Mr. Speaker, I move—

1. (a) on account of the critical fuel situation in the world, to make a penetrating analysis of energy consumption priorities in South Africa;
2. (b) to take note of the fact that South Africa is in a most favourable position to take the lead in introducing electrically driven vehicles, and to do everything in its power to implement their use in both the private and the public sector; and
3. (c) to promote research with regard to the economic utilization of energy in general.

In spite of profound differences in various spheres between the nations of the world, there is one sphere in which consensus has been reached, viz. the sphere of the energy situation.

There is deep concern on the part of industrial countries of the world because energy, and in particular oil, is the axis around which international trade, economic welfare and the position of capital power revolves. There is also deep concern in the developing countries because it is the basis on which their prospects of social prosperity and economic welfare rest. So 1973 may in reality be regarded as the energy watershed year of the world. It was the year in which the countries of the world adopted a completely new approach to energy, and also became intensely aware of their various energy consumption patterns. They began to spend enormous amounts on research into the potential of existing energy resources, alternative sources of energy, and in particular the energy consumption patterns.

Information derived from these investigations and from world congresses is available and on the basis of this information the energy situation in the world and also in South Africa has already been discussed in detail in this House. To avoid repetition I want to refer, for the sake of a complete picture in this regard, to Hansard 1978, columns 1788 and 1837. From this information and discussions the energy situation may be summed up as follows: Firstly it is generally accepted that 80% of the world’s oil resources will, at the existing and estimated future consumption rate, be depleted by the end of the century. In contrast it is estimated that only 2% of the world’s proven coal resources will have been depleted. The second conclusion which may be drawn from this information is that the existing oil resources are being depleted far more rapidly than new resources are being developed. Thirdly, the present energy requirements of the world are basically being met from two energy carriers, viz. oil and coal. Uranium and other sources such as water, the sun, biomass etc. are at present making only a very small and trivial contribution to the energy requirements.

From this information it is clear to us that the pattern in all the countries of the world presents the following picture: In Australia oil and gas meet 60% of its energy requirements, and coal 40%. In Spain the figure for oil and gas is 69%, for coal 15% and other sources 16%. In Japan the figure for oil is 74%, for coal 22% and other sources 4%. The crux of the critical energy situation in the world therefore continues to be oil.

In the fourth place, the latest events in Iran have aggravated this situation and serve to demonstrate that a fierce struggle is already being waged in the world for the control of the oil resources in the Middle East. It is a struggle between the West on the one hand and communistic inspired forces on the other.

That is, in brief, the background to this motion, a motion which deals only with the South African situation which follows basically the same pattern as in the rest of the world, but with a slight shift of emphasis in this respect that South Africa is only 24% dependent for energy on oil and that coal provides 76% of our energy. However, oil remains a serious problem area for South Africa for two reasons: Firstly our liquid fuel position is very vulnerable and our economy can be seriously affected by this particular circumstance. Secondly there is as yet no substitute for oil as an energy carrier.

In view of these facts, the motion has three legs. I want to dwell briefly on the first leg of the motion. The priorities in respect of South Africa’s energy requirements must be determined. These comprise priorities in respect of alternative sources as a substitute for oil, priorities in respect of regulations and methods to ensure the better utilization of liquid fuel and priorities in respect of fuel saving. Because one of the other hon. members on this side of the House will discuss the matter of priorities, I do not want to go into detail but wish merely to make a general observation. Our highest priority is to make South Africa independent of imported fuel to the maximum extent Our motto should be: An independent energy priority programme.

The second leg of my motion deals with research and economic energy utilization in general. Since another hon. member on this side of the House is going to discuss this matter in greater detail, I wish to make only two statements. Firstly, such a research programme must be co-ordinated and integrated with the determined priorities of the economy and the Government. Secondly, the greatest single environmental problem in the world, and particularly in the cities, remains the problem of pollution.

The waste products of all our primary energy carriers of today cause pollution to a greater or lesser degree. To a certain extent we can control the pollution caused by coal. In respect of liquid fuel, data is available which indicates that 90% of the carbon monoxide, 80% of the hydrocarbons and 60% of the nitrogen gases, which are all harmful to us, originate in the cities from the motor transportation used there. We know that uranium, the third carrier, can cause a high degree of radio-active pollution. The last point I want to make on this aspect is that an energy research programme should be directed over the long-term at non-polluting forms of energy consumption. In this connection our motto should be: A clean energy research programme.

This brings me to the third leg of my motion which deals with battery-driven vehicles. 76% of our energy requirements are met by means of electricity and the remaining 24% by oil.

If we now make a further analysis of the liquid fuel situation we shall see that agriculture is 88% dependent for its requirements on oil and that the transportation services in South Africa are 82% dependent on oil for their requirements. If we relate this directly to our oil supplies, we see that agriculture consumes 30% and the transport services 40% of our oil supplies. If we accept further that, with the present state of our energy technology, there is no substitute for oil as a fuel for tractors, we will realize that the transportation services remain the biggest single consumer of liquid fuel in South Africa, the South African Railways excluded of course. Alternative forms of energy for the transportation services are therefore of cardinal importance.

According to penetrating investigations and research carried out by the CSIR and other countries abroad it is clear that the state of this technology is such that battery-driven vehicles can play an extremely important part. This is a field in which South Africa is in a favourable position to become a world leader. South Africa is in this favourable position because our electricity is generated from coal, while the electricity of most other countries in the world is generated from oil. That is why most other countries in the world have an economic problem because it is more economic for them to use oil directly in their transportation services rather than to convert it to electricity first and then utilize it for those services.

What is important is that electricity, in contrast to oil, is a clean form of energy. From information derived from the CSIR investigation it is clear, firstly, that the technology of battery-driven vehicles already justifies the use of such vehicles from an economic and technical point of view. The only limitation in this connection is at present a distance limit, for battery-driven vehicles are limited to a distance of 90 kilometres. After a distance of 90 km has been covered, the batteries have to be recharged. Battery-driven vehicles also have a further restriction. The maximum speed they are at present able to attain, is 70 kilometres per hour. Such progress has, however, been made with the development in this sphere that it is expected to be possible to increase the maximum attainable distance to 250 or 280 kilometres within the next few years.

I come now to a second aspect. If we analyse the utilization statistics for vehicles in South Africa we arrive at the conclusion that with the present technology 26% of all privately owned vehicles, 18% of all commercial vehicles and 48% of all buses can already be replaced with battery-driven vehicles. If the necessary support services can be made available, and if the necessary market penetration is achieved, this could amount to a potential saving of 16% of all oil consumption in South Africa.

Let us consider what burden this will place on our electricity network. It is estimated that the present capacity of our electricity network will only have to be expanded by 3%. Let us also consider the economic aspect of these vehicles. Under comparable circumstances the running costs of the battery vehicle will compare favourably with those of the internal combustion engine, with this difference only that the life of the battery-driven vehicle will be two or three times longer than that of an internal combustion engine. The only problem which the CSIR and we in South Africa have, is that the CSIR at present has no knowledge of the implications of the practical utilization of this type of vehicle, implications such as battery-charging facilities and procedures, maintenance implications in view of the fact that it employs a different type of propulsion system, and limitations in practice as a result of the distance limit of 90 km at a speed of 70 km per hour.

There is only one solution to this problem and that is that we should begin to use a fleet of battery-driven vehicles in practice, under the supervision of a research institute. One thinks in this connection of a fleet of approximately 50 different types of vehicle. These vehicles are available and the research institute that has to maintain supervision over the fleet has the knowledge necessary to do so. The only drawback is that we do not have the necessary vehicles at our disposal in this country because the costs involved are considerable. The reason for that is that the vehicles and the required facilities are not yet production units. It would cost an estimated R2 million to make such a fleet of vehicles, together with the necessary facilities, available to a body such as the CSIR. R2 million is a large amount, but we must see this as a premium which, in the first place, can make South Africa the leader in the sphere of battery-driven vehicles, and, secondly, can give South Africa what is to a large extent a clean energy transportation system and which, thirdly, can make South Africa independent of imported oil and fuel. I think we owe it to the people of South Africa. A premium of R2 million is a negligible amount if one takes into consideration that it could put South Africa on the world map in future as the land of energy gold.

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Wonderboom must be congratulated on putting this motion on the Order Paper. In a sense the motion speaks for itself because we have on numerous occasions in the House discussed the question of energy and the necessity to conserve our energy resources in South Africa. What particularly interests me is that, while the hon. member’s motion consists of three legs, he has concentrated on the one which has to do with battery-driven motor-cars. I would say that it is probably fairly obvious that he put the motion on the Order Paper in the first place to draw the attention of the House to the research that has been done on battery-operated vehicles of one sort or another. I shall come back to that aspect of the motion.

I should first like to deal with the first leg of the motion which has to do with the penetrating analysis of consumption priorities that has to be undertaken in South Africa. I agree with him that it is necessary to know what these priorities are and on what we should use our very scarce energy resources. Firstly, I think I should draw the attention of the House to some documentation we already have in this connection. A very penetrating analysis of the utilization of energy in South Africa has been made and the results have been published in three volumes by the Department of Environmental Planning and Energy in collaboration with the Energy Research Institute at the University of Cape Town. In other words, the spadework for an analysis of these resources has already been done. I do not believe it would take very much to use that as a basis for an analysis of energy consumption priorities—because it is the priorities we are going to have a look at. I believe it is going to be necessary for us to look at the whole question of priorities with new eyes, because there are many things happening in South Africa today which are in no way desirable, which are wasteful to our energy resources and which are totally unnecessary as well as costly.

Mr. Speaker, with your permission I should like to tell a little story to illustrate what I mean. As is my wont I travelled down to Cape Town this year on the Trans-Karoo Express. As we all know, the Railway Administration is a big user of energy. It uses a great deal of diesel fuel and electricity and they still use a certain amount of coal. I have always noticed that the coaches for the Black people are directly behind the engine. As we pull out of Johannesburg station the coaches for the Black people are directly behind the engine. It is a very pleasant and enjoyable trip by train. Fairly early in the morning, usually around breakfast time, the train arrives at Touws River station. It stops there for half or three quarters of an hour. I have never bothered to question why this should be, as I have always enjoyed the opportunity to get out, walk along the platform and buy a morning newspaper. However, this year I had a look at what was happening. What is happening is that they are shunting the coaches for the Black people off …

Order! Is that really relevant to the motion?

Mr. Speaker, I think it will become very clear to you as I continue my story that it is very relevant. I think you will realize that it aptly illustrates the point I am making in regard to energy conservation.

The coaches for Black people are uncoupled, requiring a certain amount of energy, and are then shunted all the way round, requiring further energy, and coupled to the back of the train. The train then proceeds from Touws River station with the coaches for the Blacks at the back of the train. I then had to judge why this was done.

Order! I think that is a matter which the hon. member can discuss on other occasions in this House.

With respect, Mr. Speaker, I am trying to point out how wastage of energy occurs unnecessarily. I do assure you, Sir, that this is of considerable relevance. It is an illustration of how we waste energy in South Africa. The fact is that we go to all that trouble of shunting the coaches around, an action which involves usage of energy, and coupling them to the back of the train so that the train can put into Cape Town station with the Black coaches at the back. The back of the train will then be in the Black part of the Cape Town station. One asks oneself the question how often this happens in a year and how much energy is used in doing this sort of thing. How much energy do we waste when we do this sort of thing?

You are being perfectly ridiculous.

The hon. member says that I am ridiculous. I want to say to him that if he thinks this is a laughing matter, he should ask any normal person—I do not include him in that category—whether it is worthwhile to go to the expense of wasting energy purely for a ridiculous, ideological reason. We cannot afford this sort of thing in South Africa. Our energy resources are scarce, and if we have to go to the trouble of shunting hundreds of coaches per year so that Black people will not mix with White people, I believe we have our energy priorities very wrong indeed. Perhaps the hon. the Minister should talk to the hon. the Minister of Transport about this. It is my intention to raise this issue also in the transport debate, because I believe that we make ourselves laughable in this country when we do that sort of thing. The hon. member for Kempton Park, who suggests that I am being laughable …

Of course you are.

… should be judged by how normal people consider this. One can go a little further as far as the wastage of energy is concerned and think of the whole question of separation of transport facilities. After all, transport is the biggest user of energy in South Africa. Coming from Johannesburg, as I do, I daily see buses going through the streets, some of which buses are a quarter to half full of White people and some of which are a quarter to half full of Black people. I am referring only to buses travelling along the same routes. Legislation already exists which enables road transportation boards to change this and to allow an amount of integration of transport services, and already in Cape Town—which leads the rest of South Africa—this has been done on a very large scale, and very intelligently so, because one is not then duplicating the use of energy and one is not wasting unnecessary energy. I believe that in looking at priorities—and that is what this motion is all about—it is specifically necessary to look at areas where we waste energy like this. I believe it is going to become necessary and very important that we stop this sort of wastage of energy. I say that integration of transport facilities is one of the things that is going to be necessary. I frequently travel to work in Cape Town by train. Catching a train at 18h45 I get into a coach containing a mere sprinkling of people; it is far from full.

Where do you live?

I live in Wynberg. Now, just a little further down the train are the coaches that are reserved for non-White people on the railways. These, too, are no way near full. I regard this sort of thing as a tremendous waste of energy. It is not necessary to have that number of coaches. Why do we do it? We know that our energy resources are limited. If we really are looking at priorities this is the sort of thing we should be looking at. We ought to be looking at things with new eyes. I do not believe that any intelligent hon. member on the other side of the House can disagree with me about this, although I do have reservations having heard some of the interjections that have been made. My point with regard to this leg of the motion then is that I agree entirely with the hon. member for Wonderboom. We have got to look at priorities.

With regard to the second leg of the motion, the leg dealing with the electrically driven vehicles, the hon. member for Wonderboom went to considerable lengths to speak in favour of further research. He suggested that R2 million would enable us to put a fleet of something like 50 vehicles into the field on an experimental basis. This, he said, could, in terms of what we might be able to achieve, be money very well spent indeed. Again, I must agree with the hon. member, but I must issue a word of warning by saying that I do not think the solution to our energy problems lies around the comer in respect of electrically driven vehicles. As he said, there are limitations at the moment to the use of electrically driven vehicles. For instance, they are limited in terms of range and speed.

He added that there is to be a considerable breakthrough—and I am very interested to hear this—in that the range will soon be increased to something like 280 km. This is very impressive indeed. I am certain that there is a lot of room for improvement and that these improvements will indeed come about. But I do not believe that in terms of the immediate future, these improvements will come about fast enough. Certainly, when it comes to the technicalities of electrically driven vehicles, there are problems, but the efficiency from coal to petrol to the engine, to the wheels of a motor-car is very much in line with the efficiency from coal to electricity to the battery, to the wheels of a motor-car. The one great snag at the moment, as the hon. member for Wonderboom pointed out, is that battery-driven vehicles are tremendously expensive. So, to introduce a production line of these vehicles would obviously be a major undertaking. The estimated cost of a battery-driven vehicle is at the moment in the region of twice that of an ordinary car, and this is insufficient to offset the longer life of a battery-driven vehicle. I think we have to regard this leg of the motion with a certain measure of circumspection if we are looking on it as a panacea for the ills of the energy problem. I think it is one of the areas where we must research further, but we must bear in mind that there are many other aspects equally deserving of research.

This brings me to the third leg of the hon. member’s motion, which calls for the promotion of research with regard to the economic utilization of energy in general. This aspect is most probably the most important of all. We are spending a considerable amount of money on energy at the moment Our country is under pressure as far as the supply of oil is concerned. I therefore think that it is vitally important that solutions are found to energy problems, specifically where oil is involved. As far as the Sasol process is concerned, we actually lead the world as regards the production of an alternative to natural oil. In supporting this leg of the motion I can only urge the hon. the Minister to make as much money as possible available for research into energy resources. The rewards are tremendous, and although research requires a considerable amount of money, the hon. the Minister will agree with me that it will be money well spent.

There are many other areas where research is in progress, research which might assist us in our search for other sources of energy. These sources would have to be able to be used economically and practicably. One can mention solar energy as an example.

In the short time still available to me I can perhaps ride a hobby horse of mine. A few years ago I put a question on the Order Paper to, I think, this hon. Minister concerning daylight saving. Although only a small amount of energy is involved, I believe it would be a benefit in the circumstances in which we find ourselves to go on to summer time or daylight saving. At the time the hon. the Minister pointed out that only a very small percentage of our electricity supply goes towards domestic use and that only a very small percentage of that would be saved if we went over to daylight saving. But I believe that every little bit helps and that there are other benefits which outweigh the difficulties that might be involved. For instance, it would enable many people in South Africa to go home in daylight and have an opportunity for recreation in the evenings, which at the moment they do not have because of darkness. I do believe the time has come when the hon. the Minister should give considerable attention to the whole question of daylight saving, because I believe, although only a small percentage of energy will be saved in this way, that it is necessary to go to these lengths to do it.

Mr. Speaker, when I came here this morning I did not, in my wildest expectations, foresee that we would hear petty politicking today while debating with one another such an important subject as energy saving and the energy crisis in which the entire country finds itself. Unfortunately I must tell the hon. member for Orange Grove that because he had to conceal his party’s inability to make a positive contribution to such an important debate as this or adopt a standpoint on such a matter, he associated the matter with a ridiculous, petty and irrelevant political argument. I do not want to waste any more of my time by discussing it. The energy crisis is not only a crisis for South Africa, it is a crisis for the West as well. South Africa could possibly feel the pinch sooner than the other countries as a result of hostility which is fomented by stories of the kind that hon. member has just come forward with. Eventually, however, it will be a problem for South Africa, as well as the West, and eventually the entire world. The fact of the matter is that man is burning up fuel such as oil and all its derivatives every day.

Here in South Africa the fuel crisis is already a crisis for everyone. Whether or not we are going to feel the pinch sooner than the rest of the world as a result of the hatred and venom directed at us from certain quarters and fomented by certain organizations in South Africa, when the day eventually arrives, now or in five or 50 or in 500 years’ time, it will arrive suddenly and simultaneously for everyone—for Whites and non-Whites, poor and rich, Afrikaans- and English-speaking people, Nats and Progs. The threat is there and it can come upon us like a thief in the night. To me the question is not whether we shall be able to cope with the situation, but how and when we are going to do so.

I am not going to elaborate on the technical aspects. The previous speaker on this side of the House has already done so, and other hon. members of the NP will elaborate further on that aspect. The fact of the matter is that the fuel and energy problem is something which must be tackled immediately and with both hands, that it is a national matter involving each and everyone of us in this country, in the face of which everyone feels equally threatened and to which each and every one of us can make an immediate and positive contribution. It is not a matter in regard to which John Citizen in the private sector can sit back and ask what the Government is doing; just as the Government cannot say to John Citizen in the private sector that he must save fuel and find and develop alternative sources of energy. The motion of the hon. member for Wonderboom referred to energy consumption priorities. By that he meant that in our attempt to overcome the various phases of the critical fuel situation we should place the correct priorities first. He means that we should come forward with priority action, an agenda for the future, an energy strategy for South Africa, so that South Africa may be free and independent as far as energy is concerned, and need not flinch from threats of sanctions or even from sanctions themselves.

When I discuss priorities I immediately concede that there are other people with greater knowledge and experience, people who could possibly state the priorities differently, or place them in a different sequence. However, I should like to mention the following as possible priorities. The first is that we should identify and give primary consideration to the energy crisis, and consequently fuel saving and the search for and development of alternative sources of energy. With that we have already made a great deal of progress. In the second place we must have as priority a central energy policy which can be worked out in consultation with experts and everyone involved in the public and private sectors, as well as the research community. But we must also take note of the warnings issued by Dr. Körber of BMW, viz. that we should not over-react to the crisis and in that way undermine the confidence of consumers, investors and developers; on the contrary, our actions should in fact be aimed at creating confidence and hope in these serious times.

In this regard I should like to pay sincere tribute to the NP, which, in the early ’fifties, during the administration of the late Dr. D. F. Malan, with Advocate Eric Louw as Minister of Economic Affairs, was able to boast of Sasol 1, in spite of fierce Opposition criticism. It is such far-sightedness which in fact creates confidence and stimulates hope and courage for the future. The same applies to Sasol 2, the planned expansion of which began even before the completion of the initial Sasol 2. This was another giant step for which everyone in this country ought to thank the Government and ought to give it the necessary credit.

I see that the hon. member for Berea is in this House. I cannot understand why he kicked up such a fuss the other day about the expansion of Sasol 2. It is beyond me. It may be, however, that his party is not in agreement with our fuel and energy policy.

You misunderstood him completely.

You misunderstood me.

To my mind the third priority is of a more practical nature. We must devote attention to it very soon. I call it “saving by means of reduced consumption”. Particularly in the short term it is the most important priority which should enjoy the greatest general involvement and in which everyone, the entire family, everyone who utilizes fuel in any form, can participate. We can make an immediate start on this, this very day.

I am mentioning a few urgent examples: Firstly, the full utilization of public transport combined with the expansion of public transportation services. By means of the maximum utilization of public transport we would be assisting in making the expansion, the more effective provision as well as the availability on a larger scale of that transportation system possible. What I have in mind here is not only daily transportation, we should also look more imaginatively at holiday transportation for example. Secondly, we must walk if it is too close to ride, as the song goes. On Sundays we all rush to church and back in our motor cars. Why cannot we walk to church as a family and friends? In my mind’s eye I already see such a long procession of people on the way to church on a Sunday morning. In the afternoon we can walk across to the neighbours instead of driving over for a cup of coffee. Why cannot we walk to see a rugby match on Saturday afternoons? I have in mind a slogan here: “Walk, it is healthy and economical, too”.

Instead of a mother driving to a shop to buy bread, her son or sons could rather ride to the shop by bicycle in the afternoons. However, if we want the children to ride bicycles, the other road and street users should take the child traffic into consideration and have respect for it. In this connection I also want to congratulate the Government on the example our hon. Ministers are setting by using smaller motor vehicles for short-distance travel. This is a commendable example which deserves full credit and can be followed to beneficial effect by many organizations, including large private companies.

The fourth priority I have in mind is “fuel saving by means of substitution”, i.e. by using other more available fuels or sources of energy. This is a priority for the short and medium terms and here it must be borne in mind that the substitute fuel is not renewable and consequently can also be depleted. For us in South Africa, with 2,5% of the world’s coal reserves, the substitution of coal and coal and water for oil ought to be a very high priority.

I can see nothing wrong with steam locomotives, where this is practicable, being overhauled and used on certain sections. I want to suggest in all earnest that we should reconsider using our old steam locomotives as much as possible ourselves instead of selling them.

I know that there might be other considerations, but I am now discussing savings priorities. All possible advantages and disadvantages should be considered. The reintroduction of electrical urban transportation will be examined more closely by another hon. colleague. Seen only from the point of view of pollution, I would be pleased if the silent electrical trolley buses could begin to operate again in our major cities.

In the medium term an earnest and rapid search must be instituted for a practical and economic method of reviving and utilizing steam—that is, coal and water—as a source of energy in industry and agriculture in particular. In the past it was a great and important source of energy. I am thinking here of a small, powerful steam generator, particularly for the remote areas to which it might not be possible to supply electricity very soon. Research in this connection ought to be supported by organized agriculture, industry and the State.

To my mind a fifth priority is the eventual total substitution of renewable forms of energy for non-renewable forms of energy. I do not hesitate to say that research into finding alternative sources of power and developing these for practical utilization is a priority to which neither State nor private sector can never give sufficient support.

As a sixth priority I want to mention the controlled and restrained exploitation and exportation of coal. I know that there is an agreement in respect of 6 million tons per annum for the next 20 years, but this aspect not something which we should lose sight of. Whether we want to admit it or not, energy has become a factor in international politics, and sometimes even a factor with dire consequences which unscrupulous international politicians exploit. The words I have now uttered emavated from Mr. Hough, the managing director of Total S.A. I do not believe in exploitation, but since South Africa possesses an extremely sought-after commodity, viz. coal, its development and export ought to be examined in the light of the present energy crisis.

The last priority I want to mention is the education of the public, and fuel-saving propaganda. This aspect must receive priority very soon and I wish to suggest that a start be made in the schools. It is strange how education works its way upwards from the schools to the older generation.

Further to this I want to say that we should be very careful—I think the hon. the Minister has already made an appeal to the public and other people in this connection—not to say too much about our supplies, our resources, our research results, and so on. Hostile eyes are watching. During the war it was said: “Don’t talk about ships and shipping.” Let us now say: “Don’t talk about oil and oiling.”

If we determine our priorities and spell out a very clear energy policy, and make it our task, I believe that the prediction made by Mr. Hough of Total that South Africa would be independent of foreign sources of energy by 1990, might well come true. If we can succeed in doing so, we shall be creating confidence among investors in South Africa, we shall be creating confidence in the future of South Africa, but in particular we shall be making South Africa free and independent of foreign sources of energy and petty politicians who are also egged on by speakers such as the one who preceded me. Then South Africa’s citizens will have free mobility for work as well as for vacations, relaxation and pleasure. What more do we want?

Mr. Speaker, I should just like to tell the hon. member for Waterkloof that there are not many aspects on which he and I do not agree. I also agree with the important points stated by the hon. member for Wonderboom, particularly the basic principle that we should make every possible effort to ensure that our energy resources will be available to us on a basis which will be more or less independent from other countries.

†The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs is here as well today, and no doubt he comes to this House to gather pearls of wisdom to guide him in his future policy decision-making. I should therefore like to take this opportunity to motivate two fairly important aspects for the benefit of the hon. the Minister. I should just first like to assure the hon. member for Wonderboom, however, that I agree with him entirely on the import of the motion he has moved here today, my agreement, in fact, extending to all three legs of that motion.

I should now like to concentrate, for the main part, on the primary source of energy, i.e. electricity, which will be necessary for the development and the maintenance of a system of electrically driven battery vehicles. Although a battery normally functions on the basis of a chemical process, in the context of making it economically viable in South Africa we are going to have to develop the battery systems—and the CSIR has shown us how this can be done—in such a way that the batteries can be recharged from an electrical input supplied by organizations such as Escom. In the light of this I should like to concentrate the focus of my attention on the primary sources of electricity that are available to South Africa, and then I also hope to motivate, for the benefit of the hon. the Minister, the possibility of making funds available for two specific projects that will assist us in this direction.

Electricity accounts for approximately 80% of our energy input in the private sector in South Africa today. It is terribly important— in fact it is vital—for us to realize that electricity is the energy source of the future as far as South Africa is concerned. However, like other things electricity must also, in itself, have an originating or primary source of energy. The electricity output, in terms of present-day technical capacity, is something in the order of 20 000 MW. This 20 000 MW capacity is the rating for our 24 power stations which are coal-consuming. At present there is only a limited amount of electrical energy that we obtain from hydro-electric power and, of course, at the moment we do not obtain any from nuclear power, but hopefully by 1983 about 1 000 MW will be available to the Western Province.

At the moment, therefore, our primary source of electricity is coal. We do, however, find that in our present-day power stations coal is consumed at a tremendous rate. Let me give an example. A power station only utilizes about 30% of the energy available to it from its coal source. The other approximately 60% is lost in the combustion process, or in transmission, by way of heat dissipation. So in terms of coal conservation, the utilization of coal is not a terribly effective system. One knows, of course, that nuclear energy is also only 30% efficient as the result of heat loss from the primary source of input. So if we examine the production of electricity from coal, we find that it is certainly not a very efficient system. In addition to that we find that our coal resources are finite. They are not going to last for ever, and if we consider the inefficiency of generating electricity from coal, it is evident that we must urgently find an alternative primary source of electrical energy production in South Africa.

We have got it in Natal.

Let us look at this vast continent of Africa, often described as the “dark” continent. Taking an overall look at this continent of ours, I believe that we in South Africa are particularly fortunate in that the part of the dark continent that does have a silver lining is South Africa. I therefore think we must make the best possible use of the facilities and resources we have in this country for the development of an alternative source of electrical energy, a system other than one based on coal. It is fairly well known that South Africa does not possess an extraordinary potential for hydro-electric power generation, despite the fact that Cabora Bassa has a potential capacity of 4 300 MW, power which we may or may not be able to purchase depending on prevailing political conditions. Despite the Orange River scheme, the H. F. Verwoerd scheme and the P. K. le Roux Dam scheme for hydro-electric power, I doubt whether it is ever going to be possible for South Africa to rely, to any great extent, on hydro-electric power for the generation of electricity.

We have got it in Natal.

That leaves us one alternative, and the fortunes and the viability of this alternative have been kicked around considerably by environmentalists, anti-pollution people and others. Obviously, the alternative I am referring to is nuclear power. I believe it is absolutely imperative in the interests of South Africa’s independence, which was cited by the hon. member for Wonderboom as a basic principle in our energy planning, that we should turn to nuclear power. I believe it is an absolutely pollution-free source of electrical power and that, especially if one reads the latest literature available from Germany, nuclear generated electricity is going to become the power source of the future. If we examine the tables recently provided by the Petrick Commission, we find that, with the extension of present capacities and technology, the world’s electricity requirements will be met from nuclear activity to the extent of 22% in contrast to the 3% of electricity at present being generated by this method. If we look at the utilization of coal and liquid fuels for the generation of electricity, following the same graph we find a decline in the amount of electricity that will be generated from petroleum, oil or coal sources. It is therefore very obvious to me that the one area we must examine as a critical priority for the future and for which we must supply funds is the generation of electricity from nuclear power.

If we look at the cost effectiveness, which is also quite an important factor, we find that in the long run, depending on the number of hours the generating station is utilized, electricity generated from nuclear power will under certain circumstances be considerably cheaper than electricity generated from coal. Furthermore, I believe that the importance of electricity to our industries, our transportation systems and our heating and lighting systems is so great, especially strategically, that even though electricity generated from nuclear energy may not at present be as cost effective as coal, in the long run it is imperative that we should devote funds to the development of this source of energy.

I should like to turn briefly, by way of comparison, to the funds which were for instance spent on Soekor. To date we have spent in excess of R200 million on the search for oil in South Africa. I think that that is admirable. Like certain other things in life, there are times when one just has to devote money to a particular type of activity despite the fact that in the end there will in all probability be no positive result at all. I believe it was essential for us to spend that money and that we should continue to spend approximately R24 million per year on the search for oil. At the same time I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me that the probability is extremely high that we will not find viable quantities of oil near South Africa’s shore or in South Africa itself.

In the first instance, therefore, I should like to use the opportunity this motion provides to recommend to the hon. the Minister that he give serious consideration to the establishment of a second nuclear power station. We know that it is going to cost in the region of R1 000 million per reactor. To date the indications in respect of Koeberg are already that the two reactors there will cost us R2 000 million. Despite that cost factor, my appeal to the hon. the Minister is to establish a second plant to generate electricity from nuclear power in Natal. Natal has the fastest growing population and it will certainly overtake the Witwatersrand as the industrial heart of South Africa. We have there the labour, the geographic location and the initiative that is required for that. All we still need is additional electrical power through the medium of a nuclear power station. I think the hon. the Minister must give very serious consideration to establishing a second nuclear power station in Natal.

To take the matter further, I want to say that present technology in respect of our Koeberg-type nuclear power station also indicates a low efficiency factor. At present power stations take in vast quantities of coal and dissipate 60% of the heat that is used to generate the electricity that reaches the consumer. Exactly the same applies to the present standard of technology at Koeberg. It is a very inefficient system. Only 30% of the heat generated by the Koeberg system, if I may call it that, will actually be converted into electrical power. Despite the fact that the Rössing uranium mine in South West Africa/ Namibia has increased its potential production of uranium from 3 000 tons per year to 5 000 tons per year, despite the increase in the reserves of uranium found there and in South Africa, and despite our tremendous development in the field of uranium enrichment at Pelindaba, the indications are that shortly after the year 2000 the available uranium for the Koeberg-type station will be scarce and very difficult to come by.

Therefore my second appeal is that the hon. the Minister should very seriously consider the possibility of making available quite considerable additional funds to the Atomic Energy Board as well as to other development institutions, such as the University of Cape Town—which has an excellent nuclear research division—for the development of the fast-breeder reactor type of nuclear energy system.

A number of years ago we were very unfortunate to lose the services of the late Sir Basil Schönland, a South African born in Grahamstown and educated in the Eastern Province, who then went overseas and became the world’s leading research worker in the fast-breeder reactor field.

I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister. If one examines the record of the number of “firsts” we have had in research work it is not improbable that the money invested in fast-breeder reactor research in South Africa will enable us to solve the problem—even before the other Western nations—of the pollution caused by the fast-breeder reactor as well as of the actual technology for the utilization of the fastbreeder reactor. We have invested R200 million in Soekor, but there is very low probability of them succeeding in finding oil. We can vote at least twice that amount to further research in the fast-breeder reactor field. It is going to conserve our liquid fuel in the form of coal and we can phase out our coal-consuming power-stations which are ineffective and inefficient, although they are necessary at the moment. If one looks at the economics and the technical viability of the fast-breeder, one finds that we have an infinite supply of uranium. If for the past 20 years fast-breeder nuclear reactors had been generating electricity in the UK then it is estimated that over that period of 20 years these reactors would not use more than 1% of the uranium available in the world. If we want an infinite supply of electricity, which is pollution-free and which can give us independence from the rest of the world, I believe it is absolutely imperative that we should, firstly, establish a second nuclear reactor in the Natal area, and secondly, that considerable funds be made available to South African institutions such as the Atomic Energy Board and the University of Cape Town to crack the problems related to fastbreeder reactors. Therein lies the salvation of South Africa and all its people. I am absolutely confident that we in South Africa have the brainpower and the foresight to go ahead. I hope that the NP policy may change from being one where those at the back shout “Forward” and those in front shout “Back”. I hope the hon. the Minister does not follow that kind of policy, but that he will go to the front and take the leadership and initiative to ensure that we survive in South Africa with a long-term source of energy, which will be totally viable and will rid us of our dependence upon other countries.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure hon. members will give me leave to draw a comparison between the two speeches we have heard today. The hon. member for Orange Grove delivered a sickly, empty and effete speech. Why do you speak in such a way?

Order! The hon. member must address the Chair.

Very well, Mr. Speaker. On the other hand there is the constructive speech of the hon. member for Durban North. Everyone in this House will agree with me that he is a great improvement on the former representative for Durban North. I want to congratulate the hon. member on his speech.

It is a great pleasure for me to speak in support of the motion of my colleague, the hon. member for Wonderboom this morning. Of course, the reason for my being asked to support him is not an obscure one, since I am the person with the most energy in this House. [Interjections.] When one analyses the motion, one finds in the first instance that there are three legs to the motion. The first concerns priorities about which my colleague, the hon. member for Wonderboom, spoke very competently. The second leg concerns his representations for the putting into operation of electrically driven vehicles, particularly in respect of urban transport, about which the introducer, the hon. member for Wonderboom, spoke with great enthusiasm. I think, and I must say to his credit—I think the hon. Minister and the hon. members of the Opposition will agree with me—that no one else in this House can speak with more insight and more knowledge about a matter of this nature.

It is a pleasure for me to request the hon. the Minister to give serious consideration to the implementation of the representations of my hon. colleague. I cannot but say, and I think the introducer of this motion will pardon me if I say that the perfecting of the electric motor, naturally took place at that select, well-known body, the CSIR. I must also emphasize that the CSIR is situated in the still better-known Pretoria East constituency.

I want to say something this morning about energy research in South Africa. We must remember that a similar proposal was discussed here last year and that the central theme on that occasion was the establishment of a national institute by the CSIR for the coordination and control of all energy research in South Africa. We suggested that a country such as South Africa should have a centrally directed national energy effort At that stage the Opposition asked for a energy department. The former Minister and the former Deputy Minister of Planning are not present here this morning, but I think it is appropriate to express a word of thanks to them too, since immediately after that private motion, positive attention was given to this matter.

I am pleased, in spite of the fact that an institute was not established at that stage, that a central co-ordinating body, viz. the National Committee of Energy Research was established. If one did not have an umbrella body of this nature to direct, co-ordinate and control one’s research, it would not help to have all the researchers in the world without directing them to that which one regards as policy and which must be a priority. Some of the best brain power in South Africa serves on this committee. This committee formed four subcommittees responsible for all the fields of energy research in South Africa. People from the CSIR, Sasol, the Railways, the Department of Mines, the Chamber of Mines, the Chamber of Industries and all bodies concerned with energy consumption, energy distribution and energy research serve on these committees. Consequently it is not to be wondered at that shortly after the central committee had been established, 13 new projects had already been undertaken in South Africa. I think this is a feather in the cap of those who are in control of energy in South Africa, people such as Mr. Piet Pretorius and Dr. Chris van der Merwe Brink.

When dealing with energy research as such, it is essential to divide energy research and energy sources into two categories, because it is not only a matter of research into new sources of energy, but also research in respect of the better utilization of existing sources of energy. In this regard we have a basic classification of the renewable and non-renewable resources. The non-renewable resources are natural gas, the crude oil which we import into South Africa, uranium and coal which is the principal source of our local energy. On the other hand we have the renewable resources which we know as sun energy, wind energy, ocean energy, hydroelectric power, agricultural crops and agricultural residues, atmospheric carbon dioxide, etc.

Incidentally, it is perhaps not generally known that carbon dioxide constitutes 0,04% of the atmosphere around us. It is estimated that up to 200 milliard tons of this carbon dioxide are bound annually by photosynthesis in the plants of the earth, but unfortunately 90% of it is bound by the plant life of the sea. The type of bond is such that mankind has not yet succeeded in discovering an economic way of duplicating the photo-synthesis process in plant life.

It is not possible on an occasion such as this to discuss research in respect of all the types of energy and all the sources of energy to which I have referred, and for that reason I should like to dwell on only a few of them. In the first instance, as it is our largest resource, I want to dwell on coal, our largest source of energy supply of fossil origin—it is, therefore, a non-renewable energy resource—and of which, according to estimates, we have a free, exploitable reserve in the region of 62 000 million tons. Unfortunately, much of the coal at our disposal which we know about, is of a very low grade type, a low grade standard, and we also have coal with a very high ash content. It is common knowledge that a great deal of research has been done with regard to coal. However, when we become involved with further research in connection with this source of energy, I think we ought to do so in four phases.

In the first instance, I should like to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs to see to it that our research be aimed primarily at developing a better mining technique, a better mining technology and better mining methods. We must develop mining techniques enabling us to bring the maximum amount of coal to the surface. No country, least of all South Africa, can afford to know what the source of its energy is, what amount of that source exists in situ, and then develop a mere 30% or 35% of that essential raw material. I want to suggest that this should be accorded top priority, viz. mining methods ensuring that this mining material will be developed optimally.

In the second instance, and perhaps equally important, we ought also, as a question of priority, to make an intensive survey of our so-called old mines, our so-called worked-out mines, mines of which we know that a mere 10% to 15% of their underground coal has been brought to the surface. Many of these mines have already been closed down. If the hon. the Minister of Education and Training had been here now, he would have been able to tell the hon. members how many of these mines exist in and around Witbank. I believe that no country, whatever the size of its reserves, can afford to leave millions of tons of coal under the surface of the earth, in so-called closed-down mines.

It is no secret that South Africa is a leader in the field of the cracking of coal, that South Africa, with its Sasol processes and formulae, has become a world leader. However, what is perhaps not general knowledge, is the ongoing research carried out at and by Sasol, and the fact that Sasol has succeeded in cracking coal today in the form of petroleum and other by-products, and has done this by utilizing coal of a very low quality, as well as other coal of a very high ash content.

If one should want to do further research in this direction, I think that such research should be directed at deriving the largest quantity of fluid fuel per ton, or per given quantity, as opposed to the by-product from the coal which is processed.

As coal plays such a tremendously important role in the determining of energy policy in a country such as South Africa, it is also essential that a survey be carried out of the types of coal at our disposal. It is also essential that we ensure that we do not, in the utilization of our coal, utilize coal of a higher grade when we could just as easily have utilized coal of a lower grade or with a higher ash content, and could do this as economically. In the same mine we often find different types of coal. Particularly since South Africa is a country very poor in cokes, so that coal has to be enriched, I am convinced that the time has come when we shall have to separate our coal on the surface and shall have to ensure that we utilize our high-grade coal in the best possible way, taking into account its optimum economic use. We shall also have to ensure that where we utilize coal for combustion in power stations or elsewhere, we effect the maximal combustion of that coal, and do so by utilizing new techniques. We shall have to use ground coal in some way in some of our power stations. We shall have to bring about maximum combustion. When we utilize coal in its crude form, we shall have to feed it onto vibrating units to ensure that we obtain the best oxygen flow so that the full heat potential of that energy source can be utilized.

Perhaps it is also time for us to carry out research into carburization units. When dealing with the transportation of coal, we shall have to decide for ourselves which is the easiest to transport. Is it gas through pipelines? Is electricity perhaps still the cheapest source of power, or should we not consider converting coal into gas above ground at the mine so that it can be transported from the conversion point to our industries for utilization?

I have now spoken about research with regard to coal. As far as the other non-renewable resources are concerned, for example gas and natural oils, we have no, or practically no, supplies of our own. Fortunately, prospecting in this field is continuing. We do have moderate quantities of the known uranium sources of the world, such as the hon. member for Durban North has also pointed out. For that reason I agree with him. Whereas one does not want to discuss research in the atomic field, as it is relatively confidential, I nevertheless want to agree with the hon. member for Durban North when he says that we in South Africa should also concentrate on fast-breeder reactors, and that in that respect we shall also have to make use of our scientific researchers, of the resources and the bodies and persons at our disposal.

It is estimated that if we were to generate power with a fast-breeder reactor, we could generate the same amount of electricity at 1/ 24th of the atomic fuel utilized by conventional atomic reactors. If fusion power were possible, it would mean that the known uranium sources could last so much longer.

Speaking of atomic power, here is something in a lighter vein. When we were still at school, everyone was excited about the splitting of the atom and its possibilities. I can still remember how an ex-teacher—he was terribly impressed by the possibilities of atomic power—said with great relish that one day when we school children were as old as he was, we would sit in our motor-cars, large motor-cars which would be driven by a robot. When the fuel level was low, one would merely tilt cigarette ash into the atomic reactor and in that way the fuel problem would be solved. Unfortunately this dream was never realized. Perhaps there are possibilities ahead. It seems to me that when I am much older than my teacher, the internal combustion engine will still be with us. If the present liquid fuel becomes scarcer, and more and more impossible to obtain, we shall have to obtain a different liquid fuel. This could be available in liquid or gas form.

Scientific researchers have now come forward with a new vision which is something similar to my teacher’s dream. My good friend Boetie Coetzee always says: “And this child’s name is hydrogen.” Hydrogen research throughout the world, including South Africa, has reached an advanced stage. I believe it has possibilities which could be of great benefit in the future of South Africa. I believe, too, that if we could succeed in separating the components of water, viz. oxygen and hydrogen, in an economic way and in binding the hydrogen, we should have an alternative energy source here which, as the hon. member for Wonderboom said, would enable us to have clean combustion. What could be nicer than having a truck one day which, instead of exuding a stream of thick, black smoke when it passes you, exudes water vapour instead of this black, polluting smoke? After all, the oxide of hydrogen is water, and for that reason there will be no pollution. Instead of that black smoke over Pretoria, a little white cloud can hang over Pretoria’s purple jacarandas like a halo.

I want to conclude on that note. We have scientists who are prepared and researchers wanting to research new things in the future. It is then the Government’s duty to enable these people to break new ground as fast as possible in respect of energy research in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, far be it for me to wish to throw any cold water, or as the previous speaker, the hon. member for Pretoria East would say, oxide of hydrogen, on the discussion which has taken place so far. It is a fact that we are in a new energy situation. Therefore, it is right that this House should consider a motion of this kind, a motion such as has been introduced by the hon. member for Wonderboom. I think it is also right that we should maintain some sense of proportion about what we in this country can do towards the solution of the wide range of scientific possibilities, of problems which they pose and the money which we can spend in trying to reach a solution to some of the problems that lie ahead. I shall refer to these aspects during the course of my speech. I take it that the main objective of the hon. member for Wonderboom is to relate his motion to transportation energy. The first leg of his motion deals with energy in fairly general terms, and so does the third leg. If one is looking for a direction to take in this debate—because the subject is far too wide and too large to be dealt with in full during such a short debate—then surely the direction must be transportation. On this matter I found it a little surprising that there should have been such a sharp reaction to an observation made and an example given by the hon. member for Orange Grove. The fact is that transportation plays a major role in the whole energy question.

It is also a fact that certain transportation practices in our cities and in our main transportation systems as planned for the future in relation to certain homelands, already throw very heavy burdens—and will throw even heavier burdens—on our transportation system and therefore on our energy position, and where one faces an energy crisis of the kind we face, it would be ridiculous not to review the systems and the burden they throw on our energy economy in South Africa or not to refer to it. The hon. member for Orange Grove was concerned with a particular aspect and pointed a finger at a particular problem. It would be very wrong for any hon. member in this House to assume that that particular problem, being the question of race relations as it fits into the whole transportation system, does not exist. It is very much with us and it is something we will have to look at very closely.

The problem of providing energy for transportation contains two main elements. The first is that transport requires a very substantial proportion of the national energy supply. Secondly, the mobile nature of transportation equipment requires special solutions in regard to weight, space, manoeuvrability and fuel replenishment. In this respect transportation differs from other energy users in that the questions of manoeuvrability and fuel replenishment are not as difficult as they are in the case of transportation. When, as now, a major transportation fuel becomes both scarce and costly, one must look mainly at two aspects. The first is clearly the conservation of such resources as are still available. Recently the Van der Walt Committee, appointed by the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, concentrated mainly on this aspect. They looked at some other matters as well, but essentially, and correctly, the first thing that must be done in such a situation is to see what one can do by way of conservation by changing current waste fill practices in order to stretch one’s resources to the maximum extent possible. The second possibility is the substitution of fuels and the development of alternative transportation systems. The first possibility is a more immediate remedy than the second. It would be wrong to underestimate the high cost and the problems in developing a substitute for petroleum products and the development of alternative systems.

Conservation is not the direct subject of the motion before the House, but to put the matter into context, I must briefly remind the House that if all the people in South Africa would change overnight to driving small economy cars we would cut our petrol consumption by half, dramatically reduce air pollution in the cities, reduce road congestion with the further economy which would flow from that, provide city parking for nearly twice as many cars or, alternatively, for half the cost, be able to export many valuable materials and reduce our own personal fuel budget by half. All these things could be achieved if we were to change overnight from large cars to small, economy-class cars. Clearly, however, this objective cannot be achieved, but I would certainly like to say to the hon. the Minister, in this regard, that the Van der Walt Committee has recommended that he give attention to the imposition of a differential tax or burden on the owners of large cars. This matter has been referred to other authorities for their opinion, but I should like to say to the hon. the Minister, here and now, that if he fails to implement some such procedure, he will have difficulty in convincing the public of South Africa that he is really serious about the conservation of energy. The advantages of a shift from the use of large cars to the use of small, economy-class cars are so great, if one looks at the whole energy spectrum, that I think it would be delinquent not to do something to lead public habits and attitudes about the use of motor transportation in this direction.

The motor-car is responsible for consuming approximately one-third of all transportation energy, and transportation in turn accounts for about one-sixth of the total energy consumption. The motor-car therefore consumes roughly one-eighteenth of the total energy resources of South Africa. One-eighteenth does not sound like a very large amount, and if the motor-car did not depend almost exclusively on petroleum products, this would indeed not be so serious, but it is serious because the motor-car consumes about one-third of our petroleum-derived transport energy, as I have said.

The hon. the Minister has indicated that he has to leave the House for a few minutes, and I thank him for his courtesy in letting me know that he will be back as soon as he can.

These proportions help to put the motion in perspective. The efficiency of the conventional internal combustion engine is calculated at about 17%, although recent models have shown some improvement. There are also other promising developments in the field of motor-car development. These include the Stirling engine, which uses gas in a closed system, the Brayton system or the gas turbine, which can run on almost any combustible fuel, the Rankine cycle or steam engine and ultimately the use of hydrogen as a fuel, an aspect to which a previous speaker has referred.

Battery-driven cars, by shifting from petroleum fuels to coal-based electricity, will not necessarily decrease the demands made on our overall energy resources, but they can certainly help to decrease the demand for petroleum. This idea of being able to resolve our problems by a switch to electricity-driven cars, using electricity derived from coal, can however also be misleading, because even if internal combustion cars are gradually replaced, or more economically used, we will still find ourselves in a difficult position because South Africa’s petroleum imports are not dictated only by the consumption of petroleum in motor-cars but by the necessity for the middle distillates, notably for diesel engine, paraffin and aviation needs. It is essential to bear in mind this proportional use of the contents of a barrel of oil, because if too much emphasis were to be placed on the motor-car, we would not solve the fundamental problems. If our problems could be solved by a change in the use of motor-cars, and we left aside the whole question of the middle distillates which are now the hard core of our oil import problem, we would at the present moment be able to use a technology which was already reasonably well-developed at about the turn of the century. In fact, as early as 1898 an electric car using a lead-acid battery achieved a speed of 106 km/h in France and a few years later a speed of 167 km/h was achieved in Daytona in the United States of America. The real problem is not that of the mechanical efficiency of the electrically powered motor-car, but that of storing electrical energy. The mechanical efficiency of the electrically driven motor-car is about the same as that of the internal combustion engine. But in practical terms it must still carry a lead-acid battery with a mass of 80 kg to produce the same driving range which one litre of petrol produces. In the present state of the art, that obviously imposes a grave handicap on the utilization of electrically driven motor-cars. A lead-acid battery of 80 kg produces about the same driving range as one litre of petrol. Until we have made improvements in the storage of electricity by the development of a better type of battery, I do not believe that a really significant breakthrough in the use of electric motor-cars will take place. Other forms of batteries are being developed, mainly in France and Germany, and recently a good deal of research on this has also been done in the United States of America, Japan and some other countries. The present capacity of the old-fashioned black box we carry around in our motor-cars is such that, unless a new form of battery is developed, we cannot look very much beyond the present prospect of cars travelling a distance of 60 km at a speed of 60 km/h. That is roughly the parameter. At present the aim is to push it up to about 100 km at a speed of approximately 100 km/h. I submit that this verges on the optimistic, although it has been achieved in certain cases. I was interested to hear from the hon. member for Wonderboom that ranges of 280 km have already been achieved—I do not know at what speed that would be.

At 70 km/h.

If this has been achieved, then, certainly, the state of the art is more advanced than I had less optimistically supposed. Batteries are being developed and at the moment the sodiumsulphur battery looks promising. Other combinations are also being investigated, but in each case certain problems are being experienced. I believe that the whole question of electric cars as a substitute for cars Using the internal combustion engine will only become a reality when the efficiency of batteries is improved or a new type of battery is developed which will allow distances of approximately 300 km per day to be covered at a speed of approximately 100 km/h.

What are we doing about all this? In South Africa the Petroleum Economizing Committee has a subcommittee investigating battery-driven vehicles. This body has done a certain amount of work and has reported on its findings. At present it still watches overseas developments and it co-ordinates the research being carried out at the CSIR and at, I believe, about five universities which are all looking into this matter. This body then advises the Government from time to time. In general, I do not believe that there has been any major breakthroughs in South Africa in respect of this particular matter. The petroleum shortage, pollution problems and so on obviously justify continued research into this most promising field.

The problem I have touched upon and which remains—in this regard I wish to refer to remarks which have been made about the fast-breeder reactor—is that South Africa has already made a major breakthrough in the field of the development of alternative fuels. The Sasol development project, which is going to absorb a massive amount of capital from the South African economy, is a major breakthrough. It will cost thousands of millions of rands to bring it to full fruition. South Africa cannot do everything else as well. Fast-breeder reactor development is going on in a number of other countries. The project looks extremely promising, but it has not yet proceeded beyond the experimental and prototype stage. There are no commercial fast-breeder reactors actually operating at the moment from which we can gain the experience we need before we commit ourselves. I do not believe that the many thousands of millions of rand involved in research on the fast-breeder reactor can be afforded by South Africa. I believe that we simply have to wait until these models become available and have been proved on the commercial market and then, if the need arises, we can acquire them for South Africa’s purposes.

We should show them how to do it.

I should like to share the hon. member’s enthusiasm, but we do not have the research facilities or the capital available. We cannot afford to use our resources in South Africa, resources which are scarce, in a project which is already the subject of major research and development in other countries.

Our capital must continue to be applied mainly to the Sasol project. We cannot do everything. I do not think we can develop a fast-breeder reactor and also take the lead in the development of electric or battery-driven cars. However, we must continue to do research to stay abreast of the art.

In this sense I am happy to support the motion proposed by the hon. member for Wonderboom.

Mr. Speaker, I wish, firstly, to make use of the opportunity to express my gratitude to you and hon. members on both sides of the House for the friendly way in which they welcomed me here as a newcomer. I also wish to make use of the opportunity to pay tribute to my predecessor, Mr. J. P. A. Reyneke, who represented Boksburg for 12 years in this House. From the first day I took my place here, it struck me with how much compassion he and his wife are mentioned. For those of us who were close to him, it is comforting to know that he was well-loved in this House too. I, who sat in his class, will always think of him as the man who taught us to work hard, to play hard and to be very humble. It is a privilege to me to assume the reins which he unfortunately had to lay down so early in his life.

†I am grateful to the hon. member for Wonderboom for introducing this motion and for enlightening us about the progress made in the development of electric mini buses. I believe the time is ripe for a study to be undertaken to determine the feasibility of reintroducing, in some areas, trolley bus services, especially between industrial areas and outlying townships. At present 44 000 passengers are transported daily from Vosloorus to Boksburg’s industries along a 24 km straight and level route. According to a report from the Department of Environmental Planning, these buses consume fuel at the rate of 2,7 km per litre. Switching to a trolley bus system, assisted by electric mini buses at both ends of this route, will save a phenomenal amount of fuel.

*Electrically driven mini buses will? in my opinion? become a reality in the foreseeable future. In order to pave the way for that? I should like to suggest that trolley buses be used in conjunction with such mini buses over long distances. One could possibly use petrol or diesel-driven buses over short distances to start the first phase.

Furthermore? I should like to deal with paragraph (c) of the motion? which deals with “… research with regard to the economic utilization of energy in general”. I should like to say at once that there is gold in the streets of South Africa. The Department of Environmental Planning and Energy has already carried out research? and their findings have been published in two publications. The hon. member for Orange Grove brought one of them to our attention. I should like to refer to those two publications in order to prove my statement.

†The title of the first publication is The Principles of Energy Conservation. I quote from paragraph 3 of this publication where it states—

*Vast savings are also listed in the other publication I want to refer to? Energy Utilization in South Africa. When I say that there is gold in the streets of South Africa and that the managers of our cities do not realize it? I should like to illustrate it by means of the chapter in this publication which deals with street lighting. According to that report there are two types of street lamps which have up to 85% preference for lighting suburban roads in South Africa. The first of these is the filament lamp which has a life of 1 000 hours. The second type—and that is the type of which we see so many here in the Cape—is the high-pressure mercury vapour discharge lamp. This type of lamp has a life of 12 000 hours. The life of the mercury vapour discharge lamp is therefore 12 times that of the filament lamp. This means that 12 filament lamps have to be replaced by an electrician before he replaces the first mercury vapour discharge lamp. Hon. members will therefore agree with me that in the light of fuel conservation and in the light of maintenance? the cost of lamp No. 1 is 12 times as high as that of lamp No. 2. I should like to congratulate the mother city on the fact that her managers acknowledged these conservation possibilities 10 years ago and started replacing the filament lamps with mercury vapour discharge lamps. These officials tell me that their foresight has brought about a saving of approximately R76 000 for the rate-payers of Cape Town during the past financial year? and that at the same time they have been able to stop the nocturnal street patrols which had to replace lamps. At present? street lamps which were previously individually replaced every third month? are only replaced after 2½ to three years. Do hon. members realize the extent of saving on manpower and on fuel conservation this brought about for Cape Town? Furthermore? mercury vapour discharge lamps are three times as efficient as filament lamps? even where one replaces a 200 W lamp and a 125 W lamp with an 80 W lamp. In other words? less electricity is consumed and, furthermore? the streets of Cape Town are better illuminated than before. That is the situation in Cape Town? where 88% of the street lamps already are mercury vapour discharge lamps.

In other big cities, such as Durban, Port Elizabeth and Pretoria, this unfortunately is not the case. According to this report, 84% of the street lamps in Pretoria are filament lamps, and 72% in the case of the suburban roads of Port Elizabeth. The report gives particulars for six other cities, and the question then occurred to me: What are the conditions on the Witwatersrand and in all the other towns and cities throughout South Africa? According to the report it will be quite a few years yet before our smaller towns and cities will be able to change to this system. The question is: How long will Durban, Pretoria, Port Elizabeth and East London endure this state of affairs? The report states further that one-way streets cause a better traffic flow, and also that where left and right turns have been prohibited in the central business areas, less fuel is consumed. One-way roads and prohibitive signs are conservation measures which cities can apply as soon as possible without much capital expenditure.

Springs, for example, purchased a shredding machine a few years ago to shred the branches of trees which have to be pruned in the pruning season in the streets before they are removed. Since the branches are therefore loaded in splinter form, four times as much wood is now transported per journey. Three journeys can therefore be eliminated in this way. That is another fuel conservation method which, in my opinion, should be applied throughout the country.

I should now like to boast a little about the town council of Boksburg, which ordered an inquiry into the refuse removal system of its sanitation department two years ago. They found that the routes of the refuse removal vehicles could be reduced by more than half if it was not left to the truck driver to drive up and down streets at his own discretion. At present, 96 000 litres of fuel is saved annually by means of efficient route planning, a saving which has been made possible without capital expenditure. In the city of Winston-Salem in North Carolina in the USA, the refuse removal department rows a baling machine behind an ordinary truck. Some of our farmers might now start thinking about getting rid of their baling machines by giving them to the city council. These baling machines compress refuse up to three or four times as much as the refuse compression vehicles we see in action here in Cape Town—in fact, throughout the country. When the truck has a full load, the baling machine is disconnected and once again connected to an empty truck. The full truck then takes its load to the dumping terrain. Because of this system, fuel savings and other savings in that American city are colossal. Firstly, the fuel which is used to remove a certain amount of refuse, is reduced by 60% because more refuse can be loaded per journey. The refuse is more tightly compressed and therefore more can be loaded onto one truck. This amounts to the same type of saving which the shredding machine has effected with regard to the shredding and removal of branches. Secondly, the labourers who do the loading, now do not go to the refuse dump in the refuse removal vehicles any more, but remain with the baling machine and therefore remain productive. Thirdly, a standard truck costing approximately R22 000 is used, in contrast with a refuse compressing vehicle which could cost anything between R30 000 and R56 000. Fourthly, the fuel consumption of the standard truck, because of its own mass, is much less than that of the heavier refuse compressing vehicle. The fuel consumption of these heavier vehicles varies between 0,8 km per litre and 1,2 km per litre fuel.

I agree with the hon. member for Wonderboom that by doing research and telling one another of our successes, we shall encourage one another to save fuel. Just as we are forcing motorists to conserve fuel by applying speed restriction measures, I think we shall have to find methods of ensuring that local authorities pay attention to these reports of the Department of Planning. If they do not do so, the increased fuel costs will simply be shifted on to a section of the urban population again, by means of property taxation.

Furthermore, it is also important to prevent such wasteful practices from being perpetuated in new and developing cities, such as Soweto and others. I believe the Press, Radio and TV should assist in propagating research of this nature and successes of this nature, so that all South Africans will realize that there is gold in the streets of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Boksburg on his maiden speech. We have listened attentively to his speech and we all wish him everything of the best for the future here in this House. In the second place I should like to tell the hon. member for Wonderboom that his motion is at least five years too late. In the third place there are a number of things I want to tell the hon. member for Waterkloof.

†Two months ago the NRP made certain recommendations and statements regarding the crisis we saw looming in our fuel supply, and I would remind the hon. member for Waterkloof, who was critical of my statements on Sasol last week, that the NRP made it clear two months ago that what South Africa needs is a third Sasol. We also made it clear at that time that we called for the involvement of private capital in such a Sasol project Thirdly, we were the only party at the time who stated quite clearly and unequivocally that South Africa should not ration fuel except as a last resort. Taking into account all those aspects, I must state that I am absolutely delighted that the hon. the Minister has seen fit to involve private capital with the extensions of Sasol. My criticism of those extensions was that strategically we are in fact putting all our eggs in one basket at Sasol 2. That is why I believe that that was a wrong decision for South Africa. I also believe that that criticism is valid. The hon. the Minister himself should realize that his decision was taken under pressure and that, had he had the choice, he would have preferred, strategically alone, to have put any increases in our Sasol productions in a third location. I also believe that we have made out a good case for Natal, be that as it may.

We have had suggestions from various hon. members—some of them very interesting, and we have had some resumes of the present research being done throughout South Africa on various projects. Mention has also been made of the University of Cape Town and of the projects they are running there. It would appear that one of the most promising projects at the moment is a combination propulsion involving batteries plus a small motor. The theory here is that one uses a small motor, something like a glorified lawnmower engine, running at constant economical speed to charge a battery in a vehicle on the basis that on the straight, on the level, the batteries contain sufficient power to propel the vehicle, while uphill, when one needs the extra propulsion, the power from the internal combustion engines, small though it is, is used to augment the available electric power. I believe that this kind of comprehensive approach to the whole problem is indeed something that should be investigated further. I believe that South Africa with its know-how, with its genius for invention in times of stress, could be on the verge of a breakthrough in some form of combined propulsion of this nature.

How nice it would be to see a whole series of these vehicles, designed in South Africa for South Africa, using the latest, most economical methods of propulsion, and indeed saving a great deal of the liquid fuel of which we in South Africa are pretty short. The problems of the lead-acid batteries have been discussed at length. I believe a discussion cannot really go very far beyond that. We have maximized the development of electric motors, but the whole question of the weight of lead-acid batteries remains a major problem. Until there is a breakthrough in that field, there is very little we can do to improve the range of these vehicles which, as hon. members have indicated, varies from approximately 60 km to 200 km before recharging is needed.

We should look at other aspects as well. Over the years South Africa has been very wasteful in terms of the millions of cubic feet of gas burnt at our oil refineries. I am not suggesting that we use this in tanks and motor-cars. This has been tried. I believe there are still problems in this field, although progress has been made. If one thinks what we have burnt in our refineries over the last few years in terms of energy output, I think we would be horrified if we knew what energy output we have burnt and simply sent up in smoke. Such gas could be used on site to power generators for the generation of electric current. This is a matter which should be urgently investigated by the various investigating teams idling under the hon. the Minister and various other bodies in this country.

There is another small field where further information is needed. That is in the production of power from waste. We in South Africa have problems with the proper removal of waste and the space for dumping it. Much of the waste in the form of ordinary household garbage can be burnt to generate electricity. It is not a new concept; in fact it is very old, and thus all the information which we need in this regard is available. The disposal of garbage in the major cities is an enormous problem. We are also utilizing land that could be used for other purposes. Plants which can convert such organic matter into electricity could well be considered on the basis that one collects the garbage during the day and bums the combustible matter during the evening thereby producing power.

There is one very important aspect which has not been touched on today in the debate. It is the question of solar energy. It certainly must be raised as part of an overall fuel plan for South Africa. The energy available from that source is absolutely infinite. The amount that reaches South Africa is enormous, and we are very fortunate in the number of daylight hours we have on average every day in South Africa throughout the year. I believe that forms of utilizing solar energy should be part of any overall plan which comes to the fore in South Africa over the next months and years, as we decide how best to conserve and use the energy available to us. A few suggestions in this connection will be appropriate. Firstly, solar water heaters could well be built into every new dwelling put up in South Africa. One would relieve the strain of the highly capital intensive projects of Escom if one were able to phase in solar energy to preheat water before it goes into hot water geysers where electrical energy is used wastefully. This is a most important aspect and a very significant area of saving. I believe it would be relatively easy to recommend that all new dwellings that go up be equipped with solar water heaters on their roofs for the preheating of water before it goes into electric geysers. This will result in enormous saving. Then there is the use of solar cells which can convert sunlight directly into electrical energy. Work has been done at the Rand Afrikaans University and I believe that they have made quite some progress in this regard. This, too, is an area which cannot afford to be neglected in our overall search for a solution.

One thing remains apparent From all the different approaches we have seen here today, it is clear that what South Africa really needs, and what we have called for before, is a Ministry of Energy to look at this overall problem and come up with a solution.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14hl5.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Boksburg cordially on his maiden speech. If he listens to the good advice which his predecessor gave him when he was still a pedagogue, I think that he, too, will go far in this House. Not only did his contribution testify to study, but also to personal knowledge. I want to bid him welcome and wish him a very fine future in this House.

As a second personal observation I want to mention the contrast which we observed in the debate between the contributions on the part of hon. members on the one hand and the contributions on behalf of political parties on the other in respect of their contents, motivation and aims. During the lunch break I really wondered what the best way of replying to the hon. member for Orange Grove was. My reactions fluctuated between an inclination to ignore him on the one hand and an inclination to treat him as one treats a person who does not have an inkling of what the demands of the country in which he is living are in respect of his own conduct I cannot understand—and I am not saying this because I wish to quarrel with the hon. member—why that hon. member and other hon. members in his party cannot understand that although a person can level criticism at certain things, it should be elevated to a level on which it must have the opposite effect in respect of their country and the needs of their country.

It is a fact that throughout the world the economies and economic means or lack of means on the part of countries are being utilized to achieve national objectives on the one hand and political objectives on the other. In fact, if one were to look at the international scene, it is true that countries have for centuries utilized their economic means to pursue and achieve political or strategic and/ or military objectives. We can trace the history of this practice back in time for centuries. If one considers the 13th to the 15 th centuries, it will be found that countries such as Portugal and Spain collected gold to utilize its possession to build up their military strength and consolidate their own positions in order to achieve objectives which they would not otherwise have been able to achieve because they would not have been able to cope with external threats. I need not remind hon. members that to a great extent the struggle in the world revolves primarily around the raw materials of the world. We have seen a practical demonstration of how the raw material-producing countries were able to organize themselves, as happened in the case of the Opec countries. In that way they were able to achieve their national objectives at the expense of the economies of other countries. It is an historical fact that the 1973 oil crisis had an effect on the Western industrial countries, the consequences of which we are still unable to appreciate or see today. This emphasizes how sensitive the circumstances are in which people pit the economic resources of their own country against other countries to achieve specific objectives.

It is also a fact that the Second World War formed a watershed in this power struggle with its economic components. The game did not change, but the rules and the players did. The two most important tendencies since these specific events were the commencement of the cold war on the one hand and the decolonization process on the other. But what does this mean? It means that the Soviet Union realized that it would not be able to achieve its national and international objectives solely by means of its military strength and its own resources, and an important whetstone for the achievement of its objectives was to develop and expand its economic sphere of interest.

What is also at issue in Africa itself? What is at issue is fundamentally the contribution which Africa makes to the raw material requirements of, and the meeting of such requirements in, the world at large. Because this is so, economic matters—tinged of course with political and ideological implications—are being given preference to a far greater extent and over a far wider front than before in the national council chambers or forums of the world, and with the amalgamation of the Third World into an effective power bloc the UN is employing this organization to achieve this objective in this particular sphere. Because they are important suppliers of raw materials to the Western world, they are consequently affected by this. Need I say that if Russia should gain control of the raw materials of Southern Africa and were, together with its own raw materials, to withhold these from the Western world, it would take over the Western world without firing a single shot?

What is happening in the oil-producing countries of the world is related to this specific facet of warfare to which I have referred. As I see it in the general context, the struggle between East and West—which is also a struggle between rich and poor—has become subtle and sophisticated in the times in which we are living, and economic strength, or the lack of it, is becoming a more important factor in the international power struggle than we want to realize.

Of course the question which also arises is where South Africa stands in the sphere of energy in this particular picture. On the one hand we are involved in that struggle between East and West, whether we want to be or not, in the sense that we have important raw materials, raw materials which are important to the West. On the other hand the fact that we are well-endowed with riches has a negative aspect as well, because people are also trying to gain control over them to achieve their political objectives in another part of the world.

Consequently I want to ask that when we discuss energy, we should not only view it against the background of the national objectives which we have to achieve, but also against the background of the national objectives which other countries want to achieve through South Africa. If we view it in this wider perspective, we realize that it does not behove hon. members to react and act in the way the hon. member for Orange Grove did. That is why he must realize that we listened extremely dubiously to his contribution in this specific connection.

If you would stop doing stupid things, I would stop criticizing.

If I may take the matter further, I want to tell the hon. member for Wonderboom that I have great appreciation for his having brought this motion to the House because he thereby afforded us the opportunity of seeing and evaluating the entire energy situation in its correct perspective. Let me say that the spirit in which he introduced the discussion was also the spirit in which all the other hon. members, except for the hon. member I have singled out, approached this matter. They displayed the spirit of people who wish to share in the process of helping South Africa to overcome or diminish its problems in this vulnerable sphere. Although I do not have the time to reply to each hon. member, they will understand that I have great appreciation for their individual contributions.

If we consider the energy position, it seems important to me that we should realize that the circumstances today naturally make the period of time we have at our disposal to take the necessary steps far more critical than was previously the case. There is one matter I wish to rectify. The impression may arise that the energy research of the Government and the country and the forecasting and forward planning in connection with satisfying our energy requirements is something which arose as a result of the oil crisis of 1973 and that of last year. Such a view would not be consistent with the facts. Secondly, I want to point out that when we speculate or debate on alternative sources of energy, and more specifically on liquid fuel, we may create the general impression that there are easy and simple solutions to the energy problem in South Africa as far as these specific substances are concerned. This, in turn, may have the detrimental effect that the general public will be less motivated to make its own contribution to economizing with our resources. I would be pleased if we could convey a message in this specific connection.

The particular circumstances in which the Republic has found itself for many years, and even long before the 1973 oil crisis, constituted an advantage to us in that we were able to devote timeous attention to energy matters in general and more specifically to matters such as those appearing in the hon. member’s motion, as well as the following: The utilization of our own resources and particularly our coal resources for this specific purpose; the reduction in the number of oil burners and a conversion to coal burners in industry; the electrification of railway sections; and the modification of our refinery equipment to increase the percentage of diesel oil as one product derived from oil, in contrast with other products.

In this connection we must bear in mind that the Government realized a long time ago that, as a result of the international situation to which I have referred, and more specifically as a result of the fact that the economy is increasingly being employed for the achievement of other objectives, South Africa could find itself in the position that only a part of its crude oil requirements can be obtained and therefore every reasonable step has to be taken and planned and eventually implemented in order to do the usual thing, which is firstly to reduce or to moderate the national consumption of petroleum products. This is in other words the economizing component which is at present our responsibility.

Secondly, we must undertake, to the greatest possible extent, a stockpiling programme for this strategic product. This stockpiling programme did not begin after 1973. We have, since as long ago as the ’sixties, been stockpiling strategic supplies, including this product. The fact that the Government identified and evaluated this problem more than 25 years ago, and took steps to make South Africa as invulnerable as possible, emphasizes the far-sightedness of the Government.

There is a third step which was important in this specific connection, viz. that we should in our research devote careful attention, firstly to our own resources and, secondly, to the proper utilization thereof to reduce South Africa’s independence and to strive to achieve total independence.

Fourthly, we had to meet the most critical requirements. We had to identify the most essential utilization of the products manufactured from oil. We also had to modify the consumer patterns in South Africa in accordance with those specific priorities which we determined.

If one considers the information we assembled and the background information we obtained, it is a simple task to deduce that since most of our transport requirements had to be met by rail and air transportation services, without making heavy demands on fuel supplies, sectors such as agriculture and mining inevitably had to rely on diesel fuel.

If we consider the consumption of products manufactured from crude oil we find an indication not only of the consumption of the product, but also of the preferential determination in regard to the consumption of the products which we derive from crude oil. 62% of the contents of a vat of crude oil are used to manufacture petrol and diesel products. If one examines the consumption of these products, one finds that 26% is consumed by the private motorist, 39% by commerce and industry, 13% by agriculture, 12,2% by the Government and local authorities, 6% by the mines, and 4% by the other consumers. What does that mean? It means that 74% of the products are in fact being utilized for productive purposes. That makes the situation more critical than we think. If the reverse were true, however, it would be easier to determine our priorities. It is true that South Africa, as the hon. member for Wonderboom, among others, said, is dependent on imported crude oil for approximately 23% of its total energy requirements. However, if we bear in mind that 80% of our transportation system is dependent on this primary resource, that we have a country in which vast distances have to be covered and that our communication routes and systems must function correctly in order to allow the economy to function properly, we shall see that it is a more sensitive area than we superficially saw it to be.

For that reason we appointed an interdepartmental committee in 1978 to give attention to the various aspects of the oil embargoes, the threats in this connection and the preferential allocation of the oil products in the case of the oil supplies being cut off or reduced. In other words, we have already created the mechanisms in respect of consumer utilization to ensure that this takes place to the greatest advantage of our country and its population.

Naturally the recent events in Iran emphasized this problem further. The fact of the matter is that the world has experienced its second oil crisis within the space of five years. We must admit to one another that the political stability of many of the oil-exporting countries is at least questionable.

Apart from the fact that a supply problem now exists, the hon. member for Waterkloof was entirely correct in his summation that we are dealing with an international crisis. We are also dealing with a local, a South African problem situation. In addition it is true that the problem cannot be solved in a dramatic way, but that it can be solved through the actions of ordinary people, so that the actions of ordinary people could have dramatic consequences for a country. It has to do with the educational process and guidance. I wish I had time to react to individual contributions made by hon. members. That is why we must, in the short term, effect optimum saving in order to comply with these objectives.

A second important point which is essential in the hon. member’s motion, is research. Although he identified a specific branch of research, I should nevertheless like to react in general in this connection. It remains a fact that the effective and economic utilization of energy in South Africa is a matter to which the Government has been giving attention for many years, and to which attention is being given on a continual basis. In order to promote this aspect, I want to confirm that I approach the problem from two directions, from two angles. Firstly an attempt is being made to bring the idea of optimum energy utilization, the most efficient utilization, home to as many inhabitants of the country as possible. One of the important recommendations that has been accepted in this regard is in fact a general educational programme of the youth and a guidance programme for adults. In this specific connection the news media of the country, including the Broadcasting Corporation and SATV, have offered their co-operation, for which I should like to thank them.

Secondly, the Government supports programmes which are aimed at the technological improvement of production, of conversion—and I am replying now to the hon. member for Durban North as well—and the utilization of energy. The cry of an energy-saving awareness among the public in general, but also among the large-scale users of the product, may best be realized by releasing published information identifying and stressing the importance of energy-saving methods. And this is already being done, as the hon. member said, through publications of the Department of Environmental Planning and Energy. I should like to request that we make it our task in this House to become conversant with these specific suggestions and to take them further. Let me emphasize in this connection that the importance of State-aided scientific research on the aspects of production, conversion and utilization of energy should be realized, as well as to see whether it is possible to devise and implement a central energy policy with a view to the proper co-ordination of all facets of our energy situation. To be able to do this, a national committee for energy research was established in August 1978 under the chairmanship of the CSIR. The aims of this committee are, inter alia, to determine the priorities of energy research in South Africa. I shall return to that in a moment. Representatives of most of the interested organizations and bodies serve on this committee. Four subcommittees which have to report to the national committee were established to deal with specific areas of the energy research field. Serving on these subcommittees are members who have specialized knowledge of the energy fields concerned that has to be investigated by these special subcommittees. The areas of research entrusted to the committee are: Alternative chemical fuels; renewable non-chemical sources of energy and the related energy storage; and utilization of coal, energy-saving and rationalization. Provision has also been made by the various subcommittees for the establishment of technical committees and working groups. It is important to note in this connection that nuclear energy research is not part of the task of this committee.

Some of the hon. members—I think one of them was the hon. member for Berea— referred to solar energy. In this connection I just want to tell him that a specialized working group, the pilot committee for research into solar energy and energy-saving in buildings, was established as long ago as 1976 under the chairmanship of the National Building Research Institute of the CSIR.

In this connection it is important to note that at Garsfontein in Pretoria a low-energy housing project has already been initiated by this committee. I am merely referring to this in passing, because we are also making this form of energy the subject of research. Apart from all these committees undertaking coordinating and promoting research in the field of energy, universities, Government departments and State corporations are all engaged in examining this specific problem on an ongoing basis.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 34 and motion lapsed.

Mr. Speaker, I move the motion that appears in my name on the Order Paper—

1. (a) to appoint a Defence Council on which all political parties are represented, in order to assist and advise on all matters relating to the defence of the Republic;
2. (b) to take immediate steps to create a larger permanent volunteer force drawn from all sections of the community, and to include in such an enlarged force not only leadership and training personnel, but also additional complete fighting units;
3. (c) to take steps to eliminate the confusion and hardships experienced by servicemen as a result of the manner in which the present system of national service is implemented; and
4. (d) to introduce immediately the principle of equal pay for equal work in all formations of the South African Defence Force.

At the outset I should like to say that I value the presence of the hon. the Prime Minister in the House for this debate. We are appreciative of the many calls on his time at present, and therefore we value his presence here even more. However, it is understandable, bearing in mind the particular feeling he has towards matters pertaining to defence.

The second point I should like to make at the beginning, is that this motion of mine is to my mind so important a matter that we should discuss it today free of emotion and of party-political acrimony, because these matters go the very root of the existence of our country. The first part of my motion relates specifically to the creation of a defence council in which all political parties in the House should be represented. I think it is not inappropriate to ask the question, right at the outset, whether there is sufficient common ground between the political parties in this House on defence issues to make cooperation in such a body a practical possibility and a workable proposition. For that reason it is, to my mind, not inappropriate that while I believe that there is such a degree of common ground, I should set out how we in these benches see the defence situation in South Africa.

Firstly, this party believes in peaceful change, but opposes any form of violence, whether by way of terrorism, internal uprising or incursions from beyond South Africa’s borders. Secondly, we believe that the problems of South Africa must be solved by the South African people themselves, and that outside interference, whether by force of arms or otherwise, should be utterly rejected. Thirdly, the territorial integrity of South Africa must be defended against any attack, whether by way of conventional warfare or guerrilla incursion. Fourthly, we believe that the best way of defending South Africa is to give all its people something they wish to defend. In that way no aggressor would get local support, nor would any attempts at internal uprising or at overthrowing the State by violent means, have any prospect of success. Fifthly, this party believes that South Africa needs, in the existing circumstances, a strong Defence Force, adequately trained and equipped with modern and effective arms.

We further believe that such an army should be representative of all sections of the community. In the term “army” I include the Air Force and the Navy, and I hope I shall be forgiven for doing that. I use it as a comprehensive term. Sixthly, this party has supported the concept of national service, and its extension to two years in present conditions, but believe that the burden of national service could be considerably relieved by a larger full-time professional army. The next point is that this party has supported the substantial defence expenditure in the last two budgets, in view of its policies as I have tried to set them out. We also take the view that expenditure on improved social and other services for all races, a movement towards removing discrimination, and expenditure on such matters as salaries and pensions, is as much a defence expenditure as is direct expenditure on arms, and this must therefore not be neglected. When it comes to the raising of money, I think it is not unfair to say that it is this party’s representatives that suggested the defence bonds, and have supported the various types of mechanisms to raise money for defence. That is in brief a summary of our approach, our policy towards defence in South Africa.

While I am prepared to say immediately that there are differences with the Government, for example in regard to the question of how best to achieve the way of giving all South African people something to defend, and perhaps also on the question of a greater full-time professional army, it is nevertheless so that, on the broad issue of the defence of South Africa there is, to my mind, sufficient common ground between the official Opposition and the Government to make meaningful the concept of a defence council. I believe that I can say, without any fear of contradiction, that that has already been demonstrated on the Select Committees which have dealt with various pieces of legislation. It has also been demonstrated in the informal discussions which have taken place on particular defence topics.

I believe therefore—as a first premise which I put before the House—that there is sufficient common ground for constructive work in a defence council on which all parties in this House are represented.

May we pose the question of what is actually expected from this Parliament in so far as the defence of South Africa is concerned? Here we can speak about the voting of money for defence. We can speak about the passing of the necessary legislation to give effect to what is sought to be achieved. However, there are three fundamental things which we should consider. The first is an acceptable decision-making process, acceptable to the community as a whole. Secondly, there should be a demonstration of unity of purpose. Thirdly, there should be adequate motivation of the community. I pose the question of how this is to be achieved. I ask specifically whether the defence of South Africa is the Government’s or the people’s business. Is it the Government’s business or is it the business of the people of South Africa as a whole? I suggest that it is in fact the people’s business. A strong and well-trained army, a well-equipped army, I cannot be effective and can in certain circumstances become meaningless if the people are not fully behind it. If any proof has to be given of that situation, we have the living proof at the moment in Iran, where one of the most powerful armies in the world, equipped with some of the most modern equipment, well trained in large numbers, has fallen because it was unable to create a situation in which the interests of the people and the interests of the defence forces were identical in the circumstances. Whatever the merits of that situation, the fact is that the army could not survive with what appeared to be the bulk of the people against it. Therefore it is important to South Africa that there should be unity, that there should be motivation, and that these two factors are the essential ingredients of a successful defence of South Africa.

If we look at our servicemen, what do we find? Our servicemen, whether they are national servicemen or whether they are in the Permanent Force, are individuals of different political persuasion. Politics should play no part in a defence force, and should certainly play no part in our Defence Force. The decisions that are made by the Government affect everybody in South Africa in so far as the defence of this country is concerned, irrespective of the political views and persuasions of the individuals involved. Therefore we have the situation at the moment that we all—all of us; Government and Opposition—carry responsibility. Yet, we who sit in the Opposition benches do not play a part of any kind in the decision-making process.

We hardly have a part in the process of giving advice or assistance. I want to suggest that majoritarian principles are not suitable for South Africa at all, especially not in times of stress or war. Something else needs to be kept in mind, other than purely majoritarian principles.

What we are asking for today is not a part in the decision-making process. We ask for a body to be created where we can be informed and where we may give the benefit of our advice and our contribution to it and assist in those particular circumstances. I want to ask specifically: How does that side of the House which is not part of the Government, play its role in the defence of South Africa without such a council or body I am suggesting? I ask the question specifically to the hon. the Deputy Minister, who will take part in this debate, I understand: How can there be a meaningful defence debate in the House without the danger of jeopardizing the security of the State if one is going to have to refer to all facts, details, statistics and matters of that sort? The inability either to have or to deal with all the facts restrains a meaningful debate on defence matters. The only way in which one can solve this is when a body of this kind is created so that there can be meaningful debate.

I have to ask the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister of Defence, who presumably will reply on his behalf; In the light of recent events and debates—to which I do not want to refer now—does the Government want co-operation, help and a contribution from us? We cannot just follow blindly. We have to know what the situation is. We offer the hon. the Prime Minister today in his capacity as Minister of Defence, as well as to the Government, a hand of cooperation in the field of defence, if they want it, to create a meaningful body in terms of which people of all political persuasions can play a part. It is now for the Government to decide whether that hand of friendship and offer of co-operation is accepted or rejected.

I believe that the people of South Africa would want it, irrespective of what their political persuasion is. As a cross-section of South Africa, I believe the people of South Africa would want the offer coming from the Opposition benches today to be accepted. [Interjections.] I prefer not to respond to irresponsible interjections. I address myself to the responsible authority on that side of the House. [Interjections.]

Order!

The second part of my motion asks for a larger Permanent Force. The policy of the Opposition in this regard has been set out very clearly. We believe there should be a larger Permanent Force in the medium and long-term. Such a larger professional Army would be cheaper from the economic point of view, and with the existence of full-time, highly mobile brigades, a greater degree of effectiveness could come about. The need for a larger Permanent Force appears to be accepted by all sides of the House. The difference that appears to exist in the House—and I hope it will disappear with time—is what type of additional personnel are required for the Permanent Force. Should it be a Permanent Force as it has been set out in the last White Paper made available to us, which provides for—

In another portion of that White Paper it is stated—

In other words, on the one hand there is the argument that the Permanent Force should provide in the main leadership and training while, on the other hand, we on these benches believe that the Permanent Force should contain not only elements that provide the leadership and the training, but also complete fighting units as part of the Permanent Force. I want to explain why in the present circumstances we believe this is essential.

It is obvious that in Africa as things stand at the moment we are not going to have to deal with a purely African situation. On the contrary, we must unfortunately expect to see more foreign troops on our borders. We have already had the experience of the Cubans who stand to the north of South West Africa, and there are Cuban troops and advisers also elsewhere in Southern Africa. We now have a new phenomenon. We now have a second do Africa Corps which has made its appearance in Southern Africa. This is an Africa Corps composed of East Germans and consisting of highly-trained and highly-experienced personnel and paratroopers equipped with the most modern weapons, who are poised to the north of South West Africa. I have to pose the question specifically; Is this not a repetition of what happened before the Second World War when Nazi Germany sent its Condor Legion to Spain in order for them to get experience, to test their arms, to test their tactics and at the same time to assist a faction in Spain to which they were ideological tied? Are we not going to see the same type of thing happening in Southern Africa, except that on this occasion it is the DDR who is responsible for the new Africa Corps in Africa? We are going to find ourselves in a situation that highly-trained men with highly sophisticated arms will be on our borders, professionals constituting a danger, a potential danger, to the peace not only in South Africa, but in the entire Southern Africa.

The threat to South Africa is a real one. We cannot pretend that there is no military threat of any kind to South Africa. We cannot pretend that there are no communist arms in Mozambique. We cannot pretend that an East German leader has not just been there. We cannot pretend that these are not real dangers to the situation in Southern Africa. I venture to submit that with that type of danger threatening South Africa, the time has arrived—is in fact overdue—that South Africa needs a highly mobile Permanent Force with fighting men as well. We need a force of men equipped with modern weapons, who are highly trained and can be shifted around as they are required. We need some more full-time people in paratroop regiments. We need more helicopter-borne special units. We need anti-tank specialists and rocket units, all of whom I believe should be part of a highly mobile, full-time, highly trained brigade. In order to meet the threat that is posed we need these kind of units in our Defence Force in South Africa.

I want to make a further submission why we need this kind of force. I think an examination of the effect on the economy of having to call up a large number of troops will show that, as far as the country as a whole is concerned, it is economically a much better proposition to have these fighting Permanent Force units. It will be cheaper in the long run than the effect on our economy of calling up large numbers of troops. We have a very small White population which is expected to bear the burden of defence in South Africa. The number of economically active persons in the 18 to 35 year age group is inadequate to meet the demands of South Africa for skilled manpower, let alone meet the demands for skilled manpower and the Defence Force simultaneously. The conscription of people who are not White is not a practical possibility in South Africa, certainly not under present political circumstances and under the present political dispensation. The recruitment of Blacks, Coloureds and Indians in greater numbers into the Permanent Force is, however, a solution to this problem. There is a high degree of unemployment in the age group 18 years to 29 years. In the Coloured community, for example, almost 10% of all the unemployed or economically inactive, amounting to some 100 000, do fall into that particular age group. As far as the Blacks are concerned, there is again a high degree of unemployment in that particular age group. More than one third of all unemployed Blacks are in that particular age group. We believe— and this is indeed my submission—that a large multiracial Permanent Force is of benefit to the economy, is more cost effective and is also necessary for the defence of South Africa.

Hear, hear!

Now I want to turn to the next leg of my motion, which I want to touch upon very briefly. I am referring to the question of equal pay for equal work. We are conscious of the announcement the Government has made about the closing of the wage gap, particularly with reference to the Defence Force. The Government has said it is moving towards closing that gap, and the question I therefore want to pose today is why the gap has not been closed completely in the Defence Force, particularly because the amount of money involved is negligible in relation to the overall Defence Force budget. To show how negligible an amount it is, I need only quote one statistic. I have a pamphlet here setting out pay scales as of 1 April for Whites, Coloureds and Indians. Whether these figures are correct or not, I do not know, but since the pamphlet is issued by the Defence Force I must assume that the figures are correct. The difference in pay between a White private and a Coloured or Indian private is 39 cents per day, 39 cents per day in relation to R3,47 a White private gets per day. If one works out the numbers involved in the Black, Coloured and Indian communities, one realizes that not to have equal pay for equal work is inexcusable. There is no justification for it. If one were to argue, rightly or wrongly, that there is not enough money available to do this in other departments, one still could not deny that in the Department of Defence it is of the utmost priority to have equal pay for equal work, with people of equal rank being paid the same amount of money.

Hear, hear!

In my view it is certainly necessary to remove this discrimination, firstly because it is obviously unjust, secondly because if it were removed it could be a booster to morale, thirdly because it would assist in any kind of recruitment campaign and lastly because morally the life of one man fighting for his country has the same value as that of any other man who is doing the same job and taking the same risks.

Now I want to touch upon the fourth leg of my motion. This brings me to the problems that servicemen have experienced. I want to say right at the outset that there are problems in any Defence Force. In fact, in any large organization there are problems, and one can therefore not have an organization as large as the Defence Force without having difficulties and problems affecting particular individuals. I think I can say without hesitation that the heads of our Defence Force do everything possible to see to it that the problems are minimized and that they seek to reduce those problems to the lowest possible level wherever they can. That I think is necessary, and particularly so in our situation. I do not want to deal with all the petty problems there may be in connection with postings and accommodation, and all the other complaints from various individuals. They do exist, however, but one must see them in their proper context. One does, of course, try to help people, because what may appear to be a petty problem to the Army as a whole, could be a very big problem to the individual himself. The Army is only as strong as the willpower and morale of the total of all the individuals in it. We can, however, deal with some of them.

There must be adequate planning to reduce to a minimum problems such as the accommodation problem. People must be posted correctly. We know of examples of servicemen leaving home after being called up and then being sent back home without knowing why. We subsequently found out why they had been sent horn. We have also had the difficulty of people being posted to one unit which was subsequently found to be over strength as a result of which they were posted on to other units. These problems need to be taken out of the way.

There are, however, more important matters, matters which are far more important for the morale of the Defence Force as a whole. I want to touch on one of these. The, to my mind, unequal distribution of the burden is something that needs to be given attention by the authorities. Most young men are prepared to serve, most do so willingly and graciously, but many of them ask: If the burden is going to be borne, should it not be shared equally? There can be no doubt that, if the computer happens to put one into an infantry unit, one is subjected to one form of burden whereas if it happens to put one in some other unit—I do not want to mention the names of the units because it may not be desirable—one gets a far lighter burden.

Then there is the question of the three months’ call-up. How does the situation arise that some national servicemen who have been out of the Army for as little as a month receive call-up papers to serve for a further three months? What is more, when they receive the call-up papers to serve for a further three months, they are told—and I can quote the official statement—that it is only as an act of grace that in those circumstances one month of their service counts towards the prescribed 240 days. It is considered to be an act of grace, not a right. I quote—

Is it not part of the problem that the ratio of servicemen required in support or reserve to those doing combat duty is 78% of all national servicemen? If one adds to that the civilian personnel involved, one finds the explanation quite readily available for the degree of inequality of burdens which has arisen. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that the serviceman has every reason to say: If I do three months’ service on the border, is that not a little more than the three weeks’ service done by others just outside Pretoria or in an office? I am not disparaging those who do office jobs, but is the national serviceman who does three months’ service on the border not entitled to say that that is worth a little more? Should the State therefore not evolve a way of correcting this imbalance and of attaching more value to combat duty for the purpose of the calculation of periods of service?

I want to touch just briefly on one other subject and that is the question of punishment. Discipline must be enforced in the Defence Force. It is an essential ingredient of any Army, Air Force and Navy. It must, however, be enforced in a manner that does no harm to the serviceman concerned. The Lewin case is an example of a case that do cause concern to many people. There have been other instances of brutal behaviour towards servicemen by other servicemen. This must be stopped. We have asked to inspect the detention barracks, but this has unfortunately been refused. I do not know why the request has been refused. It seems to me to be wrong, because we were allowed to see the detention barracks in which conscientious objectors were detained and we were thus able to reassure the public that those detained there were receiving more than fair and just treatment under the circumstances.

We believe that the hon. the Minister should review that situation and allow us to go there. However, the personnel who are in the detention barracks and who administer punishment outside of them, need to be carefully screened, because we cannot have the situation that this sort of thing should be spreading. It is fair to say that it is only in isolated instances that this is occurring at the moment, but it must not be allowed to spread. In this regard I think one must say without hesitation that if Mr. Lewin had not investigated his own son’s death and had had no private post-mortem conducted, we would have been told, it seems to me, that his son died from heat-stroke.

I do not say that this is a large-scale activity, but I think that even the isolated instance needs to be stamped out in the interest of morale and the feelings of parents and the wives who must be sure that their own people are safe in the circumstances. This cannot be allowed to spread.

Mr. Speaker, it was very interesting to note the way in which the hon. member for Yeoville commenced his speech. At the beginning of his speech he emphasized the supposed goodwill and favourable attitude of his party towards the Defence Force. We know the hon. member as a very good friend of the Defence Force, but unfortunately we cannot say the same for the rest of his party. Two years ago a motion was introduced here that this House, inter alia, extended its sincere thanks and appreciation to the Defence Force, all officers and privates, for the courageous and heroic way in which they acquitted themselves of their task in the operational area, and extended its heartfelt sympathy to those who had lost loved ones in combat. What did the PFP do then? They voted against this motion.

Harry, too.

He himself voted against it, but I remember clearly how embarassed he was about it.

This question of a defence council raised by the hon. member, is not an original idea. The hon. member for Durban Point has advocated it regularly in the past, but his request, too, was repeatedly refused. As far back as 1912 the Defence Act made provision for the establishment of a defence council, but as far as I can ascertain—I made a reasonably thoroughgoing investigation into the matter—there was only one occasion on which this council was, in fact, constituted, but on no occasion did it ever meet. In 1944, in time of war, Mr. F. C. Erasmus put certain questions in this House. I quote (Hansard, 29 February 1944, col. 2143)—

1. (1) Who are the present members of the Defence Council;
2. (2) What were the salaries and allowances of each member during 1943;
3. (3) what are the functions of the Council; and
4. (4) how many meetings did it hold during that year?

The then Minister of Defence answered as follows—

1. (1) President: The Minister of Defence. Members: Brig.-Gen. G. N. J. Molyneux, D.S.O., V.D., Col. K. Rood, M.P., and Mr. E. A. Conroy. Secretary: Secretary for Defence.
2. (2) Nil.

Nor were the members of the council remunerated for serving on it.

This is really something worthless: it does not work. The hon. member is very friendly to offer us the assistance of his party so that we may have the privilege of utilizing their experience, but this they can offer via the usual channels to the Head of the Defence Force. We need not appoint a council for that purpose. Nowhere in the Western World does a defence council exist or function; neither in England, France nor Germany. In America, with its committee system of government, such a council does exist, but we know that America no longer has any military secrets. They are being bandied about in the market places of the cities of the world.

We must not forget that military strategy is determined and influenced by the political philosophy of the party of the day, and by the Cabinet, on the advice of its Command Council and Defence Planning Committee, which does, in fact, play the role of a defence council. Should the defence council be composed of members of all the political parties, it would only result in chaos due to the major difference in the philosophies of the various parties in this House.

The question may also rightly be asked: Can you entrust everyone with the confidential information which such a defence council possesses? I shall go a long way with the hon. member for Yeoville and trust him, but unfortunately I cannot say the same for many members of the rest of his party.

Go to the devil!

At each election the Government is given a mandate to govern the country and also to protect and to defend it.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon. member cast a reflection on individual members of the Opposition?

Order! Is the hon. member for Cradock reflecting on the loyalty of certain hon. members of this House?

Mr. Speaker, I am merely saying that there is a great deal of military information which I will share with the hon. member for Yeoville, but not with many other members of his party. Those are the words I used.

Order! I am sorry, but those words contain a veiled reflection on hon. members who took the oath in this House.

Mr. Speaker, in that case I withdraw them. The Government received a mandate from the voters to govern, to defend and to protect this country. If it should find itself in a situation where it has to take military action and matters go wrong, then there is no point in its hiding behind a defence council. In that case the Government will have to bear the responsibility. So much for the defence council.

For many years now it has been realized and acknowledged that our Defence Force should contain a larger Permanent Force component, but for various reasons, of which financial reasons are not the least important, we have not been able to succeed in maintaining the optimum numbers in the Permanent Force. The White Paper of 1977, to which the hon. member for Yeoville also referred, points out that whereas the optimum number of Permanent Force members is 13,5% of the Defence Force, at that stage a mere 7% could be maintained. Together with national servicemen these percentages are 26% and 13,6% respectively. We can, therefore, see how much under strength the Permanent Force is. There are several reasons for this shortage. We find that we can only compel male citizens to do military service and, in addition, there is an absolute limit on the number of young men who may be recruited annually for the Defence Force. The private sector attracts many of our trained Permanent Force staff, because the men are well-trained and for that reason display greater production capacity. The salary structure of the private sector is another factor which has a bearing on the matter.

I should just like to quote an extract from the White Paper, as follows—

Steps are still being taken by the Defence Force in an attempt to improve the situation by way of, inter alia, a recruiting campaign, but this could, perhaps, be undertaken with a little more imagination. There is also the training and employment of girls in specific disciplines, in non-combatant capacities, in the Defence Force. The hon. member also referred to the training of other race groups, and I want to say to him that enormous progress has already been made in this regard recently. At this stage a Coloured brigade also exists which includes a parachute battalion as well. Similarly there is also the Black 21 battalion stationed at Lenz, a unit which has already performed operational service. At the moment attention is also being given to the training of national guards, so that each homeland should also have its own national guard. In South West Africa, various battalions exist composed of the indigenous groups of South West Africa. More and more Blacks are being admitted and trained in various capacities in the Defence Force today. That also applies to the Navy, and the hon. members are aware of the fact that there are ships in the Navy manned exclusively by Indians and Coloureds.

As far as the question of equal pay for equal work is concerned, I just want to say that that side of the House does not listen when their criticism is replied to. Only two weeks ago the hon. the Prime Minister made a statement about the whole question of the parity of salaries. This has been accepted in principle and is being developed positively. My time is too limited to quote to this House what the hon. the Prime Minister said about this, but in the no-confidence debate he announced very clearly that from as early as 1 April salary, parity will be instituted in certain sectors and that this will gradually be applied in the lower ranks.

I have been informed that the salaries of Krygkor staff have already reached parity. Salary parity applies in the Navy. The hon. the Prime Minister has then also stated that the Government has accepted a model whereby the aim of equal pay for equal work will be achieved in phases, but that these phases cannot be tied to a time-scale. However, we must also bear in mind that parity of salary also entails parity of the quality of work.

In view of what I have just said, I should like to move the following amendment to the motion of the hon. member for Yeoville—

1. (1) congratulates and expresses its sincere appreciation to the Prime Minister for the exceptional manner in which he has succeeded over the years as Minister of Defence in developing and administering the South African Defence Force without it being necessary to institute a Defence Council;
2. (2) affirms its sincere appreciation to the Command Council and the Defence Planning Committee, which are fulfilling their functions in such an excellent manner;
3. (3) expresses its satisfaction to the Government for the timeous steps taken over the years to establish a prepared Defence Force for the Republic of South Africa and in this process to lay the foundation for a true people’s defence force in South Africa;
4. (4) notes with appreciation the development of the Permanent Force and at the same time requests the Government in this connection to continue with the development of the existing and other units with a view to dealing with the rapidly changing security situation in Southern Africa;
5. (5) expresses its appreciation to the many thousands of national servicemen and volunteers, as well as their parents and next-of-kin, who have all served and are still serving South Africa and all its people in an excellent manner without regard for personal preference; and
6. (6) expresses its satisfaction to the Government with the steps already taken to implement the principle of equal pay for equal work with its numerous delicate facets.”.

Mr. Speaker, I find it a pity that the hon. member for Cradock has decided to drag politics—it is nothing but that—into a debate on defence. [Interjections.] It has always been our practice, a tradition, that when defence matters come under discussion, we try to keep politics out of it. However, with the amendment which the hon. member has now moved, and by specifically starting with a motion of gratitude to and confidence in the hon. the Prime Minister … [Interjections.]

Do you not agree with it, then?

What is wrong with that?

I am prepared to accord all honour to the hon. the Prime Minister … [Interjections.]

But then you do agree.

However, when we are discussing defence matters, I believe it is wrong to do so on a political basis, as is the case with this proposed amendment by the hon. member for Cradock. [Interjections.]

†Mr. Speaker, when I listened to the hon. member for Yeoville and heard his party’s policy as he explained it, I had a pleasant feeling, the feeling of a tutor who sees a pupil who, although he has gone astray politically, is otherwise still on the right road and realizes he has taught him his lessons well. [Interjections.]

Well done, Harry!

I could find no fault at all with the way the hon. member set out his policy. In fact, I have said every one of those things myself year after year in ’various debates in this House. I am glad to realize that the hon. member for Yeoville has learnt the lesson so well and I hope the hon. member was speaking for his party. I hope his national chairman will concur?

In the short time available to me I want to speak mainly to the third leg of the motion, devoting most of my time to that. However, I want to deal with the other two legs briefly as well. Firstly, the matter of a defence council is the one point on which I tend to differ slightly from the hon. member for Yeoville. I cut my eye-teeth, my political milk-teeth—as the hon. member for Cradock said—on this. It was a hardy annual, but over the years the co-operation and the access which we have enjoyed from and to the Chief of the S.A. Defence Force and heads of all sections, has provided a direct contact and a direct opportunity to raise problems, to make suggestions and to discuss issues which, I believe, has proved very valuable indeed. Over the years I have therefore modified my thinking to believe that rather than a defence council— which is rather a high-sounding title—a Select Committee would be—and I have often proposed it—the correct body through which Members of Parliament could make a contribution, not only towards defence, not only to gain an insight into defence spending, but also to make a political contribution without the glare of publicity which surrounds speeches made here in the House. I think, it was probably a bit presumptuous to think that we as politicians could teach trained generals how to run an Army. However, I believe we as an Opposition have a contribution to make. I believe there are many fields in which we have contact with the public and knowledge of what the public is feeling, which it is necessary to bring to the attention of those who exercise the command and the control.

I would like to see a Select Committee appointed, where this contribution by hon. members of the Opposition could in fact be made. As regards the other leg, that of the Permanent Force—and older members will remember that this was Brig. Bronkhorst’s favourite hobby-horse—this is a matter that has been debated over and over in the House. I support it in principle. I support it as a goal towards which we should be striving much harder than we are striving at present. However, I realize there are practical and financial implications. What concerns me, is that those financial and practical implications are sometimes over-magnified. I think we should be giving more attention to analysing just how serious they are. I am fully in agreement with the hon. member for Yeoville that this is the direction in which we should move. With this goes, hand in hand, the last leg of this motion which concerns equal pay.

If the hon. member for Yeoville can remember—I think it was before his time—I was the first person in the House to come with that suggestion. At that time my suggestion that we should bring in as operational forces all the population groups of South Africa was greeted almost with horror. In those days it was a radical suggestion to make. However, it has been accepted slowly over the years.

You are a real radical.

Yes, I was a real radical to suggest that! The hon. member should have seen the look of horror on some of the hon. Government members faces. To think of giving a Black man a gun! If one gives him a gun, it will be the end of the world. Now we are all proud of the contribution Black, Brown and White are making to the defence of South Africa. Concerning that contribution, I believe too, like the hon. member for Yeoville, that this is not one of the fields in which a policy of gradualism is necessary in reaching pay parity. This is the one field in which the step can be taken immediately. I believe the whole of South Africa accepts the principle that every life lost, risked or endangered in the defence of South Africa has an equal value.

In those fields, with the exception of the proposed defence council in respect of which I think a Select Committee would probably be better, I am in full support of the motion.

I now want to turn to the third leg which deals with the confusion and hardships of national servicemen. I want to say at once, with the hon. member for Yeoville, that I should like to place on record my sincere appreciation for the understanding, compassion and sincerity with which those in command deal with problems which arise. There is no doubt about that at all. What I now want to say, relates to the principle and not to the application or to individual attention given to specific cases. I believe that compassion, understanding and consideration do not excuse the original hardship and confusion which gave rise to those problems.

The first I want to deal with is the question of the uncertainty of people in the Citizen Force over their commitment to the S.A. Defence Force. I shall give an example. On 6 October 1977, an army order was issued referenced: H/Leër, MAN K/101/5/1/B. It set out in detail exactly what the requirements were and what credit would be given to national servicemen for each type of duty which they had performed over the period of their service. In good faith, we then advised people who came to us that this was the position, this was where they stood. Within weeks that order was countermanded and we started to get real confusion. I shall just take one example at random from the innumerable representations I received. I am prepared to give the details to the hon. the Minister, but I do not want to bandy names about in the House. The letter reads as follows—

He ends—

I took this matter up privately by personally telephoning Command and Army Headquarters and after two or three weeks during which I was unable to get any clarity I wrote, on 16 March 1978, asking what regulations had been introduced in place of the order which had been countermanded. On 5 April I was advised that this particular order—

This took from October 1977 to 5 April 1978. I wrote again in July, asking whether any decision had yet been taken. On 24 July I was told—

Eventually, on 13 September the new regulations were published. This was 11 months after the first order was issued. Throughout that time there was total uncertainty. I received this sort of response from a father—

This was the reaction. People were willing to serve, but the uncertainty, the not knowing what liabilities they still had or when they would be called up, created an attitude of resentment which, I believe, harmed morale. I believe that this sort of situation should not have been allowed to occur and certainly should not occur again.

Even under the new system of credits, I think it is quite wrong that those who are called up under the provisions of section 92ter to do three months’ border duty, should get credit for only 30 days irrespective of the length of time they spent in the operational area and even if, as has happened, they have been called up twice in one year. [Interjections.] They were on the border at the beginning of a year and they were called up again before the end of the same year. I can name relevant units. I believe it is wrong that the additional sacrifice—and it is a big sacrifice because many of these people have families and responsible occupations—should only be credited for one-third of the period of service while the man who serves in the comfort and safety of a base, possibly even in his own town where he can work in a clerical job and sleep at home at night, gets full credit for each day of service.

I have time to deal with only one other aspect of this matter. I do not question the necessity or the need for the call-up. What I question is the planning, the uncertainty it creates among both men and units and the embarrassment it causes people like myself who receive queries and answer in good faith only to find that they were wrong.

I also want to deal very briefly with the exemption system. The Command exemption boards, I believe, have functioned excellently. I have seldom received complaints. I am now referring to the local boards at Command level dealing with the Citizen Force applications for camps. I believe, however, that something must be done about the central board. They cannot possibly handle the volume of work they are faced with. They cannot give detailed attention to individual cases. What happens is that a policy is laid down and a stereotype reply on a renewed letter is sent out to applicants. It is impossible for one board to deal with the number of applications that are received. The success of the local boards, I believe, serves as an example of the advantages of a funnelling system through which local knowledge can be brought into play and the task of the exemptions board can be made easier. This could serve to remove the feeling that this involves nothing but a rubber stamp and that people are wasting their time making applications.

There are other aspects that I might have dealt with, but there will be the debate on the Defence Vote later and I can do so then. I do want to say, however, that I hope that the Government members will not press the amendment. We should discuss these issues and make a positive contribution, Opposition and Government alike, towards, and in the interests of, the security of South Africa and our forces.

Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in supporting the amendment moved by the hon. member for Cradock. The hon. member for Durban Point is having problems with the fact that we are congratulating the hon. the Prime Minister on his handling of this department over the years, as Minister of Defence. He says it is politics. He says he does not want to do it now, but he will do it another day. In other words, if one does it today, it is politics, but if one does it tomorrow, it is in order! That is how I understood him.

Your understanding is very poor!

If he said that he did not want to congratulate the hon. the Prime Minister at all, I could understand it.

The Defence Act has provided for a defence council since 1912. During all the years that Gen. Smuts was Minister of Defence, however, he never introduced such a council. He knew that such a council could not work. It has not worked anywhere. After all, one dare not bring together people with conflicting standpoints on a defence council. If people who have to assist with the administration of the Defence Force adopt conflicting standpoints, when will the chief of the Defence Force or the hon. the Minister get on with his work? How can such a council function as long as the people on the council are quarrelling? While the hon. member for Yeoville was speaking, I sat pondering a problem. I tried to think who on the side of the official Opposition one could appoint to such a council. For a moment I thought of the hon. member, but then I also thought that he had a way of wanting to take over. He first took over the UP and now he is taking over the party he is sitting in. Some days I get the impression that he also wants to take over the debates in this House. [Interjections.]

If that hon. member were to serve on that council, therefore, he would throw his weight about so much that he would end up by wanting to take over the administration of the Defence Force. However, I should rather see him on that council than certain other hon. members on his side of the House. If I should ever be able to appoint people to that council, I would never dare, for example, to appoint the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. It is a pity that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member is again casting reflections on the hon. member for Bezuidenhout… [Interjections.]

The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, that hon. member who is behaving like a Jack-in-the-box would do well to listen to my reason for not wanting the hon. member for Bezuidenhout there. It may be a compliment. I do not want the hon. member for Bezuidenhout there because he is the man who told his people in a speech that a vote for the NP was a vote for war. Because he says that, I do not want to see him on that council. There is another reason as well. That hon. member tells the Coloured people and the Indians that they are second- and third-class citizens. For that reason I do not want him on the council. Such a man can only bedevil relations, after all. He would be unassimilable on such a council.

I want to tell the hon. member for Yeoville that there is someone else on his side of the House whom I do not want there. I am referring to his leader. I do not want him there. He is a man who has shown in several debates during this session that he does not want to accept assurances which are given to him. He does not want to believe what other people tell him. When he got information from the hon. the Prime Minister and other hon. Ministers, he did not accept it. If such a man were to serve on the defence council and information were to be furnished to him, he would say: “Oh no, that cannot be true.” The hon. the Leader of the Opposition suffers from an incurable distrust psychosis. That is his problem. That council will never be able to work with such a person as a member. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has another problem as well, and I think it goes to the core of the political situation in South Africa. The basis of the politics of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and some of the hon. members on his side does not lie in White politics: It lies elsewhere. For that reason, too, I do not want the hon. the Leader of the Opposition on such a council. He is also the man who once said that if his party could not succeed in defeating the Government, he would have to use other methods to change the Government’s policy.

What did he mean, Harry?

What a dangerous attitude that is! The hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants to achieve his aims in South Africa without the support at the polls of the majority of the Whites in South Africa. That is what it means.

What has that got to do with the motion?

Everything.

What it has to do with it is that with the exception of the hon. member for Yeoville, I would not want to see any one of the hon. members opposite, including that hon. member, on such a council.

You do not want such a council in any case.

I could also refer to other people who are no longer in this House. One Mr. Harry Pitman once said, “White politicians in the Opposition may have to work outside the present political structure in the country within the foreseeable future.” When the hon. member for Houghton was asked about that, she said that she understood quite well what he meant and that it was possible that that would still happen.

We on this side are not the only ones who are concerned about such a standpoint of the Opposition. The hon. member for Yeoville himself is concerned about it. He said in the Sunday Times of 15 May 1977—

I have just said exactly the same.

Such a defence council would not succeed. There is a similar system in America where they have such an advisory committee. The system there does not work. That committee’s security system is so out of joint that nothing about it is a secret any more.

We in this House and the population groups of South Africa should rather express our great appreciation to the hon. the Prime Minister today for the outstanding way in which, as Minister of Defence, he has succeeded over the years in developing and administering the South African Defence Force without any need for the establishment of a defence council. The hon. the Prime Minister’s farsightedness, his special aptitude for administration and organization and his positive and creative leadership has made the South African Defence Force what it is today. Another outstanding quality of the hon. the Prime Minister is his determination to keep national defence outside politics and to unite all language and population groups in their dedication to their task, a task which must be performed jointly by all our people. He has made the Defence Force a full and true people’s defence force.

One could point out many great moments in the hon. the Prime Minister’s term as Minister of Defence. Among the things he has achieved are the unification of commandos, the development of the Citizen Force and the Permanent Force, the creation of a strong national feeling of unity and the establishment of national service. National service is producing good results in the sense that boys go to do their national duty and then come back as men able to meet the demands of their citizenship. I also think of the appointment and training of women in the Defence Force so that they too may be able to serve the country.

Another very great achievement of the hon. the Prime Minister is the fact that he has made possible the manufacture of arms in South Africa and the development of Arms cor and that he has been able to plough R950 million of the defence budget into our local industries. This is truly an outstanding achievement.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the motion before the House, I want to say that the provision advocating equal pay for equal work is entirely acceptable to us. Indeed, hon. members will remember that last year we introduced a special feature into the no-confidence debate by pleading for equal pay for the members of the S.A. Coloured Corps. Our attitude is that men who do the same work and who face the same dangers are entitled, as of right, to the same pay.

As far as the leg of the motion dealing with the faults in the national service system is concerned, I want to say that we acknowledge that there are indeed faults in that system. We believe that the proper way in which to deal with them is to bring them to the attention of the Defence Force authorities and to insist that they be put right. I want also to suggest that all alleged faults in the Defence Force, particularly in the national service system, could be satisfactorily handled in a Defence Select Committee, perhaps with enlarged terms of reference. There are mistakes, but I think it is also only fair to say that our people—not only the national servicemen, but also their families—have not yet learnt what is necessarily required of them and have not yet realized the need for greater personal sacrifice. I want to issue one word of warning today, and that is that there is unfortunately an element of complacency among the public, a belief not that things will not happen here, but a hope that they will not happen here. I think there is also a tendency in circles in and around the Defence Force, perhaps, of too much tinsel and too much display, and that the hard realities of the fact that we are at war are not sufficiently appreciated at all levels of the South African society.

The motion also envisages the creation of a defence council. If there were to be a defence council, then I would suggest that that council should certainly not have political representation. If there were to be a defence council, then the people who should be represented on that council should be the best qualified, the most experienced and the most suitable people to serve on such a council. That could possibly include Parliamentarians, but not necessarily. I am therefore opposed to the principle of political participation on any defence council that might be established. Let me put it lightly. I seriously doubt whether the members of all political parties in this House share the same views on defence. I seriously doubt whether all of them identify the same enemies. I think, also, that it would be difficult for members of all parties to be unanimous on the need for putting South Africa on a war footing.

From time to time for example we have heard people in this House ask the question: What are our national servicemen and what is our Defence Force being asked to defend? I do not want to take this matter further, and want to move on to the next one, namely the issue of a larger Permanent Force. I have always supported the idea of a larger Permanent Force. The sort of Permanent Force I have in mind, the increased or enlarged Permanent Force, would be to include a well-trained, well-equipped Permanent Force strike force, a force which would be able to carry out specific and special tasks. I think particularly of the need for the increase in the size of our paratroop regiments and the creation of what is known elsewhere as special air service battalions. What we are going to have to face in the future in the defence of our country is the necessity for undertaking lightning raids, e.g. the Cassinga raid, like the Israelis have raided neighbouring territories and like the Rhodesians, to their credit, have recently shown they have the courage to do when they raided bases in neighbouring countries which harbour terrorists who are fighting the Rhodesians. I think they display a realistic approach. I believe that the only way to fight terrorists is to fight them in the countries that shelter and train them. I like the suggestion I read about in this morning’s papers, a suggestion which came from the hon. the Deputy Minister of Defence and which was made in the Other Place yesterday, of a kibbutz system on our borders, a system where there is a combination of farming operations and military preparedness in the border areas. I think South Africa has to become some sort of a porcupine, able to put out its quills and to repel the enemies from whichever source they may come.

In conclusion, I would have thought that the hon. member who moved this motion would have done better to have moved another kind of motion. The motion I think he should have moved is a motion warning all South Africans who our enemies are and identifying those enemies. Another leg of the motion could have been to warn all South Africans of the pressures that are being brought to bear upon us, their source and their ultimate objectives. As a third leg he could have included a warning to all South Africans on the need for finding common ground and for not seeking confrontation on all levels and at all times, especially in the light of the present circumstances facing the Republic. A fourth leg, I think, could have been urging the people of South Africa, both inside and outside of this House, to exercise special responsibility and restraint in the light of the present circumstances.

Lastly, I think the hon. member could have served South Africa much better if, having moved a motion such as I have suggested, he had gone out of this House and driven home in those circles which support his party, the hard fact that what South Africans are being asked to defend is not the Government or the Government’s political policies, but their country, because, after all, it is our country that our enemies desire.

Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal of merit in some of the statements made by the hon. member for Simonstown but I am not going to react to them any further.

I want to refer briefly to the arguments submitted by the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Durban Point with regard to the three months border service duty for which national servicemen are not getting full credit. They were particularly unhappy about the fact that only 30 days of those three months are being recognized. To a certain extent I can understand why the hon. member for Durban Point feels like that about it, but not quite, because he is after all a “fundi” where the defence set-up is concerned.

However, I cannot understand at all why the hon. member for Yeoville raised those arguments. If the hon. member were to take a look at the Defence Act, he would see very clearly that a distinction is drawn between war service and service in peace time. In terms of the provisions of the Defence Act, the one cannot be replaced by the other. Therefore there should be no questions in this regard. It would be fatal for the Defence Force if they were to offset all war service fully against ordinary peace time service. The situation would then arise that a particular commando member could complete his compulsory military service of 10 years in a very short period. That would happen if such a member’s war service and service in peace time were to be equated. If hon. members would take the trouble to talk to Heads of Staff of the Army, they would receive a proper explanation in this regard.

The hon. member for Yeoville said, inter alia-. “The Army is meaningless if people are not behind it.” It is true, but that hon. member tried to use the argument in order to justify a Defence council. The hon. member would in my opinion have done better to use that argument to encourage the public in general to get involved in the whole defence effort, as the hon. member for Simonstown also recommended.

In this regard I want to refer in particular to the assimilation effort which was launched. It is such an important matter that I feel we should review its history. At the initiative of the Defence Force, the various Administrators of all the provinces encouraged this effort among local authorities. Basically, what it amounts to is that the soldier must be assisted in all the facets of his training. This is not a new organization that is being created; existing organizations like cultural societies, churches, local authorities, service organizations etc. are being employed. These organizations are employed to form one committee or subcommittee in order to support national servicemen through all the facets of their service, from the time they take up their national service until after their return.

The first phase begins even before the day he begins his national service. During this phase, the organization liaises with the national serviceman and his family. Such a prospective national serviceman is usually a school leaver, a university leaver or an employee. Such a person is then furnished with accurate information concerning all the conditions regarding his national service.

He is given guidance and it is brought home to him that he will be out of his surroundings for a particularly long time, viz. two years. He is conditioned and made aware of the fact that it is a very important task which he is going to fulfil.

Now I come to the second phase. As soon as he starts his national service, that committee or subcommittee contacts his family. We must remember that everything takes place at the local level and that the committees and subcommittees are divided into regions or into magisterial districts. The liaison with the family of the national serviceman is aimed at determining what their needs are. It must be determined whether the wife or parents of the serviceman do not perhaps become isolated and lonely or whether there are financial difficulties. Accordingly, guidance is given or contact is arranged between the dependant and State departments, i.e. the Department of National Welfare and Pensions. That is, of course, only when assistance is really necessary.

The third and last phase, a phase equally important to the national serviceman, concerns his return to civilian life. It is the task of that committee to make that particular serviceman feel at home again in his work, in his environment and in his church, and to see to it that he renews old ties and is integrated into the social life of his environment.

It is the task of each one of us that is not performing national service to make this contribution to our total effort to protect our country. It is so important that we regard the national serviceman not only as someone to whom we should be grateful because he is protecting our borders or busy preparing himself to do so efficiently. We can do more than that, and it is our absolute duty to do so.

This assimilation effort which, I understand, started very successfully, and is proceeding just as successfully, is based on the confidence of the national serviceman that he can depend on the community from which he comes and to which he returns, the community which he trusts to assist him and his dependants during that time when he is making his sacrifice for his country.

Mr. Speaker, if ever there was proof of the imperative need for a defence council, it has been proved beyond any doubt here today. When the hon. member for Yeoville opened this debate today he requested specifically that it be conducted on a non-political basis. I believe the way he put his case was indeed such that anyone in this House who is capable of judging objectively, will concede that the hon. member for Yeoville kept politics out of his speech. But then we saw both the hon. member for Cradock and the hon. member for De Aar immediately trying to drag politics into the debate.

They always do.

They even made the allegation that hon. members of the PFP would be so unreliable that they could not serve on such a council.

It was withdrawn.

The allegation was made that hon. members of the PFP would not keep the secrets to themselves. It may have been withdrawn, but the allegation was in fact made. [Interjections.]

Order! It was withdrawn. The hon. member may not refer to it.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it and I acknowledge that that has been withdrawn. [Interjections.]

Withdraw yourself as well.

The hon. member for Durban Point has supported us in this motion and we appreciate that. The hon. member who has just resumed his seat, has in my opinion also tried to keep politics out of the debate, and that, too, is appreciated.

If one considers the imperative need for this council, and one follows the trend of the debate in which it became clear that provision for such a council had been made as long ago as 1912 but that it has never been necessary for this council to take action, and one takes a look at events immediately to the north of us, it seems as if circumstances may have changed so much that we do need such a council. Apart from the developments in our neighbouring States, it can be stated with certainty that under the present dispensation in South Africa, the pressure will continue to mount. The pressure will be of a military as well as an economic nature. For that reason it is important that the House devote its attention to these matters. I believe defence matters should be discussed in depth. No problem can be so big as not to enjoy the attention of the House. It is, however, true that matters cannot always be discussed in public because information released in that way should be kept confidential in the national interest. It is as simple as that. The defence council is the appropriate place for such a discussion to take place.

Furthermore, I want to point out that the public expects its parliamentary representatives to have a full share in the formulation of defence policy and administrative arrangements. We are expected to do so. It happens time and again that voters in our constituencies and even from beyond them, approach us with their defence problems. They want to know what we can do about them and want to be assured that we do in fact do something in an effort to solve their problems. Such a formal defence council on which all political parties serve, will give the public assurance. It will create the trust among them that defence is dealt with by all of us and that no sectional interests are being promoted.

But it is actually on the second leg of the motion that I want to concentrate. We accept that there are in fact military and economic threats against South Africa. Therefore we must conduct our affairs in such a way that while always being militarily prepared, we shall also remain economically strong. Therefore, the question is simply this: How can we best utilize our manpower in order to meet the above requirements?

Our Defence Force consists of four components. In the first place there* is the Permanent Force, which comprises approximately 7% of our total force. In the second place, there are our national servicemen of whom approximately 60 000 are performing military service at the moment. In the third place, we have our Citizen Force units, consisting of approximately 70 000 men. Finally, there are the Commandos, with approximately the same number of people in service.

History has however proved, during the Second World War and afterwards, that the best soldier is the man who voluntarily joins and would like to be a soldier. Such a person has a free choice of a career and if he should choose to become a soldier, it is because he voluntarily would like to pursue such a career. He takes pride in such a career. His family is satisfied with his choice and his friends will most probably also be people in uniform. The essential esprit de corps which is so extremely important, will be experienced by that person and his friends.

Therefore, we on this side of the House want to propose that steps be taken immediately to encourage outstanding young men of all race groups to pursue a career in the defence of the country. It will also be essential to set the financial remuneration at a level comparable to other sectors. It is important that the Permanent Force be enlarged, not only along the lines laid down by our training personnel and leaders, but also in setting up a formidable fighting unit which will be mobile and which would be able to hit quickly wherever necessary without staff having to be drawn from the Citizen Force units. The unit must be able to act quickly, immediately and on its own as the need arises. Such a fighting unit will always have to be prepared and because of special training such a unit must be competent in the use of modern weaponry and such a unit must at all times be able to offer excellent resistance. There are examples of such special fighting units.

In Rhodesia there is the well-known Selous Scouts and we know what excellent work that unit has done. In Rhodesia it is stated openly that one of the Selous Scouts is certainly worth more as a fighter than four or possibly five other men who are also trying to defend their country. The other men are prepared to defend their country but they simply do not have the expertise of the men who have been specially trained.

I believe such a voluntary enlarged Permanent Force will in time mean less service for the Citizen Force units. That will certainly contribute towards strengthening the economy of our country. The call-up of Citizen Force units could have an adverse economic effect on the country. Unless we are militarily as well as economically strong, we will possibly win the war but lose the struggle for economic growth in our country. If we continue to withdraw men from the economy to serve in the Defence Force, we are going to have trouble maintaining a reasonable growth rate.

I come now to the third leg of the motion by the hon. member for Yeoville. Servicemen have problems. Many of these problems have been referred to and I do not intend to name a whole series of such problems apart from saying that one can expect it to become all the more difficult for a young man who has not completed his military service, to find a suitable job. One cannot blame an employer who has a small business and does not really have a lot of capital if he asks a prospective employee whether he has already completed his military service. If that is not the case, such an employer will look for someone else to fill the post. It is simply a fact that a man who is barely able to make ends meet, will look after his own economic interests and will choose people who have already completed their military service. I should like to recommend something now which could perhaps be of assistance to certain servicemen.

†I should like to make a suggestion about those trainees who were called up in January 1977 for 12 months and who, during their training period, found that their period of service had been increased to 24 months. While some of those signed up for either an 18-month or 24-month bonus, and received that bonus at the end of the period, I want to suggest that this bonus also be given to those who did not sign up, but nevertheless completed, the 24-month period under exactly the same circumstances and doing exactly the same kind of work. I believe this gesture would go far towards helping those people who unexpectedly, and without having been able to plan for it, found themselves having to do considerably longer service than they had expected. I certainly think this gesture would go a long way towards making them feel very much happier about their situation.

*Then there is another aspect which I should like to refer to. It is easily said that every young South African is prepared to do his national service. I also believe that experience has shown that very few young men are not prepared to contribute their share. This is indeed a fact. It is a pity the Minister concerned is not here now to reply to a passage which I am now going to quote. What is interesting, is that the hon. the Minister of Police has found that a large number of people who resign from the Police Force, join the Police Force with the very aim of evading military training. I quote—

If we constitute such a council, a council consisting of members of this House, we could certainly go into a matter like this to determine whether there is really a significant percentage of national servicemen who are trying to evade military service in this way or in other ways. I believe this matter which the hon. the Minister touched upon here is a fairly serious one. I believe it should be looked at, and the proposed council would be an ideal body to do something about it.

Now I come to the very last leg of the motion, i.e. equal pay for equal work. Incidentally, I have in my possession a publication which mentions this. In spite of the fact that this has already been referred to, I just want to point out once again that it is actually in the lower ranks where the equalization of salaries could take place immediately, without the economy of the country in any way being harmed. The difference between R3,47 for a White man and R3,08 for a Coloured man or Asian is so small that…

So what are you complaining about?

… all this does, is to irritate where there need not be any irritation. [Interjections.] It is so small that it can be seen as a distinction to point out that there is a difference of colour. [Interjections.] It is aimed at showing that the one is Black or Brown and the other White. It is a racial aspect. This problem ought to be rectified immediately by the hon. the Deputy Minister and by the hon. the Minister of Defence. It can be done, and it would go far to rectify race relations, in the Army at least.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the hon. member for Wynberg straight away that if anyone dragged politics into this House today, it was he. It was obvious to me that the hon. member let an opportunity slide here to react to the excellent handling of the matter by the hon. members on this side of the House, who came forward with an amendment. With reference to this matter they expressed their appreciation for the good progress which is being made and for the delicate way in which it is being handled. If time allows, I shall refer to it again later. The fact of the matter is that that hon. member has lost the opportunity to prove that he has a grasp of the situation in which we find ourselves. He produced the best testimony as to why a defence council consisting of politicians will not work. I am very sorry that the hon. member, from the pamphlet which was made available for general information, singled out only a small subsection and focussed attention on a minor difference which still exists.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question?

The hon. member may ask his question if there is any time left after I have made my speech. My time is extremely limited. Perhaps I shall, during the course of my speech, reply to the question he wants to ask in any case.

It is a pleasure for me to support the amendment to the motion moved by this side of the House, for to my mind that amendment testifies to a full understanding of the problems with which we are dealing. The fact of the matter is that the hon. member did not say that he was aware that progressive attention is being given to this matter. I am convinced that if he knows as much about Defence Force matters as I expect him to know, he would have been aware that equal pay already exists in certain formations.

We expressed our appreciation for that.

Yes, but I just want to say that I find it extremely regrettable that the hon. member nevertheless took advantage of a delicate matter which is receiving attention and which we are handling to the best of our ability; particularly in view of the statement which the hon. the Prime Minister made a few days ago, and in view of the fact that the Public Service Commission is at present looking into this matter on an ongoing basis …

Thirty years too late.

… I find the hon. member’s approach extremely regrettable.

I now want to proceed to reply to the motion introduced by the hon. member for Yeoville. In the first place I want to express appreciation for the positive approach to and motivation of their amended motion by hon. members on this side of the House, and for the very interesting and pithy arguments which they advanced. I want to express my particular appreciation to the hon. member for Cradock, who spoke for the first time as chairman of the Defence group, for his contribution. I think that he did so very well indeed. I wish him everything of the best in his new task.

The hon. member for Yeoville elucidated his party’s philosophy and approach in regard to the question of defence. I want to furnish him with a reply in that connection. We on this side of the House are convinced that we must at all times maintain and develop a strong defence force because we are in that way ensuring the necessary stability and confidence in the economy. In that way we want to create development opportunities for the entrepreneur and ensure foreign confidence in our economy. We also want to establish the necessary stability to enable us to implement the Government’s policy in respect of constitutional development, the policy to which this side of the House has committed itself. For that reason we believe that we must have a strong defence force. Our strategy and approach as far as this matter is concerned, is that we must spend wherever it is necessary in order to create confidence among the various population groups. We agree on these things. However, I want hon. members on that side of the House to reply to the question of whether their entire caucus believes at all times that we should maintain a strong defence structure for internal as well as external purposes and that we should not allow terrorism in any form to find a foothold here, particularly as far as the internal situation is concerned. I want to know from those hon. members whether they support the defence policy of this side of the House in regard to the maintenance of law and order.

You know what the answer is.

We want to hear it again.

That is a childish question!

If it is a childish question then surely you can reply to it.

In regard to the first part of the hon. member for Yeoville’s motion—in which the establishment of a defence council is requested—I want to say that the function of the council when it was established in 1912, was to enable the country to develop a defence force of its own, to plan its basic structure. In his speech the hon. member for Cradock pointed out that in the course of time it was no longer necessary to maintain it General Smuts himself established war committees to help with decisions when he did not want to use the defence council. The history of that council was such that one must examine precisely what its object was. Was its object to participate in decisions of the supreme command? I am convinced that its purpose was to lay a foundation for the development of the S.A. Defence Force from its inception, and nothing else.

On what levels are decisions made? In the first place they have to be made on ministerial level. The hon. the Minister has certain obligations in terms of the Defence Act and he complies with those obligations as Minister of Defence. As political head he is responsible for the administration of that department. But the Chief of the S.A. Defence Force stands at the head of the department and certain administrative obligations rest on him as well, and the standpoint of that side of the House is, after all, that they do not want to take over the task of professional people. The idea of the hon. member for Wynberg was in fact that such a council ought to deal with administrative matters, for example the evasion of national service. These are completely contradictory ideas. What are the bodies that assist the hon. the Minister of Defence in this connection? A few years ago he established the Defence Advisory Council, a non-statutory body that has to assist him. He can convene this council as frequently as he finds necessary. To this council the hon. the Minister appointed people who had proved themselves to be experts on defence matters. The hon. member also referred to such people. I see the hon. member for Groote Schuur is advising the hon. member for Yeoville, probably that he should withdraw his motion: In the first place the Defence Advisory Council was established to assist the hon. the Minister of Defence. In this way he is furnished with advice by knowledgeable people. It is not necessary for us to mention their names across the floor of the House, but these are people who had proved themselves in commerce and industry, people whose judgment is held in very high esteem by the public of South Africa.

In addition, as regards decisions on the administration of the Defence Force, its operational activities, its composition and its tasks—very important decisions which have to be taken—what does this body consist of? It cannot be left to politicians. It cannot be left to members of this House. They have another function. I shall now tell hon. members what it is. In the first place decisions of this kind are in terms of legislation, entrusted to a Staff Council, but it was thought fit to allow this function to take place under what is known as the Defence Command Council. The Defence Command Council consists of the Chief of the S.A. Defence Force, the Chief of the Army, the Chief of the Air Force, the Chief of the Navy, the Surgeon-General, the Chief of Staff Operations and the Quartermaster-General. These are the people who deal with day to day decision-making. This is the highest command instrument we have in this country. They decide how the S.A. Defence Force shall be utilized in terms of section 3(2) of the Act, where necessary subject to the approval of the Minister as set out in that Act.

The Defence Planning Committee is another body which was established by the hon. the Minister of Defence. The functions of this body are to see to it that the annual budget and the five-year plan, together with the resultant acquisition plan, is in line with the military policy as accepted by the Defence Command Council and approved by the Minister. At the same time this committee must also ensure that the Defence budget remains within the financial limits determined by the Cabinet. In addition I want to point out that the hon. the Minister has certain other functions as well in terms of the legislation controlling Armscor. One of those functions is that the hon. the Minister shall determine the arms requirements of the country and act accordingly. He does this on the basis of the planning undertaken by the Defence Planning Committee, which is guided by certain forecasts, and these predictions are transmitted to another body, a body which determines policy in connection with this matter, i.e. the State Security Council.

The functions of the State Security Council are, inter alia, to formulate a national policy and strategy in regard to the security of the Republic and the way in which such policy or strategy should be implemented. This is the packet which comprises the South African security control. It is also the packet which assists the hon. the Minister of Defence who is responsible for the total security of South Africa. For that reason there is no place for a body such as the one that hon. member is contemplating, neither on an administrative level nor on the level where decisions have to be taken. What does the hon. member have in mind?

Running through all his arguments was one clear idea, i.e. that he wants a say because we are dealing with people here. The entire motion of the hon. member was built around people, i.e. national servicemen, their needs, etc. The hon. member wants a say in how we utilize the manpower of this country. Does the hon. member not have that say through Parliament? Is the hon. member, as he sits there, not a representative of the people? He said that he wants to speak on behalf of the people, but he does so frequently. Perhaps he does not always do so equally effectively, but he does so frequently. The fact of the matter is that the hon. member builds his argument around activities which are unique to Parliament, i.e. a say over actions as they apply to people. Over the years the hon. the Minister of Defence created the procedure here that when legislation pertaining to people had to be formulated, he referred such legislation to a Select Committee. If not, he called in the hon. member for Durban Point, the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Simonstown and ironed out the matter with them. We negotiated with those hon. members and reached an agreement among ourselves on how to iron out problems in regard to legislation dealing with this type of matter. In this connection I am thinking, for example, of legislation which was piloted through this House last year, legislation pertaining directly to people, which was the result of such negotiations. The hon. members had a say in that legislation, and now they are asking for this again. In my opinion the statement by the hon. member for Yeoville in regard to the need which he feels, is met by his privilege as a representative of the people here in this House.

The hon. member for Wynberg wanted such a council to institute an investigation into the evasion of national service. In my opinion such an investigation should not be instituted on that level. That information can be furnished by us and can be debated here in this House. That is, in *my opinion the function of a representative of the people.

There are certain matters, the facts of which one cannot share with a political party. I want to state today that this side of the House does not receive much more information about this type of matter than the hon. member for Yeoville does. However, it is obvious that Ministers and our caucus take us into their confidence and inform us of certain matters. Surely that has to be the case. But as regards the matters of real interest pertaining to the administration, the functioning and the operational activities of the Defence Force, this side of the House is not informed. As a result of the risks which one incurs in regard to security, this simply cannot be done. One could perhaps let the important information slip in the process, without meaning to do so and without our necessarily questioning the bona fides of that side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, can the hon. the Deputy Minister tell me how the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens knew about the Angolan war in 1975, when he was still a Senator?

He must have had prescience.

*There are operations of a sensitive nature to which a high security risk is attached. Information in this regard we cannot share. There is, for example, the task of force assessment to find out how many men we need to deal with an identified threat. Not even this side of the House has knowledge of that. As far as assistance to other powers are concerned, for example our secret military agreements, I want to ask the hon. member: How can we share this intelligence? The hon. member proposed that matters of this kind should come before such a council. As regards the disclosure of intelligence, we on this side of the House have stated repeatedly that we cannot adopt the pattern which is adopted elsewhere. In any event, I do not believe that that pattern exists there either. We cannot share information concerning any matter which constitutes a security risk. Consequently we appreciate the attitude of the hon. member for Yeoville in this connection, and wish to accept his offer of co-operation, as we have in fact done in the past. The hon. member for Yeoville is informed up to a certain level since he is the chairman of his party’s group on defence matters, and in my opinion that practice should continue.

As regards this very important aspect of the hon. member’s motion, I consequently want to say that we consider the practice, as it existed in the past, to be extremely satisfactory because it worked well. I believe that the hon. member for Yeoville, the hon. member for Durban Point and the hon. member for Simonstown know that we will take them to the border again, despite the fact that their conduct was a little peculiar today.

There are still a few other matters to which I want to react, and if I cannot reply to all the questions of the hon. members today, I believe that there will be an opportunity to do so later.

The hon. member for Yeoville also raised the question of the creation of a larger Permanent Force. As regards the principle of this matter, we do not differ, but where we do differ seriously with one another, is on his approach which implies that the S.A. Defence Force should have a different format and that we need to make less use of compulsory national service. In this connection I want to refer the hon. member to a report on Monitor: America is experiencing serious problems in regard to its voluntary permanent force. There is a shortage of thousands in this connection. Here and there we are also experiencing shortages. What is one to do if one cannot attract the people? In a democratic country one must, after all, compete with the private sector. Should one force a person to join? One cannot force a person to do anything of this kind, but in accordance with the principle of compulsory national service, every individual can make his contribution. As a result of the serious shortages which America is experiencing in its voluntary Permanent Force, they are attempting to re-introduce a system of compulsory national service.

The hon. member for Yeoville took his argument further by saying we should recruit members of other race groups to supplement the numbers of the Permanent Force in that way. For a moment the hon. member did not take into account that in places we are dealing with highly specialized services, services which require years of training and that we cannot, overnight, by way of recruitment, find people to perform those services. In this regard the hon. member consequently does not have a solution. Then the hon. member for Yeoville spoke a few very interesting words, words which I found disturbing. The hon. member said: “It would be more cost effective, and it may be cheaper.” I do not know precisely what the hon. member meant by that. If the hon. member meant that we should pay them less, surely it is in conflict with one of the legs of their motion. What precisely did he mean? [Interjections.] The hon. member was not clear at all on this point. In fact, I want to tell the hon. member that I do not like the veiled insinuations in the statement. Are you suggesting that they are more expendable? I think he should be more clear on this point.

That is a disgusting insinuation. You should be ashamed of yourself.

The fact of the matter is that the hon. member aroused a little uneasiness among us in this connection. The hon. member can verify his words in Hansard. He said: “It will be cheaper and more effective.” The hon. member must tell us precisely how he worked it out…

It is frightening that a person like you should have a say in the Government.

… otherwise we cannot go into it.

I want to concede that the hon. member is correct in regard to another point, and I want to reassure him that we must have an equal distribution of the defence burden. I think that is what he tried to say. I believe that if that is what the hon. member for Yeoville wants, we do not differ with one another.

The hon. member will find that in the determination of larger combat units which can function in a Permanent Force context, we are in agreement with him. In this connection I can inform the hon. member that we are investigating the principle of Black soldiers of the S.A. Defence Force who can be formed into companies on a regional basis. Training in this connection is being planned and can start soon. The hon. member knows that we are recruiting on another basis. There are posts available in the S.A. Army and if there is a need in certain areas, it is filled. The hon. member is aware of this. Consequently, when the hon. member advances that argument, we are in agreement with him. As regards the distribution of the burden, we therefore agree with the hon. member.

The hon. member for Yeoville also referred to the question of detention and made the point that he should like to visit the barracks. Does the hon. member think he can solve the problem by visiting the detention barracks? The hon. member for Wynberg has already had this opportunity and has seen what things look like there. So what can the hon. member achieve?

What were the circumstances?

The hon. member himself admits that it is the staff who know best where the faults lie. How can the hon. member solve the matter by visiting the barracks? What useful purpose does that serve?

May we not go then?

The hon. member for Wynberg was already there.

I have not yet been there.

In any event we cannot allow the hon. members to make an administrative inspection to see how these things are done. But we shall invite the Opposition, as we invite hon. members on this side of the House, to visit certain defence areas. If they then wish to visit the detention barracks, we shall exercise our discretion. But I want to make it very clear to hon. members opposite that this prerogative will definitely rest with the executive authority and with the S.A. Defence Force.

The hon. member for Durban Point was correct in saying that in the past he frequently said the same things as the hon. member for Yeoville. To tell the truth, it sounded better to me then. The reason is that the decor at the time was far better. Brig. Bronkhorst was then still in the ranks of the Opposition. The hon. member for Durban Point differs from the hon. member for Yeoville because he wants a Select Committee. Consequently I cannot see how he can support this motion. But I understand his problem. The hon. member referred to certain circumstances relating to national service, as well as to the fact that at one stage conflicting instructions were issued. However, the hon. member must realize that the first instructions were issued shortly after the Angolan situation. Things had to be sorted out. The hon. member himself had a share in the force assessment. We cannot cut short the training of soldiers by awarding too many credits. We cannot provide a soldier with less training and find, the day we need him, that he has not been trained properly. That is the essence of the hon. member’s proposal. It means further that if we see that, measured over the medium or long term, we require a specific force assessment over a period of, say, six or seven years, and we were to award credits, we would not have any trained men at our disposal in five or six years time. This would mean that we would have to call up more men. Consequently I just want to tell hon. members that the unfairness which may exist can be brought to our attention by the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Durban Point and we shall give the matter our attention.

I am thinking, for example, of the various concessions that have recently been made. For example, we have accommodated national servicemen in regard to their studies. When we found that a further concession could be made in view of the numbers, we did so. I want to tell hon. members today that we are considering making even further concessions in respect of one-man businesses and farming operations carried on by one person. We want to allow these people to render their national service in a commando context. That is another consideration. Consequently we are constantly giving attention to these points.

I conclude by saying that I cannot appreciate the support given by the hon. member for Simonstown to the kibbutz system, since that is not precisely what I proposed. I did not propose a kibbutz system as such in the Other Place. If there is an opportunity to do so, I shall inform the hon. member of what our ideas in this connection are.

Mr. Speaker, I find myself in the somewhat peculiar position of having to say a few words in this regard after the Deputy Minister has already replied to the matter. However, there are certain good reasons for my participation. The most important reason, perhaps, is that there will then be less time left for the hon. member for Yeoville to address the House. He has already spoken for 30 minutes and I wish to save my hon. colleagues from having to listen to him once again.

The hon. member for Wynberg made a good suggestion in a moment of clarity when he advised young men to join the Defence Force because it is a good career. I should like to support the hon. member in making that appeal, for it is indeed a good career for our young people. However, I should like to say that I disagree from the hon. member for Wynberg, the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Durban Point, who objected to the thanks and appreciation we expressed to the hon. the Prime Minister in his capacity as Minister of Defence.

Hon. members have accused us of bringing politics into the discussion of the motion this afternoon. The fact is that the hon. members criticize the Government in this motion. They criticize the Prime Minister in his capacity as Minister of Defence for his handling of the Department of Defence, but when we express a word of thanks, we are accused of bringing politics into the debate. It seems that these hon. members are assuming to themselves the right to bring in politics, while we are not allowed to refer to the good work which has been done in this field by the Prime Minister in his capacity as Minister of Defence and by the Deputy Minister of Defence. I think it is appropriate for us to tell him that we appreciate the fact that he has built up a fine and well-prepared people’s army. Do the hon. members on the other side of the House wish to disagree with me when I say that he has built up a fine Defence Force? I do not think they can disagree with us, for it is true. Therefore we may thank the hon. the Prime Minister as the Minister of Defence as far as that is concerned.

Mr. Speaker, I have just a minute left. I should just like to say to the hon. member for Yeoville that we on this side of the House have always regarded him as a very responsible and loyal member on that side of the House. I think that is correct. We know him as a responsible and loyal hon. member of the House. However, I am disappointed with the attempt he has made here this afternoon to highlight things, particularly with the fourth leg of the motion, through which he may disturb relations within the Defence Force. Time does not allow me to elaborate on that. However, the hon. member and I will resume our debate on this matter on a future occasion.

Mr. Speaker, let me say at the outset that there have been constructive contributions in this debate and for that I am thankful. I regard the attitudes of the hon. members on the Government side in this debate as amounting to a near tragedy for South Africa in the circumstances in which it finds itself. It is a tragedy to find that when Opposition parties extend the hand of friendship, not only is that hand of friendship and co-operation turned away, but is turned away with insults and remarks which reflect very badly on the people who made them. I was disappointed enough in the attitude of the hon. member for Cradock and the hon. member for De Aar in this debate, but when the hon. the Deputy Minister places himself on the same level as those hon. members, my heart bleeds for that kind of situation. For an hon. Deputy Minister, who is not unintelligent, to suggest that when we refer to a cost effective and cheaper situation in respect of the economy, we are saying that some people’s lives are cheaper than those of others, is a lousy political trick. For him to allege that when he knows that we are referring to the cost to the economy as a whole, of one system as against another, to using your economically active people more effectively in the economy, gives me no confidence when I extend the hand of cooperation. The hon. the Deputy Minister then states that is all very nice to hear me say this, but then asks, “Glo jul hele koukus dat ons ’n sterk Verdedigingsmag moet he, nie alleen wat die binneland en buiteland betref nie, maar ook sodat ons teen terroriste kan optree?”

*The hon. the Deputy Minister knows as well as I and the country do what the answer is. He is just trying to make a little cheap politics out of the matter. I must express my disappointment about this to the hon. the Deputy Minister.

†Mr. Speaker, if one looks at the concept of a defence council, I want to tell the hon. member for Durban Point—for whose support I thank him—that a Select Committee cannot sit during the whole year, as he knows. Therefore a Select Committee is not the answer, unless the rules of this House are changed. The arguments used by hon. members of the NP on this, are firstly, that we have never had it, secondly, that we do not need it and thirdly, that there are some people whom they do not want on it.

Let me deal with the main argument of why there has not been one in South Africa until now. We have had two wars in which South Africa was involved, the First World War and the Second World War, during which the country was divided. If one looks at the Second World War—which is still fresh in the memory—there were people in the then Opposition who were utterly opposed to being in the war at all. How can you therefore have them on a defence council? When it comes to defence policy and philosophy at present, however, there is nobody, as I see it, who disagrees that South Africa should be defended against ‘external aggression or who does not believe that terrorism should be combated. There is no division on this issue. It is, interestingly enough, the first time in the history of this Parliament that there is no division in regard to a war which may take place, whether in reality or otherwise, in the formal sense. It is the first time that this has really happened. I see the hon. the Minister of Community Development shaking his head. Has it happened before?

Yes, with the Korean War.

The Korean War was not a war in which South Africa was involved. It was a United Nations war and we assisted the United Nations. That is the reality of it. When it comes to a real war situation we on these benches suggest that in the type of war in which we are going to be involved we need a bipartisan defence policy. But this has been rejected by hon. members on the other side of the House. I am sorry about this, because I think that South Africa will suffer by this and not the Opposition.

We now come to the concept of a bigger Permanent Force. The only argument which has been advanced against it is the difficulty of recruiting. I suggested that if we recruited more people from all races the recruitment problem would be overcome. It would in fact be made easier if it were made clear today that there would be equal pay for equal work at every level. That is the concept which we have put forward. How there can be objections to this, I do not know.

I want to turn to an issue which I think the hon. the Deputy Minister and the hon. the Prime Minister are going to have to correct. The hon. member for Cradock said the military strategy of the Government was affected by the political policy of the Government. It is utterly wrong to say to the people of South Africa that defence strategy is affected by the political policy of the Government, because there are thousands of young men who do not fight to defend apartheid. They fight to defend South Africa. The hon. member for Cradock has done South Africa a disservice by propounding that concept here today, and I think the hon. the Deputy Minister and the hon. the Prime Minister must, at the earliest opportunity, repudiate this concept Because if we are defending the political policy of the Government, if we are defending apartheid in South Africa, then a new dimension has come into the picture. The young men of South Africa are defending, in the words of the hon. member for Simonstown, South Africa. They are defending their country. They are defending the concept of our being here together. For it to be suggested therefore that the military strategy is affected by the political policy of the Government, is something which must very clearly be put right at the earliest opportunity, because it cannot be tolerated in this situation.

The third leg of the motion deals with certain problems which exist. However, there was no satisfactory answer from the hon. the Deputy Minister to the problems which we on these benches posed. There was, for example, no answer to the question dealing with the three months’ call-up or the question of a person being called up immediately on completion of his national service or the question of how much of the three months has been counted. It is no good saying that the law allows it. That is the very point. It is an unsatisfactory situation and has to be remedied.

Are you deaf?

The hearing deaf are on that side! The law has to be changed if we have to deal effectively with that situation.

As far as the fourth leg of the motion is concerned, we think that if the principle of equal pay for equal work is now introduced, it can be achieved at very low cost and for the benefit of everybody. I said right at the beginning that the Government was moving in that direction. I conceded it and I said so, but it must be done now.

Why do you make small politics out of it?

I am not making small politics. The hon. the Deputy Minister is the one who has turned this into a political debate. He has not handled this correctly. He has dragged defence matters into politics. I started off this debate by making an appeal that this should not happen. However, what did we find? The hon. member for Cradock made the most impertinent remarks and the hon. member for De Aar attacked people’s integrity. This was followed by the cheap political tactics of the hon. the Deputy Minister. I want to warn the hon. the Deputy Minister that if he wants to drag politics into defence, he will be doing South Africa a disservice. We have kept defence out of politics and we want to keep it out of politics, because it is harmful to South Africa to bring this kind of political tactics into it You cannot carry on in this way. I want to use a visit to the detention barracks as a simple example. The hon. the Deputy Minister knows as well as I do that the hon. member for Wynberg paid a visit to a special barracks for people who were conscientious objectors. He did not visit the other detention barracks. But despite that the Deputy Minister states the contrary in this House. How can he do that? I go one further. The hon. member for Wynberg was given permission by a most senior general in the Defence Force to visit the ordinary detention barracks, but when we asked the hon. the Deputy Minister for permission, he was the one who said we could not visit these barracks. Why should we not be able to see them? What is there to hide?

I adhered to the decision.

What is there to hide away? If we as Parliamentarians can be allowed by the hon. the Minister of Prisons to visit prisons, why can we not be allowed to visit detention barracks? What is the reason for it? This is not something which we are going to take lying down. This is a right that we as Parliamentarians are entitled to exercise.