and would have inspired a great deal more humility in the hon. member if she could have viewed the scene on the campus of the University of Zululand. The students there, whose cause she is so fond of championing, held a prayer meeting in the church on the evening before the riots began. I saw what the church looked like after the arson which followed the prayer meeting. The student council took over the prayer meeting and held discussions as to how the riots should take place on the campus the following day. The hon. member has no sympathy with the wives of staff members, including the rector’s wife, who had to flee for their lives because the students threatened their lives. The question of Afrikaans was not at issue there. No. It was a prayer meeting which turned into a meeting to organize the riots the following day. Does the hon. member now want to suggest that there was no organization behind the riots?

I said it was a trigger point.

But surely Winnie Mandela said: “Afrikaans has nothing to do with that.” Perhaps she is an authority whom the hon. member would do well to recognize as such because that, after all, is the company she likes to keep.

Someone from America visited South Africa—I refer here to Herbert Armstrong who wrote an article in Plain Truth. In it he refers to the riots caused in Paris by Danny the Red, riots which almost brought down a Government. The writer has the following to say about this—

That is the precise recipe—

Surely that is the recipe for what took place there.

You always start something like that.

Then I must say something else which will interest the hon. member. There are the Wits students who marched and said: “Do not start the revolution without us!” Where does that come from? I ask the hon. member—she is so eloquent—why? On the basis of what information did a certain ex-clergyman who now liaises with her party, telephone clergymen right, left and centre in Pretoria a few minutes after the marches began that morning, to warn them and to ask them to warn the Government that bloodshed was going to occur? What red line did he have? They are acquaintances of that hon. member’s party, just as the Wits students are her acquaintances.

As regards the statement that Afrikaans was supposedly the trigger-point, I said as far back as the beginning of the year that that had ceased entirely to be relevant. We, too, conduct discussions with the Black people; the hon. members must not think that they are the only people who speak to the Black people. I speak to them in a decent way and they speak to me in a decent way as well. One of them tells you frankly, and the hon. member may agree: “Sir, Johannesburg and Pretoria do not belong to the Whites only; they belong to all of us.” [Interjections.] This is the instigation which is behind the riots and it is those hon. members who go along with them. It is for that reason that they set these claims. This is what underlies these riots. When, a few weeks after the riots started, we had the big meeting with representatives of the Urban Bantu Council and with the parent-teachers’ association under the chairmanship of the hon. the Minister, we said that if there were difficulties with regard to the 50:50 division prescribed but never implemented—the implementation was 95:5 in favour of English—we would leave the choice to them. Why did the riots not stop then? Then there was all the political agitation. It then appeared that that was what it was all really about.

Was that not after the shooting?

No. I am now referring to the political agitation which lay behind it. She reproaches the Department of Bantu Education. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member would have done well to take note of what appeared in The World, in which Chief Buthelezi states: “We want a stake in the whole of South Africa and not only in the homelands.” The hon. member agrees with that, of course. That is the very point of conflict. Must we, then, allow ourselves to be blackmailed by people who want the whole of South Africa and who begrudge the White man a small place of his own in it? It was said that “We want a stake in the whole of South Africa.” That Black leader who said: “Johannesburg and Pretoria do not belong to Whites only. They belong to all of us,” included Houghton when he said that. Those hon. members are blissfully unaware of the fact that since the ’forties there has been tension among groups of youths in Soweto. Those hon. members are unaware of the fact that there has been antagonism between loafers and students, and that scholars have sometimes even taken the law into their own hands and killed the loafers whom they attacked. They even defended the life of a female teacher of theirs. Is this, then, to be ascribed to Afrikaans as well? Is this, too, the result of the Government’s actions? There was an incident at three Tsonga schools when the Black school board dismissed three principals. Under pressure from a homeland government those three principals had to be reinstated in their posts. In the meantime the pupils of those schools went on strike about the dismissals! [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I shall not take part in the discussion in which the hon. the Deputy Minister was involved in his reply to allegations which were made about his failure to make his appearance in Soweto in the course of the riots. He has explained his position, but that is a matter I am sure will be dealt with by other speakers on this side of the House.

I should like to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Edenvale and deal with the report and also with what are ostensibly the reports of the various Bantu Affairs Administration Boards. On a previous occasion I asked the hon. the Minister why there was no report produced or incorporated in the report of his department and I think that he said to me, in reply …

About?

Reports about the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards. He said that there was no provision in the statute itself which obliged him to furnish any report or to put any reports into the main report of his department. Upon examination, however, these reports quite obviously have the same value as the reports of any other department of State. I am referring to reports of bodies such as the Potato Board, the Mealie Board and the numerous other boards established under the Department of Agriculture or various directorates, reports by the Auditor-General. That is all that is involved here, a report of the Auditor-General on the accounts. These reports; although they are called “reports”, to all intents and purposes mean nothing at all, so one cannot take that into account.

Reading the report of the department itself, and also looking through the Auditor-General’s reports, one is merely faced with a mass of figures and a mass of general, vague statements. I believe that when it comes to a department of this nature which, as the hon. member for Umhlatuzana has made it clear, deals with the lives and destinies of so many millions of people, we should have a very much fuller report of the activities of the department. I would suggest that in this particular era in which we live, an era in which we are trying to move away from discrimination, colour complexes and so on, it would perhaps be a better starting point if the hon. the Minister suggested, in his reply, that he had decided to change the name of his department to the Department of Human Affairs and Development. For in many ways the department’s activities affect the daily lives of millions of Black people, many of whom are present in our cities and towns where their presence is necessary and essential, whose permanence in many senses has now become a reality and who are part and parcel of the realism of the South African life of today and tomorrow.

Therefore I should like to deal with one or two matters which the hon. the Minister and other Government members have spoken of in the past but about which nothing ostensibly seems to have been done. In that regard I think the hon. the Minister perhaps owes us some explanation because, as has been pointed out, the report of the department only covers the period up to March 1976. As a result we do not have the latest information on the activities of his department. I want to refer, first of all, to the question of housing. The report boasts of a record in the provision of housing over a period of some ten years. I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that—I think this information was given either by the hon. the Minister or by one of his Deputies—in Soweto, where there is at present a shortage of some 10 000 houses or where there are 10 000 families on the waiting-list, only R750 000 is planned to be spent by the West Rand Bantu Administration Board in the financial year 1977-’78. This represents 1,3% of the board’s total budget. This has been very critically commented upon by the Johannesburg Chamber of Commerce, a body which is co-operating with the hon. the Minister’s department in providing housing for Bantu employees and which is playing some part in important undertakings such as the Urban Foundation.

In this respect I think the hon. the Minister should give us more information and should also tell us whether he is prepared to accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana that in the interests of free enterprise, and in the interests of the Black man having a stake in the defence of this country, he should give serious consideration to enabling Black people to acquire the land they are living on, land which at this stage can only be hired or leased. I think this is a very important factor because, as has been pointed out, those areas will, for all time, remain Black areas, irrespective of who lives there. We have dealt with this matter on many an occasion and I think that in this regard the hon. the Minister should clearly state his point of view at this stage.

I next want to refer the hon. the Minister to the question of trading and of the expansion of the Black man’s business activities in the pursuance of the policy of free enterprise within the various urban townships. The Johannesburg Chamber of Commerce has a department which is specifically in touch with this matter and they themselves believe that at the moment the rights of Black traders are not only regulated, but also severely restricted, and although there is talk of a significant improvement in the conditions under which the Black man will be able to trade, nothing has yet been spelt out clearly to the public. All that has happened so far—if I can have the hon. Minister’s attention—is that it has been spoken about, but nothing has been clearly spelt out. I think that in the present climate we are living in, and regardless of the fact that we have a commission sitting at the moment, it is in the interests of the orderly conduct of the affairs of the various urban townships that that particular matter should be clearly spelt out. Furthermore, on this question of urban Black local Government, of which the hon. the Minister has spoken on many occasions and of which he has given some hints earlier this session, I want to draw his attention to Hansard of 25 April 1973, Vol. 43. I wish to quote from col. 5095, where the hon. the Prime Minister himself said—

Then, in 1975, the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development in reply to a similar issue which I raised, replied as follows in Hansard of 2 May 1975, Vol. 56, col. 5360—

This is two years after what the hon. the Prime Minister said. I quote further—

Last year, when I raised the matter once again in the discussion of the hon. Minister’s vote, he said that they were dealing with it. He said it in an aside to an interjection and said: We are dealing with it; it is going to come sooner than you think. It is now near the end of April 1977 and nothing has yet been spelt out. This is not a new issue that has been raised; this is a matter which has been dealt with for a number of years by various speakers, and it is one of the important factors in bringing about a better understanding between authorities and the urban Black areas and also to bring about better good will and better race relations than have existed hitherto, and it might have been a vital factor in connection with some of the unrest which we have had in the past. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Jeppe made certain remarks about the annual report and also about the other reports of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. I take it that the hon. the Minister will reply to them later in this regard. However, later on I shall come back to the statement made by the hon. member for Edenvale in connection with the control of the Blacks in the White residential areas. I should like to discuss this subject this afternoon, viz. the Bantu in the urban areas. In the development of our mining industry and in our industrial development, particularly in the Witwatersrand area and in our industrial towns, an influx of Blacks to these industries and mines has occurred, particularly Blacks who wanted to sell their labour there.

Particularly after the Second World War there was a major influx of Blacks coming to our industrial areas. For the most part we found them there in squatter camps where they lived in atrocious circumstances and where, in addition, atrocious conditions prevailed, not only as far as housing was concerned but as regards other social services as well. This state of affairs continued into the ‘fifties. Even today there is an influx to our cities. This is not a situation which takes place in South Africa alone; it is a situation that occurs throughout the world. Everywhere people are moving to the cities. It is a phenomenon which occurs throughout the world. In fact, I think that ours is the only country in the world which applies influx control in our cities. Our aim in doing so is not merely to prevent the worker being exploited by means of cheap labour. We also want to ensure that there is decent housing for them and that they also enjoy decent social care, as well as other social services.

In this process of the movement of Black people to the cities, various Black peoples, too, move to the cities. Each of them has its own ethnic context. It is undeniably true and sociologically correct that basically, every Black people remains a unit, whether its people find themselves in a homeland or in a White residential area in a White urban area. That is why we on this side of the House maintain a unitary approach with regard to the members of each Bantu people. The members of a Bantu people, both within and outside their homeland context, are therefore closely linked to each other, even in so far as their political development is concerned. After all, there are not two Zulu peoples, one in Zululand and one in the White urban areas. It is therefore understandable that the Government of a Bantu people whose seat of government is in its homeland will, in any event, exert itself in the interests of its own people outside the homeland.

An analysis of a labour force of 110 000 workers on the Witwatersrand, where the legislation relating to control measures and economic processes is the same, indicates the following residence qualifications—in accordance with section 10 of Act 20 of 1945, on 30 July 1976—

That is to say, therefore, that a total of 77% are born in a homeland or are from a homeland—on a temporary basis—and that the allegation that the urban Bantu has no contact with his homeland is untrue and cannot be accepted. At present, the Bantu is still doing a great deal to preserve his contact with his homeland. Apart from private buses and hundreds of vehicles that travel to the homelands over weekends and holidays, the S.A. Railways furnishes the following statistics in regard to the conveyance of of passengers from the Pretoria/Witwatersrand/Vereeniging complex. This applies to the period April 1975 to March 1976—

This is an important statistic and it shows us that the Blacks of their own accord, maintain regular contact with their homelands. The statistic to which I referred apply to all of the seven homelands.

In order to allow the traffic to the homelands to flow more rapidly, freeways and other rapid transport methods will have to be made available in the future.

Another matter to which I want to refer is the issue of labour zoning: A method in accordance with which specific national groups may work in specific areas. This will give rise to a greater degree of homogeneity in Bantu towns and will also facilitate the utilization of the cultural wealth of each. Due to the link between the urban Bantu and the Bantu in the homeland, the Government also gives attention to the two groups, in conjunction with each other, as far as their political development is concerned. In that regard I should like to refer to another matter of which another hon. member spoke earlier. It concerns the control of Blacks in White areas. I want to argue that we should continue to build on the existing fundamental principle, viz. that the Bantu in a White urban area—even though he should always live there—shall always take second place to the Whites, just as the Whites, in their turn, take second place to the Bantu in the Bantu homeland. Bantu have to be regarded as communities in White areas, and treated accordingly as well. The facilities which they need as people must be made available to then. Furthermore, and in accordance with the policy of the NP, the Bantu in the urban areas should also have more opportunities to run his own community and his own community interests himself. This ought to take place with the assistance of boards and other bodies, and taking fully into account the reality of his ethnic group context and of the diversity of peoples that exist. The diversity of peoples should also be taken fully into account in the composition of the boards. The process will probably be necessary to repeal the legislation concerning existing boards and advisory boards. However, I want to emphasize that the envisaged boards will only control local matters, for example the allocation and administration of the hiring of property, the prevention and combating of illegal occupation of land and buildings, the furtherance of the urban and social welfare of those living within its area, the administration of sport and recreational facilities, the beautification and maintenance of the residential area itself, order, discipline and security, school buildings, levies on services and financial control. All these local matters will be administered within the framework of Bantu administration boards.

On this occasion I should also like to pay tribute to the White staff of the Bantu administration boards who, through the years, have made it their life’s task to work with the Black people, uplift them and, in particular, cultivate and normalize sound relations between Whites and Bantu. It is our task to develop the Blacks. However, this must be done in such a way that responsibility goes hand in hand with development. To transfer an imaginary responsibility to the Bantu, will only cause him to be disillusioned later, and that will create a lack of confidence. The Blacks will therefore have to carry full responsibility for the functions entrusted to them. On the other hand, the Whites will have to learn to respect the Blacks in their midst. Sound relations must become the way of life of every member of the public, White and Black. The Black man must also learn to appreciate what is his within his national context. We shall have to assist the Blacks to develop their national heritage, whereas he will also have to assist in this regard at a later stage.

Another aspect which was discussed at length after the riots, was that of housing. Thus far, poor housing has been due to a lack of funds. But I think that the Black people realize the cost of the houses being built for them and realize that they themselves should contribute towards them to a greater extent. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, this afternoon I want to confine myself more specifically to the North-Sotho people and the development of their beautiful country, Lebowa. Allow me to say a few words on this occasion to pay tribute to a man who was intimately involved in the development of Lebowa during the past five years. I had the privilege of taking a closer look at his life’s work. I am referring to the late Mr. G. P. C. Bezuidenhout, who was Commissioner-General of the North-Sotho national unit prior to his death. He was a man who really left his mark on the history of the development of Lebowa, as well as a man who was loved, honoured and respected by the Afrikaners of Pietersburg, Afrikaans as well as English-speaking, and the population of the entire Northern Transvaal. He was loved, honoured and respected just as much by the North-Sotho people of Lebowa because of the competent and fine manner in which he performed his task in Lebowa. Right up to the day he died, he was at the service of the country and people he was part of and loved with a passion. South Africa and Lebowa will not forget him and we shall honour his memory.

Slowly but surely, the North-Sotho people is developing into a free, independent nation, one which will be able to take its place in the comity of nations in Africa and the world. The ethnic policy of the Government, a policy founded on the inalienable right of every people to self-determination and to a country of its own, is in the process of enabling the people of North-Sotho to realize that ideal of freedom without revolution or war. It is true that today there may still be certain leaders of that people who do not realize or accept this basic drive for freedom which every people has.

This is á perfectly normal phenomenon because in the history of my people’s liberation, which included bloody wars of independence and humiliation, there were also leaders like these, who did not want to accept a free, independent South Africa and who wanted the advent of a Republic in 1961 to miscarry. They have been defeated at the polls on more than one occasion, however, and are slowly but surely disappearing from the political scene in South Africa, quite simply because they did not want to accept or recognize this basic aspiration of a people. In exactly the same way, this will also be the case with these leaders of the people of North-Sotho who refuse to do the bidding of the people as a whole. They, too, will be defeated at the polls and forgotten by their people if they do not exert themselves and strive for total independence for their country and their people. In the final analysis, this is the only success formula whereby various peoples can co-exist peacefully.

This situation, however, cannot but bring about an interdependence, which can only be successful and lead to the economic prosperity of both peoples when the greatest amount of co-operation exists between them. On the one hand, our economy relies heavily on the labour productivity of the North-Sotho. According to the 1970 census, the total North-Sotho population was 1 777 900 of whom 39,6% lived and worked in the Republic. Forty-three per cent of these lived and worked in the Pretoria-Witwatersrand-Vereeniging area, 21,5% in Northern Transvaal and 13,2% in the rest of the Transvaal. On the other hand, the Republic has a tremendously stimulating influence on Lebowa, to such as extent that the gross domestic product of Lebowa, at factor costs and ruling prices, increased at an average rate of 13,7% per annum from 1970 to 1974 and the gross national income per capita increased by 14,4% to R153, whilst the gross national income per capita of other Africa states—as the hon. member for Lydenburg rightly remarked—is considerably lower than this figure. In Seshego, the largest town in Lebowa, the number of workers increased from 721 to 1 184 in one year, from 1975 to 1976.

This growing prosperity of Lebowa also has a tremendously stimulating influence on a town like Pietersburg, which is the central service centre of this area. In this way the number of industries, for example, rose in one year, from 1975 to 1976, from 73 to 80, despite difficult economic conditions. This represents a growth rate of 9,5%. This positive growth rate resulted in the total population of Pietersburg and of the Northern Transvaal having increased by 3,34% whereas the average growth in the rest of the Transvaal was only 2,46%. Although Lebowa’s most important export product at this stage is labour, it also has the inherent capacity to make a very great contribution to food supply. In the light of the rapidly growing population of Africa, this is the most important strategic commodity. Therefore, it is good to know that from 1970 to 1973, the agricultural production of Lebowa increased by 7,5%. This exceeds the estimated population increase. If one takes into consideration the fact that the yield represents only one-third of Lebowa’s actual agricultural potential, there is still much room for improvement. The lack of development-orientation amongst the inhabitants of Lebowa still remains the most important stumbling block in the path of agricultural development, as the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Affairs so clearly and rightly indicated when he recently opened the Legislative Assembly of Lebowa. Mining is the best example of inter-dependence. Apart from our use of Lebowa’s labour, we also find that the rock formations of the Bushveld igneous complex appear in abundance in Lebowa as well. Good deposits of platinum, chrome, iron ore and magnesite are to be found there. In fact, deposits of the best quality chrome in South Africa are to be found within Lebowa. Southern Africa may feel fortunate that there is going to be a country like Lebowa because there are at present 16 mines in operation and two new ones are being developed. In 1973-’74, those mines contributed as much as 28% to Lebowa’s gross domestic product. Lebowa’s tremendous potential can only be exploited, however, with the Republic of South Africa’s skill, her capital and if she provides the infrastructure.

The development of border industries, the establishment of industries in Lebowa herself and the gigantic contribution the BIC and the newly-formed Lebowa Development Corporation are making to the development of Lebowa, are going to underline the interdependence of Lebowa and specifically that of Pietersburg to an ever increasing extent. It is also going to emphasize the indisputable viability of Lebowa as a country in its own right. It will depend on a joint effort on the part of both peoples whether our economic development is going to be sufficiently strong for there to be living space and prosperity for everyone in South Africa. We must remember that the onslaught of Marxism is directed against all the peoples of Southern Africa. The entire population of South Africa stands in the way of Russian imperialism, its desire for world domination and the obliteration of Christianity in its entirety. The bounden duty lies with us, and not only with us, but in particular with the people of North-Sotho as well, to develop Lebowa to her full potential so that Lebowa, too, may play her part in establishing neighbourliness, and along with that, a strong bastion here in south of Africa.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pietersburg paid a tribute to Mr. Gert Bezuidenhout. I had the privilege to be with him here is this House for a short while and therefore I should like to associate myself with that tribute, for he was a man we all greatly respected.

There is a motion before this House that the amount of R27 000 against the item “Minister” be reduced by R10 000 and that the amount of R23 000 being voted against the item “Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education”, be reduced by R10 000. As a party, we shall immediately adopt an attitude in regard to the matter. We do not shy away from adopting a standpoint. I can mention dozens of reasons why the hon. the Minister’s salary ought to be reduced. The motivation of the hon. member for Houghton, which has the support of the hon. member for Edenvale, was that the amounts had to be reduced as a direct consequence of the lack of action on the part of those two hon. gentlemen as far as the Soweto riots were concerned. We dissociate ourselves completely from that. [Interjections.] As a party, we cannot in any way, directly or by implication, approve of the action of those people who committed murder and violence in Soweto. For example, there was the case of Dr. Edelstein, one of the greatest friends of the Bantu, a man who had dedicated his whole life to the Bantu people, and we cannot condone the fact that he was stoned to death. [Interjections.]

Nor can we in any way condone people burning down schools that were built for them. We cannot condone this.

Who is condoning it? [Interjections.]

It was implied that the hon. the Minister was responsible for this. These events did not go unnoticed as far as we were concerned. We shall try to analyse the matter clearly. We are not unaware of the role Mashinini played. Allow me to quote from the Daily Dispatch of 7 October 1976—

Then a further indication is given of what Tsietsie Mashinini said, namely—

He went on to say—

That was the leader and those were his motives. I am not going to say, however, that the hon. the Minister and the NP were completely innocent. Perhaps they could have done many things in the past to have prevented the riots but to stand up here and place the blame on the Government alone, is unfair. I am by no means going to try to defend the actions of these people, because I know that this same Mashinini left here for Botswana with 600 children and there they were subsidized at the rate of R20 per month by the Botswana Christian Institute and the Council of Refugees. This being so, surely there must have been a certain amount of inciting. Surely it could not have been anything else? After all, we are aware of the fact that today, Mashinini is travelling around in America and addressing meetings at schools. He is being financed by the Methodist Church of America. [Interjections.] Nor did the statement issued by the S.A. Council of Churches go unnoticed as far as we were concerned. I quote—

In other words, they associate themselves wholeheartedly with this sort of thing. I am not going to say that those people had no grievances. Most probably they did have grievances, but even if one does have grievances, one is not going to beat people to death or stone them to death. One does not shatter car windows by throwing stones or bum down buildings, school buildings, for example. That is why I am not going to associate myself with it. I want to say at the very outset that as a party, we shall not associate ourselves with this sort of thing.

You should thank the Minister.

No, I shall not thank him. I shall, however, range myself on the side of the subverters of South Africa. [Interjections.] I am not going to range myself on the side of anyone who tries to defend murder and violence or the burning down of buildings. [Interjections.]

But who is doing so?

Hon. members must examine their own consciences and take note of the part they have had in this matter.

I said at the outset that I could mention dozens of reasons why I think the hon. the Minister’s salary should be reduced.

Oh, come on man!

I could. I could, for example, charge the Government of having neglected, down the years to build up an established middle-class amongst the non-Whites in parallel Bantu towns like Soweto.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member where the millionaires in Soweto come from?

What is the good of being a millionaire …

It does help a little.

… if you cannot buy a piece of land with the money you have and if you cannot buy a house? What does one do with that money then? Should one buy liquor and dagga? They can buy motor-cars, liquor and dagga, but not property and that is the most important thing. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member whether people who are economically strong, should not rather use their money for the benefit of the people in the areas in which they live?

That is a wonderful idea. I know that that hon. member is not poor, either. Has he not also tried to make a little pile for himself, or has he used it for the benefit of other people? Life is not like that! One works for oneself, after all. What are the basic things that the average man wants? The first thing a man wants is to have his wife and children with him. The hon. the Minister will admit that for a very long time, a large proportion of the Blacks could not have their families with them in the urban areas. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, there is probably little fault to find with the first part of the speech made by the hon. member for King William’s Town, but the last part sounded a little too much like a speech from the days when he was still a member of the UP. However, I believe that there are other hon. members who will react to his speech, and I shall therefore leave him at that.

Our economic activities include commerce and industry, but also the White economy, and this depends to a very large extent on the labour of Black workers. In the time at my disposal I should like to confine myself to the so-called commuter, the Black worker who offers his services and labour in the White area on a daily basis, the worker who comes to the White urban areas in the morning, makes his labour available and leaves again at night. As far as the labour set-up of the Black worker is concerned, we are still too concerned with the labour itself, and the social elements are still being disregarded in many cases. I believe that the Blacks, too, are attached to their homes, and if the bonds of the family has perhaps become less firm over the years, it is definitely their duty and our duty as Whites, too, to strengthen those bonds once again. That is why it is only human to expect the Black worker, and I am referring to the Black mother in particular, who is available for offering her labour in a White area, to want the opportunity to be with her family in the evenings.

I say this hesitantly, but with all the seriousness at my disposal. The White employee, the housewife in particular, has developed a degree of selfishness over the years by wanting the domestic servant at her disposal virtually day and night. I want to ask that wherever possible, and where factors are reasonably favourable, for example in Pretoria with a homeland within driving distance, the domestic servant should have a reasonable opportunity to return to her home and family in the afternoons. She also has a family task and a responsibility towards her family. Her task in respect of her family, in my opinion, is a responsible and very serious one. I think the time is past for her to be restricted to the room in the backyard of the White employer day and night, week after week, and even month after month. I am of the opinion—and request this—that the employee should give the domestic servant the opportunity of going home wherever possible, daily if possible, but for weekends at least. I really do not believe that it is necessary for the domestic servant to be at the disposal of the Whites on Sundays.

We readily adopt a haughty attitude when it comes to the question of Black people using parks and to the question of throwing open church halls for church services for them. But if those workers can be given the opportunity to be at home in the evenings and on Sundays in particular, these needs will diminish to a very large extent. In that case, however, these people should be enabled, financially, to travel back and forth. The employee should not accept either that the transport costs are part of the wage or salary of the worker. It is desirable for this expenditure to be given to the Black worker in addition to and not as part of the wage or salary. Since I am asking for this, there are two other things in this regard that I should like to request. The first is that proper attention should be given to providing sufficient public facilities, at the main bus terminuses in particular. At present the position in Pretoria is that Black workers have to queue for buses for more than half an hour, or even longer, every day. Surely it is not asking for too much for sufficient toilet facilities, a sufficient and reasonable number of seats as well as a reasonable number of bus shelters to be provided. We want them to travel in and out on a daily basis, and therefore it is no more than right for them to have these facilities. Secondly, in addition to this, one must obviously have proper and sufficient transport facilities.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.