Mr. Chairman, I think everyone in this House as well as the public outside will agree that this year we have had one of the most interesting debates in many years on the Vote of the hon. the Prime Minister. Last Thursday the hon. the Prime Minister delivered a policy speech in this House, a speech from which one can derive a great deal and about which one will be able to talk for the rest of the year. I should like to elaborate somewhat on two aspects of that speech in particular. In the first place, it concerns our policy of uncommittedness. In the second place it concerns the envisaged constellation of States to come into being in Southern Africa. I think for many reasons that these two matters certainly are of vital importance to the future of South Africa.

Unfortunately these matters have so much substance that I cannot do justice to them within a matter of a mere ten minutes. When, in the first place, we look at our relations with other States, it strikes us immediately that particularly during the past decade or two, the various States of the world have specifically been thrown back on their own resources. Each is interested only in itself. Each seeks only its own interests. The type of camaraderie or friendship we knew in earlier years no longer exists. It is something of the past.

When we consider the position of South Africa itself, we find that up to 1961 we were a member of the old Commonwealth and I do believe we derived considerable benefit from that membership. It was actually a pity that we had to terminate our membership of the Commonwealth when South Africa became a Republic in 1961. The members of the Commonwealth supported one another in all respects—politically, economically and in many other respects. That was very much to the benefit of all. After we had terminated our membership of the Commonwealth we still felt politically bound to the West, to America as well as to the countries of Western Europe. That, too, greatly benefited us. We felt bound to the Western countries particularly because of our anti-communistic attitude. It was very much to our benefit to be bound to the West. In recent years it has become evident, however, that the goodwill between South Africa and the West emanated from one side only, i.e. from the side of South Africa. The goodwill no longer emanated from the other members of the Western community. It seemed to us that the loyalty of South Africa was being trampled underfoot by the Western nations and as though they had been trying to humiliate us. We have just been witnessing the latest instance here of the past few days with the revelation of American espionage on South Africa. This was a deliberate attempt to humiliate South Africa. Now, one cannot help thinking of the old expression, viz. with friends like that, who needs enemies.

It is not only the USA that is the culprit in this regard. England and other Western European countries, too, have started holding their friendship with South Africa in contempt. They like to have the benefits they are able to derive from South Africa, for example, the benefit of a good export market and the benefit of a country that is a reliable payer. But there is no quid pro quo. No. They break off sport ties with South Africa. There are no military ties with South Africa, and even as far as the economic ties are concerned there is, in certain cases, no longer any quid pro quo. Therefore we may rightly ask whether there is not perhaps more racial discrimination in America than in South Africa. Because why are they acting against South Africa in this way? One may also ask why certain countries lean over so far towards the communist countries in particular. We have in mind, for example, tours by representatives of Western countries in China, and the ties of friendship they are forging there, as well as their trade with those people. In the meantime they scorn the friendship of South Africa. In this process they try to vilify South Africa and throw her to the wolves. For that reason I feel—and I think the rest of South Africa feels the same way—that the time has arrived for us to reflect, and to reflect very seriously, on the question as to whether we should remain committed to the Western countries any longer, whether we should continue to foster as we have done in the past, the historical goodwill we have had towards the West.

We do not want to become involved in the quarrels which have lately been arising between America and other Western countries, between America and England, or between America and any other country. We do not want to become involved in those quarrels. For that reason I think it is so much more necessary for us to reconsider our position. We want to maintain bonds of friendship with all countries in the world and we want to live in peace with them. That is definite. We want to trade with everyone. We want to exchange knowledge with everyone. When we break away politically from the countries of the world, this does not mean that we push aside certain countries. We still want to remain on friendly terms with all the countries of the world; we just do not want to consider ourselves bound to anyone of them. We should still like to remain friends of the USA, of the countries of Western Europe, of Latin America or of any of the other nations.

As regards the second aspect, the league of States in Southern Africa, frequent mention has been made of such a league over the past two decades. It is a league which will not be of a political nature. The States are not going to be bound to one another politically, but it is going to be an alliance which can be formed on the basis of a more effective exchange of knowledge, of trade and of everything connected therewith. A treaty of co-operation can come into being among the States concerned. In considering this, one should, in my opinion, consider the States south of the equator in particular, and not necessarily only our immediate neighbours. We should enter into some alliance with all the States south of the equator.

During the past weekend I read in one of the newspapers of States around us allegedly having expressed themselves against such an alliance. I have examined the relevant speeches in the newspaper cuttings, and it appears that there is in fact no State that has expressed itself against it, except perhaps Lesotho which said it did not want to be bound in some alliance with South Africa. The opinion of Transkei and Bophuthatswana simply is that they are first seeking international recognition. We know the view of men such as the Rev. Sithole and Bishop Muzorewa of Rhodesia is that they will welcome such a step and that they desire ties of friendship with South Africa.

Apart from the economic benefits we can derive from such an alliance, it can also serve as an antipode to communism, to the Russian imperialism that is engulfing Africa at the moment. The States that will form part of such a league or alliance, will be States with divergent forms of Government. We all know that. There are one-party States, there are military dictatorships and there are democracies, but it does not matter; as far as that is concerned, we also remain uncommitted to such countries.

Some people ask in the light of this why we do not become a member of the OAU. That is precisely where the difference lies. The OAU is a politically orientated organization of which States in Africa are members with an eye to uniform action inside and outside the UN. The proposed league or alliance of States in Southern Africa will, however, be aimed specifically at cooperation without mutual commitments as far as political matters are concerned.

South Africa will be able to assist these States, and our neighbouring States in particular, immensely. We all know that. But in this process South Africa, too, can benefit a great deal, because an old economic law is, after all: If it goes well with one’s neighbour, one must necessarily benefit from that. Consequently we welcome the policy statements made by the hon. the Prime Minister last Thursday.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Potgietersrus elaborated further on our relations with other countries and in particular commented on the new idea that we should remain in an unaligned situation as far as the large power blocs are concerned. I do not propose to take this matter any further in the light of foreign affairs in general, but I want to say something about one of our important neighbours. I refer to Rhodesia.

†Over the weekend the final results of the Rhodesian election came through. It is appropriate that I should comment on them briefly at this stage. It is our view that the results, the size of the poll, encourages one to believe that peace can be established in the country in due course. The size of the vote gives one a clear indication of three things. Firstly, that the majority of the people of Rhodesia want peace; secondly, that they prefer to use the ballot box, rather than violence, in order to achieve their political goals; and, thirdly, that they are prepared to give the constitution, based on the agreement of March 1978, a chance as a basis for coexistence in their country. There may be criticism on matters of detail as far as the constitution is concerned, and there may be criticism of the history of events that preceded its introduction. It is also desirable, for the sake of peace and stability in that country, that as many Rhodesians as possible should agree upon any new constitutional dispensation for their country. That is basic. Given the circumstances in which Rhodesia finds itself today, in my opinion the poll and the size of the poll indicate that the new constitution, based on the so-called internal agreement, provides the best option on which to base stable, orderly co-operation between the people of Rhodesia. In these circumstances I believe that what is taking place there should be given every encouragement. I hope that the result of the poll will, as rapidly as possible in very difficult circumstances, lead to a reestablishment of peace in this important territory adjoining us. We would be naive not to accept the fact that there are many imponderables that lie ahead and it would also be unwise of us, in South Africa, to anticipate any initiatives which the new Government itself might take in trying to achieve peace in Rhodesia.

There are two points which I believe do emerge from the result. Firstly, the neighbouring States should take note of this expression of the will of the people of Rhodesia, and, having done so, I believe it to be in the interests of Rhodesia, of the neighbouring States and of Southern Africa, for the neighbouring States to stop allowing their countries to be used as bases from which terrorist attacks can be launched against the people of Rhodesia.

Secondly, I think that the Government should examine the situation very carefully. It is our opinion that once a new Government has been installed in Rhodesia, and that once it has shown its ability to administer that country, the South African Government should consider giving formal recognition to the State of Zimbabwe/Rhodesia. This implies no approval or disapproval of the internal policies of an adjoining country and implies no approval or disapproval of the details of the constitution. It would, however, be a recognition of the fact that the majority of the people of Rhodesia have expressed their right of self-determination, as far as their future is concerned, through the democratic process of the ballot box. We in these benches believe that all countries which believe in the ballot box, in the democratic process as a means of resolving disputes and as a means for self-determination, should acknowledge the people of Rhodesia and encourage them on the basis of what they have done during the past week.

What are your feelings about the Patriotic Front?

The second point I want to deal with involves some comments that arise out of the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech on Friday afternoon. After the hon. member for Parktown had raised the issue of the $10 million, the hon. the Prime Minister raised a separate issue with me. He said—

I do not want to take issue with the hon. the Prime Minister about this at this stage, but what is important, I think, is that we should understand, across the floor of the House, the meaning of words. It is important that if there is any vagueness in the words, that should, in the first place, be cleared up. [Interjections.]

Order!

The Prime Minister also said further—

I have accepted the good faith of the hon. the Prime Minister, but I do believe that the hon. the Prime Minister must explain to this House exactly what he meant by those words, because I have no doubt that there is significant ambiguity. What has been established, through the Erasmus Commission, is that money earmarked for the Department of Information’s secret projects were included in the Defence Vote in the budget approved by Parliament at least for the three years from 1974 to 1977. I would be surprised if the hon. the Prime Minister had any objection to the finding of the Erasmus Commission, that Information money was included in the budget of the Department of Defence under the Special Defence Account. Secondly, what has been established by the Erasmus Commission is that the money which had been included there were used by the Information Department for secret projects. This is quite clear from the report of the Erasmus Commission. One has only to look at the summary of expenditure and income allocated to those three funds from 1975 to 1976 to see that money was taken from that particular account and handed over to the Department of Information. The question we therefore want to put to the hon. the Minister is: What precisely is the meaning of his words that nothing that was budgeted for defence was used for Information? We should like to establish the meaning of those words so that we can take the matter further.

You are flogging a dead horse.

No, Sir, we are asking the hon. the Prime Minister to give us clarity on this particular issue. Is he saying that, because he and the hon. the Minister of Finance were aware that these sums of money were being placed on that Vote, this was therefore not money that was voted for defence, or is he suggesting that it is not the people who vote here in Parliament, but the people who draw up the budget who determine what has been budgeted and what has been voted? We want to know whether Parliament was informed. That is the critical issue. After all, in every session we spend some six or seven weeks looking at the budget and, in general terms, voting on specific Votes. I put it to the hon. the Prime Minister: If he was aware of this—and he says that he was aware of it—was this House, which approved the budget, told? Did he know of this particular information and did he pass it on to the House? Did the hon. the Minister of Finance pass it on to the House? If they did not, what was Gen. Malan saying in his letter in which he requested that this system should be changed? We ask the hon. the Minister to clarify the meaning of his words because we believe that this matter could well be taken further one way or another. We should like to know from the hon. the Prime Minister what he meant by the words that no money budgeted or voted for Defence was used for the purpose of the secret fund.

This brings me to the next issue, i.e. the whole question of the control of secret funds. It is correct that the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Finance had, according to the evidence and their own statements, been concerned for some time about the system of budgeting that had taken place. We accept that this was a matter of concern to them. In February last year the hon. the Minister of Finance said in the House that he would like to change this system. He presented to the House the Secret Services Account Bill to regularize the budgeting and control of secret funds. The three existing secret funds were brought under its control and any additional money which had to be voted for other departments was likewise going to fall under the direct control of the Minister of Finance and of the Treasury. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I merely rise to afford the hon. the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to complete his speech.

I thank the hon. Chief Whip for his gesture. I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied that this new system under the Secret Services Account Act is effective in controlling the budgeting, the allocation of money and the auditing of funds? The evidence is that, while it has regularized the budgeting and it is no longer necessary to put secret moneys under the wrong accounts, it has not controlled the auditing of and control over the expenditure of that money. We had the situation where the hon. the Minister of Finance had to explain to the House how he came to sign authorization for the expenditure of R14 million on the basis of code names and, when this was withdrawn, his subsequent authorization of 12 May for some R7 million, not on the basis of code names, but on the basis of some general services. If one accepts the explanation of the hon. the Minister of Finance, it is quite clear that he was not aware of the purpose for which these funds were going to be used.

You have said that at least six times in the course of the debates.

There is therefore no point in having a Secret Services Account Act that is controlled by the Minister of Finance when that hon. Minister, as he explained to us, is not aware of the details. The whole object of this is to bring the secret funds under the control of the Minister, the Auditor-General and also of Parliament. I put it to the hon. the Prime Minister: Is he satisfied that the Act which was passed a year ago is working? Is it giving sufficient protection in the field of secret funds? We on this side of the House do not believe that it is adequate. On the basis of the explanation given by the hon. the Minister of Finance, it is far from adequate. The controls are no more adequate than they were before.

I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that there must be far more effective Cabinet control over secret funds, not of an individual Minister, not of one person, but either the Cabinet as a whole or a committee of the Cabinet has to accept responsibility. We must learn from the past. What has happened as far as the Information scandal is concerned, has been a traumatic experience for this Parliament and no doubt also for the Government. If a mistake was made at that time, let us remedy it by ensuring in future that secret funds and secret projects fall under the control of the Cabinet as a whole so that there is collective Cabinet responsibility for funds utilized for a particular purpose.

Secondly, the Erasmus Commission revealed a very alarming state of affairs in so far as the old Bureau for State Security was concerned. It indicated that tremendous power had flowed more and more in the direction of Gen. Van den Bergh, who was the head of that particular bureau. So much so that he was seen as a sinister figure. He was seen as a manipulator. He was seen as a man who could try to manipulate the political history of South Africa. What is the hon. the Prime Minister doing to ensure that this will not happen again? What is being done to see that the Department of National Security is brought under more formal Cabinet or parliamentary control than it is at the moment? It is appropriate for an account of that size that we should not know exact details. It is also appropriate that Parliament does not discuss the details of the Department of National Security, because of the sensitive issues involved. What is important, however, is that there should be constitutional machinery to see that what happened when Gen. Van den Bergh was in charge, never ever occurs again in the future history of South African politics. The hon. the Minister of the Interior raised this matter during the short session of 7 and 8 December last year and said it was his own personal view that there should be some examination as to the control over the Department of National Security. We put it to the hon. the Prime Minister: If this was a defect which emerged as a result of the findings of the Erasmus Commission, what is he doing to put it right? If he cannot do anything to put it right, does he as Prime Minister accept personal responsibility from now onwards for the Secretary or anybody else in the Department of National Security? Is the hon. the Prime Minister prepared to be the guarantor? Is he satisfied that there is adequate control? Is he prepared to follow the advice of the hon. the Minister of the Interior and see that the control over the Department of National Security is placed on a wider base by control from within the Cabinet?

In the short time at my disposal I want to raise two other matters. One is a matter touched on by the hon. the Prime Minister, and that is the question of the relationship between the Prime Minister, the Government, and the Press. There is no doubt that ever since the Information scandal burst wide open with the publication of the evidence given before the Mostert Commission, the hon. the Prime Minister has behaved as if he is at loggerheads with the Press in South Africa. That has been the way in which he has behaved. This is illustrated by his speech at Sasolburg early in November last year, by his meetings with the NPU, by his statement on television in the middle of November and by indicating in the short session of Parliament that by 30 May of this year there would be anti-rumourmongering legislation. As a result of the speech which the hon. the Prime Minister made on Friday, we want to make it quite clear that we see the free Press as a vital indispensable part of our parliamentary system. We admit that the Press may have made mistakes, as individuals around the world make mistakes, but they have in South Africa played a mature and responsible part in probing and exposing the actions of the Government. We understand that the Press, through the NPU, has co-operated to try to “put its house in order”, but all the indications are that the Government has, since the Information scandal started, become acutely sensitive to the Press and to criticism by the Press. We want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister to stop being so sensitive and to realize the positive value of a free Press in South Africa. This is not the time for more legislation to be introduced, but for more cooperation between the Government and the Press. In specific terms, I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether in the light of his speech last Friday, 20 April 1979, the Government has now decided not to proceed with anti-rumourmongering legislation. I want to ask him whether we are to infer from his speech that the Government will not proceed with the anti-rumourmongering legislation it indicated it would introduce by 30 May 1979.

Finally, I want to raise the issue of Crossroads. I want to say that we in these benches welcome the decision of the Government on the Crossroads issue. We think it was a wise, sensible and compassionate decision. I want to say that if that was a wise, sensible and compassionate issue, there is one issue of a similar nature in respect of which the Government can take a wise decision, one which could also have a dramatic effect on race relations here in the Cape Peninsula. The Government can, namely, do something to change the climate and circumstances surrounding District Six. Yes, we believe that an act of redeclaring District Six an open area in order to allow the Coloured people living there to stay there, would be a symbolic act of reconciliation between the Government and the Coloured community of South Africa. It would avoid the anguish and uncertainty on the part of a significant number of people who live there. From a city planning point of view it would show good sense in allowing the working-class people of Cape Town and its environment to live close to their place of work. The hon. the Prime Minister is not only the Prime Minister, but also the leader of the NP in the Cape Province, a party which has a considerable influence on decisions relating to the western Cape. It is both as Prime Minister and in his capacity as leader of the NP in the Cape Province that we in these benches want to ask him—even at this stage—in the same way as in the case of Crossroads a compassionate and sensible decision was taken, stop any more removals from District Six, rehouse those people who have to be rehoused within the complex of District Six and make this his act of reconciliation towards the Coloured people of the Cape Peninsula.

Mr. Chairman, we have heard from all the weekend papers that the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition is singing his swan-song. This afternoon we listened to the fourth verse and the first three-quarters of that was nothing but a literal repetition of the summary of the first three. However, the speech by the hon. Leader of the Opposition will be remembered in particular for certain omissions. In the first place it was distinguished by his continued failure to retract or explain his scathing attack on the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the effect that this hon. the Minister was largely responsible for the attack on his flat. One would have expected him to rectify the position. But notwithstanding the fact that his own newspaper, the Rand Daily Mail, has requested him to do so, he has up to now failed to retract his accusation against the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I want to appeal to him to have the magnanimity to admit his mistake and to state that an hon. Minister on this side of the House cannot accept responsibility for the actions of madmen.

In the second place we saw in all the weekend newspapers that Adv. Kozonguizi, the legal adviser of the DTA, a responsible man, has expressed his willingness to confirm under oath the allegations by the hon. the Prime Minister against the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, the allegation that wherever the hon. the Leader of the Opposition went and had interviews in Africa with hostile leaders, he created the impression that he was favourably disposed towards Swapo terrorists. He has had the opportunity here of refuting that, but he has completely failed to avail himself of this opportunity. It is interesting that he asked us this afternoon to try to understand the meaning of words. But how has he evaded this issue? He has said that neighbouring States should not allow their States to be used as terrorist bases, and with this he wants to escape those allegations. I want us now to test the attitude of the official Opposition in respect of terrorists, terrorist support and sympathy with them against the actions from that side. In this regard I want to refer to the series of questionable standpoints adopted by the official Opposition in respect of internal terrorism and I wish to refer to the evident action by the official Opposition as represented by the hon. member for Houghton. She as the most senior member of the official Opposition, as the former chief spokesman on justice, thought it proper, evidently without repudiation, to lodge a telegraphic objection on behalf of the official Opposition to the execution of a terrorist murderer, and she did so with the State President.

Now, let us consider for a moment the gravity of this objection. Let us first ask ourselves the question: Who was this terrorist murderer? Solomon Mahlangu was a young Black man who left South Africa unlawfully in 1976 to be trained under the ANC in Luanda as a terrorist, and he completed his training there. In court, he admitted under oath that his training had included intensive training in sabotage, intensive training in the use of explosives and intensive training in helping to effect the economic downfall of South Africa. This was said under oath and is contained in the court record. He and his two companions returned in disguise to the Republic of South Africa as terrorists. They returned armed with Scorpion machine guns, explosives, hand grenades, 255 rounds of heavy ammunition and automatic time-bomb mechanisms. They returned and in this country committed a blatant, cold-blooded murder on two innocent people and also attempted to murder two more people. They were arrested in time, however, before they could cause any damage through sabotage. That is what these terrorists were engaged in. These persons were convicted without extenuating circumstances in a Supreme Court in this country, after all witnesses had been heard. Solomon Mahlangu was arrested while he had in his possession a hand grenade, a Scorpion machine gun with a loaded magazine, which he was pointing at a policeman when it jammed, and he was a man who gave the Black Power salute in the witness box. He was a man who declared under oath that he indeed had the implied mandate to shoot and to shoot to kill the moment he was cornered. This notwithstanding, the official Opposition saw fit to join other leftist organizations of the world in objecting to the execution of this terrorist.

Let us pause for a moment and see who were the stable-mates who lodged an objection together with the hon. member for Houghton. Do hon. members know who lodged objections together with her?

Japie.

It was the British liberal trade unions, the World Council of Churches, the Anti-apartheid Movement in London and certain Western countries under the influence of lobbies. Ironically enough, these are countries that are merciless in dealing with terrorists in their own ranks. It is even more interesting to note that the fifth one is none other than the official news agency of the Soviet Union, namely Tass. What does Tass say in this connection? Tass says this man was not a criminal murderer, but a “freedom fighter”. Tass continues—

Mind you, this is no longer regarded as a murder committed by someone, but as a crime committed by the Government. The hon. Opposition thought it wise, together with these five bodies, to object to the execution of this particular terrorist and murderer. [Interjections.]

There is yet another aspect in this regard that I wish to refer to. On that side of the House there are members—and I am referring to the hon. member for Yeoville in particular—who are forever saying in this House that we should repose confidence in him and other members as well, particularly with regard to Defence matters. He says that while such other people are in the same party with him. Up to now, there has been no repudiation in this regard. There are other fine young Afrikaners, too, who have lost their heads and who find themselves in that party. They also associate themselves with this type of action. The hon. members for Rondebosch, Bezuidenhout, Green Point and Wynberg find themselves in those ranks. As long as they find themselves in that party, they are all a party to the situation. South Africa wants the PFP to state clearly and unequivocally what its attitude in this regard is. They must state whether or not they dissociate themselves from the standpoint of the hon. member for Houghton and, if so, they must undertake in this House to reprimand her for the position in which she has landed them. They should also consider expelling her from the party on account of her self-confessed leftist, communist attitudes and leanings. Every hon. member on that side of the House bears the responsibility for the actions of the hon. member for Houghton in this regard.

There are two statements the hon. member for Houghton must not make: In the first place, she must not allege, as she stated in the papers, that she did so out of sympathy because she is opposed in principle to capital punishment. I say this because 132 people were executed last year, and the hon. member for Houghton did not object to their execution. The interesting part is that on the very same day on which Mahlangu was executed, four other criminal murderers were executed with him, but in her telegram the hon. member only lodged an objection to the execution of the terrorist murderer and not to the execution of the other four murderers. She therefore only lodged an objection to the execution of the murderer who was a terrorist. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durbanville has raised a very interesting question indeed, and one that has to be answered in the interests of everybody in South Africa, including all the parties in this House. Without wishing to get myself involved in what is essentially a sideshow in the context of what I want to discuss, I feel that it is strange that there are members of the official Opposition who are completely in support of the operations which young South Africans are launching on our borders to safeguard the lives of people who are not South Africans, i.e. people of South West Africa, against the onslaughts of terrorism, and yet when a man enters our country, kills some of our people, is found guilty in our courts after a completely fair trial—and one of the boasts that we have is that our judicial system is totally beyond any kind of censure—hon. members of that party send a telegram asking for clemency. This they do after the court, as its considered verdict, passed the death sentence upon that person.

You know quite well that the issue is the death penalty.

I think that party owes us an answer to that question, and hon. members in that party should think about this very seriously indeed. The hon. member for Orange Grove says that the issue is the death penalty, but I say that the death penalty is part of the law and, to my mind, the law has been carried out. There was the full process of the trail and the sentence was passed. The fact that the death penalty was imposed in many other cases, with no such question being raised or telegram being sent, I think lends particular emphasis to the questions they have to answer. [Interjections.]

I want to deal very briefly today with the debate up to now. I agree entirely with the hon. member for Durbanville when he says that we have had a very interesting debate; in fact, to my mind one of the most positive and constructive debates on the Vote of a Prime Minister that we have had for a number of years. I think there were three things that stood out. Firstly, the hon. the Prime Minister himself made a statement in the House on the policy of the NP. He told hon. members on that side of the House where he was going and indicated that if they did not like it they should jump out of the boat here and now. I must say that there are not many signs of hon. members on that side of the House who are ready to jump out of the boat. [Interjections.] The hon. the Prime Minister has put the scene together and I must say that what he has achieved is to have said that the Department of Information affair, regrettable and scandalous as it was, is now something which can afford to fade into the background because we are now going to talk about the future of South Africa. [Interjections.] That is what I think we ought to be doing and I welcome the attitude the hon. the Prime Minister has adopted in this debate. [Interjections.]

The second issue that has struck me is the fact that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has singularly failed to meet the challenge posed by the hon. the Prime Minister, and I regret to say it as I am very fond of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. [Interjections.] That is so, and I am proud to say that. However, I think that in a debate of this nature he has not come up to expectations as the sort of leader of the Opposition I should like to see opposing the governing party.

Thirdly, the hon. the leader of the NRP, my party, put the whole emphasis back on the policy of the Government. One of the significant factors of the debate is that the Government now finds itself having to debate and explain the policy that it is proposing for South Africa, the policy as set out by the hon. the Prime Minister.

The one point that we want to debate with hon. members on that side of the House is whether or not there is now a new element in the plural relationships in South Africa between the different groups and whether there is a new element which has emerged, that of the Black people of the urban areas who are evolving into a new factor which has to be considered in the political dispensation we are going to introduce in the debate we are going to launch in the Select Committee, a dispensation which is going to introduce a new Republic here in South Africa. [Interjections.] About that let there be no doubt whatsoever. There will be a new Republic into which we are going to go with a new dispensation that is going to change this Parliament. [Interjections.] This is the question which has to be answered and which has to be debated with us by the hon. the Prime Minister. Nobody in this House says that the Black man, because he lives in an urban area, is divorced from his people. A Zulu who lives in Soweto is as much a part of the Zulu nation and the Zulu people as a man who lives in Nongoma or anywhere else.

Why do you call that a leading element in the debate?

The hon. member must listen and just try to think. The problem we have is that there are people who have moved out of the value system of the homelands. They have moved into an urban area, into a free enterprise system, a totally new system where the individual is what counts, and they have moved in significant numbers. They are there and have to be taken into consideration.

I want to pose a question to the hon. the Prime Minister. Where there is a city such as Soweto, with approximately 1½ million inhabitants, it is a question of practical administration who it is who is going to be in control and take ultimate decisions, for the people of Soweto, on all the practical matters they have to discuss with authorities round about them. Can one introduce, as the hon. the Prime Minister appeared to indicate, an element of extra-territoriality whereby the people of kwaZulu, Transkei, Venda, etc., can take decisions which are going to be binding upon the people of Soweto or not? If that cannot be done, one has to accept that the people of Soweto are going to have a measure of control over their own affairs, a situation which is going to sunder them from the authority or structure of kwaZulu, for instance, because they will elect a council in terms of the new dispensation of the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development, a council which will have greater powers, not just municipal powers. However, they will have to negotiate with all the authorities round about them. Either a decision has to be taken that the people of kwaZulu are going to have the ultimate say in what they want or those people have to be told that they themselves, through the elected council that they have, will be able to take final decisions on matters that affect them. That is the difference between the NRP and the NP.

Our proposal is that there should be a Parliament—or whatever one may like to call it—for urban Black people, people who are no longer within the social system of the homelands, who have moved out of it and who have deliberately, of their own choice, associated themselves with the free enterprise Western system. This is a new element in the entire political dispensation, and if we close our eyes to it we are not being real and are not looking at South Africa as it really is.

I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that there is no need for us to apologize. The hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs indicated that we are moving away from the West, that we are turning our backs to the West. There is no need for us to apologize. The hon. the Prime Minister indicated that we are in a situation—and so did the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs as well—in which we are moving away from the West, in which we are turning our backs to the West. However, it is not necessary to turn our backs to the West. We are so far ahead of the Western World now, this very day, in the solution of the problem raised by the hon. the Prime Minister, the problem of East-West relations, the problem of haves and have-nots, and so many other problems, that all the Western World can see of us today is our back. That is what they can see. We are so far ahead that that is all they can see.

However, there is one thing lacking, one thing that is necessary. That is a step which the Government—as I see it—cannot take. The policy of this party is a rationalization of the history of the last 30 years, of everything that has happened. That means a structuring of a political system which is going to include the facts and the realities of pluralism. The White, Indian and Coloured communities and the Black people who live permanently within the so-called White areas of South Africa will have structured together with them and roundabout them, in an orbit each of its own, the Black States… [Interjections.]

Where are your little balls? Show us your little balls!

I will bring my balls. I will show them to you any time you like. I am just hoping the hon. member for Losberg has enough sense to understand the system and to know how its structure is being proposed. A confederal proposal is what we have made. [Interjections.] A confederal area, a confederal structure, is one in which a Government, such as the Government of kwaZulu, is able to associate with other Governments, such as the Government of Transkei or Venda. Those are Governments in being, and they will give certain powers only to the confederal area, powers of taking joint decisions. Without that kind of a structure we are heading for a situation in which there will be no formal relationships among all the different peoples of South Africa, and no way in which we will be able to integrate the interests…

That is the same as the policy of the Progs! [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, how stupid can one be! That story is one the hon. the Minister of Justice also told elsewhere. However, nobody believed him. People have no trust whatever in that sort of story.

Look how the hon. the Minister is blushing. He may very well blush.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, the blushes of the hon. the Minister of Justice show that he knows perfectly well that he is talking the most unadultered hogwash and balderdash ever to be heard in this House. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I also intended devoting a part of my speech to the disgraceful telegram of the hon. member for Houghton. However, the hon. member for Durbanville and the hon. member for Mooi River have both already discussed it. Therefore I shall leave the matter there. [Interjections.]

We have now come to the end of the most important debate of each parliamentary session, the debate during which the Vote of the hon. the Prime Minister is discussed. Right at the outset I wish to say that I believe that in this debate the NP as such, as well as the hon. the Prime Minister, has achieved a great triumph. The credibility of the present reckless, irresponsible official Opposition as well as the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition has been shattered in this House as well as in South Africa.

What have we found now? We have found that over the past six months, the official Opposition has been flogging the horse of the Information scandal or the Information mess—call it what you will—in season and out of season. What have they tried to do in the process? At all possible times they have tried to place in doubt the credibility of the hon. the Prime Minister as well as other members of the Cabinet. They have done this at all possible times. I should now like to tell the official Opposition something which I believe they do not know. This NP is, for many reasons, a powerful party. There is one small word in our literature of which they should take note, a small word of great significance, and that word is “loyalty”. This means, in the first place, loyalty towards the party to which one belongs, loyalty towards one’s leader, whether they be provincial leaders or not, and above all loyalty to one’s supreme leader, in our case the hon. the Prime Minister.

Those people have a long history, but I should like to discuss it for a moment. During the past six months they tried to dig a grave for the NP, and it is the Leader of the official Opposition and the official Opposition who fell into that hole themselves. When we look at the long history of that party, we must, of necessity, think in terms of loyalty. We still remember the so-called Young Turks very well, and I am referring specifically to the hon. member for Sandton who is a clown today, the hon. member for Bryanston, who, to my mind, is being used and also paid by the official Opposition to shout interjections at every opportunity, and also other members of that official Opposition. We remember how, on occasion, they got rid of their good leaders in that party in a disgraceful manner and without loyalty. One of them is sitting opposite me. Perhaps they gained by it in the short term, but if one is disloyal towards one’s party and one’s leaders in the long run, one finds oneself in the position where that Opposition finds itself today.

I now come to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and I make no apology for this. I do it because I should like to tell him with great respect today that he can “please explain” until he is blue in the face about the disgraceful things in which he has been involved recently, but it will be of no avail. There are other things which I should like to know from him with regard to the Don McHenry incident, and I make no apology for this at all.

That hon. gentleman—and South Africa can take note of this—was called to his office by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and placed in a position of trust. Hon. members must listen carefully now. He was placed in a position of trust and information concerning certain delicate matters was given to him. On the same day he phoned Mr. McHenry in America. We can hold it against him, but let us however concede that he could perhaps have thought that he still wanted certain other things from Mr. McHenry, the enemy of South Africa. However, it was not a year, but only a day later that the hon. the Minister was polite enough to call the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to his office again to discuss delicate matters concerning South West Africa again. One would, however, have thought that if one were an honourable Leader of the Opposition, an honourable Leader to whom the interests of South Africa are paramount at all times, one would naturally and logically tell Mr. Botha, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, that one had a conversation with Mr. McHenry the previous day.

Order! What does the hon. member mean by those words?

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw it. Let me just finish my speech. I withdraw it with the greatest of pleasure. The hon. Leader of the Opposition must reply to South Africa today. We have repeatedly put a question to him to which we have not yet had a reply. The question is: What did he and Mr. McHenry discuss when he phoned him? This is very important to me at the moment. Did he make that phone call in the presence of other hon. members on that side? I want to know whether the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was present at that conversation or whether any other members of the official Opposition were present. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Bezuidenhout can howl like a jackal if he likes. I do not mind. However, if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not wish to reply, then I ask those hon. members, who I accept are honourable, to rise in this House at some stage and say what happened during that conversation. I want to put certain questions to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition about his journeys in Africa He is now a so-called ambassador of South Africa who travels in Africa. I am not going to ask him whether his travels in Africa were sponsored by the CIA. He has said that this is not so, and I am inclined to accept his reply, but I wish to point out to him that the House can establish whether this is so or not. [Interjections.] I want to know from him whether it would not have been the honourable thing to do for a Leader of the Opposition, after travelling through Africa and, as he himself said, visiting hostile countries as well, to have reported to the hon. the Prime Minister on his arrival in South Africa about what he discussed with the people in Africa. This would be the honourable course to take when a Leader of the Opposition means to conduct himself well and honourably towards this fine country, South Africa. I want to draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that Advocate Konzonguizi made a long article available to all the newspapers in South Africa.

Who is he?

I quote only one phrase—

Advocate Konzonguizi says that the accusation of the hon. the Prime Minister in respect of what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did in African States is correct. I can quote it to him, but unfortunately I do not have the time. I now ask that hon. member, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of that reckless party in South Africa, to rise in this House and explain to South Africa the charge against him. His credibility has been shattered as far as South Africa is concerned; it is completely shattered; the hon. members can shout as much as they like. I have now finished with the official Opposition, and I wish to continue in a positive vein.

We have almost come to the end of this debate. The hon. the Prime Minister stood on the steps before the Senate entrance after having been elected chief leader of the NP. He then made certain policy statements, in the course of which he mentioned eight points. In the course of this debate he elaborated on those eight points. On behalf of South Africa I wish to thank him for the fine visions which he held up to us. In so doing, he let some fresh air into South Africa, which shows us what course we should follow. I am going to conclude and I know that you will be lenient with me, Sir; we are both from the Free State and therefore you will give me a few minutes extra. I want to tell file hon. the Prime Minister: We know you have experienced difficult times, but you are in the fortunate position that today, after having had to fight an election…

Order!

… in order to become Prime Minister of South Africa, a responsible position…

Order!

… you enjoy the support of everyone…

Order! I must warn the hon. member for Welkom. When I say “order”, he must listen…

Sir, may I just say on a point of explanation…

No, the hon. member has nothing to explain. Let me tell the hon. member that the Free State has lost many matches during injury time!

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Welkom devoted the major part of his speech to covering well-trodden ground and continuing with the stream of unfounded abuse directed at the hon. the Leader of his Opposition which we have had from his more original colleagues over the past few days. The allegations remain just as unfounded as they have been from the outset. The only difference is that from the hon. member for Welkom they are third-hand gossip.

Furthermore, he maintained that members of this party were supposed to have been disloyal to the political leaders in the past. The other way of putting it, of course, is to say that there are quite a number of members of this party who were prepared to stake their political careers for the sake of their principles. When I participated in the debate earlier on, it was my intention, apart from certain remarks I made on economic affairs, to ask the hon. the Prime Minister for an explanation of what he called the “million-dollar affair”, i.e. the matter of the $10 million. We did receive a reply, and that certainly represents progress. But there are certain aspects to that reply with which we are unable to rest satisfied and which I now want to refer to, hoping that we may receive a further explanation. The hon. the Prime Minister made it clear that as long ago as 17 January 1979 he had become aware of the fact that he had made a faulty statement in the House. For that reason he wrote to the hon. member for Durban North and the correspondence was read out to the House. We are bothered by the fact that although the hon. member for Durban North received the letter on 17 January, the House did not hear anything till after the Erasmus Commission issued its interim report and the matter had repeatedly been raised both here and in the Press. We believe the House is entitled to an explanation as to why that incorrect statement was made. We should also very much like to hear the explanation—if there is a further explanation—as to why the hon. gentleman did not see fit to take the House into his confidence till after all the events to which I have just referred, took place.

We are also a little confused about something which appears in the letter itself which was addressed to the hon. member for Durban North.

†I quote—

It was late at night, as the hon. the Prime Minister said, and the members were tired. It would therefore be quite understandable if one somewhat misunderstood what an hon. member said. However, at the point when the hon. the Prime Minister said “That is an outright lie!”, nothing of that kind had been said at all by the hon. member for Durban North. It is true that a few minutes later he said (Hansard, 8 December 1978, col. 421)—

That might perhaps be interpreted as funds “shuttling backwards and forwards”, which would have been inaccurate. However, that was said some minutes after the hon. the Minister had said “That is an outright lie!” Sir, we are bothered by this explanation. There may be some way of understanding it and we are still ready to be persuaded, but it is getting harder and harder.

*The hon. the Prime Minister also replied to my recent request for an explanation with regard to Gen. Pienaar. I do not know the general at all and I do not want to intercede on his behalf nor attack him in any way. The hon. the Prime Minister said an interesting thing, viz. that the general wanted to deal a blow at the hon. the Minister of Defence. Why is it a blow? That we should very much like to understand. According to the Erasmus Commission the evidence of Gen. Pienaar was fully borne out by that of Admiral Biermann, that of Mr. Browne and also by that of the hon. gentleman himself. There must be an explanation why it was a blow which Gen. Pienaar dealt when he placed these events on record in his evidence before the commission. It is not clear from the commission’s report, as we have it, in what sense a blow was dealt at the hon. the Minister of Defence. That too we should very much like to understand. Whether it was that blow which resulted in the hon. the Prime Minister seeing fit to state in the House of Assembly that the general was talking nonsense, I do not know. One does not expect that from the hon. the Prime Minister, however, and for that reason, too, we believe there should be a further explanation.

The hon. the Prime Minister went further and spoke about the Defence expenditure in general and particularly about the question which the hon. Leader of the Opposition also referred to this afternoon, viz. whether any of the money appropriated for defence purposes, was spent on irregular and secret projects of the Department of Information. The hon. the Prime Minister said on Friday—

As we all know, the first report of the Erasmus Commission says—

There seems to be a total contradiction in these two statements. I am not sure whether I understand the hon. the Prime Minister correctly. The only explanation I can find, is that the hon. the Minister used the words “for Defence purposes”. He was possibly referring to the fact that there was a special subdivision—project Senekal, I believe—within the defence account for which Parliament had to vote moneys to be utilized for the purposes of the defunct Department of Information. With all due respect, that does not alter our charge at all. Our charge is that Parliament had been requested to appropriate more money for defence matters than the Department of Defence really needed and that Parliament was requested to appropriate less money for the defunct Department of Information than that department really needed. In that way the Government had to balance its books. That is the charge. If that is not the case, we shall be very glad to hear it. However, the Erasmus Commission is very clearly of the opinion that that was indeed the case and we adopt our standpoint on the basis of the commission’s findings.

†Mr. Chairman, we are going to listen very carefully to the hon. gentleman’s explanation on all these matters, because it will affect further debates and further decisions. The hon. gentleman was at pains to tell us that he had taken trouble to see—and it is clear from his speech—that this money was not spent on the projects of the former Department of Information. That was interesting, because in the interim report of the Erasmus Commission we have the finding that the hon. the Prime Minister testified that he did not know at all for what the former Department of Information needed the money. As the then Minister of Defence he was not interested in it. The hon. gentleman cannot have it both ways. Either he was not interested or he would have seen to it that this money was not expended on Information. But both those statements can surely not be correct.

Finally, it brings us back to the charge which we have been making from the very beginning of this whole affair, particularly to the address of the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Finance. Both of them have assured us that they did not know for what the money was spent. We have asked whether, in those circumstances, they should not have made it their business to know. If they did make it their business to know, then presumably they could have stopped the things they did not want happening. If they did not make it their business to know, then certainly, as they have said, they did not know, but it makes it extremely difficult to understand what the quality of their administration of public funds is. These are some of the aspects which come forward from the explanation we had from the hon. the Prime Minister on Friday and we look forward to hearing more from him in this connection.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the hon. the Prime Minister for the new climate he has created during the past week, a climate which makes private initiative feel that it has a say in the processes of government. I believe that this was necessary and that the public is eagerly awaiting developments. I wish to assure the hon. the Prime Minister that everybody is going to give him their co-operation in this regard.

At present we are faced with a problem in the House. I think the hon. member for Parktown has stated the matter well. We should not make allegations against one another that cannot be proved. The hon. Leader of the Opposition is the only man in this House who can answer the questions I am going to put to him. Only he can assist in removing all ambiguities. I want to ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition with what facilities he travelled in Africa this year.

You have already had that answer.

No, Sir. I am asking the hon. Leader of the Opposition to furnish the answer. I demand that the hon. Leader of the Opposition should answer the question. He has tried to evade the question by stating that he had travelled with a South African passport. However, that answer is not convincing. I am asking the hon. Leader of the Opposition—and he owes the House a reply—with what aircraft he travelled. I am asking the hon. Leader of the Opposition with what facilities he travelled.

He does not know.

I am asking him who made arrangements for his travels to countries where South Africa has no landing rights. Did he fly with the S.A. Airways? [Interjections.] He must reply to these questions—South Africa wants to know—or he should resign, because then he does not belong in this House. [Interjections.] I want to tell that rock-lizard that he must not laugh while we are dealing with serious matters. [Interjections.] The House demands from him that he should furnish answers to these questions. I as a member of this House representing the people in my constituency, defend an hon. member of the House, but the hon. Leader of the Opposition refuses to answer my questions. In these 10 minutes at my disposal I am not going to let the hon. Leader of the Opposition off the hook. I ask him to get up and to leave the House if he does not want to give the House an answer. I am putting this question to the hon. member for Sea Point, if he thinks he is no longer the hon. Leader of the Opposition, to furnish me with a reply now. South Africans, and hon. members in this House, charge him with not making use of the S.A. Airways. If he had made use of the ordinary airlines of other countries, he would have told us with which airline he had travelled. He evaded the question by the hon. the Prime Minister when the latter asked him (Hansard 20 April 1979)—

To this, the hon. Leader of the Opposition replied—

In saying this, he did not answer the question by the hon. the Prime Minister. The hon. member for Parktown put questions to the hon. the Prime Minister. I am prepared to state that the hon. the Prime Minister will reply to those questions.

Next, I want to ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition who was the pilot of that aircraft. I want to ask him whether he travelled on a private aircraft. [Interjections.] I want to warn the House that we are dealing with very serious matters. I really think hon. members should not laugh about it. I want to state that it will be of no avail to evade these questions. The hon. Leader of the Opposition owes it to us to give us an itinerary and to tell us whether, for example, he travelled with Lufthansa or with the CIA. He must tell us with whom he flew. What “cover up” is he engaged in? We cannot allow the Opposition to have a leader who refuses to reply to a question.

After he had returned from his travels to these five African countries, did he notify the hon. the Prime Minister or the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs that he had visited these countries? Did he report to them? There is no reply. Must I assume that the hon. Leader of the Opposition will state whether the points I can make about these things are right or wrong, or does he sit, speechless, in this House? Did he find that it was easier for him to speak to America than to an hon. member of this House? If it had been McHenry, would it have been easier to speak to him than to S. P. Barnard who is entitled to put questions to him in this House? The hon. Leader of the Opposition can hide behind the hon. member for Musgrave if he likes, but the people of South Africa want to know from him where he has been and why he does not want to answer these questions. He has got himself into a corner.

Everybody can try to crack jokes and everybody can try to get the hon. Leader of the Opposition off the hook, but the hon. member for Bezuidenhout should nudge him and tell him that he has a responsibility to South Africa to answer and to clear his name when charges such as these are brought against him. All he must tell us is whose facilities he used, who arranged landing rights for him, and where he refuelled. But he is dead silent. He has gone into hiding, and tomorrow he will want the newspapers to save him. Tomorrow the English-language newspapers must pursue his struggle.

He should come out and show us his steel. He should tell South Africa that he means well as regards everything outside South Africa, but not as regards South Africa. He should tell South Africa what he has been doing. I think the hon. Leader of the Opposition should get up here either to reply or to leave the House. I do not think the hon. Leader of the Opposition can sit here listening to the charges made against him and not make a move. It is the first time in my many years of experience in city councils and other councils that I have had this type of reaction from a leader. It is not worthy of the hon. Leader of the Opposition. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is a pity that after we discussed the future of our country in this debate on Friday, the debate took a different turn, and that of all the people who spoke this afternoon, only the hon. member for Mooi River tried to bring the debate back to the hon. the Prime Minister’s and this party’s vision of the future of South Africa.

You were not in the House.

There were in fact hon. members who praised the hon. the Prime Minister and that hon. member who did speak about it, but the debate deviated from the crucial issue and reverted to the official Opposition. Like the hon. member for Mooi River, however, I want to return to it.

I want to set vision against vision, policy against policy and statement against statement so that we can determine who has an answer to South Africa’s problems. Let us try to determine the points of agreement and the points of difference. I believe I am right in saying that my first point of agreement with the hon. the Prime Minister is that he and I both believe that apartheid, as we have known it, is dead. It is a thing of the past and is no longer the policy of the present Government which came to power on that policy. Is that not true?

Who told you that?

This is very important. The hon. the Minister of Water Affairs asks who told me that. Does he still believe in apartheid?

Yes.

Of course! Then we do not have a point of agreement. I was under the impression that apartheid was a thing of the past. Now I find that within the Government, within the Cabinet itself, there are senior hon. members and Ministers who maintain that apartheid is not dead and still constitutes the policy of the NP. The hon. the Prime Minister does not say so.

The second point on which there is agreement, in my opinion, is that discrimination must go. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the hon. the Prime Minister say so, but we cannot have apartheid and do away with discrimination. [Interjections.] That party must choose now, and I put it to the hon. the Prime Minister: Is apartheid dead, or is apartheid still the policy of the NP? We want to know it, because we want to determine what exactly the hon. the Prime Minister envisages for South Africa. There sits one of his hon. Ministers and behind him the hon. Deputy Minister who joined in the squealing. I am not sure whether it was he, but if it was, it would not surprise me. [Interjections.]

You do not hear well!

If it was not him, it was someone in the bench right behind him, but I would not be surprised at all if he had joined in.

The third point of agreement, in my opinion is, that our constitutional arrangements for the future should be based on group identity, with a say in one’s own affairs and co-partnership as two of the fundamental points. [Interjections.] I have always, throughout my political career, believed in group identity.

That is apartheid.

The NRP’s policy is based on the recognition of the ethnic identity of communities, and we believe communities should be able to identify themselves. Hon. members will find that in the first speech that I made as leader of this party last year.

So there are three points of agreement, of which one is already being disputed. The points of agreement are: Firstly, the removal of discrimination; secondly, the recognition of group identity, a say in one’s own affairs and co-partnership; and on the third point, viz. that apartheid is dead, there is difference of opinion within the NP. Now we have a starting point from which to proceed with the debate on constitutional development. In my opinion it is necessary—and I regret the fact that it has not happened—for us to consider the other starting point as well.

†The other starting point is the alternative policy of the official Opposition. I believe that that too should have been put so that this House can consider the three choices before South Africa. I do not intend playing politics, but I need to get certain information on record in order to make constructive debate possible in this regard. I should like the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to tell me if I am wrong in my statements. I want it clearly established on record that the PFP rejects ethnic identity as a basis for political rights and as a basis for self-government of communities.

Voluntary association.

Correct.

Voluntary association only. The hon. member for Parktown accepts that that party rejects ethnic identity as a basis for political rights and self-government of communities on a compulsory basis. The PFP stands for a central federal Parliament elected by individual voters on a universal adult suffrage by proportional representation.

Correct!

That is correct. Because of this proportional representation, that party stands for majority rule with minority representation both—in the State Parliaments and in the central Parliament—with a minority veto right except on taxation and economic matters.

Correct.

It also says that there should be no legal right to exclusive residential areas and exclusive neighbourhood amenities.

Correct.

We therefore have a clear stand of policy, one which anybody can understand: No residential or voluntary exclusivity, no ethnic identification…

No apartheid!

No apartheid. We then have a basic starting point. One is the integrated non-ethnic starting point and the other is one where the hon. the Prime Minister and I at least start off in agreement on the recognition of group identity as a basis for a political structure in which there can be community self-government.

What is relevant now is where the hon. the Prime Minister is taking that policy—which way he is moving with it. Is it in fact a new deal, or is it merely a cosmetic change of apartheid? That is why I emphasized at the start the importance of apartheid and also the fact that apartheid is still regarded as the driving force of the policy of separate development and self-determination. Apartheid is still the driving power of what is now called “self-determination” and “separate development”. [Interjections.] Therefore South Africa is entitled to know from the hon. the Prime Minister…

Mr. Chairman, could the hon. member for Durban Point give us his definition of apartheid? [Interjections.]

Certainly. I think this is a very good question, but I will not be able to finish answering it. [Interjections.] In exactly 20 minutes time I will come back to this when I will have another 10 minutes to speak. I regard apartheid as the compulsory separation of people by law at all levels of association in their normal lives, in their residential lives, in their political lives and in their economic lives. It is the separation—political, economical and in every other sphere—by a legislative process of government. [Interjections.] That is what we have to test this Government against. [Interjections.] Is it moving away from the legislative separation, the compulsory separation of people? I will take the distinction between the policy of the Government and the NRP further in my next opportunity to speak. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in the first place I want to express my thanks to the hon. members for Potgietersrus, Durbanville, Welkom and Langlaagte for their support and contributions to this debate.

They were an embarrassment!

If the hon. member for Orange Grove says they were an embarrassment to me, he is exaggerating as usual.

The other day the hon. member for Wit-watersberg made a speech in this House on alliances, and I should like to refer to it now. In the first place I want to tell the hon. member that it is my standpoint that it is the duty of all parties in South Africa that have representation in this House or wish to have representation here, to oppose foreign interference in South Africa’s internal affairs. I think that a party that does not do this and a party that lends itself in any way to colluding with powers that wish to interfere in South Africa’s internal affairs, ought not to be here. Such a party ought to recuse itself.

In the second place I want to say that all parties in South Africa should adopt an equally firm standpoint against all forces that want to bring about change in South Africa by means of revolution. If we are able to have those two fundamental standpoints accepted we shall in large measure have achieved national unity in South Africa by opposing foreign interference and change through revolution. I do not want to accuse the official Opposition of colluding with revolutionary elements. What I do want to say, however, is that I have often seen them act here as interceders for such people.

Name one example!

Well, I could, to name but one example, refer to the most recent one when the hon. member for Houghton took up the cudgels for a person who wanted to hunt down South Africans with Russian fire-arms. [Interjections.]

Order!

This is the most recent example. Recently the hon. member for Aliwal put questions in connection with East London and I tried to reply to those. However, I did not reply to one of his questions. It is not always possible to reply to all questions. As a result of that a newspaper report appeared in East London which, I think, is harmful to East London. The article appeared in a newspaper—I do not know whether it is a morning or evening paper…

Is that the “Daily Disgrace”?

It is the newspaper that helped the NP to win the election in East London City. In any case, an article appeared in that newspaper under the heading: “Botha silent on East London’s future.” It states the following—

Then it continued and a whole article on the matter was published. The impression was created that once again the future of East London is uncertain. I now want to reiterate what my predecessors repeatedly said and what they also made clear in this House. The future of East London is not uncertain, not at all.

In the same way as other areas in South Africa, East London suffered as a result of economic recession or stagnation. However, there was never any attempt on the part of the Government, or even an idea on the part of the Government, to create uncertainty over the future of East London. Allow me to give examples. Iscor built a steel distribution centre there in order to encourage the processing of steel by the private sector. A specially favourable level of decentralization benefits was created by the Government for East London and surrounding areas. These are special benefits over and above those benefits granted in other areas. The University of Pretoria is carrying out a special investigation into the transport problems being experienced in East London.

Unemployment?

What tends to encourage unemployment there is the fact that East London and its surrounding areas, including Berlin and other areas, have an abundance of labour. For that reason steps should be taken to try to channel that labour into new developments. The Government has taken several of these steps. Allow me to mention examples of some of them. The promotional aid to the areas East London, King William’s Town and Berlin as opposed to the total aid provided to border areas, reveals, inter alia, that special aid has been granted to a total of 44 industries in those areas. This amounts to a total of R51,6 million. The payments which were made, amounted to R51 million. Total investments by the State amount to R140,5 million. Employment created, inter alia, by this aid, includes 1 484 Whites, 11 313 Blacks and 1 629 other employees, a total of 14 000. The State also provided aid there for housing. Accommodation has been provided for a total of 5,7 million Whites. We also know what has been done in respect of other forms of housing in East London. Therefore, there can be no uncertainty over the future of East London. It is the Government’s desire that East London should develop. We have spent millions of rands on the harbour there. Hon. members who know what work has been done there to modernize that harbour, will realize that East London has not been neglected. On the contrary, apart from the harbour works which have already been undertaken, I have been informed that there is in addition the lengthening of the west quay, and the preparation of the surface, to an amount of Rl,5 million. An amount of Rl,6 million has also been budgeted for the preparation of the stacking area for containers and an amount of R640 000 for the preparation of the quay for roll-on, roll-off ships. This demonstrates that apart from the large capital works of the past, the Government has come forward to give East London its rightful share. However, the people of East London must have the courage and the confidence to develop their own area. In order to clarify this matter, I found it necessary to react to this article at once.

Today the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred here to Rhodesia. Under this Government South Africa—and I think with the concurrence of most of the parties in this country and of most South Africans—has always treated Rhodesia as a good neighbour. If this had not been the case, Rhodesia would not have been able to withstand the onslaughts on it as it has, in fact, done. We have dealt with Rhodesia in the best spirit of good neighbourliness, and the Republic of South Africa will continue to do this in future as well, just as in the past. We shall not participate in boycotts against Rhodesia. In fact, we have not done so in the past, to our own detriment. Just as there was goodwill towards South Africa under the previous Rhodesian Government, so there are also clear indications now among the new leaders who have emerged—Bishop Muzorewa, and others who have spoken in public during recent weeks—that they also desire good neighbourliness with South Africa in their own interests. We shall promote this.

However, I want to put a question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in this regard. The outcome of the election in Rhodesia seems to have impressed him, and I am pleased about that, because it is indisputable proof that the majority of the people of Rhodesia choose not the path of violence but the path of peace as a solution to their problems. If the percentage poll, the overwhelming majority, has made such an impression on the mind of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, he must now reply to a question. Does the outcome of the election in South West Africa also make this impression on him?

We said so.

I am asking this because we must clear up this matter between ourselves. Perhaps it is better that way.

We said so at the time.

Very well then. But last year colleagues of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition expressed a somewhat different opinion on this matter. So I find that a Natal newspaper of 16 December 1978 reported as follows on the chairman of that party, Mr. Ray Swart—

The hon. member cannot say that we did this in defiance of the West; we did this after discussions with the West and not in defiance. We made it clear to them that it was not in defiance. [Interjections.] The hon. members must afford me the opportunity to continue and to state my case.

Consequently this is what the benchmate of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition thought at that stage, but someone to the right of him went even further. I am referring to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. According to Die Transvaler of 9 September he said—

Which speech was that?

I am reading from Die Transvaler of 9 September.

I am merely asking which speech was quoted.

Does it matter to me whether the hon. member spoke in front of his servants or in front of members of his party?

May I ask… [Interjections.]

Order!

According to Die Transvaler of 9 September the hon. member said…

Where?

In Pretoria. [Interjections.]

Do you say different things at different places?

According to Die Transvaler of 9 September the hon. member said—

The hon. member could perhaps say now that it is Die Transvaler…

The report is incorrect…

Very well, Die Transvaler misunderstood him.

I have a record of every speech, and can make it available.

Now I shall read out how the Rand Daily Mail understood him. I quote from the 9 September 1978 edition of that newspaper—

I was speaking about our concern about that.

The hon. member will not get away with this so easily, because what did the Government do? The Government said, and put it in writing by signing it, that we accepted the settlement plan. The understanding that Swapo had to come and participate in an election was included in the settlement plan. Surely we still adhere to that settlement plan; it is not we who have rejected it.

But who says you have?

But in that case why does the hon. member say what he is saying here? Listen to what he said according to the newspaper of 9 September 1978, in other words after we had already accepted the settlement plan—

This the hon. member said while we were struggling with the international world on a proper arrangement concerning South West Africa.

I shall give you my speech.

Now the hon. member wants to give me his speech. But surely this is his speech. Here it states—

They went on to report the hon. member as follows—

We therefore have the standpoints of the hon. member for Musgrave, the prominent chairman of the party, and of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who I think also occupies some special position in between. In view of these standpoints and what they said, I want to ask whether this is not perhaps the standpoint of the group of leaders as well, as they sit there in the front benches. In any case, is it not clear that Advocate Kozonguizi’s evidence is consonant with the stories of these two hon. gentlemen?

I shall reply to that.

Last weekend Advocate Kozonguizi made a statement which was reported in the Sunday newspapers. What did he say? He said that he was prepared to confront the hon. the Leader of the Opposition with that statement.

Who is he?

He is an advocate who is participating in the proceedings in South West Africa.

Let him come.

I find it strange that the hon. member for Pinelands does not know him, because he usually knows everyone who did not want to be associated with South Africa in the past.

How often do we support Swapo?

Sir, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition can do whatever he likes…

He remains a jackal!

… but with the statements of the two frontbenchers next to him, he finds himself in serious trouble as far as the standpoint of the leaders of that party on Swapo is concerned.

Do you not accept what I have just told you?

Let me say at once that we shall have to get a very clear statement from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that he rejects the standpoint of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout.

Which standpoint? [Interjections.]

Sir, I think I should leave it at that.

I have never made pro-Swapo statements. I challenge you to demonstrate where I made a pro-Swapo statement.

That is not the point. What did the hon. member for Bezuidenhout say? I quote—

But we are concerned about the possibility that Swapo could take over. [Interjections.] Therefore I am in fact opposed to Swapo.

Wait a minute! The hon. member must not interrupt me. He must take his medicine.

This is not medicine.

The fact of the matter is that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout impeded the Government’s task when the negotiations were in their most delicate stage.

Nonsense!

You are trying to draw red herrings across the trail again.

I quote further—

But surely you did not withdraw.

Order!

Sir, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition must repudiate the hon. member for Bezuidenhout today. If he does not repudiate him, I believe what Advocate Kozonguizi says, viz. that he had trouble selling the standpoint of the parties in South West Africa in Africa on account of evidence given by the hon. Leader of the Opposition in Africa.

Which countries?

He says he is prepared to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

But which countries are these?

Phone him!

Order!

Sir, I leave it at that. It is up to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to resolve the matter with the hon. members for Bezuidenhout and Parktown.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition put questions to me on the Department of National Security. The task of the Department of National Security is explained in section 2 of the Security Intelligence and State Security Council Act Section 2 of the Act determines the functions and duties of the bureau—which in terms of a subsequent Act was converted into a department in accordance with the structure of the Public Service. Section 2 states that the function and duty of the department shall be—

1. (a) to collect, evaluate, correlate and interpret national security intelligence for the purpose of—
   1. (i) detecting and identifying any threat or potential threat to the security of the Republic;
   2. (ii) advising the Minister of any such threat;
2. (b) to collect departmental intelligence at the request of any interested department of State, and without delay to evaluate and transmit such intelligence and any other intelligence at the disposal of the Bureau and which constitutes departmental intelligence, to the department concerned;
3. (c) to prepare and to interpret, for the consideration of the Council, a national intelligence estimate relating to any threat to the security of the Republic, and in this regard to advise the Council of any other intelligence at its disposal which may have an influence on any State policy relating to the combating of any such threat;
4. (d) to formulate, for approval by the Council, a policy relating to national security intelligence…

This is the task of the Department of National Security. Surely this legislation was supported by the Opposition in this House. This is, therefore, a charter which the highest authority in this country gave the Department of National Security.

Why did the Minister of the Interior suggest a further revision?

Oh really Sir, what does the hon. member want to know now?

As a result of the report of the Erasmus Commission, which was not available when that legislation was brought before the House, the hon. the Minister of the Interior gave it as his view that there should be some further review to see that there were proper controls.

In the first place I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that there is no longer a security adviser, as there was before. The Secretary of National Security is the head of a normal Government department and his relationship to his Minister is no different to that of other departmental heads. In the second place, since I became Prime Minister, co-ordination has been effected between the Police, the Defence Force and the Department of National Security. In the third place, regular meetings of the State Security Council take place at which the heads of these departments are present. That is my reply to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. If the hon. member does not want to accept it, I cannot help him. Then he must proceed with his campaign, if he wanted to launch a campaign. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition went on to ask whether there is now proper auditing. He discussed the question of auditing.

Security auditing.

Yes. My reply is that all the departments which have secret funds, have made arrangements to the satisfaction of the Auditor-General.

Was this in the recent past?

In the recent past. They made satisfactory arrangements with the Auditor-General. Legislation is going to arise from this.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition mentioned District Six. I notice that something is brewing up again over District Six. I should just like to issue a friendly warning today. This Government wishes to build up very good relationships with every population group in this country. I wish to be cautious in what I say, but if there are bodies in this country that think they can help to create situations which will lead to the authority of the State being challenged, I wish to advise them in a friendly way not to do so.

Who created the problem of District Six?

That also applies to that hon. member, who is far too impertinent. I want to tell him that District Six was a plague spot in the history of South Africa, a place where murder and assault was the order of the day, as it is now becoming in the hon. the Leader’s constituency. It looked like the kind of community which he wants to create in South Africa. He will create the kind of community that looks like District Six, Windermere and Sophiatown used to look like. This is the kind of community which he will create. I want to tell him that when it was decided to clean up District Six, 55,4% of the registered properties were in the hands of Whites. These are people who battened on slum conditions and made their money from them. [Interjections.] Those Coloureds who inhabited those slums and who are still inhabiting it in the uncleared areas, owned only 25% of District Six and the Indians 19,5%.

Who occupied it?

It was of course occupied by the poor Coloureds who were exploited by these landlords. The Government cleared up District Six up and will clear it up even further.

Why cannot District Six be occupied by Coloureds again?

I have just given the hon. the Leader of the Opposition the figures, but he does not believe them. He sees the elephant, but because it has a trunk as well as a tail, he does not believe there is such a thing. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also put a question to me concerning the Press. I made a friendly appeal to the Press. I think I put a well-considered and well-founded standpoint on the Press here. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition would do well to read it. However, I wish to tell him that I am not waiting for a reply from him or his party, but for a reply from the Press Union.

Is there going to be anti-rumour legislation?

I am waiting for the Press Union’s reply. That is my reply.

He also discussed discrimination with me. I wish to reply to him on that question.

When did I speak about discrimination?

Yes, you quoted it last week, but you have already forgotten for you have had many problems in the meantime. [Interjections.] He also discussed discrimination with me. South Africa’s discrimination in a negative sense dates from a period during which this Government was not in power. South Africa’s greatest period of discrimination against Blacks, Brown people and Indians, discrimination which prevented them from developing, was a period when we were not even a free country.

In all provinces?

In most provinces.

Particularly in Natal.

Yes. Surely the hon. the Leader of the Opposition cannot deny that, for if he denies it, he does not know his history. What greater discrimination against non-Whites could there have been than during the time when the British ruled this country?

Is that your justification?

No, it is not my justification. I am not mentioning it as justification; I am saying that is the historical background. Therefore, when we discuss discrimination, we should just see the matter in its correct perspective.

Just look at the laws you have put on the Statute Book.

While I stand for the removal of unnecessary and offensive discrimination, I also wish to say…

What, then, is “necessary” discrimination?

Oh, please! If that hon. member needs a plug somewhere, please put it in for him, for he is making unpleasant noises. In the second place I wish to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that the exploitation of the abolition of discrimination is equally offensive. The Government finds itself in the peculiar position that wherever it wants to bring about the abolition of discrimination with the good intentions underlying it, such action is exploited and blown up by enemies of the Government every time, to see whether they cannot create incidents.

In the third place I wish to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that wilful instigation to contravene the laws of the country, is equally dangerous. In South Africa it is our dilemma that, on the one hand, we have to maintain an orderly State with orderly government and, on the other hand, we have to enable people to develop and achieve a greater measure of human dignity. However, this cannot happen if constant attempts are made to encourage people to contravene the laws of the country. Now I wish to give the hon. the Leader of the Opposition examples of what I mean. What became of all the hysterical agitation that we had a while ago with squatters everywhere in the vicinity of Rondebosch and Claremont?

No, it was not hysterical.

They were hysterical attempts to place the Government in a difficult position. They even squatted on church grounds. Instead of allowing them to squat on your church grounds, why did you not take them into your homes? Surely that would have been better. [Interjections.] In the fourth place I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that if we agree that our problem is the problem of minorities, which the hon. member has conceded, then the emphasis of rights and obligations is equally important. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke about freedom. I think his view of freedom and mine differ completely.

I think so too.

My impression of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s idea of freedom is that he will allow this country to stumble along the same road to perdition as other countries have followed in this regard. My idea of freedom is freedom subject to the laws of order.

Then everyone must participate in the making of those laws.

There has never been a time in the history of South Africa when the Blacks and the Brown people have had more say in the legislation of this country than under this Government.

I come now to the hon. member for Pretoria Central. I do not know where exactly I should place him, for at the moment he is between the Opposition parties and the Government party. He made a very fine speech in which he was very friendly towards me personally and I wish to thank him for that. This afternoon I want to say to him: Thank you for your friendliness. I hope your idealism and your self-control will bring you back to where you belong.

What does the Transvaal leader say?

The hon.

Transvaal leader agrees with me…

Let him say it himself.

He can say it to the hon. member himself.

He is very quiet, I must say.

The Leader of the Transvaal does not, unlike the hon. member for Yeoville, find himself in the position where he has one leader today and perhaps another tomorrow.

The hon. member for Durban Point spoke, inter alia, of a dagger when he replied to the hon. member for Pretoria Central. I have sympathy with the hon. member for Durban Point, for I know that in the past, until quite recently still, he felt many daggers in his back. He is in fact an authority on daggers. [Interjections.]

But he is the victim.

The hon. member for Durban Point went on to say that the fault which he found with me was that my vision for South Africa was that I want “a South Africa broken up into independent States”. Surely this is not quite correct. I said that it was my vision for South African that people who wished to become free along the road of constitutional and evolutionary development, must have the opportunity to become completely independent, and that when we are equal, we can discuss the common interests of South Africa. In the very next breath the hon. member made another very interesting remark. He referred to the statement which I had made that people were streaming into South Africa in spite of the conditions prevailing here and the Government in power, and said, inter alia: “Of course South Africa is a sheet-anchor and an economic base…” That is the best testimony the hon. member can give the Government, i.e. that after 30 years under our government South Africa is still a “sheet-anchor and economic base”.

Of free enterprise.

Thank you very much. I agree with him. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Durban Point also asked me to tell the House this afternoon whether I agree that apartheid is dead. To my mind one kind of apartheid is dead. That is the kind of apartheid that the enemies of South Africa and the Government have held out to the world as the official policy of the Government. That apartheid is dead, and I shall tell hon. members why I think so. Time has caught up with it. That misrepresentation is dying of emaciation. That is so, for if we compare the position of our Black people with that of the Black people of Africa, the position of our Black people is superior in every possible field. They enjoy better standards of living, education, health services and housing. This all happened as a result of the application of true separate development. Hon. members would do well to read what Dr. Malan said when he made a speech for the first time as Prime Minister, a speech which was also broadcast by the SABC. In that speech he said that apartheid was not the caricature that our opponents wished to make of it We have always believed that self-development, separate development, gives people the opportunity to acquire the right to self-expression and the powers of self-determination from a local government level to the topmost level. Even when they did not want to accept them, we still said that they could ask for these powers to perfect their self-determination and their self-expression. That is what I understand separate development to mean. I understand separate development to mean good neighbourliness, and I believe that that good neighbourliness is based on a number of principles. The first principle is personal rights with recognition of those of others as well; in the second place common rights with mutual preservation of those rights; in the third place, a process of consultation as equals, even if the one neighbour is not as well-to-do as the other and even if the one neighbour lags behind the other as far as development is concerned; and fourthly that good neighbourliness means the uplifting of the weaker neighbour. The late Dr. Verwoerd said, and I agreed with him on that point, that it is not a good thing if one’s neighbour is living in poverty and distress. In all his approaches he always adopted the standpoint that we should elevate the poor neighbour to a higher level of development. I saw him appear before the Union Coloured Council and I often talked to him about this. He was never in favour of a policy of oppression. The fifth principle is that a large section of the Coloureds in South Africa are bearers of the Afrikaans- and English-language culture. We must accept and welcome that. However, this does not mean that I must deprive him of his identity. It does not mean that I should take him as my own without affording him the opportunity to uplift his own weaker people as well.

As far as the South African Indians are concerned, I want to say something here in public which I do not believe anyone has ever said. I think it is necessary for me to say this, and I am going to accept full responsibility for it. I was at one stage Deputy Minister of the Interior, and before that stage none of the parties in South Africa were prepared to regard the Indians as permanent inhabitants of South Africa. Neither the United Party nor the National Party adopted that standpoint. We all know that we introduced pegging legislation and tried everything to impose restraints on the existence of the Indians in South Africa Surely these are historical facts. [Interjections.] There were just as many people in the ranks of the United Party who objected to the South African Indians as there were in the National Party. As Deputy Minister I suggested in the caucus of the National Party that that party should accept the South African Indian community as a permanent community of this country. After the caucus had accepted this, we recommended it at the next party congress—under the leadership of Dr. Verwoerd. And it was accepted. Thereafter the Indian community in South Africa got a new home and new hope. Thereafter the Indian community was able to acquire immovable property in South Africa, which was laid down for him by law, and they are at present living in some of the finest residential areas in South Africa. In the field of education they developed with leaps and bounds and at present there is no Indian community in the world that has a better life than the South African Indian community. [Interjections.]

Now the hon. member for Durban Point has asked whether we agree with him that apartheid is dead. The kind of apartheid our enemies have attributed to South Africa is in fact dead, yes. That kind of apartheid is dead, it died of starvation. But the type of apartheid I advocate, the mutual recognition of one another’s rights, including my rights, and the rights of my people, is separate development and good neighbourliness which is not dead.

I do not want to speak for much longer. I merely want to dispose of one or two matters. A great deal was said here about a national convention. I think our concept of a national convention is also substantially different. I do not believe in a single national convention where everyone, including those who do not belong together, is brought together around a table from which everyone will depart in confusion. I believe in continuous consultation between leaders of the various population groups; consequently not a single consultation only, but continuous consultation. During the past six months I made it my task to make continuous consultation possible, which is consequently what happened.

The hon. member for Parktown came back once again to the question of the Erasmus Report. I really do not want to say much about that. I presented my case to the Erasmus Commission and I am prepared to give evidence under oath to the commission once again if necessary. I am also prepared to substantiate everything with documents. Therefore I do not think it is necessary to dwell on this. I repeat once again that I have never been opposed to making available secret funds to the Department of Information, nor will I ever be opposed to it They need it. I believe that in the struggle we are waging in the world, we are not only waging a military or police struggle, but that it is also to a great extent part of a total struggle in which propaganda, the presenting of our case, plays an inherent part It has always been my standpoint that the Department of Information should receive, where possible, the maximum amount in order to make out a case for South Africa and mention the fine things about South Africa, because in that way we could help ensure that fewer people were shot for the sake of South Africa. That has been my standpoint throughout.

But I did not believe in the misuse of public money for any purpose, because I have never believed that the end justifies the means. Surely I stated this case last year during the short session. Why do hon. members not read my speech? Why do they not read my opening speech and my final speech which I made at the time in this House when those hon. members made such a noise that I could not make myself heard? Surely that is true.

The fact remains that you misled the House.

When I was originally approached and I was asked for help because I was the only one who had a fund at my disposal, I objected from the first day. There is written evidence to substantiate that. I am not going to read it out here. It was presented to the Erasmus Commission. The Erasmus Commission accepted my evidence. The commission also accepted my evidence with regard to those matters dealt with in the second report. There they say—

I took that decision here in my bench, while I was dealing with the discussion of my Vote. I suppose I should at the time have said to hon. members: “Just remain seated for a minute; I am quickly going to ascertain what this amount is needed for.” What nonsense that is. Surely we are not children. When the hon. the Minister of Finance asks me for a certain amount I accept that he is reasonable and honest and I grant his request. Originally I refused it, and Admiral Biermann confirmed that. Now the evidence of Gen. Pienaar is quoted against me. I object to what is stated here as the evidence of Gen. Pienaar, i.e. his allegation that I came into this House and whispered something in Admiral Biermann’s ear. That is not true. However, that general issued prior statements to newspapers which wanted to involve me in this thing, and therefore I said the other day that I did not base my standpoint on his evidence, but on the evidence of Admiral Biermann, which is the evidence of an honourable man.

Is Gen. Pienaar not an honourable man?

Order!

Do those hon. members want to know why he left the Defence Force?

I want to know whether he is honourable.

Does the hon. member want to know why he left the Defence Force? Does that hon. member, with his unbridled tongue, want to know?

Does it affect his evidence?

Yes.

Do you not accept his evidence?

Gen. Pienaar has reason to have a grievance against me.

Do you accept his evidence?

I say he has reason to have a grievance against me.

Do you accept his evidence?

I say he has reason to have a grievance against me. Cannot the hon. leader hear? [Interjections.]

Order!

I am going to say it now, because the Opposition is asking for it I let Gen. Pienaar go because he was guilty of excessive drinking. [Interjections.] Sir, they asked for it and now they have got it. [Interjections.] They got what they asked for now. [Interjections.]

Order!

To the hon. member for Parktown I only want to say that I have comprehensive evidence. The Treasury put the following words in writing—and he can come and read it here; I shall show it to him—

Was it in the defence budget or not?

Oh please, cannot the hon. member hear what I am telling him? [Interjections.] Does he not want to listen to what I am telling him? After all, I think he is a reasonable person. In any case, that is the impression he has given me until now. [Interjections.] We objected repeatedly. First of all we budgeted for defence, and after the defence budget was complete, we placed in the Special Defence Account—not in the defence budget. That is something else. Cannot the hon. member understand that?—an additional amount for the Department of Information.

But surely the money had to be voted.

An amount of which Parliament knew nothing.

Order!

On that ground I objected to the method of budgeting.

You still misled Parliament!

I have proof that I…

You misled Parliament.

Order!

Sir, that fool will not be able to keep quiet.

Order! The Prime Minister may not say that the hon. member is a fool.

For instance, on 21 July 1976—long before anything about the Department of Information had leaked out—I issued a directive to the Chief of the Defence Force. I quote—

That I wrote as long ago as 21 July 1976—

That is what I wrote to the Chief of the Defence Force and that is how he conveyed it. Then the Treasury replied and said that they would budget separately for that. Hon. members can advance the counter-argument that I was wrong on a technical point, but if we start arguing with one another on technical points, I can also advance a counterargument.

Was it a technical point that Parliament was misled?

It is a technical point that the hon. member’s mouth cannot remain shut. [Interjections.]

Order!

I can give the hon. member for Parktown a better reply on a technical argument, i.e. that it is stated in section 76(1) of the Defence Act that the Minister of Defence may do or cause to be done all things which in his opinion are necessary for the efficient defence and protection of the Republic.

That is not relevant.

On account of this my legal advisers say that I can also appropriate money with a view to the propaganda onslaught on South Africa.

By way of The Citizen? [Interjections.]

Order!

Even for a NP newspaper? [Interjections.]

Order! I now forbid any further interjections.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Are you forbidding any interjections from any member of this House?

Yes.

Sir, there is a story I could tell. But I shall not do so because you would rule it out of order, Sir. In any case it reminds me of three people who wanted to enter a house. Only after something came out, did they enter.

The point I want to make is that even although it was only technically wrong, I did not stop fighting, specifically as a result of the technical point, until my hon. colleague, the Minister of Finance, devised a plan to make provision for it in some other way, which was to introduce legislation in Parliament. I want to invite the hon. member for Parktown—he is filled with suspicion as he sits there; I can see it in his eyes: Let us do each other a favour. He suggests that I should be subjected to the investigation of a Select Committee and I will accept that, but then I suggest that the actions of his leader with regard to the McHenry incident be subjected to the investigation of a Select Committee, and that he seconds it.

Hear, hear!

Order!

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Does your ruling apply to only one side of the Committee?

Order! I called the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs to order when he made an interjection.

But he must leave the Committee.

Oh, the hon. the Minister has a lot of work outside as well; he may as well leave!

There is one last point I want to make. After the issue of the amount of R7 million was raised, I followed the golden rule and wrote a letter to the hon. member concerned. He could have made the contents of the letter known if he had wanted to. However, the hon. member was quite satisfied, and I received a reply from him from which it was clearly apparent that he was satisfied. He was also satisfied that there had been a proper investigation. I want to say to the hon. member for Parktown that if he does not agree with the hon. member for Durban North, who put his satisfaction in writing, I invite him cordially—I do not want to challenge him; apparently one may not challenge him—with the facts he has, with the doubts he has and with the questions arising in his noble mind, to give evidence before the Erasmus Commission to enable us to get a decision on that matter as well. That is my reply and I think that I have, with that, replied to most of the questions.

Mr. Chairman, in the very short time at my disposal, it is obviously impossible to reply to all the points raised by the hon. the Prime Minister or to all the questions he put. He said, inter alia, that apartheid is dying of poverty. Would that it were so! We should like to see apartheid dying of poverty.

However, I wish to discuss another matter to which tremendous damage is being done by apartheid or, at least, by rumours of apartheid, stories of apartheid or reports of apartheid. I also want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that unless he is prepared to change his attitude to District Six and to put a stop to the threats against those who still plead for the rights of the Coloureds in District Six, he must expect that there will once again be rumours of apartheid here and abroad, that this will once again be harmful and that we shall once again have to pay dearly for apartheid and all it involves.

†In the very brief time remaining to me, I wish to refer to the question of our foreign relations, which have recently appeared in a new form. While in Zurich recently, the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs referred to our adopting a posture of neutrality in East-West disputes. He said South Africa would put its services at the disposal of other African countries and he talked about a constellation of Southern African States who would be ready to go it alone. The hon. the Prime Minister came back to this theme last week and, using virtually the same phrases, referred to this new attitude of neutrality and the intention, as regards our foreign relations, to go it alone with a constellation of Southern African States. There is nothing wrong with an African concept. My point is that it is only part of a complete foreign policy and that, unfortunately, it is already being interpreted by the supporters of the hon. the Prime Minister and by hon. members who spoke here this afternoon, including the hon. member for Potgietersrus, as being an attitude of either/or: If one accepts this new Africa policy, or rather if one accepts the repetition of what has already in the past from time to time been the Africa policy, one does so at the cost of our alliance with the West, one does so by rejecting the West, because it must be either the one or the other.

It is quite obvious to anyone who thinks seriously about South Africa and its relations with the international community that there are two things that are essential. The one is the creation of a sensible, peaceful, constructive relationship with the States of Southern Africa. This is essential for many obvious reasons, such as defence reasons, strategic reasons, reasons of opposition to communist inroads, economic reasons, commercial reasons, transport reasons and hydro-electric power reasons. For all these reasons it is perfectly obvious that South Africa must have a relationship of the closest possible co-operation with the Southern African States, and with States further north if possible. Another essential is an alliance with the West. It should not be a question of either/or, the one or the other, or the one at the expense of the other. A close relationship with the West is essential, again for obvious reasons such as trade, investment and the need for an alliance against communism. All these things speak loudly and clearly of the need for an alliance with the West As I have said, it should not be either/or, but both together. We should have an African constellation—if those were the words the hon. the Prime Minister used—as well as an alliance with the West. Somehow we have to reconcile these two and make them work together. In fact, the problem is not so much one of making them work together, but of how to achieve either one of them without the other. It is perfectly clear that an alliance with the West can be achieved only if we can make our peace with Africa; in other words, if we can so conduct our foreign relations with the States of Africa that they do not see South Africa as a hostile element and that it will not be made impossible for the West, because of the high cost in terms of Africa relations, to accept South Africa as part of the Western alliance.

This works the other way too. One can have a much better African alliance, or a much better relationship with Africa, if one has a Western alliance. If one has good African relationships it is so much easier to have a Western alliance because these two things, going together, work together. But one or the other, alone, works against the other. I therefore believe that it is entirely wrong to talk in terms of a position of neutrality at the expense of the West, a position of neutrality in order to achieve a relationship with the States of Southern Africa. I believe that these two things must go together.

If one looks at the history of South Africa’s foreign relations since this Government came to power in the late 1940s, one finds that quite soon after the Government’s assumption of power in this country our foreign relations were not at all bad. This was at the time of the Berlin airlift in 1948, the time of the Korean War and our participation in it and during the 1950s, the time of decolonization and South Africa’s willingness to play a major part in technical and scientific cooperation with the new States of Africa, and the achievement of a degree of understanding and interdependence with them. All this was going pretty well and, in consequence of these good relations we were able to create with the African States, our relations with the West improved as well. Then, because of decolonization, independence and the ability of African States to speak for themselves, they began to look at apartheid. This thin spectre which is dying of starvation now was, as the hon. the Minister said, a pretty fat animal at that time.

It was on account of apartheid, of what they saw as a lack of an open or free society in South Africa, that they withdrew from their relations with South Africa or compelled South Africa to withdraw from co-operation with them. There were many organizations for co-operation, and South Africa was compelled to withdraw or was expelled from one of these organizations after another. That was the end of the first good period, but it was a period during which South Africa had close relations with the West.

In the 1960s things went less well. This was the time of Dr. Verwoerd and his accusations of the abdication, by the West, of its guardianship over African States, of its abandonment of White people and its appeasement of uncommitted States. It was the time of Sharpeville and the rupture of our links with the Commonwealth. The final conclusion by the Prime Minister of that time, Dr. Verwoerd, was that—

Those were memorable words. They were quoted by J. Barber in South Africa’s Foreign Policy 1945-’70, published by the Oxford University Press in 1973. This was the ultimate expression of neutrality, of rejection of the West.

In the 1970s again things began to look better. There were the beginnings of an outward policy. There was a new attempt to define South Africa’s commitments in terms of Western advantages. These efforts were in some measure successful, but there were growing doubts about the West’s response and gradually the consequences of Angola… [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I hope I am now rising for the last time, but I cannot allow the hon. member to get away with the first statement which he had made. He said that “The Prime Minister indicated that they would want to go it alone”. Those were his words. I now wish to tell him that I never used those words. I said, and I spoke with the help of notes—

Those were the words I used. I did not speak of “go it alone”. I was then discussing the situation in Southern Africa.

I now rise to afford the hon. member the opportunity to complete his argument, but I wish to make it very clear that I never said that we shall dissociate ourselves from ties with any country. South Africa’s interests will, however, be the deciding factor. We shall not become involved in a war just because others are waging that war. It will have to be in South Africa’s interests to do so. Many people who are so critical of us today, are far more dependent on us than they may sometimes think. Let us just look at the position with regard to chrome. The hon. member is well-informed enough to know that the West is dependent on South Africa and Rhodesia for its chrome in any conflict situation. In the report of the Research Department of the Dallas Investment Research Corporation from which I quoted here, their conclusions were as follows—

I offer that to the hon. member for his consideration.

Mr. Chairman, do I understand that the hon. the Prime Minister also rose to very kindly give me the opportunity to complete my speech? However, if I am going to do so I must do it in his time. I have none left to me.

I didn’t know what the arrangements were.

Mr. Chairman, in this debate we have been listening to a statesman, because the hon. the Prime Minister has displayed a high degree of clearheadedness and farsightedness, he has spoken the truth, has observed new prospects, and has spoken on mutual recognition of one another’s rights and of continual consultation with one another.

Owing to this pinnacle that has been reached, we can say today that it is worth while for us to plan for the future. It is often said that time is running out for South Africa, but time is not running out for South Africa, because the West must eventually come to realize that it is they who are going to be in the firing line and that time is running out for them. We shall have to be the cat’s-paw for them and to prove to them that it was we who have been warning them all the time against things to come.

Was it not President Wilson of the USA who said the world had to be made safe for democracy? Was it not South Africa that fought side by side with the USA and other countries of the West when an international struggle had to be waged? Was it not President Carter who said that we are now living in a new world and that the new policy of the Americans was now that whatever had been done in the past, should be undone? The overcharged and simplistic words of this President have ultimately resulted in a low point in our relations. Is it not section 2 of the American Bill of Rights that states?—

And is it not this very Carter administration that is throwing everything into confusion in order to ensure that we do not obtain the armaments we need, and that does not want to recognize the freedom of South Africa?

There is a longstanding and historical connection with South Africa which the USA is now placing in jeopardy. Apropos of the remark by the hon. member for Constantia that we should approach the West through Africa, I think that in the first place the responsibility rests on the West to realize that it is they who should take the initiative, that it is they who should ultimately convince the African countries of what it is necessary.

If one considers the long history of the relations between South Africa and the USA, one finds that the first American consulate in Cape Town was opened in 1799. This was only the fifth office to be opened in Africa. In 1891, five years after the discovery of gold, the American consulate in Johannesburg was opened and the one in Pretoria was opened in 1898. Wherever there was money, America was there. In 1906, four years before Union, a consulate was opened in Durban. They kept pace, step for step, with the constitutional development of South Africa.

In 1928, the status of the American consulate in Pretoria was elevated to that of consulate-general, and in 1929, a South African mission was sent to Washington. It is strange that a year after the NP had come to power—that is to say, in 1949—the office was changed to that of an embassy, and it has always been South Africa which has taken the initiative in creating good relations with America.

When we see what is happening today, we really feel distressed. Not very far from here, in the Gallery Hall, there is a fine token of what a former president of the USA did to establish good relations. Do hon. members know what is inscribed on that little plaque, which also bears our national flag, and alongside which are pieces of the moon rock brought to South Africa? The words read—

Has the time not come for us again to have those good relations with America? But we now have foolish statements such as the one by Mr. Don McHenry, who recently uttered these meaningful words which we want to dispute here today—

He repeats this several times—

That is what Mr. Don McHenry said in America recently; but what are the true facts?

According to a survey carried out in November 1977, the statements of 514 top executives, among whom were 500 leading USA corporations, banks and insurance companies, were as follows: 62% of them said they would not withdraw their investments in South Africa, regardless of what Mr. McHenry said. Only 6% of them said that they would withdraw their investments. 11 % said they were in favour of their investments in South Africa being increased. Taking all that into consideration, I maintain that the Carter administration is also seeing things in the wrong perspective and that if President Carter wants to increase his popularity—a year ago, 62% of the Americans said he was not a good President—he will have to reconsider his stand.

He has stated, however, that he wants to establish a new morality in America; as if all the previous presidents in America had had no morality.

In the light of this I want to ask him and also the hon. member for Constantia who wants us to work through Africa: does the morality of America perhaps lie in the bloodbaths of Ulster? Does it lie in Cuba’s involvement in Africa? Does it lie in the terror camps in Mozambique and in Angola? Does it lie in Uganda, where only recently there have been such cruel massacres? Does it lie in Libya with her oil, where the Middle East maintains the tension? Does it lie in Algeria, where no freedom of the Press exists with the result that those journalists ultimately flee to South Africa and now sit in Johannesburg sending foreign reports overseas? Does it perhaps lie in Iraq and Syria, countries that pose a threat to peace? Does it lie in India, where millions are still in bondage? Does it lie in Pakistan, where newspaper editors are detained in prisons and sentenced to corporal punishment? Does it lie in Cambodia, where 600 000 inhabitants have been killed since the communists seized power there in 1975? What alternative have we today but to say that America is trying to grind us down by trying to withhold things that are essential to us?

America must, in my view, take cognizance of the fact that according to estimates, in 1980 1 000 million tons of oil will be shipped by sea. Who is actually keeping Western Europe alive? Is it not the Cape of Good Hope, in the sense that 57% of all Europe’s commodities are shipped along our sea routes every year? Will 60% of the USA’s oil imports not have to be transported around the Cape in 1980? Is it not 25% of Europe’s food supplies that have to be transported along the Cape sea routes? The USA is making herself dependent on foreign countries, but her salvation and her future lie in seeking association with South Africa. In the year 2000, they will be dependent upon imports for 12 commodities; they will have to import 75% of 19 commodities and also 50% of 26 commodities. For that reason it is necessary for us to establish good relations with the USA, and we are delighted that the hon. the Prime Minister is doing so. We want to make an appeal to them and to the West ultimately to maintain that sound relationship of the past once again.

Mr. Chairman, I want to continue my speech where I had to stop this afternoon because my time expired. I was busy comparing policy against policy with the Government. In the first place I want to refer to the hon. the Prime Minister’s definition of apartheid. I have no quarrel with what he described as his interpretation of the term, but I want to deal with the official policy of the party he leads. I am going to quote the architect of separate development, i.e. Dr. Verwoerd himself…

No, you must quote from the speech made by Dr. Malan when he became Prime Minister. He was the architect of our policy.

No. I am quoting from a book called “Apartheid and Racial Partnership” by Prof. N. J. Rhoodie, in which he defines… [Interjections.] Watch them run now.

Now you are making a mistake.

He defines apartheid out of the mouth of Dr. Verwoerd. He quotes Dr. Verwoerd from Hansard of September 1958, col. 4060, and says the following—

That is what I am talking about when I talk about apartheid. I asked the question: Is apartheid dead? I do not know whether the hon. the Prime Minister accepts that definition, the definition of the hon. Prime Minister who brought into being the concept of separate development.

I now want to take this matter further and bring it to the points of difference which exist between the hon. the Prime Minister and the NRP. Let us start with his vision of a constellation of Southern Africa. He says—and he repeated it today—that one must first build the road, and then when everybody is equal and can talk as equals, one discusses the future relationships. In other words, he is building seven or eight one-way roads to independent States, and when he has built his eight roads in eight different directions, he will then decide where they are leading to. [Interjections.]

That is your basis.

Oh, yes, he is going to build roads to independence, and I quote his own words: “Hulle eie bestemming.” He is going to build eight roads out into nowhere, in order to have eight independent States, and then he will talk to them about creating a constellation.

The vision of the NRP is that one sets one’s goal and that that goal is the confederation. When one builds a road, one should build a two-way road—not a one-way road to independence. One should not simply build a road away from South Africa. One should build two lanes, one lane away to self-government and another lane back to coordination and co-operation within a confederation. [Interjections.] This is the fundamental difference. The one-way road and the two-way road, is the difference between the Government’s concept and ours.

I want to interrupt myself to compliment the hon. the Leader of the Opposition on his statement on Rhodesia. Perhaps this is the first nice thing to be said about him during the debate! I welcome the fact that he has changed his attitude on Rhodesia.

Prove it!

On the 14 March 1978 he was saying that one cannot have a settlement unless one “betrek die Front in Rhodesië”. I quote—

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member who interjected is correct. He explained what he meant. He explained that he meant that both Mr. Smith and the Patriotic Front must be taken into account. [Interjections.] I welcome the fact that today he accepted the election as cause for accepting that as the will of the Rhodesian people, but I regret that he qualified it by saying—

I do not believe that it is our job to decide whether another Government is efficient or not. I believe that it is our job to accept the will of the people, and I did it in advance last week. This party has no qualifications in its attitude towards Rhodesia. [Interjections.]

I go further and say that I hope Rhodesia will be one of the States in our confederation. [Interjections.] I hope it will be one of the States in the confederation of Southern Africa, which is going to come whether the hon. the Prime Minister likes it or not because it is the obvious and the only end of the road for this country.

However, the other fundamental difference is our attitude, the hon. the Prime Minister’s and mine, to the urban Black man in South Africa. I want to warn the hon. the Prime Minister that this is the immediate problem facing South Africa. This is the flashpoint of politics, the ticking time-bomb of South African politics, you cannot solve that problem with ultimately independent States and possible constellations. The time-bomb of South African politics is the Black urban township resident of South Africa. Have we forgotten 16 June 1976? Have we not learned the lesson that this is where South Africa has to solve its problems? The hon. the Prime Minister’s statement on the urban Blacks was significant. He is appointing committees to investigate. I welcome an investigation because I believe one has to identify the different categories of urban Blacks. However, the hon. the Prime Minister only said that in those committees homeland leaders would participate. We believe that the urban Blacks themselves must also participate in identifying their own aspirations and deciding where they would fit into the constitutional pattern.

We in this party believe that a certain sector—not all—of the urban Blacks will be identified as being unrelated to any homeland, as having established a new pluralism to which the hon. member for Mooi River referred, and will have to be brought into the political structure of the common area in which White, Indian and Coloured and urban Black reside. The hon. the Prime Minister bragged of what he did to make the Indian community South African citizens, to have them recognized.

I did not brag of it. I simply stated a fact.

I welcome it. The hon. the Prime Minister stated a fact. He was prepared to accept the Indian community as South Africans and he initiated that move. Why does he not do the same for the urban Blacks who have no other homeland? [Interjections.] Why does he not accept the fact that there are certain urban Black people—certain, not all…

Were you not here when I spoke on that very issue?

I was here. Why does the hon. the Prime Minister not give to them the same security of tenure and the same recognition in the areas where they live as he was prepared to give the Indian community? He cannot escape the fact that there is an identifiable urban Black community. I come back now to the wriggling evasion of the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister of Plural Relations and of Education and Training when I asked whether there would always be Black South African citizens. Their answer was that it would be only as long as there were some non-independent homelands. That was the answer.

You are carried away by your own interpretations.

Well, I ask the hon. the Prime Minister again whether he accepts that there will always be Black South African citizens when his policy has reached the end of the road. [Interjections.]

I have already answered you on that.

No, the hon. the Prime Minister said there would be citizens as long as there were non-independent homelands. That is not an answer.

But what else do you want to know?

I state that there will always be Black South African citizens.

I cannot say, because I will not always be there. [Interjections.]

Well, as far as I can see, there will always be Black South African citizens. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. leader of the NRP described processes of political power in this country in terms of various roads. This Government accepts, as the hon. the Prime Minister indicated earlier—in a speech which showed a grasp of history, a sense of background, and which showed that he could put the issues of our politics of today in perspective—that we inherited a political situation in South Africa in which the White minority enjoyed a monopoly of political power. Fundamentally it is not a case of there being one or eight or three or four paths by which to find a way of dismantling the minority structures. Fundamentally there are only two ways in which this can be done. On the one hand it can be done by acknowledging the ethnicity of the society, by recognizing and encouraging the elites of the various communities, and by devolving political power to those communities. That is a course which increasingly leads to a devolved or decentralized South Africa—on territorial lines, in the case of Black people, and on community lines, in the case of Whites, Coloureds and Asians.

The other course is to ignore that ethnicity, to deny its importance, to ignore the fact of groups as an element in politics and to try to create a common South Africa. That was the course which was adopted by the PFP and by its spokesmen at the English-language universities and by its apologists on the English-language newspapers. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and other hon. members on that side of the House accuse the NP, the Government, of having changed its position, of having altered its policies. It has indeed altered its policies and it has indeed changed, because the objective reality in which we live, the world in which we live, has changed. As Edmund Burke put it: “A society without a means of change is a society without a means of survival.”

What is particularly relevant, however, is the nature of the changes that have taken place in English-language politics in this country. It is the English-speaking people who have moved closer to the broad principles of policy that have been enunciated by this particular party down the years. After the great English intellectual Hoernlé, in one of his writings, said that he believed that total territorial separation was the answer, a course of action the liberals should follow in the South African situation, they rejected him and wandered in the wilderness for 20 or 25 years or so. Now they are slowly coming back to recognize ethnicity and to recognize the importance of groups in politics, and it is the acknowledgment, on that side, of the correctness… [Interjections]… of the inherent principles of this side…

Read our founding principles.

That hon. member of the NRP should hold his tongue. I am addressing myself more to the more consistent political party, the official Opposition. Despite the changes they have made, what this debate has indicated so clearly is their utter political irrelevance in the South African situation.

Whose?

This is an irrelevance which is not to be drawn or inferred from the performance of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition who, following that statesmanlike speech by the hon. the Prime Minister at the commencement of the debate on his Vote, delivered a speech which was apologetic, personal, defensive, constantly explanatory and totally trivial in its impact on, or importance for, South Africa. No, the irrelevance of that political party is not measured by the contribution of any specific individual. It is reflected in developments that have taken place in Rhodesia. There were people in Rhodesia who were to the left of the Rhodesian Front political party, people who had massive Press support, not only in Rhodesia and South Africa, but also throughout the world. They were the White liberals of Rhodesia. But as that situation has moved closer and closer to an answer to the problems, those people have become increasingly irrelevant and one has heard less and less about them, until recently they faded completely from the scene. That is also what will happen to Opposition groups in this country. Rhodesia is a lesson for them in that respect.

Secondly, our own people of colour—the leaders of the Black people and the leaders of the Brown people—do not want to waste their time talking to the members of the official Opposition. They want to talk to the real leaders of South Africa, the real representatives of White South Africa, and they are the Cabinet and other leaders of this political party. If one speaks to leaders like Gatsha Buthelezi and others, they acknowledge that power lies here. It is here, in this negotiating situation into which we are moving, a situation in which we shall increasingly negotiate the fundamental issues of our society with Black leaders and Brown leaders, that it is critically important for this political party to be strong and for this political party, which is the party representing White South Africa—both English speakers and Afrikaans speakers—to be able to speak with one voice. This is the situation in which the Opposition’s irrelevance in this debate has been demonstrated time and time again. One has heard absolutely nothing about their own constitutional proposals. The official Opposition has not even talked about its proposals. It appears to be bankrupt in terms of policy and ideas.

Seeing that my time is too short to develop another theme, I want to come back to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s McHenry telephone conversation. Sir, when he gave those numerous explanations of that telephone conversation, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said a couple of very significant things. I trust he will give me his attention since the question I am raising here is an honest one. The question I raise is one which I intend putting in the Cape Peninsula. In connection with that telephone conversation he has not yet told the House and nobody in his party has given an explanation of why he did not inform the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs about the telephone conversation the following day when he saw him as a consequence of the conversation with Mr. McHenry. Why did he suppress that material fact?

Sir, you will recall that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said there was no secrecy about all this. He stressed that his party’s and his attitude was always that foreign policy should be conducted on a bi-partisan basis. He said it was just a question of clarification. He also stressed the importance of Ambassador McHenry, describing him as the representative of Cyrus Vance, the Foreign Secretary of the USA. He also stressed the importance of his discussion with Mr. McHenry. But he then told us that as he walked across—I presume—from Parliament to the Hendrik Verwoerd Building, he and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout discussed whether they would mention the discussion with McHenry. No, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition must not shake his head. He made that statement. They had decided not to mention the names of Ambassador Eick or McHenry. Now he changes his mind. They discussed it. I want to know—I genuinely want to know and the country wants to know—why it was that in that discussion with the Minister, a discussion as critically important as that, he did not mention that material fact. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not intend wasting much time on the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens; I just want to remind him of one or two things: If the English-speaking voters who voted him and other NP members into this House in 1977 were given the opportunity of voting again, they would very soon dispatch him and those other members from the traditional Opposition seats which they are occupying at this moment. [Interjections.] Well, we should like the chance of proving this. That is point number one.

The other thing is that he told us that the hon. the Prime Minister has displayed a grasp of history in the speeches that he has made. Well, I want to say that we certainly were treated to a long exposition of the hon. the Prime Minister’s vision and it is very clear to me that he spends a good deal of time in a dream world reassuring himself that everything is going satisfactorily in South Africa. I shall come back to that in a moment.

All is going well except for the telegram in connection with Mahlangu?

First, however, I want to reply to the hon. the Prime Minister and one or two other hon. members, notably the hon. member for Durbanville, who have been abusing me for having sent a telegram to the State President asking for clemency for Solomon Mahlangu. First of all I want to tell those hon. members that one does not identify on whatever basis with the aims or objectives of people who have committed murder when one asks for clemency. [Interjections.] Did the hon. members identify with Robey Leibrandt when they gave him his freedom despite the fact that everybody knew that Gen. Smuts had given him remission of the death sentence he received for plotting assassination? Did they identify with his aims of the assassination of Gen. Smuts?

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

No, I have no time.

Why did you not send a telegram in connection with the other three?

The other three? One was dead already, one was admitted to some lunatic asylum and one had escaped. What was I then to send a telegram for? [Interjections.] Sir, I am not going to be diverted. I just want to point out that the hon. the Minister, together with the rest of the Cabinet, meet in council and grant reprieves at the request of the State President. When they grant reprieves, do they identify with the people to whom they have granted reprieves, for whatever cause, as regards the murders they have committed? It is a lot of nonsense. The other thing I want to say is that I am in very good company with people throughout the civilized world when I say I am against the death sentence, the death penalty. My party has a free vote on this issue, and other members of my party may or may not identify with what I did. It is entirely their own business to decide on that. What I did, I did for myself and on my own cognizances. I should like to make that absolutely clear.

You are still a member of your party.

What does Kowie Marais say?

The other members of my party can agree or disagree with me. They have a free vote on this, just as they have on issues like abortion and liquor. That is all I intend to say about that. I do not in any way ask any pardon or offer any excuse for what I did. I would do it again tomorrow, given the opportunity.

Sir, let me get back to the hon. the Prime Minister and his grasp of history. In this debate he returned to the nonsense he talked during the no-confidence debate about the Protectorates and about the “gentlemen’s agreement” with Britain to hand the Protectorates over to South Africa. Sir, his historical knowledge is not correct. It is perfectly true that in the preamble to the Act of Union, allowance was made for the handing over of the Protectorates to South Africa at some future date should it be so decided. There was also, in the same preamble, allowance made to hand Rhodesia over to South Africa. Well? Did we demand that Rhodesia should be handed over to South Africa? Does the hon. the Prime Minister not know that entirely dependent on that “gentlemen’s agreement” was the concurrence of the inhabitants of the territories concerned? They were not in favour of their territories being handed over to South Africa—not under the previous Government, less so when the NP came into power and even less so when South Africa became a Republic. The whole question of this gentlemen’s agreement is nonsense.

When was their opinion tested?

Well, the British were constantly being told by the inhabitants of those territories that they did not want to be handed over to South Africa. I might say that, if they had been handed over, the hon. the Prime Minister would be doing his best to get them to ask for their independence again. What a lot of nonsense that is!

Then the hon. the Prime Minister said that members of the Opposition, when they go overseas, should tell the people there that 50% of the land that is occupied by Black people, the land that is given to them, the homelands, the 13%, is arable land.

No, I never said so.

The hon. the Prime Minister did.

Stick to the facts.

Sir, I read the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech this morning and he said that only 12%…

I said their land formed 50% of the total arable land.

All right, “of the total arable land”. He said further that we should tell people abroad that only 12% of the land held by Whites is in fact arable. I shall tell them that with the greatest of pleasure. I must also, however, tell them, of course, what amount of money is forthcoming from the Land Bank to assist Black farmers in getting established. I must tell them, too, what percentage of the gross domestic product is produced by agriculture in South Africa. Then I must tell them how much of the remaining land area which produces by far the greater percentage of our gross domestic product, and of our exportable goods, is in the hands of Black entrepreneurs. That would be a fair exchange of information which would be valid for overseas consumption.

The hon. the Prime Minister tells us he has two main visions: That people get their freedom without revolution or war; and that minorities have the fundamental right to exercise self-determination. He went on to ask: Were there ever fewer complaints from minority groups in White South Africa, complaints on the basis of language rights, cultural rights and of spiritual and religious freedom, than today? May I ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether he is at all perturbed at the enormous brain-drain South Africa is suffering from at the present time as some of the best trained and most skilled members of the White community leave? Is this something that does not concern the hon. the Prime Minister at all? Does he not realize that South Africa is losing thousands of her highly trained people: Engineers, doctors, architects, teachers and nurses are these people who are leaving South Africa. Is he not concerned about the fact that if the economy does take off as the result of the budget, if we do get a growth rate of 4% or 5%, we would be unable to cope with the demand for skilled labour?

This is a very serious matter indeed, but the hon. the Prime Minister sits in his dream-world thinking that everything is right with South Africa. The Coloureds and the Asians are now going to be given some say on a community basis, and in his Cabinet council, and he reminds us that the NP Government was the first to admit that the Indians in South Africa are permanent inhabitants. I should like to remind him that it was the Government of Gen. Smuts that offered Indians the vote in this House on a separate voters’ roll.

Two representatives.

Whatever it was, it was indicative of the fact that the Indians were accepted as permanent residents in South Africa.

Do you know that Gen. Smuts changed his mind?

It was the Indians who changed their minds. [Interjections.] They did. They refused to accept it. I must tell the hon. the Prime Minister that the Asian and Coloured populations are not satisfied with the implementation of what he calls the sort of apartheid which no longer supplies ammunition to our enemies overseas. Half a million people have been moved under the Group Areas legislation. That is wholly apartheid legislation which was introduced by the NP Government and still exists. Separate amenities still exist, the Immorality Act still exists, the Mixed Marriages Act still exists, separate education still exists and the Population Registration Act still exists. These are major causes of dissatisfaction among the minority groups in South Africa. [Interjections.] As far as the Africans are concerned, the hon. the Prime Minister is deceiving himself if he thinks urban communities will suffice. [Time expired.]

Vote agreed to.

Vote No. 4.—“Defence”:

Mr. Chairman, I request the privilege of the half hour.

I want to express my thanks for the provision of the White Paper which I am sure hon. members have found more than useful in their preparation for this debate. I also want to express my thanks to those in the Defence Force who are responsible for liaison with parliamentarians, starting with the Chief of the Defence Force and the various people we deal with. I thank them for their co-operation and also congratulate them, amongst others, on promotions which they have obtained.

I think there are many of our soldiers who are lying wounded in hospitals, and I think we should all convey to them our good wishes for a speedy recovery. At the same time we want to convey our sympathy to the families of those who have died in the service of their country and indicate to them that South Africans feel unanimously that they have died in the service of their country, and we feel for them in that situation.

In an ideal world there would be no need for a defence force. Peace has been the aspiration of ordinary men since time immemorial. But history shows that even long periods of peace are followed by war, often war of a very devastating nature. Peace is our objective, but unfortunately we—no more and no less than others in history—do not live in a perfect world. To have peace, others must also want peace and dedicate themselves to peaceful processes. We see, all around us, that violence has become the major instrument in the process of political change. It is not inappropriate to refer to the process of political change and its relationship to defence. In South Africa the word “change” is on almost everyone’s lips. The nature of the processes of change however, and the objectives of the processes, are matters of fundamental difference. Merely to stand for change is not enough. The objective and the method must be stated. The objectives of change are matters for other debates, and we have already had many hours of discussion on those aspects during the hon. the Prime Minister’s Vote.

I believe that this debate should concern itself with the method of change. The methods we in this party are committed to are methods which are peaceful, lawful and constitutional. Violent, unlawful and unconstitutional methods are rejected by us.

The hon. the Prime Minister said, just a little earlier on, that he could find common ground for discussion with us if we accepted two fundamentals: firstly, if we opposed foreign intervention—and we do oppose foreign intervention—and, secondly, if we opposed revolution, and we do oppose revolution. There should be no misunderstanding on those issues. If, therefore, we are committed to peaceful change—as we indeed are—it also follows that our territorial integrity as South Africans must be kept inviolate, that terrorism, whether by incursion from outside our borders or by internal insurrection, must be stamped out, and that we must help to maintain the peace and resist the violence that some elements seek to introduce into our society. By opposing this violence, one is not supporting the policies or justifying every action of the Government; but one is defending the country and the maintenance of a peaceful State in which those who wish to change political, social and economic structures, by peaceful and lawful activities, can do so. Those who oppose the Government and are committed to peaceful change cannot therefore stand by and allow others to use violence, because by doing so they, in fact, oppose violent as well as peaceful change in South Africa. Nor can one morally seek to benefit from others who provide one with the defence against violence if one is not prepared to participate in the protection provided for the community as a whole. The simple issue really is whether one is operating within an established system or whether one is operating outside it. If one seeks to operate outside the system, one cannot ask for the protection of the system. This party is committed to operating within the system. It is opposed to violence and committed to the concept that any changes it seeks must be achieved by lawful, constitutional and peaceful means. I personally believe that this is a fundamental commitment, not only of a party as a whole and of those who hold office in the party, but of anyone who is, wishes to remain or wishes to become a member of this party.

Long-term peace requires a satisfied community and an orderly development to satisfy reasonable economic and political aspirations. Those are the real methods of achieving long-term peace. Long-term peace will not be achieved by arms, but it is unlikely to be achieved if the Republic is unarmed and defenceless. Change can come about if South Africa is defenceless, but it will then be changed by violence, change towards a system which is likely to be imposed by force and is unlikely to have the ingredients of democracy as it is understood by us and by other countries in the West. It is therefore clear—certainly it is to me—why communist States want to have an arms boycott against South Africa, but why the West supports an arms boycott is, to my mind, beyond comprehension if one knows that Russian arms pour into Africa and are found in the possession of almost every terrorist we ever catch or find in Africa. What sort of change is therefore wanted? Is the change, which is wanted by other countries for South Africa, violent or peaceful change? What should the result of that change be in South Africa? Is the change, which is sought for South Africa politically, a change towards a democratically elected Government, or is it desired that there should be a Government imposed by force? What are the economic changes which are sought for South Africa by those who impose an arms boycott? Are the changes such that there should be a system which is consistent with Western philosophies, a system freely chosen by the people, or do certain elements seek a socialist-Marxist system which is not chosen by the ballot box? I want to say, so that there is no misunderstanding, that sanctions and boycotts—and we are particularly concerned with arms boycotts—are in my view actions which support violent change, actions which seek to have Governments imposed by the gun and not by the ballot box.

Let us then look at the situation of our Defence Force as it is at the moment. I should firstly like to look, if I may—perhaps for sentimental reasons—at the Air Force. The Air Force plays, and will continue to play, a key role in the Republic’s defence. The vast areas which have to be surveyed can only be effectively patrolled from the air in cooperation with ground forces. With the vast areas in which infiltrators can operate, the ability to move forces quickly and effectively requires helicopters and other transport aircraft, and we need large quantities of those aircraft. The presence of Russian-made fighter aircraft—in most cases with non-African crews—in other parts of Africa, constitutes a real threat, and we therefore need an air defence system of fighter aircraft to protect the country against these threats. Quite obviously we need the ancillary protection of anti-aircraft artillery, and what goes with it in the form of other sophisticated weaponry and equipment. The question that I want to pose to the hon. the Minister of Defence here today in relation to the Air Force is whether we can afford to spend large sums of money on training air crews—and we do spend vast sums of money on the training of air crews—and then pay them such low salaries that it results in the loss of those very valuable people who are needed for the Defence Force. There is no logic in spending large sums of money—and we know that it runs into six figures and more for one individual—and then, having spent all that money and having equipped that person to do that particular job, paying him such a meagre salary that he looks longingly for other activities where he can earn more, and we lose him as a result of it. I believe that there is no reason that can be logically advanced in this House why the highly skilled and trained technical personnel that we need should not be paid adequately, bearing in mind what the private sector does in this regard in order to retain its highly trained and technical personnel.

Our Air Force requires not only the type of aircraft to which I previously referred, but we also need a bomber strike force equipped to deal with the modern types of weaponry which are required for this type of situation. I believe that despite the restraints of capital expenditure and the arms boycott that exists, the South African Air Force is still a very highly efficient and a very powerful strike force. Its men are highly trained and it has dedicated, able and courageous young men who, can meet anybody on equal terms and can rank with any air force in the world, and I think we can be proud of them. They hold a very fine tradition. If I may, I should like to show this in a personal respect. I recently met members of my old squadron, and in meeting them felt that sense of pride one can only feel in being with young men such as these. One sees that they are every bit as good as the young men who distinguished themselves in the Second World War. In many respects, in fact, they are far more highly and better trained than we were in those days. I believe that these young men are men on whom we can rely, but appeal today to the hon. the Minister to make sure that he keeps them in our forces because those young men are invaluable for the defence of South Africa.

Then I should like to look at seaward defence in South Africa. We believe that our seaward defence should be of such a nature that it deals with the Republic’s interests only. I believe, as the situation in the world is at present, that with the limited resources available to us, we have to look solely to our defence, while others look at their interests and seek to protect them in the oceans around them. Our harbours must be protected, the ships that carry our trade must have an unimpeded passage, and we must ensure that. With the possibility of hostile action against us by way of sanctions, etc., it might become increasingly important to us to see, in the days that lie ahead, that our shores are open to ships which we require to carry our trade. In regard to our seaward defence, we also have to ensure that saboteurs, terrorists and the supplies they need and which they seek to land here, can be intercepted and prevented from coming in. The types of ships that we require and the aircrafts that we employ must be specifically directed to these ends. I believe that the days of prestigious vessels have passed, because they are no longer important in this kind of situation. If large prestigious vessels are required in order to protect the western sea route around the Cape, then that is the responsibility of the West. Our responsibility is the defence of the shores of South Africa. I should like to submit, and I think the hon. the Prime Minister will not disagree with me, that what the South African Navy needs is small, hard-hitting rocket-firing vessels. This type of vessel can hit anything and can deal with some of the most powerful ships at sea. We need patrol boats to keep the coast under surveillance and to prevent infiltrators from landing.

We also need more aircraft for reconnaissance, as escorts, and to protect ships at sea. We need a system of surveillance from land which covers the coastline and enables us to detect, report upon and react early to unusual activities. We need detection vessels and other mechanisms to deal with mines that might threaten our sea routes and harbours. We already have much of this, but with an arms embargo, we need to re-assess our priorities and to look at the whole situation again. We need to look at our shipbuilding activities very carefully to see that we build the right kind of ship. We also need to make our servicemen more conscious that equipment must last longer than it is normally to be expected. In this regard I should like to say that the logistics have our full support, and we feel that project “Mistral” must be pursued. South Africa has to replace and supplement the Shackletons and other coastal defence aircraft. The Atlas Aircraft Company must apply itself to this particular issue. Those of us who live along the coast should be part of a network of individuals adequately organized to watch for untoward incidents which might constitute threats. The “Marbid” system must operate adequately all along our coasts.

These are only some of the things that we believe should be done in regard to defence matters. There are many more issues that we are going to cover as this debate continues. At this stage I should like to conclude, however, by saying that South Africa needs to look at its priorities, because if we are going to have peaceful change in South Africa, we must ensure that there is peace, and those who are unarmed cannot ensure peace in their country.

Mr. Chairman, it is really a pleasure for me to be able to congratulate the hon. member for Yeoville on a very positive speech. It does not happen often that we hear anything so positive from that side of the House as the hon. member for Yeoville uttered this afternoon. I agree 100% with him that change should not only take place for the sake of change, but that it should take place within a certain set of principles and in accordance with the demands of law and order, which is so necessary for the introduction of essential changes. I should also like to convey my congratulations to the staff and the Ministry of Defence for the excellent and informative White Paper made available to us. I also want to associate myself with the words of sympathy the hon. member for Yeoville addressed to the parents of soldiers killed in action, as well as the good wishes he conveyed to the wounded who are still in hospital. Recently I enjoyed the privilege of visiting the operational area and I was especially impressed by certain aspects I encountered there. In the first place there is the high morale of our troops. Due to the quality of the officers in whose care those troops were placed, it was really an inspiration to see the motivation and morale still maintained there. It is not an easy task to keep those troops motivated. It must be remembered that those people are fighting far away from home, that they are actually fighting in a foreign country. The young military serviceman does not always realize what he is fighting for or the reason for and the necessity of his presence in the operational area. In this regard, too, our officers play a very important role. It has been said that this war is the war of the corporals. However, it is still the duty and responsibility of the officers to see that the corporals are also properly motivated and trained for their extremely important task. When a patrol has to do duty in thick forest over difficult terrain which demands the highest degree of security and precautionary measures, and finds that no contact can be made with the enemy, it leads indisputably to a great deal of frustration. But thanks to the Southern Cross and Defence Force Fund which make it possible to have swimming pools and other apparatus for recreation, these frustrations are soon got rid of.

It is also clear that Swapo is being equipped with extremely sophisticated weapons and that their training has much improved. Their anti-tracking techniques in particular are of the highest quality. It therefore appears as if the East German officers at present in Angola are applying better training methods and also maintaining stricter discipline.

Another impression I formed there is that there is apparently still a great deal of confusion amongst the local population about the fact that the internal wing of Swapo is allowed to carry on with its activities without hindrance while the troops have to fight against the external wing of Swapo. They are dissatisfied because our troops also have to protect the internal wing of Swapo when they have meetings while they fight the external wing of Swapo. This leads to confusion.

Members of Swapo enter South West Africa from Angola in larger groups than before and as a result of the efficient countertracking technique it is difficult to deal with them. Therefore one asks oneself whether this, together with the fact that they are equipped with sophisticated weapons, is not aimed at the establishment of bases in South West Africa so as to give substance and weight to the demand of Sam Nujoma, i.e. that before he will agree to a peaceful settlement in South West Africa, his so-called bases in South West Africa should be allowed to exist without hindrance.

All indications are that Swapo infiltrates South West Africa from Angola and then uses transport made available by the internal wing of Swapo. This was undoubtedly the case with the attack in Ondangwa when a mortar attack damaged a number of our aeroplanes.

Our Defence Force has an extremely difficult task because its strategy and force application are not only determined by military considerations or situations, but because in determining its strategy and force application it has to take the local political situation, among other things, into consideration. Other factors which play a cardinal role in the determining of strategy and force application are clearly spelt out in the White Paper on Defence and Armaments Supply. I quote (Chapter 1, para. 10.3)—

This is therefore reassuring, when one knows, in the light of what I have just quoted, that as far as the counter-insurgency struggle is concerned, we are completely self-sufficient as far as weapons are concerned and properly and efficiently equipped to resist the onslaught against us. Against the background of the Security Council’s arms embargo against us, the embargo of 4 November 1977, which is for all practical purposes irrevocable, it is and has been the task of Armscor, in consultation with the S.A. Defence Force, to bring about the highest degree of self-sufficiency in the Republic of South Africa. This task of Armscor has been carried out very capably and with great speed and efficiency. For that we convey our sincere thanks to that extremely efficient organization.

As the hon. the Prime Minister has already indicated, the West does not have the will or the ability to become involved in the takeover of Southern Africa by the Marxists. It is also clear that the Marxists, if they are unable to force the Southern African States to surrender by way of terrorism, will soon start a more conventional type of onslaught. The presence of the East German officers in Angola and Mozambique, the more sophisticated weapons being made available to terrorists at the moment, and the presence of Russian fighter planes in Angola are to my mind signs that a conventional onslaught is already being planned. Armscor has already planned for an attack like this, too, and there are already production lines which manufacture very sophisticated weapons, weapons which can be used with great success in an unconventional attack.

It is a comforting thought that these standards of battle-readiness could be achieved in such a short period, and it deserves the sincere gratitude of all of us.

Now I want to say something with regard to the manpower situation. The Defence Force has a considerable shortage of senior and junior staff members, especially officers and non-commissioned officers. The short-service system has been introduced to meet the demand for trained and experienced members of the Citizen Force and Commandos and for service of at least one year in the Permanent Force. This system alleviated the problem to a certain extent. In the long term, however, it cannot eliminate the shortage of staff in the Permanent Force. The employment of women in a non-combatant capacity is already bearing fruit. Women are especially trained and used, inter alia, as instructors and members of the SAMC. In the Air Force, too, there are personnel shortages. In that regard I want to associate myself with the plea the hon. member for Yeoville made for the Air Force. In certain categories of flight personnel there are already critical shortages. Therefore I think that attention should be paid to this.

In conclusion I want to read the last paragraph of the White Paper on Defence and Armament Supply that we have been given. I do this because to me the paragraph concerned is so typical of the situation—

Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Cradock on the positive note he sounded with regard to the S.A. Defence Force, and especially on his positive commentary on his illuminating visit to the operational area.

In the short time at my disposal I want to say a few words about the commando system in South Africa. This is a very important part of our total national defence strategy, especially with regard to the non-conventional onslaught on our survival and our freedom at the present time. The following appeared in a recent newspaper report—

According to the report one of our generals said—

In the rural areas the commando members are usually from the voluntary corps. They are therefore people who are in the nature of things more motivated, people who are inspired by an instinct to survive and to protect the property of which they too are co-owners. They are people who are inspired to protect the fives of those nearest to them, the family and friends in their immediate vicinity. Due to the two-year national service system it will in future be possible to employ particularly the defensive element of the commandos to a greater extent locally, in an area which the member of the commandos knows like the back of his hand, in accordance with Defence Force policy. He knows the Black population very well and he has a good relationship with them, a relationship built up during the years of working together, a relationship of coexistence in a spirit of goodwill and helpfulness. For example, in time of sickness, as we know it on our farms, the owners of the farms do everything possible to give medical assistance to their labourers. Therefore a spirit of mutual respect and trust is built up which definitely cannot be destroyed overnight with the barrel of a Russian AK47 gun.

Many examples of this are already to be found in the counter-insurgency task which our commandos undertake. These people are extremely well-disposed towards the farming commando member and this fact is of immense value in the situation we are already experiencing. Anyone who knows the bush-veld of Northern Transvaal well, will understand why the man who grew up there, who has the necessary knowledge of the veld, who knows tracking and who can five and survive in the veld, the man who has lived his whole fife close to nature and received his military training in that area, will be the best-equipped soldier in our present struggle against terrorism. Experience has proved this in the terrorist incidents which have taken place in Northern Transvaal.

Therefore I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether commando units which, in the nature of things, can be established very quickly because the members five there, work there, cannot be involved more rapidly in follow-up operations where terrorists are involved. I know that this is primarily a police task, but with the escalation of this type of threat I do want to call for better cooperation. The hon. the Prime Minister said today that there is good co-operation. However, I should like to call for still better co-operation between the Police and the commandos, especially at the lower command level, to deal with the threat posed by this common enemy in the most effective manner. I want to concede at once that with the first real contact with the terrorists in Northern Transvaal last year, the joint action was probably not as smooth as it should have been. That is understandable. In the interests of all, however, this should be rectified because it is not exclusively the task of the police or the Defence Force. It is often asked why commando members cannot, for example, be involved in road blocks and other areas where commandos can be of assistance to the police. On page 5 of the White Paper, par. 24, under the heading “Commandos”, the following is stated—

This is true, in spite of the real interest and affinity the public has for the S.A. Defence Force. This fact was very well illustrated by an extremely successful Army Day on 10 February this year at Pietersburg. No fewer than 5 000 people attended this Army Day. No less than a quarter of the envisaged R20 000 was collected on that day for a commando headquarters to be built on land the City Council presented to the commandos. It is true that the interest is there, but this interest was much greater two years ago when the hon. the Prime Minister made a special appeal to the public to support this effort. The question arises as to why there is a waning interest at the moment. I can think of a few possible reasons. Firstly, the commando member did not enjoy the necessary protection, with regard to employers and in other respects, in the past. This has now been rectified by legislation introduced recently. It might be that the commando member had a mistaken impression of the commandos and regarded it as a type of rifle commando and a type of pastime or form of relaxation. It might also be that from sheer love of ease he is not prepared to make the sacrifices required. It might also be it is out of sheer greed, that a businessman or a professional man is not prepared to make sacrifices for his country. We have people like this as well. There are undoubtedly many other reasons, but I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Defence whether it is not also true that in the past it was simply impossible to equip commando members from the outset with their complete equipment, that they had to do without for long periods. And was there not often a lack of leadership elements in the commandos, as a result of which interest was deadened? I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Defence if the necessary attention could be paid to this matter if it is true that, for example, there is still a lack of the necessary vehicles and Defence Force equipment or ammunition at commando camps.

In conclusion I want to say a few words about the S.A. Medical Service. This surely is one of the most important support services of the S.A. Defence Force. According to the White Paper, during the past 12 months there has been not only a gradual upswing in the total strength of the service, but also a remarkable revival of interest in voluntary service in the Defence Force, a service which is utilized very effectively in the operational area. Operational experience has taught us that sophisticated and specialized medical elements and surgical teams should be able to deploy and function quickly and effectively in the immediate vicinity of the fighting area. This undoubtedly gives the best results, and it is good to know that further research is being carried out by the S.A. Defence Force in this regard to extend the already high quality of service. One thing is certain: The sick or wounded soldier in the S.A. Defence Force can set his mind at rest because even though he can rely on almost the same treatment elsewhere in the world, nowhere will he be cared for better than in the S.A. Defence Force.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to react now to the speech by the hon. member who has just spoken, because one of my colleagues in the NRP will deal specifically with the question of the commandos. I shall therefore leave that to him.

†I rather want to refer to what was said at the start of this debate. Last year I congratulated the hon. member for Yeoville on being an apt pupil, and this year I should like to congratulate him for having learnt even better from my teaching.

You are an apt teacher.

I therefore take credit for the excellent speech he made. I must say that I would have allowed him to make that speech had he been a member of this party. For such a speech he would have been welcome to speak with the support of this party.

I want to associate myself with his remarks concerning those who have been bereaved and those who have been wounded in the defence of South Africa. I think he spoke for all of us. I also associate myself with his remarks to those in the S.A. Defence Force who have given, to all of us who take an interest in defence, their full co-operation and assistance over the past year. I should particularly like to emphasize the valuable opportunities we have had, from time to time, to visit the operational area and talk to the people who are doing the job on the ground.

The hon. member for Yeoville dealt with a number of matters in which I support him strongly, but he has directed his remarks more at conventional warfare and what is required in that field. Later in my speech I shall deal more with COIN operations, counter-insurgency operations, and the PBI, the poor bloody infantry, who have to slog it out as national servicemen, as the Citizen Force and in the commandoes.

Firstly I want to say that I believe that South Africa is, in fact, in a state of war now. We are fighting, shots are being fired, landmines are being laid and people are being killed and wounded. We have to look at the situation against that background. In every war in which South Africa has been involved in the past, it has had allies, has had access to armaments and has received technical and highly qualified assistance from its allies. Now, however, we are on our own. It is a new situation with which I believe South Africa is coping. There is an old saying that “ ’n boer maak altyd ’n plan”. South Africans are famous for always being able to make a plan.

However, there is one field in which we seem unable to make a plan. In this regard I want to talk to the hon. the Minister of Defence in his other capacity as Prime Minister. I am sure that as the Minister of Defence he recognizes the problem, but as a member of the Cabinet and as Prime Minister he does not follow it up. The problem I am referring to is the stranglehold applied to an organization like the S.A. Defence Force by treating it as part of a public service subject to the same rules and approach as apply to normal office work to those engaged in administrative tasks. One cannot compare somebody in the S.A. Defence Force with his equivalent in rank in the Public Service who, however hard he may work and however much his responsibility is, is living a completely different kind of life. The experience of those who have walked across a minefield and therefore actually know what it means—who for years have had nightmares, waking up in the middle of the night with a vision of one of their colleagues being blown to bits alongside or in front of him, and who will for ever have to live with what they have gone through—cannot be equated with a scale of salaries which is judged by the output of a person performing an administrative task. I am not suggesting that there are not fields in the S.A. Defence Force where the comparison can quite easily be made. However, I want to say again that I believe that we are now in a state of war and that one cannot treat the S.A. Defence Force as just an arm of the Public Service… I believe, and I say it again, that we are now in a state of war, and one cannot treat the S.A. Defence Force as merely an arm of the Public Service. I know that members of the Public Service Commission do not like my saying this. They ask: Why are you attacking us? I am not attacking the Public Service Commission; I am attacking the system as it affects the Defence Force, which is the shield which screens South Africa from danger, which gives it its safety, its security and its freedom. It is the shield which calls for dedication and sacrifice which one cannot measure in terms of pay scales. I believe that the hon. the Minister of Defence and his supreme command should have the flexibility to pay specialist allowances, technical allowances, field allowances and any other allowances which they may decide upon in order to compensate for the job for which such allowances are required. I myself do not want to quote examples; I do not need to.

We have been presented with them in the White Paper, and I join in expressing my appreciation for zt. Let me just give some examples dealing with manpower and the shortage of manpower. Page 3, para. 13, deals with the manpower losses in the Permanent Force. Page 5, para. 25, deals with the loss of SAAF artisans. I raised this matter with the department over a year ago. I dealt with the shocking waste and losses of highly trained artisans. The same paragraph also refers to SAAF air-crews. I want to ask the hon. the Minister or Deputy Minister: When was the flying allowance in the S.A. Air Force last adjusted? As far as I know, not for the last 10 years. Do the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister realize what the Heads of the S.A. Army, Air Force and Navy earn? For example, let us take the Head of the Air Force. His income is less than that of any young captain flying a Boeing aircraft for S.A. Airways on the overseas route. Then this White Paper mentions a shortage of air crew. How does one expect to keep air crew when they can go to their own S.A. Airways and earn twice as much, let alone from other airlines? Every time I raise this matter, I am told: No, it is the system; the Public Service Commission does not inhibit us. Page 6 of the White Paper, para. 28, deals with the turnover of Whites in the S.A. Navy. Para. 31 on the same page deals with the turnover of administrative and professional members of the S.A. Medical Service. Page 7, para. 35, deals with conditions of service in the Permanent Force. It states that in the whole of the four years that the system of merit salary increases has been in effect only 351 members have earned special salary increases. Big deal!

When the Army tried to encourage national servicemen to stay on longer it had an excellent scheme. What happened then? The Auditor-General and the Public Service Commission ruled it out of order and the money had to be voted by this House as unauthorized expenditure. The Army cannot even take an existing national serviceman, pay him an extra bonus, and so have the services of somebody who is prepared to help fill the manpower shortage. Throughout the services there is this manpower shortage, and I believe the Defence Force has to be given the power to pay the sort of money which will ensure that there are not these critical shortages and will make the specialist want to go on serving. It is no use talking about his pension. These men are fighting. They are being shot at. If they get hit all that is left is a widow’s pension. One cannot simply tell them: Yes, but you have long-term security. These are men who are fighting for South Africa and I believe we have got to view their jobs in a different light from normal, secure office jobs. [Time expired.]

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, I have no sword to cross with the hon. the Leader of the NRP about the speech he made just prior to the adjournment for dinner. On the contrary, it seems as though we may expect support from all quarters in this debate for the Government’s handling of our country’s defence. This, of course, means one thing only, and that is that South Africa’s defence is being handled so capably, both from the Ministry and from the organization of the Chief of the Defence Force, that there is no real room for criticism.

Hear, hear!

I just want to refer briefly…

What about South West?

I shall also refer to that presently. I just want to refer briefly to the memorial which is to be unveiled by the hon. the Prime Minister on the outskirts of Pretoria on 31 May. I understand that this is a memorial for the members of the S.A. Defence Force who laid down their lives in the defence of South Africa after it became a Republic. I think it is good and proper for such a memorial to be erected. It befits a nation to remember its fallen and to set aside a place at which people may gather and at which the sacrifices of the fallen may be commemorated. I trust that the public will attend and support the unveiling in large numbers, because to remember one’s fallen, to commemorate them, is to thank those who can no longer hear one. But we should do more than go to a memorial and gather there; we should always remember our fallen in our deeds by continuing to value this country and the civilization for which they laid down their lives, as highly as they did, Sir, through our preparedness to defend this country as they did, otherwise they would have perished to no avail.

Considering our population numbers, considering our total budget and the small portion of it which is available for defence, considering our smallness among the nations, considering the arms embargoes against South Africa which, for all practical purposes, are total, considering the onslaught against us and our already being faced by soldiers of Russia’s proxies, South Africa only has reason to be proud of its Defence Force, with all three its arms, as well as of our armaments supply organization and, indeed, of the quality and striking power of our arms. I believe that this readiness for action on the part of South Africa has been the only deterrent in the recent past against serious military interference within South Africa’s borders by countries of non-African origin. All other African armies, south and north of the Sahara, all armies in the Near East and I want to say I believe virtually all other armies in the world exist with the aid and support of one of the super or large powers. South Africa is the only one of all of them that is dependent entirely on itself in the matter of fending for itself, and this while it seems that the war clouds are gathering more and more on our borders. On the one hand it is unpleasant to have to admit this. One would like to have been able to say that in this regard one can also look over one’s shoulder at one of the major powers. On the other hand one should not bemoan the situation.

I believe time will tell that the very fact that we have been dependent on ourselves, or that we have been able to develop the very type of weapon, the very type of mobility and the very type of soldier that meet our needs best, has caused us to know exactly where we stand and show the world not only our military calibre, but, indeed, also our calibre in the planning and development of armaments. I believe that our enemies, those who cried for sanctions against South Africa, the “Boycott South Africa” callers, already have doubt in their minds about the wisdom of their anti-South Africa incitement. Instead of breaking us, instead of paralysing South Africa, they have filled us with strength and determination and have indeed done us a favour.

To maintain this standard of readiness for action, it is, of course, essential for us to have suitable staff at all times to occupy this special post. It is true that we have a shortage of certain highly trained staff, not because they are not available, not because they are totally lost, but because they are drawn away for understandable reasons from the Defence Force by the private sector by means of better remuneration and better working conditions.

Unlike the two speakers of the Opposition I do not want to refer to particular staff and single them out. The fact of the matter is that we have staff which have been trained by the Defence Force at a very high cost. We have excellent manpower. We must just tell one another at this stage that under present circumstances South Africa can no longer afford to be understrength as far as certain highly specialized staff are concerned. Our helicopters must fly, our vehicles must move and our electronic equipment must function.

South Africa will have to be prepared to pay the price for the particular service; otherwise there may be too high a price that will have to be paid at a later stage. We cannot spend thousands, and even tens and hundreds of thousands on a person’s training to lose him after that to the private sector. We are in a state of war and for the present we shall have to pay to retain particular services. I think that we should tell ourselves this. We must realize this, and the sooner we can solve this problem effectively, the better it will be for the whole of South Africa.

In conclusion I just want to say that the hon. the Prime Minister, the hon. the Minister of Defence, in his foreword to the White Paper, referred to the vacuum caused by the withdrawal of the colonial powers from Africa and the instability brought about by this. South Africa, by making itself militarily strong, has brought itself to a position where it, if African countries were to ask for it, would be able, is able, of filling that vacuum, of converting the instability into stability. The hon. the Minister of Defence indicated that South Africa and Southern Africa, together with the other countries on our borders, could be sought-after prey, but on the other hand he also indicated that the Republic of South Africa could become a bulwark for all its friends. The hon. the Prime Minister in the discussion of his Vote emphasized good relations between anti-communistic states in Southern Africa. The availability of a defence force such as that of South Africa is a prerequisite for the achievement of that ideal. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it gives me pleasure to concur with what was said by the hon. member for Waterkloof. One cannot quarrel with him about what he said. His speech was quite illuminating. We are, of course, familiar with the dedication with which he continues to show an interest in defence matters.

The urgency of the onslaught against the Republic of South Africa in the military, economic, political and psychological spheres, caused the system of national service, in terms of which national servicemen initially had to do national service for a period of 12 months, to be revised and amended. The amended system of national service was put into operation on 1 January 1977. This means that as from that date national servicemen are isolated for a period of two years from family, professional and community life and from circumstances of which they are a part, owing to the initial compulsory period of full-time national service.

At the time when national service had to be done for a period of 12 months only, the problem of the adjustment of national servicemen was not of an essential nature, as most young men did their national service after matric or after leaving school at some earlier stage, and started their careers after they had completed their training. Some of them went to further their studies. Others registered as apprentices or started following some career. For most of these young men an interruption of one year was not disrupting. It was easy for them to find themselves again, easier than it would have been after a longer period of military service. This was accepted to be the position as sociological research and experience during the last World War indicated that to a lesser or greater degree diverse problems might be experienced owing to a longer period of military training.

Sometimes unemployment, due to a lack of employment opportunities, or inadequate educational qualifications were the reason for this. In this regard it is important to know that of the total number of national servicemen for 1977, only 48% have a standard 8 certificate or lower educational qualifications while the competitive power of a matriculation certificate is really minimal today. Other problems which occur are, for example, adaptability in the work situation, in the family or possibly in community life and possible welfare problems such as marital infidelity, divorce, crime, the abuse of liquor, drug addiction, etc. In the past problems experienced by national servicemen after their discharge have not been dealt with according to a co-ordinated plan, but merely in accordance with individual needs coming to the attention of the Defence Force from time to time. However, this situation could be changed by means of an amended national service system, and to take timely precautions is a wise measure. For that reason it has been decided to assist national servicemen with adjustment problems on a systematic basis where and when the problems may exist or where assistance may be required. Of course, the purpose is not to trace each national serviceman with the work to assist him. I think that would be fatal. It is true in any event that the majority fortunately find their feet quite readily on their own or within the family context and adjust themselves. The purpose is to create for those in need of assistance a channel through which they can be assisted. During 1978 the Chief of the Defence Force gave careful attention to the introduction of a comprehensive programme for the absorption and adjustment of national servicemen into and to civilian family, professional and community life upon the completion of their national service.

I am convinced that it was a very wise decision not to establish separate organizations for this purpose, but to use existing organizations in the community in order to place national servicemen directly in the midst of community life in this way. The S.A. Defence Force decided to co-ordinate only the various existing functions and schemes of relevant Government departments and private organizations for the benefit of members of the S.A. Defence Force returning to society upon the completion of their national service. Government departments, private service and cultural organizations, women’s organizations, the church and employers whose services are involved in this adjustment programme of the S.A. Defence Force, will, therefore, do the work for which they are best equipped.

In the case of social problems, for example, the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, the church service and cultural organizations that offer the most suitable machinery in that respect, can be used, while the Department of Labour, the Public Service Commission and employers’ organizations together with Government corporations and employers can be responsible for finding suitable employment. By means of church and community life, local communities, on the other hand, can contribute their share towards the adjustment of these young men and towards making them feel at home in the community. In this way the public is being afforded a convenient opportunity for conveying its thanks to those who ensure that we live our lives in safety and for looking after the dependents, parents, wives and children of those who are away from home for two years.

In order to effect the systematic adjustment of national servicemen, the S.A. Defence Force asked the mayors of each city and town to convene founder meetings and to act as patrons of such adjustment committees, with town clerks conveniently being appointed as chairmen of those committees. The advantage of these arrangements is that the interests of the soldiers are served in a way in which politics play no part and in which the interests of Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people can be served jointly. The cooperation of Administrators was obtained as well. No fixed modus operandi was prescribed, but it was suggested to committees to organize subcommittees on which representatives of various organizations serve, representatives who have specialized knowledge in various fields. This was a very sound decision and such committees were established throughout the country. Upon the return of the first national servicemen who had to complete their national service over a period of two years, it was found, however, that not as many problems as had initially been expected, were being experienced in helping those people to readjust. A committee for the adjustment of national servicemen to civilian life was established in my constituency as well to see to the needs of the national serviceman. Of the national servicemen who returned to my constituency, only four needed help. The others were all well placed and could find their feet themselves. Similar information has been received from committees throughout the country and at this juncture it seems as if there are not going to be major problems with the adjustment of national servicemen who return after the completion of their national service. I want to suggest, however, that the committees continue to exist. In the meantime the committees can care for dependents, particularly those of national servicemen who are married and doing national service. There are children who have to be looked after and have to be taken to school. Sometimes it is difficult for the mother to do this. For that reason I think that until such time as we are absolutely sure that such committees are unnecessary, it would be a good thing if they continued to exist. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member mentioned a real problem, i.e. that of the adjustment of national servicemen to civilian life. I do not want to elaborate on that, but I do want to add that it is something for which we have real appreciation. We must express our thanks to the local committees that made it their objective to ensure that adjustment runs smoothly. I think that they are doing a wonderful job of work in this regard, particularly in the cities. I shall also refer to civil defence at a later stage in my speech.

On behalf of by party I want to convey my sincere thanks to all sections and all ranks of the S.A. Defence Force for the service they are rendering. There is nothing which instills so much confidence in an emergency as a uniform. Just as we feel very safe in this Chamber this evening, when we see all the beautiful uniforms of the members of the Defence Force attending this debate, so I am convinced South Africa feels safe in the knowledge that the Defence Force is at its post. We want to thank the protectors of our safety for the service they are rendering to our country. We also want to say how indebted we are to those who paid the highest price. Their names will live for ever in the history of our country. I also want to convey our heartfelt sympathy to their families and to those who remain behind.

If one examines the White Paper it instills a great deal of confidence. We are convinced that full attention is being given to all branches of the Defence Force. I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister on the progress in the Defence Force, as is apparent from the White Paper. One comes to the conclusion that the Department of Defence and its staff realize the seriousness of our present position. Like the hon. member for Cradock, I, too, was fortunate enough to be given the opportunity of visiting the border recently. In the first instance I want to express my thanks to those who were responsible for the arrangements. It was a wonderful and golden opportunity to acquaint oneself fully of what was being done there. The questions we put to officers, were freely answered. I want to agree with the hon. member for Cradock that the morale of our men in the operational area is exceptionally high. I was impressed by the young and competent officers, seniors and juniors, as well as the privates serving on the border. It was encouraging to see the responsible role being played by our young men. It touched one to see the young men in the operational area. Some of them, perhaps the majority of them, have now left their homes for the first time. It touches one to see these fine young South Africans, men with great potential for their country, being exposed unnecessarily, I am sorry to say, to danger there, but we have the consolation that those boys who left home to serve in the Defence Force, will subsequently return as men from the front.

It is tragic that the work of civil upliftment being done in addition to the defence task, is not being appreciated. This is wonderful work of upliftment which receives no recognition due to the inability of the West to adopt firm standpoints and to express condemnation and to give encouragement where it is necessary. This indecisive action serves as encouragement to the terrorists, the people who murder their own people. One unwittingly thinks that if it were unnecessary to guard our borders, the funds which are being used for defence today, could have been used for the work of upliftment which is so necessary in our country.

During the visit we paid to the border, one could not but realize the necessity of the small things, particularly recreation facilities, which can make a difference in the life of the men who have to live there under difficult circumstances. I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to make a suggestion to the service organizations in particular. These are the organizations engaged in rendering services and assistance to their fellow-man. I do not want to mention the names of these organizations; they will know themselves who they are. However, I think that there is an opportunity for those service organizations to determine what they can do to improve the lot of the men on the border. I have in mind facilities such as swimming pools, in particular. There are some of them, but not nearly enough. I think that these organizations could consider doing something in this regard. This will definitely be a meritorious project.

It appears from the White Paper that the Citizen Force has a shortage of trained officers—reference has already been made to this this afternoon—and that the number of commando volunteers are decreasing, particularly in the rural areas. Now I should like to pose the question whether it is not necessary for us to keep these units at full strength by making service training compulsory? The hon. member for Durban Point said that we were in a state of war and I am in complete agreement with him. Has the time not arrived for us to oblige our people up to a certain age, for example, 45 or 50 years, to do national service? There is a certain degree of dissatisfaction among the men who do, in fact, do national service that there are so many thousands of young South Africans who do not do, or who have not done, or who apparently will not be doing national service in future. These are the people who by chance were not ballotted. There are the immigrants. Last year legislation was passed here to make provision for the involvement of certain immigrants in national service, but I am afraid that there are still thousands of immigrants who will not be involved. I do not want to go into the details of this matter, but I feel that if compulsory military training were to be introduced, these people who find South Africa a comfortable home, who lead a safe life here and who compete with our sons, would also do national service and contribute their share.

I just want to refer briefly to the question of civil defence. The hon. member who spoke before me referred to it. Since 1977 this matter has been placed beyond any doubt. We know now what the duties of the provincial authorities and the local authorities are. However, it is disturbing to see in the White Paper that only 131 of the 636 local authorities gained an A grading. This is not good enough. I wonder whether this is due to a lack of interest. We find that although a considerable amount of planning is being done, nothing positive is being done in certain areas. The members of these organizations have to be motivated. There is no point in people being members of an organization in name only. They have to be trained and kept busy regularly. Planning alone is not enough. Activities create interest and will also ensure that that interest is lasting. In this regard I want to come back to the question of compulsory national service. If there are certain people who cannot do compulsory national service in the commandos or in other units, they should be obliged to be involved in civil defence. There is no reason why everyone who is healthy and under a certain age cannot make some contribution to the security of our country. Who knows when we might find ourselves in dire straits and in an emergency situation. I see no reason why we who are sitting in this House cannot attend a training course or two during the recess. It is not impossible that we may also be called upon at some time to do our share.

You are too old.

No, I am not too old at all.

Now I have referred to a few causes of friction, for example the men who do national service and others who do not do national service. We know that students are granted exemption. We have no fault to find with that principle, but we ask that it should be applied more selectively. It is obvious that the Defence Force requires members of certain professions. I have in mind doctors and engineers in particular. Of necessity these people have to complete their training first, if they want to make a positive contribution. However, I think that there are cases where exemption for study purposes can be given only after the people have done their basic military service. They can do their training subsequent to that I cannot see that the training of those people as such will be of great benefit to the Defence Force. I ask the hon. the Minister to look into this matter.

Mr. Chairman, while I do not profess to want to reply to specific matters at this stage, there are nevertheless a number of matters which I want to touch on. They could perhaps influence or promote the drift of this debate. I am referring in particular to matters raised, inter alia, by the hon. member for Yeoville, the hon. member for Durban Point, the hon. member for Cradock and the hon. member for Waterkloof. I want to express my appreciation for the fact that the emphasis has fallen on the Permanent Force in particular. We are in agreement that while the previous White Paper singled out the manpower situation, in these times we have to examine the Permanent Force in particular because after all, it is the Permanent Force which has to prepare the Defence Force for its task of protection, defence, the establishment of the infrastructure and the manning of sophisticated weapon systems. For that reason it is still one of the objectives of the S.A. Defence Force to double the Permanent Force by 1981, as we indicated in 1977. It is true that there are certain short-term problems and it is true that these have to be attended to. It is necessary to compete with the private sector for the services of well-trained men. It is most definitely true that it has now become a matter of urgency to attend to this. I am convinced that the hon. the Prime Minister will make further reference to this tomorrow. This matter also has to be solved in the medium and long term as far as possible, and for that reason the Defence Force has deemed it necessary with regard to the staff position in the Permanent Force, to establish a committee representative of all interested sections of the Defence Force to carry out an in-depth examination of the staff position of the S.A. Defence Force as a whole and of steps to be taken to attract staff to the Permanent Force and to check the outflow. This committee has already made good progress with its investigation. With reference to this committee’s findings and recommendations it has been proposed that 1980 be declared “Staff Year” in the S.A. Defence Force so that the emphasis may fall on the implementation of the committee’s recommendations.

What are their full terms of reference?

To examine the attraction of staff to the Permanent Force and to check the outflow. I am not suggesting here that as regards the short term, the proposals or recommendations made thus far by hon. members could not be of importance. It is certainly true that we can expect in-depth attention to be given to the staff of the Permanent Force, but I want to repeat that this does not mean that ideas on allowances, etc., will not receive immediate attention.

In addition, I want to point out that while attention is being focused on the Permanent Force, we should examine our manpower situation in general. In accordance with the 1977 White Paper our aim is to distribute the defence burden as widely as possible. In this regard I should like to raise the following interesting aspect—

I also want to emphasize that as far as the Coloureds’ voluntary participation in Commando units is concerned, there has been considerable, and, over the short term, impressive growth, which is also being encouraged by us. In conjunction with this, I also want to draw attention to the pilot committee which was appointed to institute an investigation into the introduction of cadet groups at Indian and Coloured schools. This committee was appointed in co-operation with the Departments of National Education, Coloured Affairs and Indian Affairs, to investigate the possibility of a cadet system for the Indian and Coloured communities. The committee’s report has just been published and in it the committee states that it is in favour of the extension of the cadet system to Indian and Coloured schools. Consequently the committee’s report has been referred to the Coloured and Indian educational authorities concerned with a view to its implementation.

It is true, Sir, that one cannot do without arms and the necessary equipment. In this regard I want to point out that we have declared this year the Year of Logistics with the emphasis, inter alia, on the maximum utilization of armaments, the modernization of armaments with a view to better functioning, self-sufficiency and the identification of logistic bottlenecks. Of course we are also utilizing Citizen units and their enthusiasm in this regard. However, it has already been decided to give the project known as “Mistral”, a more permanent foundation. In this regard it is a pleasure for me to be able to inform hon. members that project “Mistral” is going to be converted into a Citizen Force and Commando unit, a unit which is going to function as a loss control unit in the S.A. Army. This unit is to consist of experts who will advise the line commanders on loss control, occupational safety and organizational and work study matters. It will be a unit with its own headquarters, and as already mentioned, we shall attract talent and skills from the private sector by way of participation by Citizen Force and Commando members. I want to bring to the attention of this House that in this way the private sector is being afforded the opportunity of providing those people who have not undergone military training, but who are able and want to make contributions in other fields, the opportunity of doing so. I think this constitutes very important progress, and it is a pleasure for me to be able to announce that the commander of this unit will be Col. Jaap Steyn, who also headed project “Mistral”. He is a person with an impressive military service record. He also gained the necessary experience in the private sector. By means of this unit we propose to succeed in imparting knowhow on that level to commanders in the areas where these people reside, and by using such people we intend to bring about maximal continuity over short periods.

That disposes of this matter. I now want to dwell briefly on another matter, viz. the matter raised by the hon. member for Middelburg. It involves the issue of the adjustment of national servicemen to civilian life, to which I just want to refer briefly. The 160 local committees, which function autonomously to encourage and inspire the Defence Force, have been completely successful. In this way 11 000 vacancies in the RSA were identified and reserved for national servicemen discharged at the end of 1978. We have provided not only Whites, but also the Coloured employment seeker with the necessary assistance. I can say this evening that all the employment-seeking national servicemen have been employed. In this regard I want to refer to a very important publication, viz. the Survey of Employment Prospects. This is an official paper which stated clearly that after an in-depth investigation they had reached the conclusion that the supply of employment to members of the Defence Force surpassed the demand.

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to speak after the hon. the Deputy Minister of Defence. I do not want to comment on the announcements he made, but I want to avail myself of the opportunity of thanking him, the hon. the Minister of Defence and the officers of the Defence Force for the success they have achieved in developing the Defence Force into the formidable Force it is today.

I want to thank the hon. members on that side of the House for the positive attitude they have adopted towards this important matter of defence. In the times in which we live, this is a very important matter to us in South Africa, because, as most hon. members said, the war has already begun. People have already died in South Africa and the war will intensify from now on. I also want to refer to the White Paper and more specifically to the part where it is alleged that the success of the elections in South West Africa in December 1978 is proof of the mutual confidence and goodwill which have been built up between the S.A. Defence Force and the local population in the operational areas over the years. The fact that the local population has not yielded before Swapo’s campaign of intimidation shows that they trust the ability of the South African Army to protect them.

This is a very important function which our Defence Force is performing in this campaign. The type of war which is being waged there at the moment is a slow war of infiltration and is intended to create chaos and instability and to wreak havoc among the local population. These are not people who want to make contact with our Defence Force. Therefore they concentrate on the local population, on innocent and unarmed people. When one looks at this White Paper, it is clear that the function performed by the Defence Force in South West Africa represents a very important contribution to the warfare there. We have already seen that the attack is carried out by means of infiltration. This is followed by intimidation and destruction. The best way of putting a stop to this kind of warfare is to prevent those trained combatants from entering the country. This is a very difficult task, as we have already found in South West Africa. Therefore we must prepare ourselves in such a way that we shall be able to perform that task in South Africa as well. As also appears from the White Paper, the Defence Force has been very successful in gaining the confidence of the local population. Medical and agricultural assistance has also been rendered to them. That is another reason why these people trust the Defence Force and why there are good relations between them and the Defence Force.

The objective of the infiltrators is to cause death and destruction over a long period and to impoverish and intimidate the local population. We have a long borderline to be guarded. For that reason, the entire population will have to contribute its share and be prepared to make certain sacrifices. We shall also have to make a point of defending our northern borders, South Africa’s border with Botswana and Rhodesia, Mozambique and Swaziland, and of gaining the confidence of the local inhabitants.

We have in fact seen that where this kind of warfare has been successful in the world up to now—and this has very seldom been the case—it has only been possible because the trust of the local population had been gained and because their goodwill could be relied on. Accordingly, there has been a request that we should not only use the Defence Force for this task, but that we should also use the rural population for that purpose. Perhaps this is the time to do so.

In fact, it is already being done by the Government, and we thank the Government and the hon. the Minister of Defence for that. We thank him for having this investigation conducted in order to make a strip of land available for occupation by farmers in the northern border area of South Africa. This could be a wide strip of land, a strip of land which could be called a compulsory occupation area. In that area, certain people could be settled according to preference and subject to certain conditions. We therefore foresee that the rural population, people who can speak the local native languages fluently and are familiar with the local circumstances, are best equipped to man the front line of defence with a view to stopping infiltrators from outside. We must in the first place prevent infiltrators from crossing the border.

As I have already said, it is a very difficult task to recruit people for going to live in those areas. Therefore they will have to be given certain priorities and they will also have to enjoy certain privileges. I think the idea at the moment is to make a wide strip available, a strip of between 30 km and 50 km, perhaps, in which the people concerned will be obliged to live. The privileges granted to attract them there may include low, interest-free loans or long-term loans. The services in this area will also have to be good. There will have to be the necessary roads so that one can move about. Police protection in that area will also have to be very good. Electricity may have to be supplied and there will also be other privileges attached to it. If privileges are granted, certain duties will also have to be imposed upon these people. I should like to know whether the hon. the Minister of Defence would not consider subjecting the people who live in such an area and who receive certain privileges from the State to compulsory commando service up to the age of about 50 years. I believe that people of this kind are eminently suitable for gaining the confidence of the local population and preventing infiltrators from moving through the area. This task can be entrusted to those people. However, they must be trained to perform their task, and therefore it must be obligatory for them to belong to the Defence Force. There are many ways in which they can be compensated for this service they will render to the State. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Vryheid will forgive me if I do not react directly to the contribution he made. I should prefer to proceed at once with the argument I want to advance here tonight. I want to begin by associating myself with the preface to the White Paper on Defence which has been made available to us this year. The hon. the Prime Minister makes the point in the preface that where stability, order, economic development, progressive government and individual liberty are lacking, Marxism flourishes, and that where the qualities to which he referred are present, Marxism falls on barren soil. That was more or less the purport of a part of that preface to the White Paper. I suppose that all of us in this House are agreed that everything possible should be done to keep the ideology of Marxism out of South Africa. I think we all agreed with that. The PFP has a programme which its propagates to this very end. We understand that this also applies to the policy of the other parties in this House. However, we often speak at cross purposes and misunderstandings arise. I think it has now become urgently necessary that the political discussion be continued to see where the points of agreement and similarity lie. However, this is not the time for political discussion. We are dealing with defence at the moment, so I shall make no reference to politics.

Rhodesia is in our thoughts at the moment, because Rhodesia has undergone a fairly radical change over the past few days. I want to say that Rhodesia has taught us an important lesson as far as defence matters are concerned. I believe that the enormous success achieved with the election in Rhodesia would not have been possible if Black and White had not stood firmly together in the military sphere, and not only over the past few days, but over a period of years which preceded the election.

The Rhodesian Defence Force has for a very long time been very largely integrated, or so I understand. I am told that there is not a trace of race discrimination to be found in this Defence Force. Through its multiracialism and through the fact that White and Black Rhodesians have stood together to safeguard their national borders and to combat terrorism, the Defence Force has brought Rhodesia to where it is today. In South Africa, too, we have gone a long way in this direction, as we recently saw again in our operational area. The S.A. Defence Force is rapidly involving other citizens who are not White in defence matters. However, there is one fly in the ointment, and this matter could perhaps be investigated, and the hon. the Minister may be able to furnish replies in this connection later in the debate.

As far as the pay of White, Black and Brown troops are concerned, there is still not equal pay for equal rank, equal work and equal responsibility. That knot has not yet been cut. There is still a difference. I believe it to be in the national interest that this matter of unequal payment for equal work and equal responsibility be rectified immediately. On 2 March this year, I asked the hon. the Minister to introduce equal salaries on all levels in our Permanent Force. I asked whether he could do this and what it would cost if we were to do it immediately. The answer I received was that it would cost the State R7½ million. I tried to make the sum myself, but I do not have the data available to me which the hon. the Minister has. It would appear to me, however, that the amount of R7½ million may be something of an overestimation, but I accept the figure I was given.

The hon. member got a definite answer. It was not an estimate.

The amount, therefore, is R7½ million. According to my calculation, it may not be so high. However, if it is R7½ million, I want to put it to the hon. the Minister of Defence and the hon. the Deputy Minister of Defence that it is in the national interest to remove that small difference in pay immediately. When one looks at the salary which a White, a Black and a Coloured receive, one finds that the difference per person is actually not very large. That is why the amount is only R7½ million or perhaps even less. However, the difference which is made just enough to show the citizen of South Africa who is not White that he is being discriminated against financially. I therefore want to ask that something be done about this matter. The opportunity for doing so now exists. We know that at the moment, relatively speaking, it is a small number of Black and Brown soldiers who have joined our Permanent Force. If we set the matter right at this stage, therefore, it can be done without having to argue about large amounts. I want to propose, however, that it be done at once. It would be in the national interest to do it now.

The hon. member who spoke before me referred to the situation in South West Africa. I referred to Rhodesia and the advantages which Rhodesia is now deriving from this close co-operation between White and Black troops. I want to put it to hon. members that the abolition of all forms of race discrimination would produce the same advantages for the Republic of South Africa as well. This also applies to South West Africa, as far as the activities of our Defence Force there are concerned. Discrimination, especially with regard to the difference in pay, must be done away with. That is the appeal I want to make to the hon. the Minister. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Wynberg mentioned quite a number of matters to which I cannot reply now. I shall leave it to the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister to reply to them. However, I just want to refer to one aspect which the hon. member touched upon, and that is the question of the abolition of all race discrimination in the Defence Force. I think we can congratulate the Government on one thing…

I did that.

… and that is that it has succeeded in involving the non-White groups in the Defence Force in such a way that no one could take offence. I want to thank the Government for that and we admire it for doing so. It is being done in such a way that all can co-operate cordially. I think that if one wants to create an imbalance in this country, one should do this thing which the hon. member for Wynberg wants us to do immediately. I think the matter is being handled very well and in a very judicious way. I think the matter is in very good hands and we should not interfere with it any further.

I want to thank the hon. the Minister, the hon. the Deputy Minister, the Department of Defence and the whole Defence Force—I think I do so on behalf of the whole country—for the way in which they have ensured that South Africa is prepared for the onslaught by the enemy outside. In the midst of the threat we face, the citizens in general feel that the security of South Africa is in very competent hands. There is confidence in the sense of purpose and in the determination of the Government to defend South Africa against attacks. There is also confidence in the high quality of the men at the head of our Defence Force.

During the visit we paid to Armscor last year, as a defence group consisting of representatives of all parties in this House, to have a look at the various activities in which they are engaged, we were deeply impressed by the fact. I think we are all agreed about this—that the provision of our defence apparatus is in very good hands today. We salute the industries that are actively involved in it and the technicians who are engaged in it They perform their task with great responsibility and with great precision, and I think we can really be proud of it. I also want to pay tribute tonight to the initiative which emanates from Armscor and its men. They are people who are idealistic with regard to the task which has been entrusted to them. They are dedicated people and they are always engaged in producing only the best for our Defence Force.

I also want to express great appreciation for the research done by bodies such as the CSIR and the SABS. We know that very important research is being done by them to create the most modern facilities for us.

Having said all this, there is one other aspect about which something must be said, and that is the protection of our citizens in case of emergency. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central just referred to this, but I want to dwell on it for a moment Legislation was piloted through this Parliament in 1977 in order to transfer further powers to the provincial administrations. The provincial councils did their work and passed the necessary ordinances. Now it is over to the local authorities and other bodies. I am grateful for the fact that the regulations in respect of the implementation of this legislation have already been announced. They have been made public, and now members of the public can officially join the civil defence corps of the various local authorities. It is encouraging to learn that—in addition to the local authorities—industrial organizations, commercial enterprises, schools and universities can now also establish defence organizations.

Citizens who are not involved in any of our preparedness activities should now be encouraged to join these corps. I do not think one could render the citizens of this country a greater service than to sacrifice one’s spare time to render this kind of civil defence service. I want to pay tribute tonight to the men and women who are already rendering voluntary service in this field on a very large scale.

The preparedness of the civil defence organizations is also on a high level. I think the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central will allow me to refer to an incident I know of. I am talking about what happened in Pretoria last year with the great flood disaster they had there. I want to pay the greatest tribute and express the greatest gratitude tonight for what those organizations did there. When the floods came after the heavy rains they had had, those people were at their posts immediately. I know of cases in the northern part of Pretoria where those people immediately realized that disaster was imminent and they went out in the darkness of night. They really went to wake up people who were sleeping in their beds while the water had already risen to the level of their mattresses. Those people were at their posts, they were motivated and they rendered great services there.

In my opinion, it is a great achievement that out of a total of 636 organizations, 131 have already succeeded in being graded as A grade organizations. That is the figure given in the White Paper to indicate the situation by the middle of 1978. By this time, those figures will probably be much higher. The spiritual preparedness of the citizenry is of the utmost importance in emergencies. It is good that the ordinary man should know that the civil defence organizations are able to maintain a high level of preparedness. We should like to express our thanks to the hon. the Minister and his men for what they have achieved in this connection.

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to follow the hon. member for Edenvale in this debate. I intend to highlight certain aspects of the national service system and to pay particular attention to the training of servicemen. Therefore, my remarks will naturally have a bearing on certain ideas expressed by the hon. member for Middelburg as well. We also note with appreciation the announcement by the hon. the Deputy Minister that all national servicemen discharged at the end of 1978 have already found employment.

The national serviceman undergoes training for approximately eight months during which he is prepared for both conventional and unconventional warfare, before his services are used for the defence of our country’s borders. This training is not confined to physical and spiritual preparation, but provision is also made for the improvement of such a serviceman’s academic qualifications and for specialized combat and leadership courses.

These courses and facilities must be seen against the background of the fact that almost half of the servicemen have only a junior certificate. This could create problems when the serviceman has to be employed for the first time. People sometimes refer to the unemployment problem, but this can only be understood if it is realized that a large number of servicemen would in any case have experienced such problems, even if they had not undergone national service. Surely the S.A. Defence Force cannot be blamed for the fact that they lack proper academic qualifications. The after-care with regard to assimilation and employment should really be seen as a concession on the part of the authorities and not as a primary duty.

In my opinion, the time has come to point again to the benefits of national service and also to the facilities offered during this training. We should always proceed from the point of view that national service is what the serviceman himself makes of it. If he approaches his service in a positive spirit, it will never be a burden to him and he will also be able better to utilize to his own advantage the opportunities offered him. However, if he enters this phase of his life with a negative attitude, it can only lead to frustration which will not be to the benefit either of the serviceman or of the authorities. It could be a contributory factor in causing opportunities to pass him by, something which he can only regret in his later life.

It is a pity that there are still servicemen and relatives who do not understand the benefits of national service and who therefore adopt a negative attitude towards it. Fortunately, this group seems to be in the minority, and generally speaking, the system is well supported by our young men and the morale among our young servicemen is particularly high. This facilitates the development of purposeful and well-motivated young citizens for our country who will be able to take their places in society with greater confidence. In fact, this phenomenon is already manifesting itself in the fact that the forming of juvenile gangs among young men who have undergone national service has declined noticeably and such young men are becoming a rarity in criminal courts. This phenomenon is due to the discipline which these men undergo. A proper sense of values has been instilled into them.

The mere fact that a person has undergone national service places him in a better position to serve his community, and as far as his employment is concerned, he is in a privileged position. Employers prefer these young men because they will not have to interrupt their service to do national service, because they are disciplined and therefore better equipped for employment, because they are more mature and stable as a result of their age and experience of life and because they have learnt, in the situation in which they found themselves, to take decisions independently and to accept responsibility for them. These are the qualities and advantages which make them an eminently desirable proposition.

However, it must still be borne in mind that these aspects apply to all national servicemen and that it depends on the individual whether he wants to place himself in a favourable position by making the greatest possible use of the facilities he is offered. A person with a junior certificate is offered the opportunity of obtaining a senior certificate or even matriculation exemption through self study and with the aid of correspondence courses. However, no individual can be compelled to improve his poor academic qualifications, but then he cannot blame anyone but himself if he has not made use of the opportunities.

Even the serviceman who has matriculated and who intends to continue his studies at university can keep himself intellectually alert by following certain courses at the University of South Africa. Success in these courses can even enable him to reduce his term of study for his later studies at university and there are special arrangements for the writing of examinations at this university. Surely the utilization of study facilities can only be to the advantage of the individual when he has to compete for employment later. Even if he is not completely successful during his period of training, it does show his determination to improve himself and it can form the basis on which he can build after his discharge with a view to the eventual completion of what he has embarked upon, and he will undoubtedly reap the benefits of it. By studying, the serviceman reduces any idleness during his leisure time and he indirectly ensures contact with the community outside which will facilitate his latter assimilation and help him to look forward to it in a positive spirit.

Apart from academic facilities, there are many combat and leadership courses which the national serviceman can undergo. In this way, leadership qualities are developed, and upon achievement of certain standards, a serviceman can be promoted to a noncommissioned or even a commissioned rank. This promotion will testify to the fact that he was not always content to obey orders, but was prepared to take the initiative and to improve his own position to such an extent that he was able to give the orders himself and to accept the responsibility for them. In such cases, proof of this will even overshadow academic schooling, because it will be to the benefit of the individual and the employer. By successfully completing these courses, these leaders are made sensitive to human relations, which in turn will facilitate their latter assimilation and help them sooner to become meaningful and useful citizens in society.

Of course, promotion also means an improvement in pay which will improve his position even further. According to the official announcement, the pay structures were considerably improved with effect from 1 April 1979, and this makes challenge even more attractive. A serviceman’s previous pay of R1,53 a day has been improved to R3,47. The scale rises progressively so that the former pay of a lieutenant, R3,67 a day, has been improved to R8,88. Separate scales have been created for professional officers. Depending on his rank, therefore, a serviceman now receives at least R102 a month. Of this, at least R2 a day is paid out to him. As for the rest, he may either allow the amount to accumulate with the chief paymaster, for payment upon completion of his training, or make it payable to a designated person by way of a Treasury Order. It can even be paid into a bank or building society.

Undoubtedly, the vast majority of our young men will exercise the latter option and will use this opportunity to save money. What a wonderful opportunity it is for someone to save a large part of his later university or technicon expenses in this way, thereby consolidating the independence he has acquired. Purely in the light of the advantages of national service, a positive approach cannot be over-emphasized. Therefore one is bound to repeat that national service is what the national serviceman himself makes of it, and that with the right attitude, he can get out of it what he wants.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for East London City must forgive me if I do not react to his arguments. I actually want to speak about the farmers this evening. I know that this is a Defence debate, but I actually want to speak about how the farmers fit into the Defence Force. We farmers are wily people. One can speak about the farmers any time. I am also glad to see the hon. the Minister of Agriculture here.

Thank him provisionally for the maize price, Gerrie.

Man, we poor farmers really have a hard time. [Interjections.]

†Mr. Chairman, I should like to deal with the problem of the poor growth in the numbers of the volunteer commando units, and I should like to quote from page 5 of the White Paper on Defence and Armaments Supply. I quote paragraph 24—

This problem is coupled with the problem of the rural depopulation which we are experiencing throughout the country. These two problems go hand in hand. I think the hon. the Minister of Agriculture can testify to this fact. This is a very, very serious problem. It is also becoming a problem for the Defence Force. If areas, particularly the border areas, are becoming depopulated we are going to have a gap in our defence system. I believe it is a serious security risk which our country cannot afford to face in future. This is a problem which has to be solved with the cooperation of the farmers, the Chief of Staff of the Defence Force and the hon. the Minister of Defence.

I must ask what we are going to do about this problem. I have a few suggestions, and I should like to place my ideas before the House. My plea to the S.A. Defence Force has been to introduce new rules and regulations which would encourage the volunteer. I am now speaking specifically about the men in the rural areas. During my speech at the Second Reading stage of the Defence Amendment Bill I pleaded for a change of heart. I am pleased to see so many of the top brass of the Defence Force here tonight. It seems as though the whole Defence Force is here tonight.

If you think that is the whole Defence Force, you have another guess coming. [Interjections.]

Nevertheless, those I see here look pretty good. [Interjections.] I should like to repeat the same plea here tonight. Firstly, I believe the hon. the Minister of Defence, together with the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, should look at this problem in depth. I want to discuss not only the problem facing the farmer in the Defence Force, but also the fact of the profitability of the farmer in the border areas. This is crucial. If the farmer is not profitable he cannot stay there. If he cannot make a living he cannot defend his country. If he cannot defend his country we are going to have terrorist incursions. It is as simple as that.

The second point which I want to make, deals exactly with where the S.A. Defence Force can come into the picture. This has to do with the forming of “spesiale boerekom-mando’s”. Some people made fun of it last time when I spoke about Dad’s Army and the homeguard. However, this is exactly what I am pleading for. I am referring to people who are living in specific areas, people who try to make their living in those areas. I must ask why the farmers have not come forward in droves, why they have not joined in their thousands. They have joined, but not in sufficient numbers. There are certain gaps in our Defence Force system in the border areas. I suggest that the problem is that they cannot afford to take time off from farming and that they cannot afford to leave their families or the Black people working on their farms. They cannot leave them for somebody else to defend them. I believe the regulations and rules should be changed. The hon. member for Durban Point asked for an increase in pay for the Permanent Force. I support that. I am, however, going to suggest that the “boere” commandos can do without any pay. I want to say that these men—and I am one of them—gladly voluntarily joined the Army, but that they do not do so for the R3 to R4 they get per day.

I want to make a suggestion in this connection. If these men are not paid, a saving can be effected. These men commit themselves for four years. They can be issued with a simple rifle and a single uniform—no fancy kit. I suggest they should also be offered a free Mamet radio system. This, to me, is the crux of the whole issue. We have to have a system whereby the farmer can be in contact with his area, his local commando, his town commando. In other words, he must have an intelligence system working for him in the total border area of our farming community. This will be of benefit not only to the farmer but also to the S.A. Defence Force. Such an intelligence network will be cheap at the price. We cannot do without such a system of intelligence. It would be very simple to track down terrorists in our country if every farmer had this Mamet system. I believe that this is needed right now.

I believe that these “boere Commando” men should be required to serve for the normal 19 days, but that that should be on the basis of a four day camp plus one weekend camp per month eight months of the year. That is not too much to ask of them. They will serve for 20 days on that basis. That means, of course, that they will have to be able to receive training on Sundays as well. The training will have to take place over Saturday, Saturday night and Sunday. I realize that this has not been the case in the past. However, I pleaded for it last year and I want to plead for it again. These people cannot leave their farms during the week. They cannot afford to take time off to work for the commandos. They will, however, do voluntary service free provided they can be trained over weekends. This training should be specialized; particular attention should be given to the protection of hearth and home. They should be trained to stay put on their farms and not to run off to some different area. The townsfolk should make up the relief force who can come to their assistance.

I discussed this matter with some members of the commando forces in the eastern Cape. I asked them what happens if a terrorist should strike in the area. The reply was: “Ons moet na ’n saamtrekpunt in die dorp gaan.” These are people who live 30 km to 50 km out of town.

*It is simply impossible that as soon as a terrorist attacks one farmer, all the farmers have to go to the town.

†That is exactly what the terrorists want.

During this session we will be coming with proposals and legislation in connection with farmers in certain areas, border areas.

I am very pleased to hear that. It is what I am proposing and I think it is absolutely essential. One must remember that we are dealing with individual bands of terrorists. One cannot depopulate an area and allow the terrorists to get in. This is exactly what happened in Rhodesia. In the areas the farmers left, the Voting percentage poll has gone down. The percentage poll of 64% they had in their elections has been, I am sure, in respect of the areas where the farmers have stayed on. I should like to know what the percentage poll has been in the areas where the farmers have left. I believe it is very poor. I think it is important that the farmers remain in these areas. I think we can nevertheless learn from the Rhodesians. As the hon. the Minister of Agriculture has indicated, we must start with this programme now. We must start with the border areas, but we must later expand this programme to cover the whole country. I believe that it is essential that we make these special concessions to the farmer in the farming community. I do not want the Defence Force to underestimate the strategic role of the farmer’s food production. We must remember that while it is food for us and food for Africa, it is also food for the terrorists. We must deprive the terrorists of that food. We must see to it that the farmer protects his people. The terrorists must not be able to get at the bag of mealies a Black worker has in his hut It is essential that we get every farmer in the border area involved.

You are not making such a bad speech at all.

Mr. Chairman, we need to win the hearts and the minds of the people in the rural areas. I believe that every farmer in this country is prepared to do his duty and needs very little encouragement to do so.

Mr. Chairman, quite a few members have already spoken about the commandos tonight. The commandos are very important, not only from a historical point of view, but also with a view to the problems that lie ahead of us. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South made a few suggestions on how to make the commandos more attractive. I was also concerned when I read in the White Paper that there has been a drop in the membership of commandos in the rural areas. In the White Paper mention is also made of the fact that the commandos at industrial and key points are expanding satisfactorily. To a certain extent this provides an answer to the question as to what can be done to make the commandos more attractive and to attract volunteers to the commandos. I believe we must do this by specialization in the commandos and by using every individual’s knowledge, his special interest and his special hobby. I wish to express a few thoughts on this point.

In the rural areas we regard the commandos as the people’s army, as the last bastion, not only because of the military actions which they can undertake, but also because of the confidence they can inspire amongst the people in the rural areas. Therefore we must make an all-out effort to make the commandos attractive so that everybody will be prepared to volunteer their services. Like the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, I believe that money alone will not attract them to the commandos. They must be able to put their time, specialized knowledge and experience at the disposal of their country. Therefore it is absolutely essential that they be trained very well and thoroughly. We are no longer living in the time of the Anglo-Boer Wars when farmers could leave their farms, could live in the veld for three years and wage a successful guerrilla war. Today’s guerrilla activities are highly sophisticated and modern weapons are used. It would be unreasonable of us to expect unpractised and untrained people to act against such terrorists. As I see the development of the commandos, special battalions should be established in every commando for special training. I therefore foresee specialization within the commandos. Development could, of course take place in many directions. There could be those who are sharpshooters, those who can administer first-aid, fight fires, fight terrorists and those who can be trained in self-defence such as karate and ju-jitsu. There can be others who undertake liaison work and can be trained in radio communication. I think the suggestion concerning Mamet made by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, is worth considering. Even though one cannot initially issue every member of the commandos with a radio set, enough sets should be made available in due course. Perhaps a start can be made with the officers, so that there can be proper communication. I have also heard of the Ebony system which will be put into operation. I believe this is a step in the right direction. I think we should also thank the Post Office which recently announced that certain channels will be reserved for these systems. I think we are moving in the right direction.

I also visualize other directions in which the commandos can very fruitfully develop. I have in mind, for instance, motor-cycle platoons. Due to the shortage of fuel many young farmers have acquired scramblers which can travel over any impassable terrain and could also be very useful in the Defence Force. What about pursuit platoons in which we can involve the horse and dog lovers in order to make their special knowledge available and practise their hobby? I think this type of idea could be of great value to us in the future.

We also have the people of other colours in our commandos. I was glad to read in a report that the Coloureds who were taken up in the commandos last year are doing very well and that they established a better attendance record than most of the White commandos. I think that in this regard we can attract many volunteers and can establish platoons that can render special service and perform special tasks.

I think that in the future our survival here in South Africa will depend on the extent to which we succeed in getting the co-operation of the various colour groups in the Defence Force. There is no better way to persuade people to co-operate than in the Defence Force. Our women, too, have to be involved fully in the Defence Force. I think they should serve in special platoons in the Defence Force. They can be trained in first-aid and in the combating of terrorism and urban terrorism. I wonder how many people are aware of the danger posed by a parcel or letter bomb and how they should recognize it. If a letter or parcel is exceptionally heavy, one should become suspicious. Particularly if there is also a spot of oil on the parcel, one should know that there is danger. People must be taught to be on the look-out for unfamiliar handbags, ashtrays and any strange object standing around, and to be very careful.

We have heard about the depopulation of the rural areas. It is so that this is aggravating a problem of which already exists. I was glad to hear that the hon. the Minister of Agriculture is going to introduce legislation which will rectify this matter to a certain extent I think this problem in the border areas and on the platteland can only be solved by involving everyone possible, in the commandos. Everyone must be ready for action in every respect and must be fully trained. It is pointless a commando volunteer attending a camp once or twice a year and not being properly trained and equipped.

We can be certain that terrorist activities will escalate in the future and that we shall have to depend on our commandos to an ever-increasing extent for the protection of our rural people. It will be necessary to undergo special training for each task performed by the commandos. The special talents of every person will have to be utilized. I regard the commandos as a people’s army which should use the talents of the people and in so doing, encourage everyone to join the commandos. I also agree that we should encourage our immigrants to join. We should devise means to make it attractive for them. I particularly wish to ask that we give much attention to encouraging people of other colours to join the commandos.

Every inhabitant of the country, whatever his population group, must be inspired to work together united in the Citizen Force and in the commandos. If they are able to undergo proper training in this manner, any attack from outside or inside the country can be resisted. Therefore the commando organization will, above all, be required to give specialized training in every necessary sphere.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Humansdorp made a very interesting speech about the commandos and suggested certain things for developing the commandos into stronger units. Naturally I am unable to say whether all these things can be applied in practice, but I am convinced that the hon. member will receive further replies in the course of the discussion.

I think we all agree that the S.A. Defence Force intervenes in the lives of thousands of young men every year, not only in the lives of young men, but virtually in the life of every household in the Republic. This is accepted, with a few exceptions, in the interests of South Africa. However, it is only human that parents are worried and concerned. I do not believe they are worried and concerned about the training which the young man receives; there is great satisfaction and appreciation in this regard. I do not believe they are worried and concerned about the life of that young man which may possibly be at stake, but they are worried and concerned particularly about the general welfare of the young man.

For this reason I shall spotlight the matter of ministering to the spiritual needs of the young man in the S.A. Defence Force this evening, and I mention with great appreciation the chaplain service of the S.A. Defence Force. It is interesting to note that this service consists of 751 Permanent Force, Citizen Force, Commando and part-time chaplains, and this figure includes White, Black, Coloured and Indian chaplains. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that these chaplains are members of 90 different churches and faiths. The figures which I have just mentioned, tell us, in the first place, that the S.A. Defence Force is not indifferent to the spiritual welfare and to ministering to the spiritual needs of the young man. I believe that this is as it should be not only should we send well-equipped men to the operational area, not only should we in South Africa have soldiers who can hold their own, but we should also have people who are well-balanced spiritually. It is true that if a nation loses its spiritual norms, as was recently said quite rightly in what I regard as winged words, that nation perishes. These figures also tell us that the S.A. Defence Force has opened its doors to all denominations. This evening it is not necessary for the church to search for its young men. The S.A. Defence Force affords every denomination this knowledge. I think that nowhere can any church reach its members as readily and as regularly as it can in the S.A. Defence Force. We have particularly great appreciation for that. I believe—this is my personal conviction—that defence bonus bonds will not produce many gamblers in South Africa; I believe virtually none. I think the spiritual welfare, the work done by the chaplains of the S.A. Defence Force, will give us spiritually strong and spiritually sound people.

This evening I should like to mention that the chaplain training centre which was established as long ago as May 1976, consists of three wings, i.e. the chaplain training wing, the religious preparedness wing and the communications wing. I also wish to refer with great appreciation to the work of the national servicemen chaplains. They lighten the working load of the chaplain service. Every young theological officer is expected to do at least three months’ service in the operational area, where he is afforded the opportunity to live in very close proximity to the soldiers.

From what I have just mentioned, it should be clear to every parent in South Africa and to the public of South Africa that every young soldier who feels the need to talk to a chaplain or who has spiritual needs, experiences no stumbling blocks in this regard. He has the opportunity to take his problems to the chaplain every day. It is interesting to note that the Citizen Force units and commandos leaving for the operational area, are usually accompanied by their own chaplains; most of them go as volunteers. When such a unit does not have its own chaplain, a chaplain of the Permanent Force is sent with them. With regard to the role and the position of the chaplain in the operational area I gladly give the floor to the Chaplain-General who wrote as follows in Paratus of June 1978—

That is the chaplain—

This is the attitude in the S.A. Defence Force and this is the spirit in which the work of our Defence Force is being done.

This evening I should also like to mention the work of the Defence Force church choir, and I do so with gratitude and appreciation. The image of the S.A. Defence Force is promoted by this Defence Force church choir. Wherever this church choir performs, future young national servicemen are motivated. Through their performances funds are raised to provide Bibles and Christian literature to those who need them.

The work of our chaplains and the spiritual ministering done in the Defence Force cover a wide spectrum. For that reason I want to conclude by saying that the S.A. Defence Force is balanced. We are proud of our Defence Force, and on behalf of all the parents of national servicemen in South Africa we should like to express our gratitude for this spiritual work which is being done. We need have no hesitation whatsoever about entrusting our sons to our Defence Force. We express our heartfelt thanks to the Chaplain-General, Major-General Van Zyl, and to every chaplain for the zeal with which they perform their task. This evening we want to tell our whole Defence Force this. Not only are we proud, not only do we rejoice with you about successes and achievements and not only do we applaud enthusiastically at parades, but because this struggle also concerns the preservation of Christianity in this country and on the southernmost tip of Africa, we as the public and as parents, want to tell the S.A. Defence Force in all sincerity and honesty: We are praying for you.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Oudtshoorn has detailed the work of the Defence Force chaplains, and I do not think that anybody in the House can quarrel with the sentiments that he has just expressed, because the spiritual armament needed by an army is probably as important as any other aspect of one’s approach to the defence of South Africa.

I have a particular point that I want to raise, and I do so with some deference, because it is not a very pleasant point. I believe it is necessary, however, to raise it. I want to address the hon. the Prime Minister in this regard, because I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister will be able to give us some assurances for the future in respect of this sort of thing. I am sure that what has happened in the past in this respect, is something that could not have met with his approval. I wish to refer to the findings of the Defence Force board of inquiry into the shooting of elephants from a Defence Force helicopter in South West Africa. On 20 April, in reply to a question put by me, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Defence replied to the effect that S.A. Air Force helicopters were used for game shooting on only one occasion during 1976-’77. According to him this took place on 22 November 1976 at Omutambo Maowe, near the boundary between the Etosha Game Park and the Kaokoveld—

That was three years ago.

The hon. member for Waterkloof says it was three years ago. It is just interesting to record that I asked questions about this more than a year ago. At that stage a Defence Force board of inquiry was still sitting and it only reported in August 1978, nearly two years after the actual event took place.

I must say to the hon. the Minister of Defence that I cannot accept the findings of this board of inquiry as being reasonable or acceptable. I must say that I find it quite extraordinary that it took so long to come to these findings. I am afraid that these findings are not in accordance with the facts published at the time, facts which were never denied. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister of Defence to inform the House of his own view of the desirability, whatever the circumstances, of shooting game from helicopters like this.

The impression that is given is that of fat-cat civil servants, answerable to nobody, who somehow got the assistance of the Defence Force in this. One really must examine the whole role of the Defence Force in this because I cannot understand who could have given permission, in the first place, for something like this to have happened. The hon. the Minister of Defence has the reputation of being a keen conservationist, and I find it difficult to believe that he would condone anything of this nature. I am sure he would not.

Firstly I think it is necessary to point out that this was not an isolated incident at all. The very same former Commissioner-General for the indigenous peoples of South West Africa, Mr. J. M. de Wet, has a very bad record when it comes to shooting game from Defence Force helicopters. He was the man who in 1974 was guilty of shooting the very rare black-faced impala, also from a Defence Force helicopter.

Just because they have black faces.

After the public outcry as a result of this disgraceful shooting incident, I should have thought that the Defence Force would have been a little more circumspect before allowing their helicopters to be used for something of this nature. However, the facts of the matter are that, according to all information, the answer given by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Defence is not entirely true. The local Bantu Affairs Commissioner was a certain Mr. Ben van Zyl whose answers, when he was subsequently questioned, were found to be totally unsatisfactory. There was talk of damaging water points, but on examination by the Nature Affairs Department of South West Africa, it was found that there were no water points and no windmills. Time and time again people were inaccurate in their description of what had happened. One can only look at the findings of this commission and say that they are totally unsatisfactory. I do not believe it. If the evidence is examined carefully, I do not know how any impartial board of inquiry can come to this sort of finding.

It is also interesting to note that a certain game ranger, who discovered this unpleasant shooting incident, was transferred, very fast indeed, to the Eastern Cape, in spite of the fact that he was doing important work in South West Africa at that time.

At this stage I can only ask for the hon. the Minister of Defence’s assurance that this sort of thing will not happen again. I do not believe it would have happened if he had known anything about it. I respect his opinions as a conservationist. I hope that instructions have gone out to all Defence Force personnel that this sort of thing must not happen again. It is a matter of record that these incidents have happened on many occasions, as far as Defence Force personnel are concerned, so I do think that it is important that the authorities, in this case the hon. the Minister of Defence, must do something about it, because not only conservationists, but also people with any feeling for conservation at all, take strong exception to this particular incident. I hope that it will not occur again.

Mr. Chairman, it is a great pity that the hon. member for Orange Grove participated in this debate tonight [Interjections.] The hon. member for Yeoville introduced the debate on a very high note this afternoon, and we appreciate his standpoint We do, however, take exception to the rumours which the hon. member for Orange Grove dragged into the debate again tonight It seems to me as if the hon. member for Orange Grove is angry at life. I do not know whether he is angry with himself. However, he has such a “bitterbek” outlook on life that it can hardly be believed—that is probably the reason, too, for the “bitterbek” speech he made here tonight.

He is angry with his leader.

I think it is disgraceful that the hon. member for Orange Grove, while we on this side of the House are discussing the interests of the S.A. Defence Force, spread rumours here again tonight. He does not accept the word of the hon. the Deputy Minister about this matter.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Verwoerdburg allowed to call me a “bitterbek”? [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, if you have received my message, I will leave it in your good hands to decide.

Order! I did receive the hon. member’s message when he said the hon. member for Verwoerdburg accused him of being a “bitterbek”. The hon. member for Verwoerdburg may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, on a further point of order: Am I to understand that the word “bitterbek” is now acceptable as parliamentary?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Verwoerdburg did not say that the hon. member for Orange Grove is a “bitterbek”.

Mr. Chairman, could I address you on this?

Yes, the hon. member may address me.

Mr. Chairman, the word “bitterbek” has been declared unparliamentary on many occasions. Hon. members have often been made to withdraw that word. I take strong exception to being called a “bitterbek”. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The hon. member for Verwoerdburg never called the hon. member for Orange Grove a “bitterbek”. He merely said that the hon. member displayed a “bitterbek” attitude. He did not, however, call the hon. member a “bitterbek”. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Verwoerdburg may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I ask the hon. member for Yeoville, someone whom I regard as a responsible member—and he is also the chief spokesman on defence in that party—please to ask the hon. member for Orange Grove to keep out of the Defence debate in future. The hon. member for Orange Grove is simply not able to elevate himself to the level on which this debate began and continued this afternoon. Therefore, I ask him not to participate in a debate of this nature.

That is a typical “bitterbek” standpoint you are taking now!

Oh please, Mr. Chairman, of the hon. member for Bryanston we take no notice at all. We prefer to ignore him completely when it comes to defence matters. In any case, he usually talks nonsense. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Wynberg asked in a laudable manner this afternoon that we keep politics out of this debate. We agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member on that score. However, right after that…

[Inaudible.]

Well, Mr. Chairman, I am not talking to the hon. member for Orange “Grave”. [Interjections.] Nevertheless, the hon. member for Wynberg said we should keep politics out of the debate. Immediately afterwards, however, he proceeds to complain that people of colour in the S.A. Defence Force are not receiving equal salaries. I hold this against him. He is a responsible young member, someone with whom we believe one can discuss defence matters in a responsible manner. However, does the hon. member for Wynberg now wish to deny that statements such as that, complaints such as that, could have political implications in South Africa? Surely they have political implications. [Interjections.] While the hon. member knows that it is the policy of the NP, of this Government, to pay equal salaries for equal work in the Defence Force, why does he now drag in this matter? [Interjections.]

The hon. member ought to know that it is the Government’s policy to achieve salary parity as soon as possible. That is why this matter is being investigated.

No, do not try to make politics of it now, Adriaan.

Surely one cannot see the S.A. Defence Force in isolation in this regard. Surely the Defence Force should be seen against the background of the totality of the South African Public Service. Therefore the Government will try—and we are in earnest about this—to reach salary parity in the Defence Force as soon as possible.

I immediately wish to make another positive statement and that is that not only does the Republic of South Africa have a Defence Force which compares favourably with the best in the world today, but also one which is quite capable of dealing with every threat against the Republic. I say this without fear of contradiction. There is evidence in abundance for this standpoint, evidence from experts who have seen the S.A. Defence Force in action. Without proper and effective equipment, however, such a Defence Force cannot exist. It is true that in view of the increasing development of sophisticated weaponry in the world—and there are many examples of this—and of the increasing presence of this kind of weaponry in Africa—and here one thinks in particular of weaponry used by the Army—the question may be asked whether South Africa is able, and to what extent the country is able, to deal with the very dangerous situation for us which is developing in Africa. It will help our Defence Force men if they know that the weapons which they have and which they have to use, are just as good, and if possible, better, than those of the enemy.

Having said all this, it is also tree that the most important component of the S.A. Defence Force is still the people serving in it and involved in it. Without people of the right calibre the most modern weaponry will mean nothing. The best recent example of this is that of the Defence Force of Iran, a Defence Force which, with the most modern weaponry at its disposal, collapsed like a house of cards. This is true in every organization. People who are thoroughly motivated and dedicated to service are always the best when the pressure mounts and the road ahead becomes difficult. Within the S.A. Defence Force we have the best human material there is, men and women who are prepared to defend home and hearth and their fatherland with everything at their disposal. We have those men and women. We find them in our commandos, in our Citizen Force, among our national servicemen and also in the Permanent Force. They are the people who, day after day, and year after year, see to it that our Defence Force is prepared and ready for action and that our borders are being safeguarded. We owe those people more than just a debt of gratitude. It is our duty to see to the means of livelihood and the circumstances of life of those people.

When we look at the conditions of service and other privileges of the members of our Defence Force, we come to the conclusion that, with the relatively limited financial means at our disposal, we are really trying to do our best for them. Apart from the salaries being paid to them, there are also certain other benefits. Unfortunately time does not allow me to elaborate on this now. Under normal circumstances, and taking into consideration our particular abilities, one could say that the dispensation as far as compensation is concerned—this include salaries, possible opportunities for promotion, etc.—of our Defence Force is satisfactory. But the circumstances under which these people have to work in South Africa, are not normal. We are exceptionally dependent on our Defence Force, which has to be ready for action at all times. This, of necessity, includes all the people in our Defence Force. We cannot survive without them. We need men and women ob the best quality. In this regard I agree with the hon. member for Yeoville and with the hon. member for Durban Point when they say that we should retain as far as possible for the Defence Force those whom we have trained at great expense. I do not agree with the hon. member for Durban Point when he says that we should remove the S.A. Defence Force from the Public Service structure, that the Defence Force should be divorced from the Public Service. I do not believe this is where the solution to the problem lies. I could talk about this at great length, if I had the time to do so.

Don’t!

However, I do believe that we ought to have the whole matter investigated by the best experts available in this field. Therefore, I am very glad that the hon. the Deputy Minister announced this afternoon that an investigation will be undertaken in this regard.

Apart from my plea for an in-depth reappraisal of the importance of the Defence Force personnel for the survival of South Africa, in comparison to other public servants, I also wish to make a serious plea for a greater involvement of the South African population in our defence effort. It is an acknowledged and demonstrated truth that if one makes the people part of the Army, that army is invincible. I can rightly ask whether the South African population has already become an inseparable part of our Defence Force or whether we, as so many of our people do, leave it to other people to become involved and to have a husband or a son on the border while we ourselves do nothing. If this is not so, why do we struggle with such a simple matter as the transport facilities with which we try to provide our servicemen? Why are we having such a struggle to get this off the ground? Why are all of us not prepared to wait a while for the boy at the garage or to go a little out of our way to drop him where he wants to be? There are so many fields in which we can do so much to give these men concrete proof of our appreciation. For instance, what are our businessmen doing to prove their appreciation in a tangible manner for that which the young men are doing for us on the border? What are they doing to make it as pleasant as possible for the young men? There are many ways in which we can do this. There are, for instance, the arrangements which have been made with regard to hotel accommodation for these people, for which one is very grateful.

Finally, I therefore wish to make an appeal to everyone to support every member of the Defence Force in South Africa and his family. Let us regard these people as though they really are our personal responsibility. Let us take trouble to make things easier for them. I believe there is much we can do for them. Everyone of us has the opportunity to do something for them at some time or other. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry the hon. member for Verwoerdburg was unable to complete his speech and that his time was wasted by the hon. member for Orange Grove. It seemed to me as if the hon. member for Orange Grove was carrying on here like a very sensitive prima donna.

I should like to express a few ideas about the free time and recreation of the men of the S.A. Defence Force and about the sporting activities in general within that vast organization. To do justice to this subject in the short period of 10 minutes is virtually impossible. Consequently I shall only be able to deal with the matter in general terms. The task relating to leisure time expenditure and recreation and sport in the Defence Force is the responsibility of the Chief of the S.A. Defence Force in co-operation with the chief of the Army, the chief of the Navy and the chief of the Air Force. Moneys are obtained, from, inter alia, the S.A. Defence Force Fund for the establishment of facilities. This fund was established on 1 July 1976 to replace the Brandwag Fund with the aim of receiving and administering financial and other contributions from any source for the supply and provision of facilities for the use and benefit of members of the S.A. Defence Force and other persons who, owing to the service they render in connection with the defence of South Africa or the combating of terrorism, have to do without certain facilities. This is done in terms of the Defence Act of 1957.

I should like to refer briefly to the question of leisure time and recreation. Leisure time programmes including, for example, film shows, social functions, concerts, etc., are offered at all military bases and the necessary apparatus and equipment for such programmes for all units is purchased from State and other funds. Provision is also made for the supply of sporting equipment for recreation and, where possible, for the building of swimming baths. Moreover, there are libraries at the vast majority of bases which are linked to various provincial library services. At those libraries daily papers can be made available on demand to the men. Bases in the operational area are further benefited by the purchase of sporting equipment for recreation purposes, radios, tape-recorders, television sets with videotapes and other apparatus by the S.A. Defence Force Fund. Daily papers donated by various publishers are also sent to the bases in the operational area.

Although their rifles are always at hand, the men at the bases participate in swimming, tennis, table tennis, darts, miniature snooker, dominoes, volleyball, tug of war, angling, badminton, tenniquoits and innumerable other games. In order to encourage a spirit of competition, regular sports days among the various companies are arranged for the men. Sports days are concluded with a braaivleis, and I imagine that there are probably always one or two men who can play the guitar, so that the men can end the evening by singing together about our beautiful country and its pretty girls and by singing songs and expressing their longing for the pretty girls at home.

Hobbies are also practised, and our men are full of original ideas. Wood-carving is very popular, as is the carving of miniature furniture from liquor cans and education of the local population. I read in Paratus recently about a very original idea by two Defence Force men to establish their own so-called “Caprivi TV” in a fruit box with spools on which they roll paper strips for display.

As far as sport in the S.A. Defence Force is concerned, a comprehensive programme for sport and physical education has been introduced to promote physical fitness and productivity among the young men in particular. In 1978 the S.A. Defence Force did well in more than 20 different types of sport. 61 sportsmen and women represented South Africa as players and sports administrators. 30 players became South African champions, 13 gained junior Springbok colours and six represented the Gazelles. 12 members of the Defence Force played in South African country sports teams and 337 members played in provincial teams. 415 members of the S.A. Defence Force competed at provincial level.

I want to come back briefly to the S.A. Defence Force Fund. I quote from page 8 of the White Paper—

In view of this it is to be understood that there is always a lack of funds in this regard. I believe that in the future the public of South Africa, which has thus far contributed so generously, will continue to contribute freely and generously. We know that the contributions do not come from the Whites alone, but on the part of the Indians, Coloureds and Blacks, too, there is a good attitude as regards contributing to the funds for our men on the border. In this regard the following is said on page 8 of the White Paper—

This is a fine fund and it is also mentioned on page 8 of the White Paper that—

I should like to pay tribute to those men and women who do a tremendous job in South Africa for this vast organization, the Southern Cross Fund, which celebrated its tenth anniversary last year. I want to pay sincere tribute to each of those who have made a contribution, particularly—unfortunately one cannot mention all the names—people like Mrs. Elizabeth Albrecht, Mrs. Audrey van Vuuren, Mrs. Yssel and others who are doing tremendous work. I should like to make an appeal… [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I like to follow the hon. member for Roodepoort. He made a sound speech attesting to hard work. He is known as a person who does his duty and works hard.

This is the first time that the hon. the Minister of Defence has been assisted by the hon. the Deputy Minister in this Vote. They are old stablemates who have been working together a long time. Since the days when the hon. the Deputy Minister was chairman of our study group we have known him as a thorough man. We know that with this team at the helm the Department of Defence is in very good hands.

I should like to say a few words about the National Security Council, because in my opinion its establishment was a very exceptional and important step. I understand that intelligence is gathered by the Chief of Staff Intelligence and the Security branch of the S.A. Police, which in the final instance is co-ordinated by the Department of National Security. We must distinguish between intelligence and information. It is important that all rumours and stories one hears and all the facts one obtains be co-ordinated, assimilated and processed so that one has firm information to work on. When any operation is carried out at the Defence Force level, intelligence is of the utmost importance. We must have information about the enemy’s methods, his weaponry, his whereabouts, how he is dug in and his order of battle. All this intelligence is of the greatest importance to us. At the national level it is of the greatest importance that we should know what the enemy’s strategy is so that we can formulate a counterstrategy in order to counter any threat aimed at us. For that reason I want to say that the step taken to co-ordinate these sources of intelligence is of the utmost importance for South Africa. I venture to say that the organization of vital information alone is worth a division to us. There are many human lives at stake, and consequently I wish to convey my sincere thanks to the hon. the Minister for this organization which has been called into being in South Africa’s interests. It meets a vital need.

The following statement concerning the Citizen Force appears in para. 23 on page 5 of the White Paper—

I want to dwell on this briefly. In 1970 I had the opportunity to speak to the then Chief of the Defence Force. It was this very problem that was discussed, viz. what to do about the senior officers leaving the Citizen Force. The question was why they were leaving the Defence Force. I ventured to tell the general that two things had to be done. I said that in the first place, we would have to make the pay of a Citizen Force officer equal to the lowest notch of the Permanent Force officer of equal rank. This was done. In the second place, I said that it was time to appoint a Citizen Force general to the General Staff to put the standpoint of the Citizen Force. This was done. We are very grateful for that. However, there is a problem in this regard. I think there are very few brigadiers in the Citizen Force. I think there are two generals. There may be many colonels, but promotion of the senior officers to those ranks does not occur rapidly enough. The fact is that there is a blockage, and the men with the rank of major and commandant feel that they cannot remain in these ranks for ever and eventually decide to resign.

Why did you not read that whole sentence?

Just wait a moment; you can speak again. I am speaking now. I should like to suggest that consideration be given to linking a period of service to the higher ranks, higher than commandant, so that one need not remain in one rank for too long and the majors and commandants can be promoted. When a person is in those ranks, he still has many obligations and has to carry out unit training, which is not the case when one is in a staff post. I feel that if we give attention to this matter there will be a possibility that we shall retain some of these people and therefore be able to fill that gap.

But each unit has a commandant.

I was talking about colonels and brigadiers. Perhaps the hon. member is not aware of the fact, but those ranks are a step or two higher than that of commandant.

I should now like to discuss the interests of the members of the Citizen Force themselves in the Citizen Force. Members of the Citizen Force are of the greatest importance to our country. We regard them as people who offer their services voluntarily, something we sincerely appreciate. This Government and this party regards every man in a uniform as of the utmost importance for our people.

Much has been said about the increased pay. The Citizen Force is now getting far better salaries. However, there are other aspects in regard to our soldiers which we must not lose sight of. He is also a person with certain needs. In this regard I should like to say that the chaplain service of our Defence Force is doing a tremendous job among our soldiers. Every unit has its chaplain and this chaplain is treated like a soldier. He accompanies his unit wherever it may go. He is the man who is told in confidence when there are problems. He is the man who has to stand by when a soldier is wounded. He is therefore an important person in the Defence Force structure. In the operational area, a man’s spiritual needs are different to what they are here when he is in the security of South Africa. Texts for the day are also given to soldiers on the border to read, with a short explanation of the absolutely essential truths contained therein. If a man retains his link with his church he also retains, through prayer, his link with his family. This gives him that calmness and that strength which makes of him a person able to carry on in the Faith. Consequently I should like to convey my sincere thanks to the corps of chaplains. I see that the Chaplain-General is here and I say to him: Many thanks for what your corps is also doing for our people.

The Defence Force is a very large and extensive organization with many facets. For example there is welfare work. There is also the Surgeon-General who looks after the health of all the soldiers, etc. All this is a manifestation of the importance we attach to the soldier at the front. It is a manifestation of how we have the interests of these people at heart. We try to do everything possible to make matters as easy as possible, as convenient as possible and as spiritually enriching as possible for these people to enable them to serve their nation, because we believe that this is the highest service one can render. We say to them: Thank you very much.

Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.