Mr. Speaker, I move—

• Vote No. 6: Labour
• Vote No. 7: Mines
• Vote No. 8: Plural Relations and Development
• Vote No. 22: Justice
• Vote No. 23: Police
• Vote No. 24: Prisons
• Votes Nos. 32 and 33: Coloured, Rehoboth and Nama Relations; Statistics.

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to talk about two particular things this afternoon. The first is the concept that national service has been accepted by the community as a whole, but that the community wants to see a fair distribution of the burden of national service. Young men are prepared to do their duty, and most do it willingly and cheerfully, but we believe that the burden should be distributed more equitably, and I propose to deal with that at some length a little later.

The second point is that national service, in so far as our young men are concerned, is done in most cases just after they leave school. Others do it after leaving institutions of higher learning. For most of them it is the very first time they leave home and be without parental care or protection.

Any military force requires discipline. Rules and orders must be obeyed, not only for the success of the defence effort, but also for the protection and survival of the individuals concerned. South African national servicemen make fine soldiers and subject themselves readily to discipline. Discipline must, however, be applied in a manner which is reasonable, which does not destroy the individual’s initiative, something which young men need not only in the Defence Force, but also in their lives thereafter. It must, furthermore, be applied justly and humanely.

In recent times, unfortunately a number of cases have been drawn to our attention, cases which have caused us concern. Some have resulted in the death of individual servicemen, some in physical injury and some in psychological problems, while others have had lesser consequences. This has caused us to look into the problem and, after investigation and careful consideration, we have come to the certain conclusions, which we should like to submit to the House.

Firstly, the instances which have occurred are, fortunately, very small in number, particularly bearing in mind the total number of men serving, and should certainly not be regarded as indicative of a general state of affairs. Secondly, in any military organization, where some have the power of command and control over others and where one relies on humans with their strengths and weaknesses, abuse can occur, and the object of the authorities must be, we believe, to keep these cases to a minimum.

Thirdly, we are satisfied that whenever the attention of senior staff officers has been drawn to unsatisfactory conditions, action has been taken. In the very nature of things, it is sometimes too late to act except by way of punishing offenders. Fourthly, the fact that it is known that we are prepared to take up complaints or irregularities of which we become aware, in itself acts as a further deterrent to abuse, and we fulfil the functions akin to those of an ombudsman. Fifthly, we believe that without affecting the need for discipline, and without contending that there is a major crisis, to the individual and the community every life and everyone’s welfare is precious, and therefore we believe that certain safeguards and reforms are desirable.

In our view, less recourse should be had to sentencing to exhaustive physical punishment in the S.A. Defence Force. Furthermore, more precautions should be taken in order to verify the medical condition of servicemen, not only before punishment is meted out, but generally before exhaustive activity is imposed. Soldiers should be fit and should be able to withstand hardship. However, they must not be exposed to hardship which their physical or mental condition does not warrant and which is not necessary in the circumstances. The punishment of detention to barracks should, wherever possible, be avoided. In our view, prisoners in detention should not be allowed to mix in such a fashion that adverse influences of some are brought to bear on others. In the long run it will be harmful if those who have committed offences, such as absence without leave or similar breaches of discipline, are allowed to mix with those who have committed serious crimes involving violence or theft, or even worse. The young man serving D.B. because, being sadly homesick and has run away, has committed an offence, but the adverse influence on him of those who steal from him, rob or assault him, is more than undesirable. So, too, are those who are conscientious objectors, in categories quite different to others. We recognize the problems and the difficulties involved in seeking separation, but for the sake of our youth something needs to be done. Particularly in the detention barracks it is important that those who are in control do not abuse the power they have. We need more adequate screening processes to make quite sure that persons with incorrect, and in particular with sadistic tendencies, are excluded.

The staff made available for control at detention barracks is, in our view, quite inadequate in numbers and needs to be strengthened. Inspections as well as changes in the staff should be made relatively frequently in order to avoid possible abuse going undetected. D.B. should be a punishment, but young people are often sensitive, and therefore it must not be of such a nature that it scars the individual mentally. Any punishment to D.B. should, in our view, before it is enforced, be considered by a qualified senior medical officer, or other senior officers outside the unit concerned, in addition to the existing review procedures.

I repeat that I do not want to convey an impression of a crisis or of something very, very serious. However, I want servicemen and parents to be reassured that, while things do go wrong sometimes, these are isolated cases and the authorities and Parliament are always willing to create more safeguards to ensure that abuse is kept to an absolute minimum.

Then I should also like to refer again to the question of distributing the burden equally. The infantrymen at the present moment perhaps carry the heaviest burden of all when it comes to national service, particularly as far as call-ups are concerned. In our view the present attitude in regard to the counting of call-ups in terms of sections 91 and 92, does not restrict call-ups to those needed for training purposes only. Seemingly as an act of grace, a person is allocated 30 days when, in fact, he often not only does three months a year, but is also called up for second periods of three months. As far as we are concerned that is completely inequitable.

In our view the defence burden in South Africa is one that the community will readily accept, but we believe that it must be shared fairly and equitably. It should certainly not be imposed on infantrymen in such a way that they carry an undue burden in contrast with others doing national service. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to reply to what the hon. member, who has just resumed his seat, had to say about certain incidents that arose from an erroneous application of discipline. Neither I nor the Deputy Minister, nor the Chief of the S.A. Defence Force or any of his commanding officers or members of the Staff Board approve of any irregularities that may occur.

I accept that.

I think it has already been proved that we apply discipline without fear or favour and adopt the necessary measures to prevent this sort of thing. The Chief of the Defence Force has repeatedly expressed himself in very strong terms about malpractices which occur from time to time, and I support him in that. National service has to be a success and it has to be a success as a result of motivation and not as a result of intimidation. Leadership—and I have often said this in the presence of officers, commanders and instructors—is not based on intimidation, but on the stimulation of idealism and of a desire to play a part in this very fine organization. But I think we all realize that in such a large organization it is inevitable that irregularities will occur, because all of us are only human, after all. In the Defence Force, people frequently work under pressure and then this sort of thing can occur. I want to add that motivation cannot come only from the Defence Force authorities. If one considers what the instructors sometimes have to do and one sees what a demanding task it is for one man to train all those people, one sometimes has sympathy for them as well. I therefore trust that we will also render assistance from outside in motivating those who are called up and who have to perform national service, so that they will more readily accept the attendant hardships. I agree with the hon. member on this point, however. The other matter he was still dealing with—I do not think he has disposed of that yet—we can discuss later.

I also want to avail myself of this opportunity to reply on certain of the matters that have been raised by hon. members.

At the beginning of the debate yesterday, the hon. member for Yeoville referred to the White Paper and certain information furnished in it. He also spoke of a balanced Defence Force. On page 14 of the White Paper—it actually starts on page 13—the Programme Budget is set out. The figures for a number of years are furnished in the tables, and information is supplied. I think we can identify a few salient features there. The first is that we are striving to establish a balanced Defence Force—with the forces and means at our disposal. South Africa will be able to make more money available without spending too much on defence but we realize that in the general pattern of the responsibilities of the State, we are now giving the maximum that the State is prepared to give. With that I am not intimating, however, that as the Minister of Defence, I can state that we are giving enough. I think, without exaggerating, that we can allocate a larger amount for defence if the State has the necessary means, but within the limitations imposed on us by circumstances we are trying, in my opinion, to establish a balanced Defence Force, as is apparent from this information.

The hon. member referred to certain aspects of the budget, and if he were to study the White Paper, he would see that landward defence has developed a plus as far as the appropriation of funds is concerned. The same applies to maritime defence. In the case of air defence this is admittedly not the case, but logistics support and personnel support have been allocated larger amounts. In this way one has to try and effect the necessary balance with the means at one’s disposal.

The hon. member has also expressed the commiseration of that side of the House with the wounded and the families of those who have made their sacrifice. I am pleased that the organization for ex-servicemen has seen fit to erect a monument to those who, since 1961, have paid the supreme price for the preservation and the orderly development of the freedom of our country. That monument will be unveiled in Pretoria on 31 May, as the hon. member for Waterkloof has indicated, and it should give expression to the feeling all of us have for the contributions and the price these people have paid for the security of South Africa.

The hon. member for Yeoville, on his part, introduced the debate in a good spirit and he was followed in the same vein by the hon. member for Durban Point and other hon. members. I wish to thank them. The fact that a debate of this nature can be conducted in such a vein is, to my mind, a boost to the morale of the S.A. Defence Force, because it gives the Defence Force a picture of how the representatives of the people feel about the task the organization has to perform.

The hon. member asked: “What is our objective?” and as a reply he stated “Peace is our objective”. Of course. The S.A. Defence Force is pre-eminently a peacekeeping task force. Recently I told the five Western powers, during the talks with them, that there was no need for them to bring a peace-keeping task force into South West Africa, because the task force operating there at present and deployed at various points on our borders, is a peace-keeping task force since we desire only one thing: Peace for Southern Africa, peace for our country. We should not like to go on living in a spirit of devastation; we want peace with a view to development. For that reason the S.A. Defence Force is committed to the idea of peace, stability and development. If there is one thing the S.A. Defence Force has achieved in its relations with other population groups in South West and also in the Republic, it is that its relations with those population groups have kept on improving. In recent discussions I found it very encouraging to see the great measure of goodwill that leaders of various population groups expressed at the work the S.A. Defence Force is doing to promote good relations. But peace can only be preserved if one works to achieve it—peace does not take care of itself. Peace makes great demands for its continued existence. Peace must therefore be fostered. The only way in which to do so, is to have a balanced force to ensure that others will not deprive one of that peace. In this regard I am grateful for what the hon. member for Yeoville emphatically stated.

†He said that, as far as foreign intervention was concerned, he was at one with us that, in so far as it was in our power, that would not be allowed. Secondly he said he opposed change by revolution and stood for evolutionary progress, renewal and development.

*I thank him for his standpoint in this regard. In this connection I want to refer to a statement made by the President of Zambia a few days ago. He said his country was now being threatened from two sides, namely from the Republic of South Africa and from Rhodesia. He said for that reason he was going to equip his own defence force with sophisticated equipment. With reference to this statement I want to state unequivocally today that the Republic of South Africa and, I take it, Rhodesia as well, only act against terrorists whose object it is to threaten the existing order and peace in these two countries. At the same time I wish to issue a warning to those countries that harbour and support terrorists in acting against us: They will have to bear the consequences if they keep on playing this game. This applies in particular to support for Swapo or any other terrorist group whose gaze may be directed at South Africa in order to wreck the settlement plan in South West Africa or to try to sow disorder in the Republic. It would pay those countries to consider what is in the best interests of their own people in the economic and other fields rather than lend their ears to people who want to make them believe other things.

I have stated here before and I want to repeat reiterate that our neighbouring States that harbour terrorists do not need arms to defend themselves against us. We are not a threat to anyone. They would do well to use their money to provide their populations with food, employment, housing and other essential services, and if they need our advice and assistance, they can have it. But if they accept arms from foreign powers in the hope that in that way they can make their countries available as launching pads against South Africa or against South West Africa, they are making a mistake and the price they will have to pay will be higher than they can conceive. That is not the prospect we hold out for Southern Africa and that is not what we are advocating, but we on our part cannot remain inactive and allow the forces of chaos and the atrocities of terrorism to be imposed on innocent people for whose safety we are responsible.

The hon. members also referred to the arms embargo. I think it was the hon. member for Durban Point who said that “There is a gradual build-up of Russian armaments in Africa”. That is true. An article appeared recently with statistics indicating to what extent Russia is engaged in an arms build-up in Africa. An unprecedented arms build-up is taking place. And yet, at the same time, an arms embargo is being imposed on South Africa, something which we have repeatedly complained about but which we have now stopped complaining about because it is obvious to us that the very same people, also in the West, who support the arms embargo against us, are, without rhyme or reason, allowing funds to be raised in their countries with which terrorists can be unleashed against South Africa. The terrorist leaders live in luxury; they are far removed from danger. Their followers are being exposed to hardships, but the leaders themselves are living on the plenty that is being collected for them in the Western World through the instrumentality of certain excessively humanistic organizations. In spite of this arms embargo and these efforts, we shall nevertheless continue to strengthen ourselves not only in the military but also in other fields.

With regard to the arms embargo I wish to make a brief statement in order to prevent any misunderstandings in future. Some time ago I replied to a question and stated that we had suffered no losses with the French transaction as a result of the arms embargo. I now want to rectify that because it could easily be interpreted incorrectly.

†The mandatory arms embargo of November 1977 and the manner in which it is applied against us unavoidably resulted in certain foreign contracts being cancelled. This inevitably caused losses which in terms of normal State procedure are noted as fruitless expenditure and as contracts amended to the detriment of the State. To date the State suffered a gross loss of R7,3 million. Against this we have, however, made exchange rate profits of R6,5 million, attributable to the return and repatriation of deposits and advance payments on cancelled contracts. Our net losses to date, therefore, amount to less than R1 million, and although this is not necessarily the end of our losses and other consequential damages, I want to emphasize that under the circumstances of the mandatory arms embargo this figure is extremely low.

*I thought I should just put the record straight so that it cannot subsequently be alleged that I misled the House.

The hon. member for Yeoville referred to the great task of the Air Force and said that as long as South Africa had an effective Air Force, she would be in a position to act decisively in respect of her defence. I agree with him. The hon. member is of course somewhat partial to the Air Force, but we do not hold that against him. He also requested that more helicopters be made available. I do not want to anticipate the matter, but I nevertheless want to tell the hon. member that South Africa is already able to meet those requirements. In connection with the Air Force I wish to emphasize that we are not merely concerned with the quantity of our equipment, but in particular also with its optimum operational preparation and utilization. That means that the Defence Force treats the effective arming of our aircraft and the effective delivery of those weapons as priorities. Various steps have been taken in this regard. However, I do not want to spell out everything here in public. I have already pointed out on previous occasions that the Republic of South Africa had entered the field of missile technology and had already reached the stage where missiles were being supplied for our fighter aircraft. I am able to enlarge on that today by announcing that the development phase of a successive new generation missile has been completed and that we have already started production. The significance of this is, in the first place, that we undeniably have our own local capacity now in a rapidly developing technology; in the second place, that our Air Force has greater striking power; and in the third place, that a sophisticated missile will ensure the extended life of our fighter aircraft. I think the hon. member will welcome this step forward. Our Air Force is effective. It is true that there are certain problem areas that will have to be looked into in future, but with the means at our disposal but constant care will be taken to keep the Air Force of South Africa effective.

The hon. member has also referred to maritime defence. In the White Paper it is indicated that there is an increase of R22 million in the capital expenditure in this connection. This capital expenditure on maritime defence is more particularly intended for anti-mine measures, for harbour protection, and for light patrol vessels equipped with missiles. I do not wish to furnish any further details about these now.

†With regard to maritime defence I want to say that it is with a sense of fulfilment that I am able to make known that the initial number of strike craft that have been locally constructed, have already been put into commission by the S.A. Navy for purposes of defence of the Republic’s coastal waters. These craft, similar to those of the most modern overseas designs, make great demands on the South African ship-building and subsidiary industries. They are to be congratulated on their achievement in this hitherto unknown field in the Republic of South Africa. Although these strike craft are at a casual glance of modest size, they have, owing to their high speed and modern weapon system, a strike capability equalling that of war craft several times their size. This weapon system is supported by sophisticated electronic devices for the detection and identification of enemy targets and also for defence against, for instance, missile attacks. This is a special milestone. Not only have Armscor and local industry mastered a construction ability, but have also succeeded in establishing a design know-how in the Republic of South Africa that is vital to our own independent naval construction industry. The first strike craft that was commissioned was named after the ex-State President and former Minister of Defence, Mr. Jim Fouché. The remaining craft will be named after former Ministers of Defence and Chiefs of the S.A. Defence Force who have had strong associations with the Navy. I think this is a real, positive step in the history of our naval forces.

*Reference was also made to landward defence, which also shows a clear plus in these tables. It is necessary for South Africa to maintain her landward defence as well as possible and apart from the economizing measures we are applying and apart from the re-utilization, the conversion and the reconditioning of equipment, there has also been other progress in this field. Landward defence has improved immensely in the fields of armour modernization, area radio network—about which the hon. the Deputy Minister could have more to say—and operational vehicles. There are two other fields about which I think we would all feel happy if I communicated certain information to this House.

In the first place the R1 rifle is known far and wide in the Republic these days. Virtually every soldier is equipped with this weapon. During this debate we have heard from hon. members how the soldier and his weapon are still one. The R1 was commissioned by the S.A. Defence Force approximately 17 years ago and was manufactured in large quantities by Armscor. Since then, it has become part of the everyday life of the South African soldier, so much so that I have heard the national servicemen call the R1 their wife. However, modern warfare has given rise to a need for a new generation rifle which is not only lighter but also uses lighter ammunition, and yet is as if not more effective than the R1. So, for example, the requirement was set that the new rifle should be more stable in order to promote accuracy and the economical use of ammunition. Consequently it was decided a few years ago to change over to the manufacture of a 5,56 mm rifle which would be known as the R4. Local production of this rifle has already commenced in one of the Armscor subsidiaries and it will in time replace the R1 rifle. During my association of many years with the Defence Force, I have become thoroughly aware of the personal bond that exists between a soldier and his rifle and it is therefore a privilege for me to announce this new generation rifle today and to express the hope that, like its predecessors, it will occupy its rightful place in the defence of our country.

Furthermore, in connection with landward defence, it is a pleasure for me to be able to announce that the new generation field gun, the 155 mm G5, has been wholly developed in South Africa for South African conditions and is now coming into production. It is being manufactured from South African steel, with South African know-how. This gun, which compares favourably with the best in the world, will succeed the present generation gun—the G4—and place the S.A. Defence Force in the forefront in the field of artillery pieces until the end of this century at least. South African technology in developing artillery pieces has stimulated manufacturers immensely, in particular by way of the introduction of the weapons system. If it is taken into account that this project progressed from the design to the production stage within a matter of 24 months, then it is indeed a remarkable performance by Armscor and its subsidiaries and it is something of which South Africa may justifiably be proud. On behalf of the Government I wish to congratulate them on this excellent achievement.

I have made these few announcements to the House because I want to give hon. members the assurance that the Defence Planning Committee, under the chairmanship of the Chief of the Defence Force, is systematically devoting attention to this type of matter. This planning committee, which is in fact the connecting link between the S.A. Defence Force and the production middlemen such as Armscor and others, has done valuable work during the past few years by establishing co-ordination, by determining priorities, and by planning properly. I think we are greatly indebted to our Defence Force leaders and the leaders in the field of armament development for what they have accomplished in this regard.

The hon. member for Cradock referred, inter alia, to the internal and the external wing of Swapo, which evidently wants the best of both worlds. In my view the hon. member is quite correct in his approach. During our latest discussions in South West Africa, it was repeatedly put to us that if every political party in South West Africa were to be granted the privilege of constitutionally striving for power within the territory while at the same time they had an external wing which tried to accomplish by force what they could not accomplish by other means, a civil war would break out in South West Africa. In my view it is therefore only fair that we should adopt the standpoint that an organization should either take part in the constitutional processes of South West Africa, or not take part in it. If it does not take part in it, it must bear the consequences. I believe that Swapo itself should now decide what it wants to be, but it must remember that it cannot have the best of both worlds. It is unfair to the other political parties and it is also contrary to the concept of constitutional development. In my view this is a matter to which South West Africa and we, who are responsible for the security of South West Africa, will have to give increasing attention.

The hon. member for Pietersburg referred to the commando system and I just want to tell him that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Defence will go into that in greater detail at a later stage. However, I just want to refer to one facet, and that is the plea he made yesterday that there should be the closest cooperation between the Police and the S.A. Defence Force, and in particular between commandos and local police. It does not only apply to them, however; it applies throughout, because they must go hand in hand. In my view it is therefore desirable and necessary, and it is indeed the policy that has been laid down by the State Security Council. If it is not being applied yet, it must be seen to that it will indeed be applied. If the two chiefs of these organizations can co-operate, as they do, there is no reason why all lower ranks cannot do the same.

The hon. member for Durban Point said at the beginning of his speech: “South Africa is virtually in a state of war.”

†I agree with that statement of the hon. member. The whole of the Western World is in a state of war, although some countries either do not recognize it, or do not want to admit it.

They do not want to see it.

On various occasions I have stated that a third world war has already started and is at present being waged in various forms and not only in the military form. It is a total war. It is a war of waiting, a war of undermining, a war of sabotage and a war of propaganda. In this sense a third world war is already being waged, as the hon. member said.

*The sooner we condition ourselves mentally to grasp this, the sooner we shall be able as a country to take up our positions in the struggle against this onslaught.

With this statement of his, the hon. member for Durban Point adopted the standpoint and requested that “the South African Defence Force should be taken out of the control of the Public Service Commission”. I am inclined to differ with the hon. member, to put it mildly. Ever since I became Minister of Defence, I removed certain facets of the Defence Force from the control of the Public Service Commission. For that I obtained the approval of the Cabinet. As far as the filling of posts, etc. is concerned, we have our own system. However, I want to point out that it is the same State that maintains the Defence Force, the Police, prisons and other Government departments, and that they are all being maintained from one budget There is one tax system and one source of revenue that is being utilized to finance this whole pattern of the State.

Their tasks are different.

I concede that but it would be a mistake to remove the Defence Force, and tomorrow the Police and other Government departments and ultimately to let the overall control and planning slip from the hands of the State. In that way we would cause unnecessary strife, ill-feeling and friction and the State would ultimately be competing with itself.

Let me try to explain to the hon. member what I mean. What type of person do we need as leaders of the Defence Force? We seek only the best and without boasting now, I can state that at present we have some of the best. However, they have to be drawn from certain strata of society and the strata from which they have to be drawn are the same as for other facets of national life. Businessmen and executives have already told me that if they could take this leadership group of the Defence Force and utilize it in the private sector, they would not hesitate for one moment. They therefore come from that group from which the leaders of our country are drawn. This type of person is, however, in limited supply in South Africa. Their numbers are limited. While I agree with the hon. members for Yeoville, Durban Point and others who have spoken that the turnover rate is alarming, I ask myself why this is so, why there is such a big turnover after all the efforts we make to train them and after all that we spend on those people. It is because there is a chronic shortage of this leadership element in the country both at the highest level as well as the intermediate level. Now, what does one do to try and cope with this situation? Firstly, one offers better salaries. Now, without blurting out the salaries here I want to state as a fact that this year, through the mediation of the State, an amount of R257 million was made available for improvements in salaries. The Public Service, in its wisdom, has done the correct thing by singling out categories in which they effected certain improvements, categories in which the need was at its greatest.

In the second place one can improve these people’s life and try to retain them by means of improved allowances. At the moment this is the subject of discussion between the Public Service Commission and the Defence Force authorities and I do not want to go into that any further. Certain improvements have already been effected. However, it is not only the Defence Force or the Police or this or that other department which is entitled to improvements. The State only has a certain amount of money at its disposal which it can utilize for this purpose. The State cannot utilize more than that. From that amount these increased wages and allowances must be drawn. And now the private sector also has a claim to this limited reservoir of labour. Often the private sector offers them greater benefits. That is why we are considering the introduction of rationalization in the Public Service—as I announced the other day—so as to ensure better career prospects in the Public Service in that way, too.

I look at what the news media are doing and how they seize upon an example here and an example there, and how they state that this or that person has received an increment of only R30 a month. But when everything is added up, it amounts to R257 million. If one wants to stir up mischief and act in a disparaging way towards the police or the Defence Force and discourage young men from making their contribution, it is very easy to go and sit down and write something. I know everyone strives for more money. There is not a single one of us here who does not want it. But surely we cannot simply demand more money when the country does not have it. Surely there is a limit to everything. This constant chasing after more money is not the solution. We are trying to create facilities for the better utilization of leisure time for better indoor sport. We are trying to create better recreational facilities. That is a subject on which the hon. member for Florida made a very good speech here. We are trying to supplement the shortages by utilizing the services of women. During the past few years the Defence Force has gone out of its way to train women and they are being utilized in all three branches of the Defence Force in a variety of posts, and with great success. We are also trying to make use of other population groups. The Defence Force, and the Navy and the Army in particular, is making extensive use of Coloureds. A start has also been made in utilizing the services of Indians in the Navy. Black units have also been created, also with great success. We are therefore making use of a variety of methods to deal with our manpower shortage.

Allow me to give an example of how the training of people places a burden on the Defence Force. It takes five years to train an electronics technician, and then the private sector comes and grabs him. It takes six years to train an executive officer, with all the attendant costs. The training of a fighter pilot takes six years…

And what doesn’t that cost!

… and an awful lot of money. It is estimated that if everything is taken into account, in certain cases it costs almost R2 million to train certain people in the Air Force. My point is that as long as the source from which one has to draw these leadership elements is limited, we shall always have problems. It seems to me the only way in which we can face up to this problem is to do what the Government intends doing—and the Minister of Labour will probably come forward with that during the present session—and that is to introduce legislation for the establishment of an umbrella body for the proper co-ordination of manpower analysis, research and utilization. That is what we intend doing. That is one outcome of a prolonged investigation that has been carried out. I do not want to say more about that now, because my colleague will do so. It will not be sufficient to content ourselves with the work of the present manpower board. We shall have to investigate and analyse the situation over a wide field and determine priorities. If the war of which the hon. member for Durban Point has spoken is a reality—and it is—then priorities have to be predominant in our approach.

Is the Defence Force not the first priority?

The Defence Force is one of the priorities, yes.

The first.

The hon. member cannot say the Defence Force should be the first priority. The provision of foodstuffs, for example, could also be one of the first priorities, because the Defence Force also has to eat. [Interjections.] We have to maintain a sense of proportion.

The investigations into the internal problems of the Defence Force are being instituted by the Defence Force itself but the Defence Force cannot solve the problems on its own. That is the point I wish to make. We shall have to determine priorities and then we shall have to obtain the support of the whole country, and for that I should like to have the co-operation of the private sector, because I do not think we can effect a solution to those problems without it.

The hon. member for Wynberg has come forward with a solution to the manpower problem. He says we should merely pay equal wages, and then everything will be hunky-dory. [Interjections.] We have already announced how the State is approaching the elimination of the wage differentiation, and I cannot go any further than that. I cannot simply decide that this or that will now happen. There are many facets to this matter that have to be taken into account. Nor can I simply say that the position of the Defence Force is now being cleared up. What about the rest of the State services? There is a balance that has to be maintained in this respect.

The hon. member for Waterkloof referred to the progress we have made in spite of boycotts. I think I have already dealt with that. The hon. member for Middelburg dealt with the national service system and the question of re-admission. The Deputy Minister will have more to say about that.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central emphasized the interest on the part of the public. The Defence Force cannot operate unless it enjoys the support of the general public, and I think a fine spirit has already developed between the Defence Force and the public. There is a striking spirit of goodwill. However, there is something I have said here before and which I now want to repeat: Our MP’s can do much to make motivation for the Defence Force possible by talking enthusiastically about the necessity of defence and by refraining from anticipating people’s complaints. It is easy to write the Lamentations of Jeremiah, but much more difficult to write the Song of Solomon, because the former is destructive whereas the other is inspiring.

The hon. member for Vryheid has emphasized the need for counter-insurgence. Well, counter-insurgence cannot be accomplished by military action alone. It must go hand in hand with a spiritual approach. It has to go hand in hand with other measures such as those we employ to take the minds of people with us in what we do. It is therefore far more than just a military task. The public should join forces with the military and the administration of the State should be such that we make insurgence more and more difficult.

The hon. member for Wynberg has referred to the White Paper and to my preface to it. However, he did not read all of it. He himself was content with the second paragraph, or part of it only.

I have read the whole of the White Paper.

He should also read the third paragraph.

I have read the most important part…

No, the most important part is the third paragraph. [Interjections.] The hon. member would do well to read it again. Then he will see that that paragraph is not as unimportant as he wants to make out by pointing his finger at me.

The hon. member for Edenvale has advocated co-operation between the various population groups within the SADF, and I thank him for having expressed his good wishes in this regard.

He has also referred to Armscor. Let me say that while I have a kind word to say about Armscor and its abilities, I think it is fitting that I should point out on this occasion that South Africa is very much indebted not only to all her scientists, researchers, technicians, ordinary workers, her academics at the various universities that co-operate with us, and to the HSRC and staff that co-operate with us, but as a whole also to the general industries of South Africa with whom, as is stated in the White Paper, we have more than 800 contracts that are making their contribution to the maintenance of the defence of South Africa. We are greatly indebted to them, also for the spirit of cooperation they are demonstrating. I wish to place this on record.

The hon. member for East London City has referred to the after-care of national servicemen. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister will deal with that, too.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South dealt with the commandos and said that all we had to do was give every farmer a rifle; then all would be well.

Yes, dead right.

I am afraid we cannot do that. I think the hon. member knows enough about commandos not to make such a statement People have already come to me and said: Give us a gun and we shall settle the whole business. But one cannot do it that way.

Plus training.

The commandos have to be trained to be able to hold their own against the increasing demands being made on those who have to use a sophisticated weapon. The arms we are manufacturing and to which I have just referred—inter alia, the R4—are expensive items. It was only possible after a great deal of research. A great deal of money has been put into that. The training the commandos receive today is virtually identical to the training received by the Citizen Force, if not completely identical. There are thousands of volunteers who want to join. I can tell the hon. member that approximately 50% of the men in the commandos are volunteers and they subject themselves to the discipline and training that are so vitally necessary. One cannot simply say: “Here you are, here is a gun for you.” That is a thing of the past.

That is not what I said.

Well, that is the impression I got.

That is a silly statement.

Well, then. If the hon. member says he did not say so, then I accept that.

Read my Hansard.

He said one need only give a member of a commando a simple weapon.

I was referring to the R1.

But that is not a simple weapon.

But is a nice weapon.

It may be nice, yes, but that is a different matter. As far as the officers are concerned—I do not want to state the figures to the hon. member—I can tell him that 75% of the officers in the commandos are volunteers. We have very great appreciation for the contribution of our volunteers in the commandos and in the Citizen Force, and I should like to see a constant stream of large numbers of volunteers. As far as training and discipline are concerned, however, they have to meet the same requirements because they are to an increasing extent being confronted with new methods and are having to handle new weapons.

The hon. member for Humansdorp spoke about communications. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister will deal with that subject. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn discussed the chaplain service, a service which is representative of all denominations. I think the S.A. Defence Force has opened its doors to all the churches in the country, which would never otherwise have been opened, in order to reach the youth of South Africa. I think the good relations between the church and the Defence Force must continue to exist for the sake of the spiritual and moral strength which that fosters.

The hon. member for Orange Grove made a contribution here which dealt with helicopters and elephants. I do not want to quarrel with the hon. member today—I do not feel like it. [Interjections.] However, he must accept from me that there is not a single organization in the country that does more for the preservation of the fauna and flora of South Africa than does the S.A. Defence Force.

That is why this incident was out of character.

The hon. member can go and have a look at what is being done, under the strictest guidance in all areas belonging to the Defence Force, to preserve our fauna and flora as far as possible. That is part of the programme of the Defence Force. Whenever it goes, it tries to maintain and preserve our flora and fauna. In all the areas under their control there is not as far as I know, a single area where the preservation of our flora and fauna is not carried out in the prescribed manner.

Therefore when the hon. member preaches to us, he is preaching to the converted. The hon. member told us about two elephants that were shot at the request of a Government department a few years ago. A certain Government department made a request to us. There is an instruction in the Defence Force that game may only be culled on instructions of the Defence Force. Where Government departments control an area and make representations for this to be done, it can be done. Now I want to tell the hon. member that if that Government department were to come to us tomorrow and to ask that something of this nature should be done for the sake of the community, we shall not refuse.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he is aware of the fact that the facts published at the time indicated that there had been no request from the department concerned?

The hon. member is expressing himself wrongly. He referred to “facts published at the time”. The facts were ascertained by the board of inquiry. Wild tales were bruited abroad in an attempt to embarrass us in respect of South West Africa at a critical stage. I do not want to defend Mr. De Wet, but…

I am pleased to hear that.

Mr. De Wet is himself a nature lover. It is known that he believes in preservation and that when he was Commissioner General, he concentrated on that.

Nature lovers do not shoot elephants. [Interjections.]

All the preservation attempts the Defence Force has made at Bloemfontein, along the Limpopo, in the Kalahari, at Smitsdrif, in South West and everywhere else, do not matter now. The hon. member persisted until he had got hold of the tale of the two elephants. [Interjections.] All I want to tell the hon. member, is that he has friends in the Defence Force who are just as concerned about this as he is, but we are not concerned about getting at Mr. De Wet. Mr. De Wet is a friend of the Defence Force and he is a game- and nature-lover.

He is not top of the pops with elephants.

Is the hon. member now suggesting that because a man shot two elephants, he is an enemy of game?

I do not like people who shoot elephants. [Interjections.] It has nothing to do with the Defence Force.

The request came…

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he is aware of the fact that Mr. Jannie de Wet then sold the tusks and other by-products of the elephants for his own profit?

That I really do not know, but if the hon. member feels that Mr. Jannie de Wet has broken the law, then it is his duty to report it to the proper authorities. The Defence Force is not there to prosecute people on account of elephant tusks. [Interjections.] I must say that I am rather disappointed in the hon. member. I think the hon. member is capable of making a better speech than the one he made.

The hon. member for Verwoerdburg discussed motivation. I have dealt with this matter. The hon. member for Roodepoort discussed leisure time utilization. He made a positive contribution and I thank him. The hon. member for Pretoria West, like the hon. member for Verwoerdburg, spoke with authority on the Defence Force because they have many of these people in their constituencies. They also pointed out the need for hon. members who have members of the Defence Force in their constituencies—that includes all of us—to foster a deep interest in the activities of the S.A. Defence Force. I thank them for that.

The hon. member for Pretoria West referred to one other matter, and that was the question of the promotion of Citizen Force officers. The Citizen Force is not an organization that runs parallel to the Permanent Force. The Citizen Force, like the commandos, is an integral part of the Defence Force because we have a national defence force. For that reason we cannot have another group of brigadiers and generals in the Citizen Force and in the commandos as well. Our specialists are in the Permanent Force, and that is where one causes the promotions to the higher ranks to take place. For operational purposes, the Citizen Force and the commandos are assimilated into the specialist section of this other arm of the Defence Force, and I therefore do not think we can accede to the request that we should create even more possibilities for promotion in the Citizen Force and in the commandos, for that would create a parallel organization and I do not think it will work. I hope the hon. member understands what I am trying to tell him.

I think with this, I have dealt with all the matters raised by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman, in the few moments at my disposal it would obviously be impossible to reply in full to the hour-long speech of the hon. the Minister. I want to start at once by referring to his reply to President Kaunda of Zambia, and to associate myself and my party wholeheartedly with the attitude he has taken. In fact, it was just two weeks ago today that I myself appealed for just this approach and warned that host countries which harboured terrorists operating against South Africa would have only themselves to blame if their Forces got in the way of action we took against those terrorists. The best security that Zambia and Angola can have against any danger to themselves or their Forces, is to get rid of the terrorists in their territory. Then they will know they are perfectly safe.

I also welcome the public announcement of the various additions to our armoury which have come into use in recent times. In my speech yesterday I said: “’n Boer maak ’n plan.” These days he does not do it with barbed wire, a “riempie” and a “knyptang”, but with the most modern of equipment and scientific procedures. I therefore believe South Africa owes all of those who have been involved in the development of our armaments, viz. Armscor, private enterprise and our scientists, a debt of thanks for what they have achieved. I do not want to deal, in detail, with the various weapons. I think the new generation of missiles is a very important step forward. The development of armoured vehicles is also making a great contribution. I must say that when I was a passenger in a Ratel, I was amazed to find how comfortable it was. It is an ugly-looking animal that virtually goes horizontally up and down banks, but when one rides in it, it feels as though one is riding in a luxury limousine.

Like a Lorimer elephant.

The one development I have had doubts about is the development of the R4, but I must bow to the experts and the tests which have been made by the Army. The R4 is lighter, but it is still a fairly heavy weapon, particularly for mounted use and use in thick bush, where one is firing at a target usually just a few yards away or, at least, not any great distance. There is a strong feeling amongst many people that a light weapon, such as the one used by the Israelis, would have been better. However, this decision has been taken and the R4 will become as much a part of the Army as the R1 was.

The other important development, is the development of the 150 mm G5 cannon. Our one weakness was our lack of range with the weapon previously in use. The 5,5 was, apart from a small number of larger weapons we now have, out-gunned. A lesson taught to us in Angola was that one had to be very mobile with the 5,5 to deal with the weapons which faced us and which outgunned us by as much as four or five kilometres. This is therefore an important development which I welcome very much indeed.

*I should now like to refer briefly to the hon. the Minister’s rejection of my plea with regard to the Public Service Commission. He himself replied to it in the first words he used in this debate today, when he spoke of a “balanced” Defence Force. However, he was speaking of the balance between the various branches. I am thinking in terms of the balance between men and machinery. When we look at the budget, we see that an amount of R301 million out of a total budget of R1 857 million is allocated to personnel expenditure, and I believe that this is not the correct balance. I believe, as is stated in the White Paper itself, that the man is the most important weapon in the Defence Force.

Weapons are expensive, man.

Men are expensive too.

Weapons are even more expensive.

Yes, but men are expensive too. As was said by the hon. the Minister himself, it costs up to R2 million to train a pilot.

†Simply because that is the way it goes, simply because one must not unbalance the State, one spends R2 million training a man and then one lets one’s own Government take him over, for example in the Airways, at four times the salary which he was formerly being paid. What I am pleading for is that we take that stranglehold off defence so that that sort of man can be retained. Have a basic salary if necessary, but give the flexibility to be able to grant allowances to cover these particular specialist fields. The hon. the Minister is a very good debater and loves scoring debating points, but he was just scoring debating points in his reply when he referred to the leadership group. There are not just leadership groups involved, however, but also specialist groups.

No, I never said only leadership groups. I referred to instructors and the leadership group as a whole.

I accept that, but I do not believe that the hon. the Minister answered the case. I believe that we must go on and on until it is eventually realized that we cannot afford to adopt the present set-up.

As a result of replying to the speech of the hon. the Minister I shall not have the opportunity to raise other matters which I had wished to raise. I wanted to concentrate on the Citizen Force and on the commandos. He has referred to the leadership group and its importance. I believe that making volunteer leadership more attractive is our first priority in the Citizen Force. For this I believe we must look at what burdens are being imposed on the volunteer leader and to make sure, wherever it is possible, that those burdens are not a bar either to volunteering or to extending voluntary service.

The hon. member for Yeoville referred to one of the complaints, namely that 90 days border service is only credited as 30 days towards the 240 days compulsory service required of every national serviceman. The man who goes to a local 19-day camp, in comfort and in safety, gets full credit for his attendance, but the man who goes to the border and faces everything there only gets credit for one-third of the time he spent there. This, I believe, is totally wrong. It is something we have to do something about.

If he goes twice a year, he only gets one-sixth.

As the hon. member for Yeoville says, if he goes twice in one year, he only gets one-sixth. He only gets credited with 30 days for the 180 days of service. This is totally wrong. It is something that has to be put right.

Another of the problems—and I realize it is a problem for which I have no simple answer—involves the one-man business and the one-man farmer, particularly the farmer engaged in a specialized type of farming, for example dairy farming. He has to be there. The cows have to be milked. One cannot leave such an enterprise to an unqualified, untrained or unreliable person to run. These one-man businesses do create a problem, and although there is provision, through the exemption boards, I believe we must take another look at this so that those people are not lost to the service.

You have seen the light.

It is not that I am seeing the light. I have never differed from the hon. member for Yeoville about this being a problem. What I did say was that one must take account of the volunteer and must have the provision for call-up but now I am talking about the other side of the coin, i.e. the exemption boards and the problem of one-man businesses.

I welcome the Parachute Brigade and the increase in the numbers of non-Whites in the SADF, but I think that we must stop calling them auxiliaries. We change the M.D.C. so that they fall under the disciplinary code and I feel we should regard them not as auxiliary forces, but as part of the S.A. Defence Force, as they are in the South West Africa Defence Force, fully recognized and regarded as troops who form part of the body of the SADF.

In the last instance I should like to warn against the threat that appears in the White Paper that we are going to have computerized pay for our soldiers. FRED, the old computer, the flipping, ridiculous, electronic disaster, was the cause of the shambles in pay in 1975 and in 1976. I hope we do not have it again.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban Point made one remark which I cannot simply allow to go unanswered. He said that the hon. the Minister was merely scoring political points. We on this side of the House differ from him radically in this respect, because we believe that the hon. the Minister is an excellent administrator, and we find evidence of this in his conduct, his activities and his handling of the specific department which we are at present discussing.

If we were to spend some time analysing the total Defence budget, we would find that there is an increase of 12% in available funds. This reflects a real increase of 0%, but is at least 1% better than the previous year’s budget. If we consider the threats to South Africa, it is really a pity that more funds are not available for this specific vote. This figure also includes the share of the Department of Public works in the form of an amount of R75 million, which in itself reflects an increase of 29,3%. This sum also includes the share of the Department of Community Development in the form of an amount of R37 million, which reflects an increase of 31,3%.

These amounts represent money made available for housing and other accommodation for the Defence Force, and is more than ever before. In this regard we also want to express the hope that the single quarters, the married quarters and the undercover accommodation for equipment which is going to be built, will be to the benefit of the members of the Defence Force as well as our equipment. We trust that it will be possible to eliminate without delay the backlog in the sphere of accommodation which has built up and has been growing over the past few years.

If we exclude the three amounts, i.e. those appropriated for the Department of Public Works, the Department of Community Development and the R3 million for the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, from this budget since they actually fall into another category of activity, the Defence budget itself represents the amount of Rl 857 million as against R1 682 million last year. This represents an increase of only 10,4%, which in fact means a real decrease of 1,6%. We trust the hon. the Minister will be able to give us the assurance that he will be able to make ends meet with this money, because this will contribute to much greater peace of mind, particularly in view of the circumstances in which South Africa finds itself.

According to the programme budget which the hon. the Minister has already discussed, we see that R127,5 million has been appropriated for maritime defence this year. This represents an increase of 14,4% over 1978-’79. We are very grateful for this increased financial appropriation for the Navy. This also indicates, inter alia, the transference of Navy headquarters to Pretoria, and we read with gratification in the White Paper that at present the Navy is being more actively integrated than ever before in the history of the Defence Force. I think this indicates the importance of the Fleet to the security of our harbours, our territorial waters and the sea routes along which our exports and imports travel and along which oil is conveyed to Europe and America. The Cape sea route is annually used by approximately 6 000 ships, i.e. one every half-hour.

In Durban we saw to what extent our local ship-building industry has already developed and we were proud to see the patrol boats which are being built there in answer to our aspiration to become more self-sufficient in this area as well and to extend our capacity at sea. Naturally we also welcome the announcement of the hon. the Minister of Defence this afternoon very sincerely.

However, it was, in fact, in Durban that we became aware of how highly susceptible navy equipment is to rust. Absolutely diligent daily care and the highest degree of equipment awareness is the only way in which this never-flagging enemy can be defeated. It was good to see with what dedication, care, and one could almost say love the naval men looked after and maintained that equipment.

It is true that the Navy is receiving more money pro rata, but the Permanent Force staff in the navy increased by a mere 7,4% as opposed to a general increase of 28,6% in the Permanent Force staff during the past two years. One of the reasons for this drain among the White staff in particular is their very good training, which is the very key which opens doors to them in many other areas where they can be accommodated very well. Then there is, of course, also the degree of danger and discomfort which the men have to endure at sea. I hope that the new salary adjustments will stem that outflow drastically and we particularly hope that the proposed Staff Year, which we heard about yesterday, will have very good results in this staff situation.

In two places the White Paper mentions harbour protection units and marines to protect and defend our harbours and harbour installations against sabotage and attack from the landward side. This is a new category in our line of defence. However, it is essential, and I think it was far-sighted of the hon. the Minister of Defence to allow this development to take place in time. I should like to know whether the Defence Force receives any co-operation and assistance from private seafarers, including the owners of trawlers, yachts, motor boats from which fish are caught and other boats which simply cruise around at sea, and even from the usual fishermen. These people are certainly very valuable when it comes to reconnaissance and the collection of information. They ought to be positively involved in this effort to protect our coasts and harbours. The hon. Chief Whip is himself an enthusiastic angler and I am sure that he will offer his assistance with pleasure. These people’s practical knowledge of their boats and the waters in which they fare, could certainly be put to good use, and in time of war they could make a very valuable contribution. Every boat can be converted into a fighting unit, and I should like to know whether efforts are being made to obtain support from those quarters. Is war material being made and kept ready for use so that it can be mounted on those vessels in minimum time to make them operational? Preparation can certainly never be overdone.

Lieutenant C. B. McEwan carried out a special study of the military value of the Cape sea route and comes, inter alia, to the following important conclusion in his book Lifeline or Strategic Backwater—

One really wants to ask whether America and Europe do not realize this. Why, for instance, are America and Australia not making use of the free facilities which we offer them at Silvermine? Is their hatred of apartheid so great that the USA would rather establish a navy base on the Transkeian coast in order to be present in that way in the south without becoming involved in South Africa?

Finally, I should like to point out a matter which has cropped up since we last met. After the remains of the former Captain Maqoma of the Ciskei had been discovered at Robben Island, where he died in exile in 1873, the Ciskei authorities asked the British Government to assist them in transporting these remains back to the Ciskei. They denied responsibility and refused assistance. The South African Government offered their assistance and the S.A. Navy played an important part in the transport of those remains on the SAS President Pretorius from Table Bay to Port Elizabeth, after which they were buried with full military honours. This was a deed of goodwill and it made an exceptional impression on the people of Ciskei. Consequently that nation conveyed its sincere gratitude. This gave them an intimate experience of the good attitude of this Government and of the Defence Force and of the will of people to mean something to one another. The feeling was such that the Minister of the Interior of Ciskei came to hand the commander of that frigate a valuable present as a token of appreciation. On the occasion of the presentation of the gift he said that the service which the Navy and the South African Government had rendered to them, would be remembered along with the history of his venerable forefathers. I think that that was money well spent.

Mr. Chairman, without going into the finer details with regard to all the new armaments which the hon. the Minister introduced here this afternoon, I just want to say that we welcome this announcement in connection with the armaments and that we are enthusiastically looking forward to see them in action. What particularly interest us, is the fact that the Navy seems to have gained a new arm. One can understand that the South African citizen in general was under the impression that the Navy’s contribution would diminish, also because the headquarters of the Navy has now been established in Pretoria. However, we welcome the recent announcement of the hon. the Minister. We are also looking forward to the new patrol boats, and are waiting to see what they are capable of.

In spite of what the hon. the Minister said with regard to the new financial dispensation for defence force men, it nevertheless remains my duty to broach the subject once again. The hon. member for Durban Point also referred to it, and, therefore, I associate myself with her main statements. While I was speaking yesterday on the remuneration of non-Whites in the Defence Force, the hon. member for Verwoerdburg took it amiss of me for ostensibly bringing politics into the debate. I want to state that I regard all soldiers, irrespective of race or colour, as an integral part of our Defence Force. It is our duty as members of this House to look after the interests of everyone, irrespective of their race, colour, etc. Since I am now discussing the question of remuneration, it would not be inappropriate either to point out that we have not yet increased the defence force strength, as far as the Permanent Force is concerned, to the required 13,5%. It is still the standpoint of this party that the components of our Defence Force should not consist of a leadership corps and a training corps, but also of a fully equipped combat unit.

I think that there are various reasons why it is more necessary now than ever before that the Permanent Force be built up to its fully required strength. One of the principal reasons why this has not yet been done, I think, can be found in the low, or insufficient, salaries which are being paid to defence force men. A young man who joins the Defence Force, does so because he should like to be a soldier. The question then arises, however, whether it is made possible for him to follow a career in the Defence Force. We have already referred to this at an earlier stage. Various hon. members have pointed out that it often happens that experts are trained at great expense to perform specialized work, and that, as a result of better offers from outside the Defence Force, they are then lost to the Defence Force. I think we should do everything in our power to retain those people in the Defence Force so that they will be able to make their full contribution. If we want to continue to attract the same high standard of soldier as we have done up to now, we shall simply have to be prepared to pay salaries that can compete with those in the private sector. I am saying this after the hon. the Minister pointed out that a certain balance must be maintained. I accept that there are certain problems and that it might not be possible to do these things overnight, but I sometimes wonder whether the urgency of this matter has sunk sufficiently into the minds of those who have to make the decisions, because without that nucleus of young, trained Defence Force men, in a period in which it is going to become more and more necessary to have to depend on a strong and expert Army, we cannot really tackle this matter with any seriousness.

†I should now like to refer, in the remaining time at my disposal, to one last point. When the service period was changed from 12 months to two years, something like 21 000 young men who were called up for a 12-month period, subsequently found that they were required to serve for two years. Before the two-year service period was introduced, bonuses had been made available to those who were prepared to sign up for a 24-month period. I believe that in view of the recent salary increases, which will cost the State approximately R48 million, the least we in this House can do is to give these young men who have served the 24-month period a bonus of sorts. I cannot say what the bonus should be, but I appeal to the hon. the Minister and to the hon. the Deputy Minister to review this matter.

I do suggest, however, that a bonus of some sort be given to these people as an ex gratia payment in appreciation of the service they render to their country. I say this because these people fell between the old and the new salary system. They served for 24 months but bonuses were not made available to them. I would have said that the PFP calls on the hon. the Minister to review his decision because I have asked him this question before, but in the light of the spirit in which this debate has taken place over the last few days, I am quite sure that I can say that this House calls upon the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister to review their decisions and to see whether some kind of ex gratia payment cannot be made to these young men who have served their country willingly.

Mr. Chairman, earlier in this debate the hon. the Minister of Defence gave our neighbouring States and Africa the assurance that our Defence Force did not pose a threat to them. Nevertheless we budgeted an amount of R1 857 million for defence this year. Therefore, the question is: Why? The reply is, of course, that Russia’s urge for world domination is being discussed virtually every day in the council-chambers of the world, and, of course, here too. We have this budget so that in our own modest way we can make a contribution to planning a strategy for this. I say this because Russia is not only a threat to world peace. It is also the instrument by which the Free World will be destroyed in the long term unless America drastically reviews its position in international politics and in world strategy. At the moment Russia is already spending more than 20% of its gross national product on defence. The day will come when Russia will want to test this tremendous military capacity it has built up. The American policy that no soldiers of the USA will be used outside the borders of America unless America’s own security is directly threatened, therefore makes it easier for Russia to become militarily involved in any place in the world. We know that this policy of America is a product of its earlier defeat in Vietnam. Since then the American administrators go cold with fright whenever the shadows of the Kremlin fall on them. Russia therefore finds nothing in the actions, the policy and determination of the most powerful country on earth to prevent it from testing its military capacity.

According to all authorities Russia possesses large quantities of sophisticated weapons. It has been demonstrated in practice that Russia can deliver shiploads of weapons to riot-torn areas in virtually any place in the world without significant delay. In contrast, it takes the Americans a painfully long time just to decide to provide weapons to befriended countries, let alone to physically deliver them. In his “State of the Union” address before the American Congress this year—we know that this is the American president’s annual policy speech—President Carter said that America does not want to be the world’s policeman, but the world’s peacemaker. But to be a peacemaker means that one has to be actively involved in affairs, that one must be omnipresent and superior.

In this regard I should like to remind this House of a small portion of world history which has already disappeared into oblivion, but was again brought to our attention clearly by Die Burger of 29 January. I quote—

The USA finds itself in an extremely difficult position today. The question is: Why is this so? The answer is that it never occupied an indisputable position of power in any part of the world, whereas the Romans of old, and after them the British themselves, made themselves felt by their presence and were also superior. America flinches from doing so, whereas Russia purposefully strives to achieve this. Russia uses the communists, the Cubans and the East Germans to achieve this and is achieving spectacular success with the creation of a new Russian imperialism throughout the world. In this South Africa is more specifically a military than a political target.

According to Die Burger of 29 January, an erudite American, Prof. Edward Ludwak of the University of Georgetown, said the following—

While Russia is expanding its sphere of influence over the world, America is withdrawing itself to within its own defences. Proof of this is to be found in the events in Iran, where America’s influence has been visibly and violently obliterated. According to Die Volksblad of 17 January, President Carter said the following—

Mr. Chairman, how naïve can one be? If one is the president of the most powerful country on earth, one cannot afford and cannot dare to be so naïve. President Carter may well say that Russia desires a more stable Iran, but the meaning which Russia attaches to stability, is simply “trapped under the red Russian yoke” and nothing else. Russia acts purposefully to create this type of “stability” and even uses violence to achieve it.

In contrast, America seeks by means of aloofness and withdrawal within its defences, to create so-called stability which ultimately ends in unrest, riots and revolution, as the events in Iran have demonstrated to us. America is withdrawing itself from areas in which it should be actively involved to be able to succeed as peacemaker of the world according to its policy. Events in Vietnam, South Korea, Cambodia, Angola, Ethiopia, Iran, Taiwan, Rhodesia, South West Africa and, last but not least, the aerial spying on South Africa as well, demonstrate the fact that America is no longer to be trusted as a friend and ally against the Russians. As a result of the attitude of the USA, the whole of the Third World and the OAU countries will systematically begin to take the part of the Kremlin. How is it possible that a small country like Cuba can send soldiers to virtually every riot-torn area in the world without the most powerful country on earth, America, being able to stop it on behalf of the Free World? Apparently America neither minds that the countries of the Third World and the OAU countries take the part of the Kremlin, nor that the strategic minerals of Southern Africa are coming under Russia’s control. America apparently believes that its supply of these minerals will proceed as normal, because whoever eventually sells the minerals will find that America is a willing buyer. I hope that the events in Iran have rudely awakened America from this dream world. What makes America think that the infrastructure and the installations necessary to develop these strategic minerals and to offer them for sale to the outside world, will not be irreparably destroyed if the stability in Southern Africa collapses? I also trust that the events concerning the Benguela railway line in Angola have taught America a lesson in this regard. I maintain that without the oil of the Middle East and the strategic minerals of Southern Africa, America is a sinking ship which will be scuttled by Russia without a shot being fired. I hope that America will wake up before it is too late. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the summary given by the hon. member for Parys of the threat to world peace posed by Russia, and with his references to the evident impotence of the mighty America to check Russia’s ambitions. I think, to put it mildly, that America is still in a state of paralysis as a result of its experiences in Vietnam.

†I want to deal with the maritime defence of the Republic. I think it is now common cause that we require an entirely different maritime defence strategy to that which we had at the time of the existence of the Simonstown Agreement. During the existence of that agreement we were a partner in Western defence plans for the South Atlantic and for the Indian Ocean, and we had to help to keep the Western sea-lanes open. Those were part of our obligations.

As a partner in that defence system we were required to modernize and to expand the ship repair services in our harbours, to enlarge and keep our harbours and our harbour services in readiness for use by our allies and also for our joint defence of the Cape sea route. We fulfilled our commitments in terms of that agreement, but our allies did not They neither supplied us with the equipment and the ships we needed to play our part, nor did they even visit our ports in recent years. They did not welcome our participation in joint maritime exercises either. I should like to remind the House that the ports of South Africa have not been visited by American ships since the early 1960’s and by British ships since the mid-1970’s. Eventually the French, who until recently have been gallant allies of ours, succumbed to United Nations, American and Third World pressures and refused to fulfil their commitments to supply us with Corvettes. They at least, to their credit, held out the longest of the Western countries and were our best suppliers.

The point I wish to make is that this is not a temporary situation. I am glad that it seems that the Government is not cherishing the hope that there will be a change of heart because, in my opinion, even perhaps with a change of Government in the United Kingdom, this is singularly unlikely. I hope that those Western countries that have found it inexpedient to work with South Africa, which wished to be an ally of theirs, will instead find some sort of modus vivendi with the enormous Russian fleet build-up in the Indian Ocean, because the Russians have never been anything but a threat to the existence of the West—never their friends.

I say that our whole maritime strategy has to change. Instead of being a partner with the West in a larger regional defence system, we must look to ourselves entirely for our self-defence. Instead of helping to keep the sea-lanes open for others, our so-called allies, we have to concentrate on self-defence, and our former allies must look to their own interests. Indeed, in contemplating our self-defence measures, I think we would be more than unwise to exclude our former allies from the list of likely aggressors, or at least from being members of an aggressive force intent on bringing us to our knees in the name of some form of world Government and in the name of United Nations collective measures.

This brings me to the state of our Navy. What I now want to say to the hon. the Minister I think he knows I have had reservations about. The moving to Pretoria of naval personnel may well have had advantages—and I can see that it has brought about greater co-ordinated planning—but many people are of the opinion that this could have been achieved by a far less ambitious programme and by a far less drastic exodus of naval personnel from our headquarters in Simonstown. The magnitude of the move itself has undoubtedly had an effect on all naval personnel. I do not think it is too farfetched to say that it constitutes one of the reasons why there is an unhealthily high turnover in the Navy at present. The second reason for this turnover is unquestionably the fact that naval pay and allowances are inadequate, especially in the middle and lower ranks. That is why it can be said, I think, that we have a top-heavy naval structure. Promotions have had to be made to keep men in the service. The reason for this is the continued link we have with the Public Service Commission. I listened very carefully to the hon. the Minister’s arguments this afternoon about the Defence Force’s continued link with the Public Service Commission, and I can see the reasons for his arguments, but I remain unconvinced that he is correct. I think that training costs of experienced and specialized personnel are very high and that far too many of them are leaving the Navy to go into private enterprise, especially in the fields of technology. Great difficulty is experienced in keeping well-trained personnel in the key positions they hold.

Naval salaries and allowances are not adequate under present circumstances. I say again today, with great respect to the hon. the Minister, that if he cannot see his way clear to divorcing the Armed Services and the Defence Force, and the Police Force, for that matter, from the Public Service Commission, on the evidence that is at present available, I think there should at least be a top-level investigation into the desirability of doing this, calling for evidence from members of the Armed Forces and the Police Force at all levels. I say that we cannot afford to have a depleted Navy, or an Army or Air Force that suffers from a depletion, from time to time, or highly trained and highly skilled personnel simply because of a traditional attachment to a body which I willingly concede has performed excellent service in the interest of the peoples and of the Public Service of the Republic, but which may well not be tailored to the exceptional defence conditions of the present day.

I now wish to make a remark about the frigates. I believe that frigates have a role to play and should not be discarded. They have been modernized at very great expense. They have a role to fulfil, I think perhaps in an escort or protective capacity for our merchant shipping in times of need, patrolling our territorial and fishing waters as a presence and a discouragement to others to transgress. I am one of those who is delighted—and indeed for years I have asked for this development—that we are now in a position, as the hon. the Minister has said today, to have fast, missile-carrying strike craft. South Africa is showing that it is able to build these vessels and to equip such craft in competition with the best shipping yards overseas, and it is a tribute, I think, to those responsible for this development.

In conclusion I want to refer to the question of harbour protection. The hon. the Minister has referred to mine-laying vessels and I think, what is most important, a further development of mine-clearing vessels. To my mind this is something to which the hon. the Minister will have to give increased attention, not only in respect of Simonstown, not only in respect of Salisbury Island and Durban, but also in respect of our other harbours, because if, as can well happen, we are going to be faced, within the next few years, with United Nations enforcement action against South Africa, this is the sort of field in which we are going to have to make ourselves felt. I think we are in a position to give attention, at this stage, to that form of preventive action which will be very necessary under the circumstances to which I have referred. But in addition to the mine-laying and the mine-clearing activities, which I think should be given more attention than they are being given at the moment, I think there must be a concentration of effort to protect our naval and harbour installations from the land. I believe that we have to go back to a system of coastal defence such as was in existence in a small way during the last war. Obviously it will have to be modernized and obviously it will have to be very much more sophisticated, but I envisage that with a long coastline such as we have, we are going to have to give immediate and urgent attention to far greater land fortifications than is the case at present.

Mr. Chairman, I have no fault to find with most of the things which the hon. member for Simonstown said. On the contrary, I can agree with him wholeheartedly in his remarks on the detaching of the Defence Force and the Police from the Public Service Commission. I think that the hon. the Minister has already replied to that in detail and therefore I shall not go into the matter any further. This afternoon I should just like to put forward a few ideas on one of the elements of our Defence Force, a matter which has not been mentioned much and to which not much attention has perhaps been given, except recently, viz. the role and place of women in the S.A. Defence Force. It is true that the morale of a nation is to a large extent determined by its women. I think it is equally true that the moral fibre of a nation is to a large extent determined by its women. However, this is not their only role; there is also a much more active part which they can play in Defence Force matters.

Throughout the course of our history our women have demonstrated that they are prepared and capable of taking a full share in the history of South Africa’s development. In that process, without their really having had a choice, women were sometimes physically involved in defence actions. This was the case during the pioneering days of our country in particular. In respect of certain actions it could be said that the involvement of the woman was of a decisive nature and importance. It is true that on occasion women probably prevented South Africa’s historical development from being forced to a halt. Then a time arrived in which we became reasonably established and the woman was at the most responsible for moral support.

It has always struck me as being an anomaly that whereas in Russia, with its teeming millions, the woman has always played a reasonably active part in the Defence Force, women in a country such as South Africa, despite its dire manpower shortage, until quite recently played only a relatively small role in the Defence Force.

During the First World War women were again used on a reasonable scale and involved actively in the defence of South Africa for the first time, but at that stage the small number of 382 nurses was employed by the Defence Force, whereas it was calculated that approximately 12 000 men could have been released for service on the front if women had been utilized to the full. In the Second World War women had a much more important part in the defence of South Africa when, inter alia, 4 000 nurses were employed. A further 21 000 were employed in a permanent capacity and 65 000 in a part-time capacity. This gives us some idea of the enormous number of men, the thousands of men who could actually be released for service on our borders if women were taken up in the Defence Force. At the end of the Second World War Gen. Smuts consequently said—

He went on to describe the part of our women in that war effort in glowing terms.

This afternoon I want to express my special gratitude to the hon. the Prime Minister who, as Minister of Defence, began as far back as 1971 to admit women to the Defence Force to an ever increasing extent. It is a good thing that this is now being done so that the woman’s place in the Defence Force can systematically be determined and established while there is still time for this, rather than our being forced by a full-scale war to do this in an unplanned and hasty manner.

In 1971 the Civil Defence College at George had its first intake of women and we may say that, having completed their course there, these women were pre-eminently suited to being taken up in the Defence Force. Those who were not taken up by the Defence Force, are very definitely destined to fulfil a pioneering role in the civil defence organization in South Africa. I hear that the original intake of women will be trebled this year and I think this is symptomatic of the greater flow of women to the S.A. Defence Force.

In 1975 it was conservatively calculated that 4 500 women could be employed by the Defence Force. I do not think it is in the best interests of South Africa to spell out here what the actual number is at present—it has grown in the interim. Women are already being used—I am merely mentioning this briefly—as language experts, artists, welfare officers, sport officers, dieticians, administrative officers, signal officers and training officers.

During my own involvement in the problems of men who were wounded on the border and who subsequently experienced maintenance problems, it struck me that the fact that one has female welfare officers in the Defence Force, gave just that touch of compassion to this service which is perhaps necessary for the satisfactory treatment of such cases. Women privates—to me this remains an anomaly because it always reminds me of that story of the Scottish soldier who crept through the fence in full view of the Black man and of the remark this prompted him to make—are being used as administrative clerks, communications and telecommunications operators, caterers, technicians, operation information clerks, radio operators, military and navy police and musicians. Although they are women, they are employed under the same conditions and given the same responsibilities as men. Although women are intended to act in a non-combatant capacity in the S.A. Defence Force, they also receive weapon instruction and are completely capable of defending themselves as well as others in emergencies.

In the past few years there have been several firsts in the Defence Force which I should like to mention to hon. members this afternoon. In 1977 the first woman was employed in the military police, of all places. This is the one section which is usually associated with absolutely robust masculinity. In 1977 the first woman was appointed as personal adjutant to a general—this is very interesting. [Interjections.] In 1978 the first woman was appointed as a handler at the dog centre of the S.A. Defence Force. In 1979 the first group of national service volunteers were employed for training by the S.A. Medical Service Centre in Pretoria. This is an important development I shall enlarge on in a moment. I also want to mention a special first in 1977 when, on the initiative of a woman, a women’s commando squadron was established. Initially they were under the command of a Permanent Force officer, but at present a woman with the rank of commandant is in charge of this unit and the commando squadron operating at present is comprised of women only.

I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister of Defence to think in the direction of the establishment of more women’s commando or citizen force units or the assignment of these women to commandos or citizen force units for training so that they can receive continuous, periodical or intermittent training or retraining. I think that there is still a whole fallow field which could still be developed in this particular direction.

Finally I should like to express a few words of special gratitude to what I want to call this afternoon, the unknown woman. I am referring to the thousands of wives of those men defending our borders, women who personally have to accept the loneliness, concern and anxiety, something which is not so easy. I also want to mention the wives of the thousands of officers and noncommissioned officers who do service as members of the Citizen Force on a voluntary basis and who are performing a very important task there to keep South Africa prepared. As member of the Citizen Force for 15 years, the last five years of those as commander, I came to know a great deal about the problems of these people. I know that previously—I hope that the position has changed in the meantime—employers were not very favourably disposed to granting people paid leave to do military service. I also know that most of the men could not afford to take unpaid leave and for that reason had to use their normal leave and in this way many family holidays were lost. To these many women who by their positive action, have inspired their menfolk to perform their task for South Africa, despite the sacrifices which this could entail for them and their children, I want to pay a special tribute and convey my special thanks to them on behalf of the millions of South Africans whose lives are being protected by the men on our borders. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Sasolburg has dealt with the subject of women and their contribution to defence. I do not think that anybody in this House will quarrel with him and his view of womanhood in this regard. I think it is quite clear that our whole priority in regard to the use of available resources, whether manpower or womanpower, will have to be reviewed in the years that lie ahead.

I would like to come back to the subject that I have touched on earlier, and which the hon. member for Durban Point has dealt with as well, viz. the subject of distributing the burden of defence fairly among the young people of South Africa and amongst the people as a whole, and not seeking to impose too great a burden on individual people who do particular jobs. I particularly singled out the infantryman who is the most important person in so far as the counter-insurgency operations are concerned.

It is therefore clear that he is expected to make a bigger contribution. However, there must be some fairness in relation to this, because, in any case, the task he performs is perhaps amongst the most burdensome tasks that any person in the Defence Force has to perform. Hon. colleagues of mine who have also seen, as I have, the young men returning to base after spending a week on patrol in the bush, know the kind of service that these men are performing. I should like therefore to appeal to the hon. the Minister of Defence to look at the Act again. With great respect, I believe it is wrong that the period extended to them in respect of training does not exceed 30 days, except as an act of Grace. Legally they can be taken as having spent one single day of their training period, when they have in fact spent three months, and sometimes six months, on the border. It does not make sense. I should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister of Defence to look at the fairness in regard to the distribution of the burden.

There is another matter which, I believe, we should look at That is that some of the other units that either are or can be trained in counter-insurgency activities, can also be used in performing this kind of action. I recently saw the example of a unit an artillery unit, stationed on the border and doing counter-insurgency work in the same way as infantrymen, because this particular Citizen Force unit wanted to do it I think it might please the hon. member for Durban Point to learn that this was a Natal unit that specifically volunteered and wanted to do this particular job. I believe there is much more that can be done in this regard, especially in regard to using this kind of activity in order to relieve the burden on the infantrymen. The other point I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister, is this. Should we not look again at the number of people required to keep one fighting man in the field? The figures given to us show that seven men are required to back-up every two who do combat duty. In the kind of situation with which we are dealing, I wonder whether that could not be reduced in order to bring about a greater spread of people doing combat duty and in order to reduce the burden. With respect, I do not speak disparagingly about the serviceman who is not doing combat duty. He is also playing his part. He is also necessary. However, I think the burden has to be distributed fairly in the circumstances.

Then I want to touch upon another matter, a matter which, I believe, it is my duty to raise in this debate, because it does concern the Defence Vote. That is the relationship between the Department of Defence and matters debated by us in connection with the defunct Department of Information. I am more than pleased that the Department of Defence has come out of this thing without having being touched at all. I believe the Information scandal does not affect the Department of Defence, that it is in no way touched by it. I am certainly one who would not like to see the Department of Defence in any way tarnished by what has gone wrong here. That is why I regret—and I am sure the hon. the Minister of Defence also regrets—the fact that the money that went to the Department of Information ever had anything to do with the Department of Defence at all.

Of course I do. That is why I opposed it.

I am terribly sorry about it. I think the hon. the Minister of Defence shares this feeling with me. I accept the hon. the Minister’s word when he said that he protested and that he opposed it, that he was unwilling to do that. However, the hon. the Minister of Defence is a pretty tough cookie. If the hon. the Minister of Defence can be forced against his will to do something of this kind, I will have to be a little worried about it, because then the question arises of what can happen in the future when a less tough cookie than he becomes Minister of Defence. We need to get assurances that this cannot happen again. I want to deal with this issue in a very simple manner. In the first instance it is Parliament that appropriates the money. It is this House that votes the Defence expenditure. I have collected a whole series of extracts from budget speeches. Unfortunately I do not have the time to quote them. I have collected them in order to show how we were told to support the increased defence expenditure. However, we were never told, neither by the then Prime Minister nor by the hon. the Minister of Defence, that included in these amounts were amounts that were going to be transferred to the Department of Information. What is important is that it does not matter what happens in the Cabinet, what happens behind the scenes, or between two Cabinet Ministers. What is important is what happens in this House when we are asked to vote on specific matters.

There can be no question about it but that the hon. the Minister and the Head of the Defence Force were concerned. It is made quite clear in the report of the Erasmus Commission that the Head of the Defence Force was very concerned that the Minister would be expected to say something to the House that was not true or correct. However, it goes even further. What took place in reality was that money was transferred from one Vote to another. That is contrary to the Exchequer and Audit Act. About that there can be no question. The relevant sections are there for all to read. What is even more significant and more worrying is that something which to my mind is regarded as sacred in the Defence context, namely the Defence Special Account, was used as a channel for this money. What is even more important is that the Defence Special Account Act specifically provides that that account may only be used for certain purposes. The matter becomes even worse when one considers that Treasury regulations prescribe a form of certificate which has to be signed by the Minister. That particular certificate was signed by the Minister year after year and in the Auditor-General’s report, for example, we read that (Part II, page 104, para. 8)—

Nobody told us that, in fact, there was some other money in that account which was being transferred elsewhere. All of this was wrong. About that there can be no question. The question that must now be posed is what is going to be done about this matter. As far as we are concerned, there are certain things we require from the hon. the Minister. Firstly, there must be an undertaking that this can never happen again. Secondly, steps must be taken to ensure that it cannot happen again. Thirdly, the hon. the Minister must introduce legislation in the House to legitimize the action that has taken place, because it does involve unauthorized expenditure. The certificates did not apply to the amount of money in question because, quite clearly, it was not expenditure authorized in terms of the Defence Special Account Act. What is more, the money was transferred from one Vote to another contrary to the Exchequer and Audit Act. Those, with respect, are facts and what we want from the hon. the Minister is that he must ensure that that situation cannot arise again in South Africa and that he must introduce legislation to legitimize this expenditure, because we cannot allow this kind of situation to remain in limbo forever. I want to make it quite clear that I do not dispute the fact that the hon. the Minister protested and was unwilling. Nevertheless it happened and it must never happen again.

Mr. Chairman, I am sure the hon. the Minister will reply to the hon. member’s speech. As for the hon. member’s last argument, I want to say that I find it strange that he saw fit to continue debating it at this stage after we have been debating the matter since December. The specific matters to which he referred were condemned as a budgetary procedure in the first report of the Erasmus Commission. It is a fact that legislation in 1978 was intended to rectify the deficiency with regard to similar funds in our budgetary process. As far as the control measures are concerned, the hon. the Minister said yesterday in response to a question by the hon. member for Sea Point that legislation would be introduced with regard to this matter. I leave it at that.

This is a defence matter.

It is a serious matter, and the hon. the Minister saw it in that light and gave the highest priority to it. I honestly find it strange that the hon. member should have raised it again at this stage after everything that has already been done in this connection.

If you want to fight, I am quite prepared to fight.

If you want a fight, you can have it.

I do not want a fight. I put this matter in a very reasonable manner.

You are looking for a fight. Who are you trying to protect now?

I put it in a…

Order!

… reasonable and responsible manner. I am not looking for a fight. The hon. the Deputy Minister is.

No, Sir, I am not starting a fight. I am stating facts. I am not reproaching the hon. member for Yeoville. The hon. member also raised certain matters relating to the Military Police Corps and detention barracks and made certain recommendations in this regard. I want to state that we will certainly look at these recommendations, but I also wish to point out that as a result of certain incidents, and especially the Levin incident, which we condemn, a board of inquiry was appointed by the Chief of the Army. Certain findings of this board of inquiry have been considered and put into effect, and a directive was issued to commanding officers and officers commanding commandos for immediate implementation. This was done on 12 March 1979. We are taking this matter very seriously. The directive is that inspections and visits to detention barracks should be undertaken by staff of command headquarters. Furthermore, there should be proper supervision over detainees, proper authority over the inmates and they should adhere to the prescribed number of authorized people taken up in barracks. In addition, detention barracks personnel should be in possession of and acquainted with the directives and instructions governing such institutions. We are also looking for more and better qualified personnel and at the training of such personnel. I want to give the hon. member for Yeoville the assurance therefore that this matter has already received attention and top priority. We will, however, also look at his suggestions.

*Mr. Chairman, quite a number of matters have been raised, and I shall deal with them in the order in which they were raised. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South referred, among other things, to the fact that we should support the commando system with a much better communications system. This matter has been debated exhaustively in the Other Place. I think I should just briefly point out to the hon. member that on this side, and on the side of the S.A. Defence Force, we go out of our way to encourage volunteers to serve in the commandos. We place a very high premium on voluntary service, and we want to appeal to employers to allow volunteers to render the maximum service. As the hon. the Minister of Defence indicated, the number of volunteers, especially in the commandos, is substantial. 70,7% of the officers in the commandos are volunteers, and we very greatly appreciate that. When it comes to communications, the hon. member should not over-simplify the matter, but he should regard our enterprise as an all-inclusive package. When we look at this matter, the hon. member must see the proposed legislation of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture as a part of the package, i.e. to bring about an optimal population in the remote areas and to provide financial and other measures in this connection. Together with this, and in order to provide security and so forth, the Defence Force has embarked upon an action which is based on two legs. In the first place, there are the border protection works. For this purpose, legislation was introduced last year and powers taken to construct works within a strip of 10 km. We are working on that. Also, we are still examining a combination of possibilities in order to maximize the effect. The second leg of our activity is a matter which the hon. member also mentioned with regard to commandos, and that is communication. In this connection, it is our ideal to bring about maximum communication on command and control level all over the Republic. The hon. member will realize that from the nature of the case, we have to have priority areas.

The first priority area has been identified as South West Africa, and the introduction of a radio network in this military area is virtually complete. The Northern Transvaal, the other Transvaal areas and the Natal areas enjoy the second priority. In this connection, it is clear that good progress is being made with our planning and related matters, and they are almost 50% completed. The rest of the Republic enjoys third priority. When our work has been completed, we shall be able to say that we can communicate in some way virtually from the Limpopo down to the Cape. I want to tell the hon. member that our communications network does not consist only of a radio communications network, but also of a system of telecommunication. Another component is a defence teleprinter network. All these systems form part of the total communications network.

I now want to come back to the question of the radio sets. It is so easy to say that instead of remuneration, we should provide radio sets to the commandos. I made a quick calculation and found that this meant that we would only recover a quarter of the cost of a radio in this way. Hon. members may realize what this implies, because the cost of only meeting the needs on company level and perhaps even on platoon level runs into four figures. The need…

[Inaudible.]

I accept the bona fides of the hon. member for Durban Point, but we are talking here about different kinds of radio sets. We are talking in this connection of a set which can operate effectively over a large number of kilometres. We are talking about a set which can be used over a large area for command and control purposes. The hon. member probably has a smaller set in mind, such as the one which operates on a 27 or 28 megahertz wave-length and is effective within a radius of about four to five kilometres. He is talking about the set for civil defence which received a good deal of publicity some time ago. We are providing for these sets to be integrated into the radio network, but they are meant for small areas. The hon. member should come and discuss the matter with me one day. Then we can demonstrate it all to him. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I merely rise to give the hon. the Deputy Minister an opportunity to complete his speech.

I appreciate that. Mr. Chairman, I shall not say any more about that matter. I want to invite hon. members to examine the matter with us again at a later stage.

The hon. member for False Bay asked me a question about the appropriation for Defence and the impression which exists that we are perhaps spending less now than in the past. I want to point out to him that certain projects and acquisition programmes which have been embarked upon since 1973, when there was a sharp increase in the expenditure, have now been concluded. This has now given us the scope to embark upon new acquisition programmes. It enables us perhaps even to replace obsolete weapons. Another factor which makes a considerable contribution in this connection is the fact that the Defence Force is able, with its improved record system, to identify spare parts and utilize them better. The reclamation of spare parts from wrecks is also undertaken. We told hon. members yesterday about the new “Loss Control” unit through which we invite outside experts, people on a high professional level, to help us with Defence Force affairs. I can tell hon. members that on these economizing programmes to which I have just referred and on others, something like R16 045 000 has been saved up to now in the various branches of the Defence Force. That is the reason for the apparent levelling off of the increase in expenditure.

I want to reply to the hon. member for Wynberg with regard to his request that certain servicemen should receive a bonus. The hon. member asked a question in this connection earlier this year. I then gave him a figure and I should like to repeat it now. The cost implication of his request is R65 265 000.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question?

No, I am not going to answer any questions now. I have very little time. We can talk about that later. That is the cost implication, therefore, and we have told the hon. member that it cannot be considered because of its financial implications. It is also a fact that these groups fall somewhere in the middle and that provision has been made for them with the higher salary scales. I leave it at that Unfortunately, my time is very limited.

I want to refer briefly to the Health Year and the services of the S.A. Medical Corps, as referred to by the hon. member for Pietersburg. The medical services of the Defence Force are joining in the Health Year activities throughout the Republic. Perhaps we should take a closer look at the achievements of these people. The effectiveness of this service on the lower level has been stimulated especially by the national serviceman who comes to do his service in a professional capacity. We have accordingly seen a considerable increase in their services. To mention only one figure; In one year, 357 000 prescriptions were handled and 709 000 out-patients were treated. Certain of these categories are given the opportunity to go and specialize so that we can use them in a specialist capacity in the Defence Force at a later stage. I think members should also see the Health Year in the Defence Force context.

The hon. member for Yeoville also talked about spreading the defence burden, more in connection with the serviceman who still has to meet his camp obligations. This hon. member, the hon. member for Durban Point and I took part in an exercise in 1977, when we decided that we were going to embark upon the national service system, to get two things done. The first was to build up a task-force and the second was to create, arising from this, a well-prepared counteracting force through the Citizen Force and the commandos. We decided, in the light of our evaluation of the threat, that we should maintain certain levels. If we had to give more than 30 days’ credit, we would have to reduce the number of camps. That would mean that we would have fewer people in the well-prepared counteracting force. I just want to repeat that we all took part in the exercise. We also said that if we did that, it would reduce the pressure on the commandos and the Citizen Force members who still have national service obligations. That is in fact the case. In 1977, the ratio of servicemen as against commando and Citizen Force members called up for service in the operational area was 1:6. By 1978, the ratio had already gone down to 1:1; in other words, far fewer members who have Citizen Force and national service obligations were involved in the operational area Indeed, we succeeded in achieving our original objective. I am not saying that this will continue; it can be influenced or dominated by the escalation of circumstances. Therefore I want to tell the hon. member that everything he said seems to be correct at first sight, but he failed to take account of the other very important facts and the progress we have made. We subsequently came to certain decisions. With regard to the 30 days, we talk about peace-time service, and this has been laid down in law. It is not a concession which is being made from our side. It is laid down as peace-time service. It depends on the unit in which such a person is. As regards the other service performed by such a person, the principle applies which is contained in section 92ter, a provision which was placed on the Statute Book by all of us who are sitting here. The hon. member for Durban Point also had a share in it, because we were all members of the committee that did it We considered certain periods, and consequently we have to look into the matter in a responsible way if this should be the situation. But a considerable improvement has already been effected in this connection.

Finally, I want to refer to another aspect raised by the hon. member for Durban Point He referred, among other things, to computerized pay, and in this connection I want to inform him that the payment of national servicemen is at the moment also being taken over by the old tried and tested system according to which the Permanent Force has been paid for the past 15 years. So the hon. member need not have any more worries on that score.

Another matter to which I want to refer briefly is the role of women in our Defence Force. I want to thank the hon. member for Sasolburg for having raised this matter. As far as women is concerned, we cannot talk about a defence obligation any more. They are already calling it a privilege. When we look at the number of women who voluntarily join commandos, we men would do well to follow their example. The women are joining in such numbers that in some places, we are already over the required strength. As far as men are concerned, however, we are still below strength. The time has come for the men to take cognizance of this.

Another matter to which I should like to refer is the question of civil defence, a matter to which several hon. members also referred. We need the services of our women for the purposes of civil defence as well. We have completed our programme of legislation with regard to civil defence and this enables us to say who is available for civil defence and who is not.

In this way we proceeded to make available by regulation, for civil defence purposes, all officers and men who have been on the reserve list for longer than five years. I have made a rough calculation—it may be wrong—according to which more than 60 000 men are available for these purposes in this way. One of the achievements of the S.A. Defence Force and the provinces, which have worked hand in hand here, is that we have the names and addresses of those people who are on the reserve list and who therefore cannot be utilized by the Defence Force at this stage. I want to emphasize that these names and addresses have been made available and that they have been classified and sent to the towns and cities by the provinces. Towns and cities can now go and recruit these people. That is the result of our legislation package.

I believe I should also refer briefly to the whole question of assimilation into civil defence. Unfortunately, there is some misunderstanding here and there about the requirement of a medical certificate. I want to state today that we do not expect a prospective member of the civil defence organization to be 100% fit. What we do expect of such a person, in case of a claim for damages if he should be injured in the course of civil defence service or training, is a full medical record. In the second place, it gives the civil defence movement an indication of whether such a person will be physically able to perform the service to which he is committing himself. That is why a medical certificate is required. Civil defence is making good progress, and I should like to thank hon. members who raised this matter.

To come back to the role of our women in the Defence Force, I just want to say that the idea expressed by the hon. member for Sasolburg was a splendid one. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister has spent the past 20 minutes giving some very interesting replies to points raised. One answer that we view with a certain amount of interest, is the fact that Fred, the “Flipping Ridiculous Electronic Disaster,” is there no longer. I hope that Fred is not going to be replaced by Freda, a “Flipping, Ridiculous Electronic Disaster Again:” I hope that the computerization of Defence Force salaries…

You are talking of a nasty experience that you had during World War II.

I am talking from experience of electronics. I am very pleased that the hon. Minister dealt at some length with the problems raised by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. I feel that his contribution last night was a worthy one, an interesting one and an excellent one. It was one that deserved the attention that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Defence gave it. However, the NRP is not entirely satisfied with the hon. the Deputy Minister’s comments about radio and communications. Suffice it to say at this moment that he must not be surprised if my colleague comes knocking at his door within the next few weeks to discuss the matter with him in greater detail.

He is welcome.

Thank you. Over the years that I have spoken in debates on this particular Vote, I have often discussed university graduates and their particular role during their term of service in the Armed Forces. It has always been of great concern to me that we have not always properly utilized qualified men. I am pleased and happy to say that there has been a tremendous improvement in this field. I think it is fair to say that today, whenever it is possible—and I say this deservedly—the university-trained professional man is, in fact, being used in his professional capacity. He is being used as a doctor, lawyer, accountant, engineer and veterinary surgeon. The list is almost endless.

I am grateful to the Ministry and the “top brass”, if I may refer to them in that way, because they have always been prepared to hear views and to listen to deputations from various fields. Their doors have been open to the Society of Professional Engineers which has visited them on occasions. They have always acted as they have seen fit, in the best interests of the young men who are affected. I feel that the young man with a degree, as a result of this attitude on the part of the Defence Force, now enters his two-year period of national service with what I believe is a completely different outlook to that which he had some five years ago. I have seen this in young men that I know. I have seen them going in to do their two years’ service with a completely different outlook, a far healthier outlook. They have no resentment about this because they feel that they are going into a situation where they are going to be used and properly used. I have always used the engineer as an example, and I must confess that I have done this because it affects me personally, however, the remarks that I make apply to all men who have degrees and can be used by both the Forces and the man doing his national service. Here there is a two-way traffic. Both the man and the Defence Force can and must give and take. The man must give of his expertise and the Defence Force must give that man every possible opportunity to use that expertise in the service and best interests of his country for the short time the Defence Force has him. It is therefore clear that engineers must be used as such, doctors must be used in the medical field, etc.

I think that we must accept the fact that the university graduates are far more mature than the school-leavers. They have had a certain measure of experience and hard-earned qualifications that they have gained throughout their university careers. This places them in a different category, and I again stress the need for this two-way traffic because I believe that the Army should recognize the interests of the graduate, as graduate, in the Army’s interests. This may sound strange, but it is the only possible way I can put it. The Army should recognize their interests, as graduates, in the best interests of the Army. I cannot put it in any other way. The graduates, in turn, must recognize their increased responsibility towards the job they will be asked to do during their period of national service. That is their duty, their return-flow in this two-way traffic. Suffice it to say that the Armed Forces and the national service graduates, those with useful and usable degrees—and I must agree in some measure with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central when he said last night that there are certain degrees that are of little value to the Defence Force—are getting to a stage where they are “finding” each other to mutual advantage. For that, I must say, I am grateful indeed. I am grateful to both the Defence Force personnel and the young men who, I believe, are accepting their responsibilities more so than they used to do four or five years ago.

I now want to touch on a second subject, something which perturbs me more than somewhat. The Safe Ride campaign is an excellent idea. It is an excellent idea, but it has unfortunately not been able to get off the ground. It was introduced some time last year, and at the same time there was amending legislation in respect of third-party cover for servicemen. I believe this is something that was needed because a serviceman accepting a lift is not necessarily covered insurance-wise. However, today he is covered in terms of new third-party legislation. This Safe Ride scheme has the makings of being an outstanding way of getting servicemen with families together with their families over long weekends or during short leave periods. However, let us examine some of the shortcomings of this system. I believe that the major problem is that motorists have to go out of their way to pick up servicemen at garages that are not on our freeways, highways and by-ways. This is the problem. The motorist simply will not go off the highway. That is all there is to it The ideal situation would be if servicemen could be picked up on the national roads, in a specially constructed lay-by. A lot has been published in the Press recently on this topic. We have heard people say it is not practicable to construct these lay-byes, that they would be a danger to traffic. We have heard a lot about this. I do not believe this to be the case.

Fuel restrictions are going to be with us for some time to come, and I suggest that further attention should be given to the feasibility of constructing lay-bys near all major towns and cities. I know that the hon. the Minister of Defence may say I should discuss this with the hon. the Minister of Transport. However, I am discussing this with the hon. the Prime Minister because he is the Prime Minister. He will perhaps tell the hon. the Minister of Transport that this is what must be done.

We must remember that he is a tough cookie.

Yes, he is a tough cookie, and I am relying on his toughness. [Interjections.] Now, we must accept certain things. Let us take as an example the last long weekend. Thousands of servicemen, literally thousands of them, were on the roads trying to get to and from their homes. It has been freely admitted that operation Safe Ride is not the success it should be, and that the fault lies with the lack of motivation among motorists. Motorists will not go off the highway. I have already said this. They will not do this, and that is all there is to it. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, this afternoon, we are very grateful to the hon. the Minister of Defence for the announcement on the preparedness of our Navy as far as coastal and harbour protection is concerned. Not only does it afford us greater peace of mind, but I also believe that people who might have considered spying on our harbours are now likely to think twice before they do such a thing. I find it a pity that my good friend the hon. member for Simonstown has once again harped on the transfer of Naval headquarters to Pretoria. He said something this afternoon which, in my opinion, does not become him. He said the transfer of the headquarters to Pretoria resulted, inter alia, in a bigger turnover in naval staff. I believe if he were to ask the hon. the Minister of Defence what the effect of the transfer of the headquarters to Pretoria was on the overall planning of the Defence Force, the hon. the Minister would say to him: “My friend, it was one of the best steps we could have taken to integrate the Navy more fully into the Defence Force to enable it to co-operate more successfully in planning for the security of the country.”

In the past few days a great deal has been said about the Defence Force and its praises have been sung many times. I want to add something which has not been pointed out. I have in my hand a page from Paratus. On this page there is a report under the heading “Fuel for thought”. If there is one organization which does realize the necessity of fuel conservation, if there is one organization which does realize that South Africa should utilize every drop of fuel as economically as possible and should save wherever it can, it is the Defence Force. This organization puts its case as follows in this report—

Those are fine words. But they are more than fine words: The Defence Force sets the example by issuing instructions for this valuable liquid to be utilized as economically and correctly as possible. It goes on to say that it is not addressing itself to the man in the Defence Force alone, but to his family as well, so as to bring home to them the importance of this conservation programme which has been announced. It goes on to say something which to me is very important. It often happens on the road that somebody overtakes one at a speed which exceeds the speed limit That man probably thinks that it does not apply to him. What does the Defence Force say to its people and in that way probably to everyone of us who make use of the roads? I quote—

I think we ought to praise the Defence Force for having adopted such a positive approach over the years so as to assist the Government in carrying out the important directive to use fuel sparingly.

In the second place I want to pay tribute to the Defence Force for taking in men from the Indian and Coloured population groups and making them feel at home there. Recently a few of us paid a visit to the Indian regiment in Durban. I am proud to say that I was surprised at the fine conduct of those young men. What was even more striking to me, was that these people were all volunteers who could leave any time they wished. Like our young White men and the young men from the Coloured group, they have to get up at 5 o’clock in the morning and practise hard. Even so, I read that 95% of these people come back for permanent appointment to the Navy. We are grateful to the Defence Force for offering those people not only a vocation, and creating job opportunities, but also for admitting them to the Defence Force and making patriots out of them. It is a pity, though, that there are extremists among every population group in the country. These extremists detract from this turn for the better and this development and try to run it down.

A great deal has been said about the role of the woman in the Defence Force. I want to look at it from another angle. I want to talk about the question briefly: What is a good warrior?

[Inaudible.]

For the edification of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, I want to say that I am referring to the role of the mother vis-á-vis the good warrior. The ancient Romans had a method of determining the quality of a warrior. It may sound strange, but it is true. They made the soldier don his armour. He had to carry all his arms. But he was bare feet. Then they drove a spike-thorn to a depth of one inch into his heel and ordered him to run as fast as he could and pull out the spike-thorn on the run. He was not regarded as a capable, fearless and mobile warrior until he succeeded. Those were the requirements which the ancient Romans laid down for a good warrior. The great general, Napoleon, declared: “Give me the mothers and I shall conquer the world.” Give me the mother who motivates her son. Give me the mother who teaches her son what patriotism is and the mother who instills a strong national feeling in her son.

I want to ask what South Africa considers to be a good warrior. The definition I want to give, is not my own; it comes from a very prominent person in South Africa. He said a good warrior was a man—and when I say “man”, I am including women—who was obedient and faithful, fit and smart, disciplined, motivated, fearless and unshakeable. A man who really puts his country above his own interests; a man who believes in his heart and outwardly proves that he seriously believes in the dictum “My country, right or wrong”. This is the definition that applies to a good warrior. Am I wrong in saying that all our sons and daughters in the Defence Force—or 99,9% of them fit this definition? I believe we can say that they do. I say this because I find among teachers in the schools, in the churches—not only among ministers, but among chaplains—in homes and among young men a pride in the task they perform. These people are motivated. I find the instructors to be people who are strict, right enough, in the instructions and training they give. The young man is being handed a weapon, a weapon which he can rely on. Someone once said—it could have been the hon. the Minister of Defence—that the soldier regards the rifle as his wife. Now the soldier has been given a new wife—I would not say a more bad-tempered wife—but a much more efficient wife in the R4 rifle to assist him. For that reason I call these people motivated. For that reason we may consider them to be good warriors. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, before the opportunity has passed, I should like to reply to a statement made yesterday by the hon. the Prime Minister. Since it has a bearing on Swapo and on the protection of South West, I hope that I shall be permitted to do it under this Vote. I think I should immediately point out the inaccuracies in the statement in so far as it concerns me personally. The hon. the Prime Minister quoted from certain newspaper reports on a speech I made in Pretoria He behaved as though he regarded the newspaper reports as gospel truth. I must say I was quite unable to make out what he was trying to prove, but he is the Prime Minister, and as such his words carry weight and are widely publicized.

I therefore believe that there is a duty resting on him to make sure that his allegations are correct before he speaks and before he lectures people. The hon. the Prime Minister made two mistakes yesterday. He quoted selectively from what he had before him and therefore knowingly created a false impression; and he did not take the trouble to ask me whether the reports were correct on the points he quoted.

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

I withdraw it, Sir. I make it a rule to preserve the original text of every speech I make, precisely because one often finds—as I did yesterday—that advantage is taken of mistakes in reports. On 8 September 1978, I spoke on an item on the agenda concerning South West Africa at the Transvaal congress of the PFP. I have the original text of my speech with me. At the time, the Government was creating a strong climate against certain points in the first Waldheim report on the radio and on television. I want to emphasize that I am talking about the first Waldheim report. There were indications that there could be a breakdown in the settlement plan for South West Africa. I studied the Government’s standpoints and it was my declared opinion that the objections raised by the Government at that stage were not sufficiently motivated to justify a break. We may differ about my opinion, but in actual fact, time has shown that I was in the right, because the uncertainty which existed on the part of the Government at that time was later cleared up between the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Dr. Waldheim, until the deviations regarding Swapo bases occurred in Dr. Waldheim’s second report in February this year. The hon. the Prime Minister quoted three passages from Die Transvaler of 9 September 1978. Firstly, I said the following, according to him (Hansard, 23 April 1979)—

That is quite wrong. I did not refer to “onderdrukkende maatreëls”, for example. What I did say was the following (I am quoting from the written text of my speech)—

There is a great difference between the word “objectionable” and the word “onderdrukkend”. I added as a fact that this policy had led to the growth of militancy and resistance. I stand by that and I can prove it from published interviews which the strong Okavango-Kavango Lutheran Church had with the previous Prime Minister. However, this is not the occasion to elaborate on that. However, I am quite prepared to do so at a later stage.

Nor did I say that the Government “wil voorskryf deur wie en hoe Suidwes regeer moet word” and that conditions in South West Africa would become just as “chaoties en net so onhanteerbaar soos in Rhodesië”, as quoted by the hon. the Prime Minister.

My remarks at that congress arose from the uncertainties which had emerged from the first Waldheim report. I warned against an overhasty, one-sided and go-it-alone policy which could have landed South West Africa in the position in which Rhodesia found itself at that time. However, there was no question of my having said that the Government wanted to dictate how and by whom South West Africa should be governed and that this would give rise to a Rhodesian situation, for if I had said that, it would have been completely untrue.

The hon. the Prime Minister quoted a second passage from this disgraceful report in Die Transvaler of 9 September (Hansard, 23 April 1979)—

That is another obvious untruth, because the Government has never rejected it—

That is very far from what I said. This section of the report is almost entirely false. I was discussing the grounds on which a misunderstanding had arisen (which was later cleared up). I then said that if there should be a “possible break” or these grounds, the “real reason” for that would be—and I am again quoting directly from my speech—

The hon. the Prime Minister had the report in the Rand Daily Mail of the same date before him, which gave quite an accurate version of my remarks—but it did not suit him to quote that—where it said—

It would have been highly irresponsible of the Government not to have been worried about such a reality. The whole tenor of the rest of my speech was that we should take the lessons of South West to heart and should act in time to prevent an increase in revolutionary tendencies among people. In my congress speech I added immediately afterwards—I am quoting directly—

I also added—

The report in Die Transvaler was a disgraceful piece of slanted propaganda and such reporters ought not to be tolerated.

Subsequently, the hon. the Prime Minister quoted a third passage, a passage which was just as slanted—

They did not withdraw—

I have already dealt with this. I did not say a word about withdrawal, threats, fear, or anything of that nature. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs complained at the time that the possibility of further co-operation with the UN was in doubt. That is what I was referring to in so many words.

I think I have dealt with the gist of the hon. the Prime Minister’s quotations, which are all wrong or contain a half-truth, and I want to challenge the hon. the Prime Minister again to indicate where I ever said a word which showed me to be siding with any terrorist organization such as Swapo. I wish to impress upon him in the special position he occupies that it is no more than common decency to check with an hon. member that any quotation he reads out is correct.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for False Bay asked whether provision was being made for the arming of fishing boats and other vessels. I am told that no specific provision is being made for this, but provision has been made for reserve weapons which can be used for arming such boats should the situation justify it.

The hon. member for Wynberg pleaded for an opportunity for Defence Force members to follow a career in the Permanent Force. I do not know exactly how the hon. member sees this. I think the fact that the Permanent Force today consists of the people it does consist of proves that there is in fact a prospect of a career. However, it is not only the salaries and allowances that count; the housing facilities, gratuities and security are also important. Surely there are many things which make a career and promotion possible and there is the possibility of a career for those who are really inspired to perform that task. Whether it is adequate remuneration in terms of money is something which we can debate, but that is not the only matter that determines the career.

The hon. member for Parys made a speech here in which he explained the contradictions in the attitude of the West with regard to Russian expansionism, and I fully agree with him in this regard.

The hon. member for Durban Point once again raised the issue of the Public Service Commission. In the light of his arguments I feel that we shall just have to agree to differ as far as this is concerned. As Prime Minister I cannot agree to the fragmentation of the umbrella organizations of the State which are supposed to advise the Government. That I cannot approve of. However, I am prepared to listen to arguments that the Public Service Commission should be expanded and to listen to the pleas of all interested groups. I am prepared to argue about that, but I cannot allow each department to go its own way in this regard. If this were done for the Defence Force today, it would have to be done for the Police tomorrow and for the other departments the day after. Other sections of the Public Service, such as engineers, doctors, etc., would want to govern their own affairs. Surely we cannot allow this, because it would lead to chaos. The Government must have a body that can advise it about wages and salaries in general.

The hon. member for Simonstown referred, amongst other things, to maritime defence and a possible new strategy. I agree with him in this regard. We decided a few years ago that the West no longer wanted us and that they were avoiding Simonstown. We have created numerous facilities there and offered them to the West. We have said from time to time that it is in their interest as well as in our that the sea route round the Cape should be protected. However, the West cannot expect us to protect this sea route for them. For that reason, our new strategy is intended to set the S.A. Navy a specific task with regard to the defence of South Africa In future this will be our highest priority. If the West wants to protect its own interests, it will have to provide for that in its own way.

The hon. member also referred to another aspect, i.e. the removal of the Navy headquarters to Pretoria, something with which we do not all agree. There can, of course, be arguments against it as well. The hon. member will probably remember that originally I was also very sceptical about it. I was not very keen on it, but allowed myself to be convinced that it would be best with a view to co-ordination and planning. In retrospect, it seems that the Navy has profited from it in that the Navy shared in the coordinated planning. They sit around the same table as the other arms of the Defence Force and have a say in matters affecting the Defence Force. Moreover, in my opinion, the Navy has acquired a bigger share with regard to the other sections of the Defence Force where Naval officers are in senior posts today specifically because they form part of the setup of the whole defence headquarters and its functions.

The hon. member for Sasolburg apologized to me for his absence at this stage. Unfortunately he had to go somewhere else. Nevertheless, I want to thank him for his contribution.

The hon. member for Yeoville once again mentioned the usual matter, the matter on which I have repeatedly stated my standpoint. I really do not know what else I can say to the hon. member. He will just have to wait and see what the Government is going to do in future to rectify the other matters. I promised that they would be rectified, and he will just have to be patient for a while, because everything is still being prepared.

I raised it in a proper manner…

I have replied to it in a proper manner, too, but I do not have the inclination to repeat what I have already said four or five times in this House.

The hon. member for Umhlanga referred, inter alia, to the role of graduates in the Defence Force, and I fully agree with him. I have repeatedly assured this House that we try to use graduates for specific tasks if it is at all possible. I am glad to hear that the hon. member has already been able to notice an improvement. I hope the hon. member will approach the hon. the Minister of Transport with regard to project “Ride Safe” when the transport Vote is being debated.

I do think that I have now replied to all the representations made by the hon. members. Those which have not been answered will be answered in writing. We will go through Hansard, and if any points were raised which should be answered, we shall try to do so in writing.

Are you not going to do anything with regard to those people who always…

Yes, I shall discuss it again. We realize what the problem is. It is not as if the hon. member for Yeoville had brought something new to our attention today. We have said that there are problems as far as that is concerned. However, I am convinced that the Chief of the Defence Force and the Chief of the Army are just as conscious of that problem as the hon. member for Yeoville and myself. However, we have certain jobs to do and within the limits they impose on us, we shall see what we can do.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout told me not to lecture him. Then, however, the hon. member proceeded to lecture me. I did not write the report on the hon. member’s speech, but merely read what was written in the newspapers. The hon. member said that I must believe the newspapers.

Where do I say that?

I thought that you were a great friend of the newspapers.

Do you want everything the newspapers say to be confirmed?

Not necessarily. But let us test the hon. member. What did I do? I said that according to Die Transvaler of 9 September 1978, the hon. member had said that the only reason why the Government was rejecting the Waldheim Plan for South West Africa was that it was afraid that Swapo would win a democratic election in South West Africa. He left it at that. I then said that I also had the Rand Daily Mail with me, according to which the hon. member said on the same date—

Read the other paragraph.

Let us now deal with it point by point. The reporters of Die Transvaler and the Rand Daily Mail listened to what the hon. member said. [Interjections.] The reporter of Die Transvaler must have written the report of the Rand Daily Mail or vice versa. However, both say the same thing.

Does it say there in quotation marks…

The point is that both reporters conveyed the same thing.

It is not true.

Those two chaps are lying, not Japie.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I said the two reporters lied, but not Japie. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, the problem I have is that these are two newspapers papers that reported on a congress, and we know that the hon. member for Yeoville had problems at that congress. He had to try hard to state the South African standpoint there.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout supported me. Japie supported me. [Interjections.]

All I am asking now is whether the hon. member, when these reports of 9 September 1978 were published, when that congress was still sitting, or did it only sit for one day…

Only one day.

Only one day. Then the work was finished! [Interjections.] The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is a dedicated reader of newspapers. I know that from experience. When he read those two newspaper reports about such a cardinal issue, did the hon. member repudiate them?

The second one was not incorrect…

I am asking the hon. member whether he repudiated it. He has already spoken, and all he has to tell me now is whether he did in fact repudiate it.

Mr. Chairman, but I am telling the hon. the Minister…

Order! Does the hon. member wish to raise a point of explanation?

I never saw it.

Very well. He did not see these two reports. [Interjections.]

Order! I cannot allow a dialogue here. I have already given the hon. member for Yeoville a proper chance to make a speech.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. the Minister of Defence may proceed.

[Inaudible.]

No, we cannot all talk at the same time. All it amounts to is that I find it strange that since 9 September last year, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has at no stage been aware of this report. That was seven months ago. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, I assume that the hon. member was still in Johannesburg the next morning, or where was he?

I think I had gone to Bloemfontein.

Oh! [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I object to my word being doubted as to the correct text, which I am prepared to show to the hon. the Minister.

No, I have not finished yet. I have not said that I do not believe the hon. member. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister may proceed. [Interjections.]

I have not said that I do not believe the hon. member. However, I should like to know one thing from the hon. member: If the reports are incorrect, I assume that he will repudiate both newspapers in this House today.

Where they are incorrect, I completely repudiate them.

Therefore the hon. member rejects what they said about his alleged standpoint on Swapo?

Yes, in so far as they are wrong.

And the hon. member rejects the allegation made in those newspapers that the only reason why the Western plan was rejected was our fear that Swapo would win?

But it has never been rejected.

In other words, these two newspapers published false reports about the hon. member?

Those reports are incorrect.

Therefore these two newspapers gave a false version of an important speech the hon. member made at the congress?

Those reports are incorrect, yes.

However, the hon. member did not correct them?

I shall check it I do not believe I even saw the report in Die Transvaler. [ Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, now I want to put another question to the hon. member. I quoted further. It therefore means that all these quotations, in which the two newspapers say just about the same thing…

It is not true.

Then how does the hon. member explain it? I only want to know that from him before I accept his word. How does he explain it that the reporters of a National newspaper and a leftist newspaper sit there and they both get the same impression about the message he wants to convey?

That is not so. They differ completely.

To what extent do his young Progs misunderstand him then?

It is untrue. What the hon. the Minister says is untrue. The two reports differ completely. One of them is totally wrong, and in the other one only a word or two is wrong. [Interjections.]

No, it is not as easy as that. [Interjections.] No, but it is not correct.

Yesterday you misled Parliament.

Order!

Sir, the hon. the Minister misled Parliament.

Order!

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Minister of Defence not obliged to accept the word of an hon. member, or is he entitled to query persistently the word of an hon. member and to seek to challenge that what he has said in this House is untrue?

No, I did not say that.

Sir, I submit the hon. the Minister is not entitled to do that.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon. member for Bezuidenhout say that the hon. the Minister misled the House? [Interjections.]

But, Mr. Chairman, … [Interjections.]

Order!

[Inaudible.] [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, there is a ruling that while one point of order is being dealt with, another point of order is not allowed.

Order! I am still busy considering the point of order of the hon. member for Yeoville. It is not for the hon. member to tell me how I should run the business of the House.

Mr. Chairman, the hon.… [Interjections.]

Order! I have not given my ruling yet.

*The hon. the Minister of Defence is still quoting from newspaper reports. He has not in any way said yet that he does not accept the word of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

I say that these two newspapers have done the hon. member a terrible injustice. [Interjections.] I think it is one of the things we shall have to take further. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order… [Interjections.]

Order! I want to request hon. members not to make such a noise when a point of order is being raised.

Mr. Chairman, in your ruling on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Yeoville, you said the hon. the Prime Minister was still reading from newspaper reports. But the hon. the Minister did in fact say that he was not prepared to accept the word of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout… [Interjections.]

I do not care a damn whether he accepts…

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

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to withdraw it, but I am not interested in whether he accepts my word or not. I know what I said and… [Interjections.]… if he does not want to accept it, he can go to blazes. I am glad Parliament… [Interjections.]

Order! I do not regard the point raised by the hon. member for Orange Grove as a point of order. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

If I have to accept the hon. member’s word—and I have to accept it now as he says now that he did not use those words—I want to point out to hon. members that we find here that reporters of two newspapers operating independently of each other, who were at the same place where the hon. member was… and what do they report? One of them says that the hon. member said that the only reason why the Government was rejecting the Western plan for South West Africa was that it was afraid that Swapo would win a democratic election in South West Africa. Another newspaper, whose standpoint in public life is diametrically opposed to that of the first, also does the hon. member an injustice. The two newspapers appeared the same morning. It is almost as if there were a conspiracy. The Rand Daily Mail says—

It was not put in quotation marks. [Interjections.]

I am not saying that it was in quotation marks.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister why he intentionally keeps silent about the paragraph of the Rand Daily Mail which reads, “Mr. Basson said he was as worried as the Government about a Swapo takeover in South West Africa”. The word I used was “worried” and not “feared”. It is printed there. Why does he not quote it?

I am still dealing with the injustice…

Because you mislead the country.

Order!

But I am still dealing with the injustice done to the hon. member by the newspapers.

Order! If the hon. member for Bezuidenhout makes any further interjections, I shall be obliged to take action against him.

Very well, Sir, but the hon. the Minister must not quote selectively from stories.

The Rand Daily Mail went on to say—

I assume that the hon. member did not say that, but just look at the terrible thing this newspaper does to him! I hope the hon. member now agrees with me that together we have a case, and that is that the Press should put their house in order. They should not do this type of thing.

Not the way you have twisted it.

Order! The hon. member for Bezuidenhout must withdraw the word “twisted”.

Sir, the hon. the Minister twisted the Press reports.

The hon. member said the hon. the Minister had twisted words.

He twisted the Press reports.

Order! The hon. member’s words were “the way you have twisted it”. The hon. member must withdraw the word “twisted”.

Well, he did twist…

Order! The hon. member must withdraw it unconditionally.

Mr. Chairman, I have very little inclination to do so.

Whether the hon. member has the inclination or not, he must withdraw it unconditionally.

I feel more like walking out. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, I shall help you. I withdraw it.

The hon. member need not help me.

But the hon. the Minister should stop misleading people.

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

He misled Parliament for four years.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that unconditionally.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw it.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Am I to understand that you have ruled that it is not permissible for the hon. member to say that the hon. the Prime Minister has misled the House?

Yes.

Mr. Chairman, a ruling on this has been given before by Mr. Speaker himself. You are now giving a ruling…

I have ruled that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout cannot say that the hon. the Prime Minister has misled the House.

Mr. Chairman, …

Order! Does the hon. member for Sandton want to address me on this.

No, Sir, I wish to make another point. I want to request that this question be referred to Mr. Speaker immediately, because I submit you have given an incorrect ruling.

Order! The hon. member will have to abide by my ruling.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Are you ruling that it is unparliamentary to allege that an hon. member has misled the House or that the hon. the Prime Minister has misled the House? What is, in fact, your ruling? What is unparliamentary: The word “mislead” or the fact that one cannot say that the hon. the Prime Minister has misled the House? [Interjections.]

In the context in which this term was used, no hon. member may use the words “misled the House”. That is my ruling.

Mr. Chairman, are you aware of the fact that it has been allowed in this House repeatedly, to say that an hon. member has misled the House?

In this particular context I cannot allow it.

Well, it is wrong.

Order! I have given my ruling.

You know it is wrong.

Order!

It is wrong and you know that it is wrong.

Order!

Mr. Chairman on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Yeoville allowed to say that your ruling is wrong?

Order! Did the hon. member for Yeoville say that?

Of course he said it.

It is wrong. There is a precedent in this regard.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw it.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw it.

Mr. Chairman, a request has been made by the hon. member for Sandton that this matter be referred to Mr. Speaker for a decision. May I have a ruling on that?

I have given my ruling and my ruling is final.

Mr. Chairman, may I formally move a motion that your ruling be referred to Mr. Speaker?

I cannot accept such a motion.

Vote agreed to.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Are you prepared to rule whether it is unparliamentary for an hon. member of this House to say that another hon. member has misled the House?

I am not prepared to give a ruling before I know what preceded such a remark.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.