Mr. Chairman, before proceeding to reply to the various points raised here during the debate, I should like to follow the usual procedure and convey a word of thanks and appreciation to Mr. A. van Wyk, who was head of the Department of National Intelligence during the past two years or so. Mr. Van Wyk has served in the Public Service for 40 years altogether. At first he was a member of the S.A. Police. Later he joined the Security Police. During the past ten years he has been attached to his present department, of which he has been the head during the past two years. He also served abroad for a long period, and as a Namaqualander born and bred he worked his way to the top with characteristic tenacity. Over the years he made a very valuable contribution. Our best wishes for the future accompany him, his wife and family. During the two years in which it was my privilege to work with Mr. Van Wyk, I was impressed by his great self restraint, his insight and knowledge, which he freely placed at our disposal. I also wish to thank him for the way in which during a very difficult period, he performed his functions as head of his present department.

I wish him well and on behalf of the Government I convey to him my sincere thanks for his services.

I also wish his successor, Dr. Barnard, everything of the best for the future.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition put another batch of questions to me yesterday. I dealt with some of them yesterday Inter alia he put a trick question to me, or rather a question that was intended to be a trick question. He asked whether the Prime Minister agreed with Dr. A. P. Treurnicht about the Craven week. In the first place I must point out that the Craven week is a matter that is in the hands of the rugby authorities, the parents and the players concerned. [Interjections.]

Order!

It is in the hands of the rugby authorities, the parents and the players concerned. The standpoint of the Government is that it is not going to interfere with the Craven week as long as there is nothing that comes into conflict with the laws of the country. There is no law that regulates sport in South Africa. We believe we should leave these matters to the rugby people as far as possible in terms of the orderly continued existence of sport and with due observance of the laws of the country. The same applies to other types of sport, which should be left to other sport authorities. The Government did not interfere, and the hon. the Minister of Public Works is a member of the Government that decided not to interfere. Would the hon. Leader of the Opposition give me the assurance that no hon. member on his side would ever be allowed to have a personal opinion on matters?

No.

Well, then. If he thinks he has the right to have people on his side who are entitled to have an individual opinion about matters which they discuss in the party, why is he denying me that right? [Interjections.]

Order!

If the Cabinet had taken up a standpoint and the hon. the Minister had not associated himself with it, it would have been quite a different matter. Only yesterday the hon. Leader of the Opposition was telling us how he and the hon. member for Yeoville had cleared the air between them about the clique in their ranks. It will not help him to try to sow dissension between me and the hon. the Minister of Public Works. The hon. the Minister of Public Works is the leader of the NP in the Transvaal. I have a responsibility to co-operate with him and he has a responsibility to co-operate with me. The hon. Leader of the Opposition may as well leave matters in our hands. He should rather attend to the dissension in his own party. [Interjections.]

Order!

That is the best admission of differences I have ever heard.

The hon. member for Yeoville has said something over there. However, he still owes us an explanation of what clique he was referring to.

What clique is there in your own Cabinet?

Order!

He must say what clique kicked him out. See where he is sitting now! [Interjections.]

Order!

I can appreciate that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would like to see my party divided.

It is already divided.

I can appreciate that he would very much like to see us split asunder, but we are not going to give him that pleasure.

Not now.

Not now, and not tomorrow either, because we do not want people like the hon. member for Pinelands in power in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition put another question. He asked what laws I as the Prime Minister considered to be non-discriminatory, or conversely: What laws I as the Prime Minister considered to be discriminatory. My reply to him is that it is childish to expect me in a debate such as this to make a list of all the legislation in South Africa and to state what laws I consider to be discriminatory and what I consider to be non-discriminatory. The Government has already repealed certain laws that were discriminatory and which we regarded as being redundant. Let me just furnish one example. I quoted this example the other day.

[Inaudible.]

That is an extreme example. All the hon. member for Sea Point can do when arguing, is to laugh. [Interjections.]

Order!

Or, when he is not laughing, he phones McHenry. [Interjections.] There is a list of laws dating back to 1910 that are quite probably of a discriminatory nature. Was the hon. Leader of the Opposition not listening when we said earlier this year that once the rationalization of the Public Service had been finalized, the rationalized Public Service would make a reassessment of all legislation? Once we have made that reassessment, we shall determine what laws should remain on the Statute Book and what laws should be amended and how they should be amended. That is the orderly way in which it should be done. So, that process is in motion. That is the only sensible way in which one can deal with that matter. Yesterday, I set out the principles in accordance with which this would take place, when I told the hon. the Leader of the Opposition how far I was prepared to go.

As far as security legislation is concerned, a judicial commission has been appointed under the chairmanship of a Judge of Appeal, and this commission is looking into the security legislation. I assume that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also has legislation of that nature in mind. Let us wait until we receive the report. Then we can discuss the matter again; but once again, I repeat, on condition that it would not jeopardize the security of South Africa.

Then the hon. Leader of the Opposition became a little reckless and made a statement which I found rather astonishing. He said: “The Government does the planning and the other leaders must accept it”.

Surely that is not true. What is more: It was unworthy of the hon. Leader of the Opposition to say so.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Prime Minister who participated in the drafting of the 12-point plan?

Sir, just imagine the hon. leader of the Opposition standing up and putting such a question to me! Surely the 12-point plan is the National Party’s plan for South Africa.

Exactly.

Order!

Did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition invite the Black leaders and the Coloured leaders to draft his policy?

Yes.

When?

[Interjections.]

Order!

Now, let us test his statement that “the Government does the planning”. I am saying that this is not correct. In the first place, ever since I became Prime Minister—and that is the period for which I have to accept responsibility in this capacity—I have made it my duty and my task not only to have discussions with every single recognized leader who gained his position constitutionally, but also to have repeated discussions, on the very policies pertaining to them. That in itself is sufficient to put the lid on that whole argument. In the second place, it is a process of continual consultation. I cannot do so personally all the time, but other Ministers are doing this. But since I became Prime Minister, I have already had talks with Chief Buthelezi, for example, on three occasions, and since this has been within a period of less than two years, I think it is quite an achievement. But the hon. Leader of the Opposition says we do not consult them; he says we devise the plans and they simply have to accept them. Surely that is nonsense.

The fact that more rapid progress is not being made with the implementation of certain matters, is attributable to the very fact that we are often delayed as a result of the deliberations with these leaders. I am not saying this in a spirit of reproach. The hon. Leader of the Opposition ought to know that Africa is never in a hurry, except at the UN. For the rest, Africa is not in a hurry. They have plenty of time. If one discusses something with them today, one cannot necessarily make a decision on the same day. Many of the delays—and I am not saying this in a reproachful spirit—are attributable to the fact that the leaders involved first wish to go back and consult, to consider things and come back with counterproposals. That proves that the irresponsible statement the hon. Leader of the Opposition made, does not become him. I think it is not correct for him to make such a statement.

I think I have now replied to the hon. Leader of the Opposition in sufficient detail.

†The hon. member for Durban Point referred to the 12-point plan and made the same terrible mistake by saying that the 12-point plan was merely a rehash of the NP policy. What does the hon. member for Durban Point expect of me? Does he expect me, the leader of the NP, to reject the principles of the party when I become Prime Minister?

I thought you had a new vision.

I never used the words “new vision”. Where did I use it? I said that the consequences of the NP policy could be to the benefit of the development of South Africa if it were correctly applied.

*That is what we are doing. So the hon. member for Durban Point is arguing on a wrong premise. I am here to carry out the principles of the NP, and things will remain that way. All my life I have known only one loyalty, namely loyalty to the NP; Does that hon. member think that now, at the end of my public career, I will become disloyal to the NP? If he thinks that, he is making a mistake.

†The hon. member then wanted my opinion on the Natal indaba. Let me reply to him very clearly on this. On constitutional matters we have a parliamentary Select Committee dealing with the future of our country. As far as the independence of kwaZulu is concerned, the doors are open for Chief Buthelezi to discuss any aspect of possible independence with us, not only with me, but also with the hon. the Minister concerned and other hon. Ministers. Secondly, machinery has been created with regard to the consolidation of land. There is a commission dealing with these matters, a commission which was established in terms of an Act of this Parliament. Thirdly, if Chief Buthelezi wants to establish a committee or commission to investigate matters concerning his country, it is his right to do so. I grant him that right. If he so wishes, he can call in other authorities or people who can help him with knowledge. That is his right.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Prime Minister a question?

No. I do not reply to that hon. member. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Bryanston must abide by my ruling of yesterday.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: May I ask you what your ruling is in regard to the hon. member for Bryanston?

I ruled yesterday that I would not allow superfluous or a lot of interjections. I explained it yesterday. I have applied it to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and I am now applying it also to the hon. the Prime Minister. It is a ruling which was also given by Mr. Speaker on 5 March 1979. In any case, as I said yesterday, it is the prerogative of the Chair to allow interjections or not to allow them.

Mr. Chairman, am I to understand from your present ruling that you are going to treat the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition differently from any other hon. member?

Order! I am acting in terms of the ruling of Mr. Speaker as set out in the Secretary’s report for 1979. Mr. Speaker ruled on that occasion that he would definitely treat the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. the Prime Minister in a special way because they are the leaders of their parties and thus the most important members in this House. The motivation therefor is set out in the report of the Secretary to Parliament for 1979.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: At the time when this issue arose originally we drew Mr. Speaker’s attention to the fact that it was parliamentary tradition in this House that all hon. members are equal, whether they are in the Cabinet or whether they sit in the front or in the back-benches. That parliamentary tradition goes back for centuries, and is not something … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, I am addressing you and not the hon. gentlemen who are shouting. This tradition has operated for centuries and I drew Mr. Speaker’s attention to it that one cannot treat one hon. member differently from another hon. member. That is a basic principle of parliamentary democracy.

Order! It is Mr. Speaker’s ruling. He motivated it and no hon. member questioned it.

That is not correct, Sir.

The hon. member must abide by Mr. Speaker’s ruling.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask that you refer this matter formally to Mr. Speaker for a ruling? It is my respectful submission that you have misinterpreted Mr. Speaker’s ruling.

The whole matter was motivated by Mr. Speaker, and the hon. member can read it. I am not going to refer the matter back to Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon. member for Yeoville say, “Mr. Speaker’s ruling was not correct”?

Mr. Chairman, I said that it would appear that it is not correct in my view if one reads … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, I am addressing the Chair and I am not prepared to be subjected to this noise while I am addressing the Chair. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, it is your obligation to stop it.

Order! I did call for order.

Yes, Sir.

Order! What then did the hon. member mean by that remark?

Mr. Chairman, hon. members do not obey your ruling.

I called for order the moment the hon. member started speaking.

But they do not obey your ruling. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I said your interpretation of what Mr. Speaker ruled was not correct and therefore I drew your attention to the authorities which I previously put also before Mr. Speaker. I think, Sir, with great respect, that you are not interpreting the ruling of Mr. Speaker correctly. That is what I said, and there is nothing unparliamentary about that.

That is not what you said.

Order! That may be the opinion of the hon. member for Yeoville; it is not my opinion. The hon. the Prime Minister may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was dealing with the question of the hon. member for Durban Point about the so-called Natal indaba. I said that if Chief Buthelezi wants to establish a committee to investigate matters concerning his own country …

Which is his country?

Order! The hon. member for Bryanston must abide by my ruling.

I would like an answer.

There is only one way of asking questions in this House and that is by rising and asking permission to put a question.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to answer the question.

No, Mr. Chairman.

The hon. the Prime Minister may proceed.

He cannot answer the question because he does not have an answer. [Interjections.]

Order!

If he wants this committee to investigate matters concerning his country, it is his right to do so, and I have no objection if he enlists the support of knowledgeable people for this purpose. But if the idea is to deal with matters falling under the jurisdiction of the South African Government, I say “no”.

Chief Buthelezi is a South African.

Order!

I understand Chief Buthelezi is to discuss his idea with the hon. the Minister concerned, and therefore I do not think that I must go further at this stage in replying to the hon. member, because we only know what we have read in the papers. I would suggest that we wait until Chief Buthelezi has consulted the hon. the Minister concerned and explained to him what he intends doing. Then we can perhaps deal with the matter later on.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether the competence of kwaZulu includes negotiations on matters which affect both kwaZulu and the Natal Provincial Administration and which are handled jointly between those two administrations?

I have no objection if they do so, provided that they do it with the concurrence of the central Government, because the Natal Provincial Administration and kwaZulu are not independent. They must therefore abide by the final ruling of the central Government.

The hon. member for Durban Point also referred to the idea of freedom of association. Let me say to him that this Government, this party, is committed to protecting the residential areas and the schools of the various population groups. It is also committed to protecting their right to develop their own amenities, as far as humanly possible on a basis of equality.

Where possible.

Of course. Where it is impossible, it cannot be done— obviously. [Interjections.] Let me add that I personally hope and believe that the day will come when the different population groups will accept this system without compulsion, because that is the ideal situation for South Africa.

That is pluralism.

Let it be whatever the hon. member wishes to call it. I say that is the ideal situation for South Africa. Is the hon. member against me?

We agree with that.

Then the hon. member can rejoice in what I am saying. The hon. member for Simonstown …

Just before the hon. the Prime Minister leaves this issue, may I, just for the sake of absolute clarity, ask whether his reply that kwaZulu and the Natal Provincial Administration could negotiate matters which concern them both and which they are handling together, means that his qualification about the concurrence of the central Government applies only to final decisions and does not bar negotiations?

The central Government must be properly informed before they start. They cannot deliberate on matters which they are not allowed by the Government to deliberate on. [Interjections.] I cannot allow Parliament to be undermined.

Did the Quail Commission undermine it?

Do not start now with the Quail Commission or any other commission.

It is the same thing.

I am dealing with the question the hon. member put to me, and I am telling him that I am awaiting a proper discussion between Chief Buthelezi and the Minister concerned. After I have received a report on that I shall take a final decision. But if it means that he is going to interfere in the affairs of the central Government, affairs over which the central Government alone has the final jurisdiction, I say “no” already at this stage.

*I come now to the hon. member for Simonstown. He referred to my visits to Soweto and to the Black States and welcomed them. Once again I want to say expressly here today that I did not visit the Black States and Soweto with any other purpose than to acquaint myself with the circumstances there. I regarded this as my primary duty. Last year I also paid visits in other areas. I did not only visit the Black States and Soweto. Together with the hon. the Minister of Community Development I visited all the most important residential areas here in the Cape Peninsula in which his department operates. We spent a whole day doing this. I also visited urban renewal schemes with which he is involved. I travelled throughout the entire Cape Peninsula with him. I also went to visit slum areas and squatter towns. I went even further. In the past, and also since I have become Prime Minister, I have visited the border to view conditions there. Furthermore, since last year, in my capacity as Prime Minister, I have visited numerous industries, not only armaments industries, but also other industries, steel industries for instance, and I also started visiting railway workshops because I want to gain personal knowledge of the circumstances prevailing at each of these places so that I can understand what my colleagues are talking about when they inform me about these matters. I am glad that the hon. member welcomes this. I shall continue to do so, but misuse must not be made of it. I am not saying the hon. member did this. However, my visits to these places were misused by certain media and in certain circles to give the impression that I had ulterior motives. I say it is the duty of the Prime Minister to acquire as much knowledge as possible in a practical manner. However, what happened? As far as some of those visits are concerned, it was even suggested that I went there in situations of the greatest danger. Surely this is absolute nonsense. When I appeared in Soweto, it was reported that people stood on roofs with guns to protect me. This is the biggest nonsense and a crime against the good name of this country.

The hon. member also referred to another matter.

†He said that he hoped that after the rationalization of the Public Service we would also proceed with the rationalization of the provinces and local authorities. As the hon. member knows, we have already announced that after the process of rationalization with which we are busy at present has been completed, we hope to start with the provincial administrations. But that would, of course, need the co-operation of the administrations of the different provinces. Secondly, in the Cape Province, rationalization has already taken place as far as the divisional councils are concerned, and I believe with great success. In the last instance, let me say that rationalization is not an attempt one can make once only and then leave it at that. On the contrary. Rationalization should be considered as an on-going process, taking place from time to time to improve the administration of the country. That is the philosophy underlying the action of the Public Service Commission.

The hon. member also raised the matter of the Press, certain matters concerning the shareholders of these companies. I wish to say that both the Saan and the Argus companies furnished me with a list of their shareholders and with information on the shareholding by nominee companies. They compiled lists for this purpose. I have the information in my possession. I do not think it would be right to make it public. However, this information is under consideration by the Government, and at a later stage I shall take a final decision as far as this is concerned.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether he would, in regard to the shareholders in those two companies—as the hon. the Prime Minister knows, many of the shares are held by nominees, trusts and companies—give consideration to the possibility, in the case of newspapers only, of those nominee shareholdings and the shares in the names of trusts being disbanded and the shares being made available to the ordinary investing public in South Africa?

Like The Citizen?

That is a matter that is under consideration at present.

*I must also call attention to the recommendations of the Steyn report, on page 206. We will probably discuss the Steyn report under another Vote. As regards the recommendations of the Steyn Commission in respect of the Press Union, I have already written a letter to the Press Union on which I do not want to elaborate in detail at this juncture. I do, however, want to make a few other remarks in this regard. Personally I do not think the Press Union has any real influence on the Association of Journalists. I think there is a wide communications gap between the Press Union and the Association of Journalists and I think the Association of Journalists will be the first to admit this. In fact, my impression is that the Association of Journalists is somewhat contemptuous of the Press Union.

I also agree with the following extract from the report of the Steyn Commission, and I quote from page 206—

That is, the freedom of the Press. To me this is a balanced and crucial finding of the Steyn Commission. By the way, after the publication of the Steyn Commission’s report, it was interesting to see how certain newspapers, not all of them, presented the Steyn report to the public. One would have sworn that the Steyn report was a confirmation of their behaviour, while in actual fact—this is a very balanced report—it contains very serious advice to the Press as a whole. I expect of the Press Union that it express itself very clearly and forcefully on what it is going to do with regard to these recommendations. In due course I, too, shall say very clearly what we are going to do with regard to these recommendations.

We encounter abuse of this truth too often in a section of the Press. We have now seen it once again with the school boycott. The school boycott is also being instigated by a section of the Press, and I want to point out the latest example. Take the cartoon in one morning newspaper this morning and see what it makes of the school boycott. If this is not instigation, if this is not an attempt to tell the school boycotters that they enjoy general support, I should like to know what it means. If the Press Union is powerless to take steps, they do not leave the State much option. I still believe that the Press Union should take steps because they are the masters. If, however, they do not accept their responsibility and do not take the necessary steps, but keep coming and holding friendly talks with the Government for hours on end, and then do nothing about it, I say they do not leave the State much option.

It is high time!

I have appreciation for the important role of the Press and I shall respect it. The Press which supports the Government as well as the reasonable Press supporting the Opposition, enjoy my appreciation because of their role. I think they have a necessary role in a democratic country. I know under what pressure of work and time individual Pressmen have to do their work. It is not as though there is no understanding of this, for often when most people are sleeping, these men have to prepare the news. Therefore I can understand that mistakes must creep in and I can also understand that errors of judgment are made. If, however, an organized process of negative propaganda is released day after day with one aim only, i.e. to intensify confrontation, I say that no self-respecting State can live with that. [Interjections.]

I also agree that the media have to take special care not to participate wittingly or unwittingly in the propagating and distribution of unlawful revolutionary ideals. The Steyn report is explicit about this. Much of the report is devoted to indicating how the radical elements in the world, and not only here, but throughout the democratic Western world, take pleasure in using the media of the West and of democracy to propagate its cause to the detriment of democracy.

I want to appeal to our editors this afternoon. I want to appeal to the chief editors of newspapers, whoever they may be, to go and sit down calmly for once in South Africa to determine a policy for their own newspapers to prevent revolutionary and radical elements from getting the headlines which these newspapers are giving them. This appeal applies not only to the newspapers, but also to the television service. In fact, it is going to be a directive to the television service. That I state here this afternoon. The television service falls under the State and will in future be instructed not to feature reports of the onslaughts on South Africa by revolutionary elements as main news items.

Hear, hear!

If newspapers do not want to co-operate willingly, the Government will take steps to see to it that they do co-operate. [Interjections.] This State—and hon. members on the opposite side can laugh as much as they like—will continue to oppose revolution.

Hear, hear!

We shall fight to last ditch for the preservation of stability and orderly government.

That is nothing new.

Order!

And if the hon. member for Bryanston gets in the way, steps will also be taken against him. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member for Yeoville spoke about the attitudes of what he called moderate men, like Chief Minister Gatsha Buthelezi, who, he said, already suggested he might be forced to leave the country. Well, Chief Minister Buthelezi has no restrictions placed on him if he wants to deliberate with this Government, and there are also no restrictions on him to travel wherever he wants to in the world.

As I said earlier today, I met Chief Minister Buthelezi on three occasions, while those hon. Ministers more closely concerned see him quite often. For the sake of the record, however, let me quote what Chief Minister Buthelezi said about White liberals, and allow me to say that I agree with him. [Interjections.] Chief Minister Buthelezi referred to the role of the liberals in South Africa. It was reported in a newspaper, and I quote from that report—

This was a month or two ago—

Hon. members should listen to this—

*That is also true. I want to point out that there is a growing contempt in the hearts of the Black people towards the paternalism and the unacceptable policy which the leftist liberalists in this country manifest towards them. They are gradually beginning to find out that the real people with whom they have to discuss the future, are the people who share with them a love for Southern Africa, and not with a lot of crumbs who sit here only as long as it suits them and then take off when things become too hot for them. [Interjections.] It is time we began talking openly with one another about these things. It is time we began talking very openly, also to those who are in the forefront of Black power politics. They may burn their fingers. They may burn their fingers whether they are nodding their heads or not.

All this is mere innuendo. Who are you talking about?

I am talking about everyone who is undermining the security of the State in this country. [Interjections.]

Are you talking about us or not? [Interjections.]

I am talking about everyone …

Order! The hon. member must address the Chair, in the first place, and if he wishes to ask a question, he must ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to answer a question.

Mr. Chairman, when the hon. the Prime Minister talks about people who assist the enemies of the State, is he referring to hon. members of the PFP?

I have quoted what Chief Gatsha Buthelezi said about the despicable role played by liberals. I agree with him, wherever those despicable liberals may find themselves. [Interjections.]

Order!

I think I have almost finished dealing with the Opposition. The hon. member for Musgrave spoke about the proposed constellation of States.

†He wanted to know whether this would include only independent States or also the non-independent States. One cannot, of course, have a constellation of States with non-independent States separately represented. The idea is to start off with independent States, as equals. As I explained in the no-confidence debate earlier this session, however, the non-independent States would have a say in the discussions, but not as full members.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Prime Minister said that those States would have a say in the constellation. Could he perhaps elaborate on what kind of say the non-independent States would have?

The delegates of the non-independent States will be part of the South African delegation.

*I want to say a few words about another matter, and this is with reference to what was written in public and said in this House in speeches and by way of interjections about education and about teachers’ salaries. A few hon. members raised the question of teachers’ salaries by way of direct comment or interjections. I want to say immediately that the Government considers the teaching profession to be of singular importance. I did not think that the interests of the teaching profession can be served by exaggerated debate or exaggerated controversy, and I think all sensible people agree with that, for like the Defence Force, the teaching profession belongs to the whole country. It affects all our children. For that reason I have over the past years—and the Good Lord knows it was not always easy—made personal contact and deliberated with various teachers’ organizations. The Prime Minister cannot be expected to talk to every interest group in this country personally. It is simply not physically possible. I did, however, feel that I should do justice to the teaching profession because this profession occupies such a special position in our national life. Therefore I met delegations from the Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations on two occasions.

In addition, together with the Minister concerned, I met not only the representatives of the White teachers, but also the representatives of the Black teachers. Where possible, I also gave a hearing to teachers unions. I accorded them the high priority that I think is their due. When the Government deals with education, it is not dealing with one section of education only, but with the teaching profession as a whole. The Government cannot escape that. What I mean is the education profession in its full extent—White, Coloured, Indian and Black education. In addition, the Government deals with primary education, secondary education, technikons and universities. Therefore, when it makes a decision, for instance on salaries, it cannot do so in a fragmentary fashion. It cannot deal with the salaries of one group without dealing with the salaries of the others as well.

Last year, when my colleagues—the hon. the Minister of Finance and some of his advisers were present there, together with other colleagues—and I met the Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations on two occasions, we emphasized that we were dealing with education as a whole, that with regard to decision-making, we had obligations towards all facets of education. On the second occasion when I met the Federal Council of White Teachers’ Associations, I gave certain undertakings that were published in a statement, which everyone can read. Therefore I am not going to quote the entire declaration here this afternoon. After these discussions, I issued a full Press statement on 25 October, with a knowledge of the representatives of the Federal Council. After that, on behalf of the Government, I gave certain undertakings, and I want to say today that each one of those undertakings have been fulfilled.

Firstly, we told them that teachers’ salaries would not be dealt with on a fragmentary basis again. They agreed with that. We also told them that “education” includes all facets of education. Therefore, in determining the salaries of the teachers, the Government did not go about it in a fragmentary manner, but saw this as part of the whole salary account of the State. Secondly, I told them that the principle of preferential treatment, about which a great deal had been said in the past, still existed. However, I made a condition, viz. that preferential treatment did not mean that people in other professions, for example pilots and scientists, were to be wronged.

I explained to them that we had to take into account that people in the sphere of engineering and other scientific spheres, as well as pilots for our civil and other aircraft, bore great responsibilities and were in very short supply. I also told them that those people could not be placed in a subordinate or less privileged position. That is why I told them that we were introducing a different principle, viz. the principle of differentiation which is not only an accepted concept in the Public Service Commission, but in the Government as well, and that that principle of differentiation would have to be applied throughout the Government service.

I went further and said—this can also be seen in the statement—that salaries could only be adjusted within the framework of the economic ability of the country. The salary adjustments which the Government made, were made after very thorough study by the Public Service Commission and the departments concerned. They were then submitted to the Cabinet where the decision was taken that these salary adjustments were final for this year. This does not mean to say that representations on further deficiencies cannot be addressed in future, but this decision is final for this year.

I went on to tell the teaching profession that because we held them in high esteem, we would give them special representation on the Manpower Board, and we did so. On the very same day the Minister concerned contacted them and we made an appointment to the Manpower Board.

In the same interview I told them that there would be a package of benefits, that not only would work be done on the salaries, but on a package. We had Dr. De Kock at the discussion and he specially illustrated how the benefits of a package, which includes tax reduction, was better than salary increases alone. Dr. De Kock’s explanation has been recorded in print. The effect of this package, which consisted of a thirteenth month bonus, salary increases, new scales, differentiation and reduced tax, has not yet been fully felt. Even the information which the teaching profession has at its disposal cannot as yet reflect the total effect of the package, because it is most likely that the salaries will only be paid out in a month’s time. The reduced taxes are only going to be implemented in practice in July and then the payment of the thirteenth month bonus also comes into the picture. In other words, all this fuss and clamour, by some elements of the media too, is simply stirring people up and inciting them before we are able to see the full effect of these things in practice. I want to read out parts of the statement that I made. In the first place I said—

We have done that. In the second place I said—

It is clear that we were talking about a package offer. I said—

I then enumerated them. The first was that the top structure would be re-structured in such a way that it would be possible to stratify the teaching structure from bottom to top in a meaningful way. This was done. The second was that in consultation with the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs and the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications, a provisional decision was made at that early stage to announce the thirteenth month bonus. I want to ask hon. members to read the statement in full. Then they will see and prove to themselves that the promises that I made to the teaching profession were kept.

In connection with the latest dispute about a so-called document that is in circulation, I want to say that in the past two or three weeks since the budget I have noticed from various reports that information was being furnished. These are obviously leaks. My question now is whether the most sensible course is to keep salaries confidential. I am beginning to wonder about that. We know what the purpose behind it is. The officials are not too keen to have their salaries published. They feel that they are entitled to the salaries that they receive and they do not want to make them public knowledge. I can understand that. I sympathize with them. No one likes having his private affairs made public. After all, they work for their salaries. There is also the argument on the part of the Press that the public is entitled to know. However, if the public wants to know, they can always obtain the information in a more sensible way, without it being broadcast to the public. However, the unfortunate consequences of this is that leaks occur from time to time. Then we have reports which might create a distorted picture. I am not saying that one of the documents that was published, was distorted. I made a special request to the Public Service Commission to check the figures contained in the controversial document that was leaked. They are in the process of doing so. Once I have received their report I shall contact the Federal Council about this matter again. If there is no objection on the part of the Federal Council and the teachers’ unions— and I want to be clearly understood here—to the particulars of the official circular to the education departments may, as far as I am concerned, be published for the general information of the public. I do not think the Government has anything to hide. We shall keep it confidential as long as the Federal Council and the teachers’ unions want it to be kept confidential. If they agree, I am prepared to publish the official circulars for general information. I believe that in this way it will be proved that the Government has essentially done more than its duty towards the employees of the State this year, within the economic means of the country, and viewed against the background that we must not fragment and against the background of the tremendous salary concessions and tax concessions that were made. I say once again that the meaning of the package must be spelled out clearly, because we said from the start that it was no use simply granting a salary increase if we did not bring about tax relief which entailed direct, real benefits for the people concerned.

I really hope, and it is my earnest wish today, that this matter will be amicably settled now. I know that in the first place the vast majority of teachers in South Africa are not in the teaching profession for the money. If one looks at the excellent code of honour of the South African Teachers’ Union and one sees what they specified for themselves as objectives years ago, then it is a profession which, although it must be properly remunerated, places more emphasis on service, on patriotism and on dedication than on anything else. Consequently I hope that there will now be an end to this commotion.

Mr. Chairman, to clarify matters, may I ask whether it is not correct that the comparison that was broadcast on television, the so-called document, was released by the Department of the hon. Prime Minister through his Press officer?

No, the Prime Minister’s Department did not release any documents. The Press officer is there, and he may make anything that becomes available to him public but for heaven’s sake, let us not punish him now. He is there to serve the Press. That document was not drawn up in the Office of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Prime Minister to throw some light on this document, because the hon. the Minister of National Education said he knew nothing about the document and that he was going to find out about it? I shall be glad if the hon. the Prime Minister can help us in this regard.

I first want to ask the Public Service Commission to get at the truth behind this document, and if the truth is of such a nature that I can live with it, then I shall accept the responsibility for it. But I first want to wait until the Public Service Commission has provided me with proper information. The Public Service Commission must verify whether that document is correct or not. But after all, what is the point? The point is no longer whether teachers’ salaries have been improved. The point is whether a certain document was issued. Surely this is absolute nonsense. Do hon. members think that we can take the highly intelligent teachers of South Africa in tow with a wrangle as to who issued a document? Surely the real issue is what is contained in the document.

Where is its origin? I accept what the hon. the Prime Minister says, but I ask again: Where did this document come from? Who authorized it?

I shall decide on that when I have all the facts to my disposal. The hon. member will not be the first one to hear it. The Federal Council will be the first.

But it was on television.

Yes, many things appear on television. The Chairman of the Federal Council is on television every second day. He was on television today too. As far as I am concerned, he can appear on television every day, but he must simply keep to the facts of our negotiations. I am saying it now for the last time here: There will be no further change to teachers’ salaries this year. I say this, and I am the Prime Minister of the country.

There are only a few more hon. members to whom I have to reply. The hon. member for Pretoria East referred to the two legs of the Prime Minister’s Department which are not yet completely organized, viz. the constitutional and social legs. I shall give my attention to that matter shortly. The purpose there is also to be able to act in a coordinating capacity, as an umbrella body.

The hon. member for Orange Grove raised the question of the “merger between the S.A. Breweries and other breweries and the wine industry”. Of course, the answer is that there was no legislation with which it could have been prevented. Nevertheless, the Government was consulted. There are certain activities in South Africa where a reduction of costs can be brought about by rationalization. This was the fundamental reason for this venture, and in addition there were also the important interests of the 6 000 wine farmers in South Africa. However, if there is any abuse, we have the instruments with which to investigate it. At this stage, I do not have any further commentary to make on it.

I have already dealt fully with the question of the Western Cape in my reply to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I also dealt with the question on Chief Buthelezi. I should like to thank a few more hon. members. Firstly, I want to refer to the question which the hon. member for Moorreesburg raised, viz. the Western Cape and the islands along the West Coast. He is not here this afternoon. He let me know that he was unable to attend. He and I differ on the future of Robben Island. It must remain under the Defence Force, but this does not mean that nature conservation and the preservation of the fauna there cannot take place. As far as the other islands are concerned, it is a matter that I will ask my Department to consider further, in view of the hon. member’s request.

The hon. members for Pretoria West, Florida, Bloemfontein North, Pretoria Central, Piketberg, Parys, Oudtshoorn, Umlazi, Brakpan, Sasolburg, Benoni, Maitland, Vasco and Mossel Bay all assisted me with the logical and positive contributions they made. I thank them for that. They also helped to assemble arguments against those that we had from the other side. I thank them sincerely for doing so, especially the hon. member for Pretoria West for referring to the attempt to internationalize every issue in South Africa. This is one of the biggest problems with which this country is faced, viz. that everything that we do as a sovereign, independent state, is internationalized. Hon. members will be amazed to see how many people there are who are trying to poke their noses into our business, although they cannot even manage their own affairs.

Some hon. members also made good contributions on the proposed constellation of states. I thank them for that.

The hon. member for Kuruman raised another matter, viz. the possible future of a semis factory at Kuruman and Saldanha Bay.

Semis?

It is a steel processing factory that produces semis.

The hon. member knows that when the decision was made at the time, my sympathies were actually with him, but after a very thorough investigation the Government adopted a standpoint and decided that it should be erected at Saldanha Bay. At the moment it seems to me, that, although the undertaking has not yet been established, the strongest arguments are still in favour of Saldanha Bay. However, if the hon. member comes up with any new facts and wants to re-open the matter, I am prepared to allow the Government to listen to his requests and consider them. I cannot say anything more than that.

Mr. Chairman, I think that I have now dealt with all the matters that were raised as fully as possible.

Vote agreed to.

Vote No. 4.—“Defence”:

Mr. Chairman, I ask for the privilege of the half hour.

After the somewhat stormy passages that have preceded this Vote, it will no doubt be somewhat difficult to speak in a non-political vein on a subject which should be nonpolitical. However, we shall try to do so.

The first thing one could perhaps draw attention to is that since approximately 1974 the general strategic military situation of the Republic has dramatically changed. The collapse of the Portuguese as an African power, the events in Angola, the escalation of Swapo activity and the international arms boycott, have individually and collectively substantially changed the defence situation. To this must be added more recent events, e.g. the change in Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe, and the escalation in the discovery of arms cachés and probably also the infiltration of terrorists into the Republic. One can reasonably anticipate that the strategy of the anticipated attacks on the Republic will involve terrorism, both urban and rural, designed to affect morale internally and obtain more support externally, designed to affect the economy and confidence in it, to ensure the deviation of resources from reform to defence and the encouragement of local mass action in a variety of forms, and the mobilization of international support for increased isolation, boycotts and sanctions. In addition, the potential for international conflict has obviously resulted in both the West and the East assessing what would or could be done with or to the Republic in the event of a major war. This situation must obviously be borne in mind by the Republic’s Government in assessing the military situation in the future.

The new and changing situation must of necessity require adaptation. Three factors in particular should to my mind be considered. Firstly, the borders which now require defending, extend across the entire continent, from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean, and the length of such borders obviously requires a change of emphasis as to the methods of defence that should be employed. In this regard my plea is for greater emphasis on two particular aspects. Firstly, there should be a strengthening of the South African Air Force, in particular the helicopter units of that Force. Not only will the type of operation, such as strike and transport operations, require close support from the Air Force. The possibility of hostile air action, in particular by fighter aircraft, cannot be ignored. Long, potentially hostile borders require a new form of patrolling in which the Air Force must play an increasing role and in which a fast movement of troops is essential. In my submission the Government should review its policy in respect of air crews and make this service more attractive. As I said before, it is futile to spend vast sums of money on the training of an individual only to lose him because we pay him inadequately. Bearing in mind the threat which exists and the greater need for men and machines in the Air Force, it is to my mind remarkable that in this particular budget, air defence is the only programme under the Defence Vote for which the budget allocation has been reduced, while the budgets for landward and maritime defence have been increased. The air defence programme has been reduced by almost R20 million, i.e. more than 20%. These reductions are particularly disconcerting as they relate to equipment, stores and the Special Defence Account. My plea today to the hon. the Minister of Defence is for a better paid and a stronger Air Force for South Africa.

The second aspect I want to refer to is the strength of the Permanent Force and the nature of that Force. I have repeatedly, in this House, appealed for more Permanent Force fighting units. The length of our borders requires greater mobility. It also requires specialist fighting forces.

In the 1977 White Paper it was stated that the major strike force of the S.A. Defence Force was based on a part-time force with a strong Permanent Force nucleus to provide the specialist leadership. The 1979 White Paper did not change this principle, and of course we have no White Paper this year. Bearing in mind, however, the objective of the Republic’s enemies is to deviate manpower and resources from the projects which will advance reform to defence, it is both economically and militarily advantageous to have a larger Permanent Force, which is a fighting force, and to have highly mobile, well-equipped permanent fighting forces available for these long borders which we have to defend.

The second aspect of the struggle to which I should like to refer is that this is not a war only of the gun against the gun, but it is a war of idea against idea. It is a war in which hope and aspirations play a major part. The issue in this war is people. Soldiers can win battles and hold situations, but they cannot win a long-term war of this nature. This war will be won or lost by the politicians.

Over a five-year or 10-year period, or even longer, the soldiers can win, but for our grandchildren the politicians hold the key to the solving of South Africa’s problems in this regard. This is not a war to settle territorial aspirations. It is a war in which it is sought to change the control over a country. It is not a normal type of war in which we are involved. It is not a war in which we can get the enemy to surrender. It is a war in which victory can only be achieved if all the people in the Republic embrace the same cause and have the same interests and accept the concept of peaceful coexistence.

The real long-term issue for South Africa we have just been debating in the hon. the Prime Minister’s Vote. To some extent one leaves that Vote behind one with a high degree of sadness. Of course, one cannot say that any of the long-term problems of South Africa, the political problems affecting our security, seems any clearer or any more positively solved as a result of the debate in which we have just been engaged. Those political debates are going to decide the long-term future of South Africa.

What the defence of South Africa needs is not only the men and the equipment that we are going to debate in this Vote, but it also needs a contented population with a stake in the country it wishes to defend. It needs contentment brought about by the enjoyment of personal liberties and by economic well-being and a realization that opportunity is available to all on an equal basis, in a country which is both beautiful and bountiful. It also, however, needs unity. It needs a unity of purpose, a unity of purpose among people with basically common ideals, however much there may be party-political differences.

It is because of this that one feels particularly saddened that in this debate one has to come back to the events of the psychological action plan which were evolved for this debate. This party has consistently used every possible endeavour to keep party-politics out of defence matters. No one, if he is honest, can argue the contrary. We have taken the view that when young men are called upon to serve in the Defence Force they serve and they defend South Africa. They defend the State; they do not fight for the Government or for its policy. We in these benches have taken the view that we believe in negotiation from strength. We believe in resisting violence while changes are made which will transform our society into a form in which violence will be resisted by all the people of the Republic. This party has supported national service on this basis and has encouraged recruitment to the Permanent Force.

I challenge the hon. the Minister of Defence that if this should not be the correct approach, he should tell us now where he thinks we are wrong. To us, therefore, the letter dated 12 February 1980 was unbelievable. As this was a matter which affected Parliamentarians we asked for a Select Committee investigation. This was unwisely refused by the Government. There was instead an internal board of inquiry, convened by the Chief of the Defence Force. Because we were affected, we asked to give evidence. I made that approach immediately after the Easter recess, when we read in the Press that the board was about to commence its work. What happened, however, when we made that request? We were told that the board had been dissolved. I quote—

Hon. members must note that the convening authority is stated as being the Chief of the Defence Force. I quote further—

That means the Chief of the Defence Force—

That was in the face of a debate that had taken place in this very House where we put our case, our situation. What is remarkable is that one is asked to give evidence if it is relevant to the finding, but one is not allowed to know the finding. To my mind that is quite remarkable. The findings have not been published, the report of the board has not been published and neither has the evidence that has been heard been published. All that has been issued is a statement in which it is said—

Reference is made to “die belangrikste bevindings”. In other words, to this day the findings of that board have not been made public, but somebody has prepared a statement to be issued, and that statement says that the most important findings have been published. That is what has been done. Let me ask the hon. the Minister of Defence whether he really thinks that this is going to allay fears and satisfy the public.

Let me examine the statement that was issued. The letter of 12 February 1980 had its origin in a telex from the Chief of the Defence Force. We have not been told whether that telex was sent in consultation with anybody or not, or whether it was purely the Chief of the Defence Force’s initiative that gave rise to that telex being sent. Perhaps we shall be told today. In the statement there are said to be differences between the telex and the letter, but we are not given a chance to see that for ourselves. I therefore ask the hon. the Prime Minister to tell us why that telex is not being made public. Why can that telex not be seen? We are told that that telex had “sekere klimaatskeppingsaksies met die oog op die komende Verdedigingsbegrotingsdebat” as its object. I ask the hon. the Prime Minister to tell us why it is necessary to create a climate for this debate. Why is that necessary? I also ask what sort of climate he wants to create here.

Who are you shouting at?

What is the climate he wants to create? [Interjections.] What does he want to do? Let me tell the hon. the Prime Minister that this is utterly unacceptable. Let me reiterate that we regret that this situation has occurred, but there is no doubt that the blame clearly lies squarely with the Government.

Let me give some reasons for saying this. There is a tendency on the part of the Government to want to identify itself with the State. There is a difference, however, between the State and the Government, a very real difference which I think the hon. the Prime Minister has to tell us that he accepts, because it is fundamental that that difference should be recognized. Their reason for doing so, however, is because only the Government’s policies are right. There are no alternatives that have any merit. We heard it in the words of the hon. the Prime Minister himself only a matter of a day or so ago when he said there is no alternative to the 12-point plan. It is the Government’s ideas that are right and nobody else is entitled to have any ideas. Only the Government has the right solution for South Africa. There is no debate on it and there is no argument about it. That is what the Government says and that is what goes.

What do we find? Let me say what we find as a result of this. Let me give an example. I want to quote from an Army publication called The Warrior—

That appears in an Army publication paid for with taxpayers’ money and published by the Defence Force. The truth is that the author does not really mean the Republic, but the NP Government. That is where, again, the confusion comes about.

I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister in all humility: What about the man who fights for South Africa and who believes in confederation and the policies of the NRP? What about the man who fights for South Africa and who believes in federation and the policies of the PFP? Surely, he has as much a place in the defence of South Africa as anybody else?

Let me give another example, this time from Paratus. I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister a question on this. Under the heading “Constellation of States a Good Thing” one reads, inter alia—

If there is a better example to show how NP policies are advocated, I think I should like to know about it.

However, wherein lies the real fault why this atmosphere is created? I shall tell hon. members wherein it lies. We have just had an example of it in the debate on the Prime Minister’s Vote in the allegations of disloyalty which, through innuendo, are thrown across the floor at every opportunity. I refer for instance to the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs, who is a master of this kind of innuendo. Let me quote what he said (Hansard, 29 April)—

When I reminded him of this a little later by way of a point of order, as you will remember, Mr. Chairman, he said I was a liar. Yet those were his words. I have quoted from his unrevised Hansard. What did he have in mind? Why did he say that? He went on to say—

What does he mean? [Interjections.] I have been reading from his Hansard. What does he mean, Sir? I shall tell hon. members what the problem is.

If you do not know what he means, why do you quote it?

I am asking that hon. Deputy Minister to tell us what he means. The hon. the Minister was in fact doing the very thing we accused him of. What is the attitude that is adopted? Again and again in debates the loyalty is attacked of people who have a different political view to the members opposite but who in fact want to defend South Africa as much as, if not more than, they do. Because they do that, they have created the atmosphere which is responsible for the actions which caused the letter of 12 February.

I still doubt it.

He is a disgrace.

The hon. member doubts what? If he doubts my loyalty, I just want to tell him … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Parys must withdraw those words.

I withdraw them, Sir.

He might as well withdraw from the Chamber too.

Yes, that creature! Make him withdraw from the Chamber.

Sir, with respect, is the hon. member not obliged to get up and say that he withdraws those words? He has to withdraw them properly.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Johannesburg North entitled to refer to another hon. member as a “creature”?

Order! Did the hon. member say that?

I did, Sir.

The hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, and I do so properly.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The hon. member for Parys did not properly withdraw his remark. He merely stood up and mumbled something.

Order! The hon. member for Parys must rise and withdraw those words.

Sir, I did withdraw them. [Interjections.] That hon. member is completely deaf and dumb.

The hon. member for Yeoville may proceed.

Those who seem to question the loyalty of others are usually the people who have never carried a gun for South Africa in their lives, and never will. [Interjections.] This paper patriotism which is displayed on the other side of the House does not impress us. I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that if this goes on, he may think he is harming us, while the truth is that he is harming South Africa. We would like to put an end to the problems, remove politics from the Defence Force and keep it out of the Defence Force. I make this offer across the floor of the House today with no pre-conditions: Let us get together; let us talk about it; let us evolve a method of ensuring that the Defence Force is and remains the instrument to defend the State, is kept above party politics and that no one will act to prejudice that situation. If the hon. the Prime Minister is prepared to do that, he will have our co-operation, and if he rejects it, the responsibility will, with respect, lie upon his shoulders.

There are many things which need to be dealt with. I will deal with some and my colleagues will deal with others, because there are a variety of things to deal with. We have to deal with the Steyn Commission, with matters such as the position of the Citizen Force infantry and we even have to deal with the five target areas which were pinpointed in the letter of 12 February, as well as some targets which were not anticipated in the letter.

I want to touch on an aspect on which I made representations to the hon. the Deputy Minister. He has a letter on this subject from me and I have also seen him about it. That concerns the relief which I believe is due to the members and ex-members of the Air Force who were members of the group life insurance scheme. I have made representations, and I am awaiting a reply. But some things are clear. Firstly, the new insurance for the retired Air Force men, which is offered to them as a substitute, is far more expensive. Their insurance was terminated because of the establishment of the new Defence Force group life scheme and the Defence Force refused to allow them to become members of that scheme. In this regard I want to quote from a letter from Sanlam which says—

So, Sanlam is blaming the Defence Force for refusing to allow the retired personnel to become members of the scheme. I want to say that they contributed for years to a scheme which they could reasonably anticipate would continue for their widows also to inherit and they have received nothing back. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that the way one treats former Permanent Force men obviously affects present-day recruitment. The term insurance scheme has caused nothing but problems in Government departments. They are obviously undesirable things in the normal course, as most people do not understand the nature of the cover. I believe that something has to be done for these men and it has to be done by the insurance company, and if the insurance company refuses to do it, I believe the State must do it. I will leave the matter at that and come back later to some of the other issues, such as pay, etc.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to reply to the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Yeoville, but before doing so, I want to congratulate the Military Academy at Saldanha on its 30th anniversary, and to wish it everything of the best. Some of our senior officers were trained there, and I hope that the academy will maintain their record in the future.

In discussing this Vote today—I shall come back presently to the hon. member for Yeoville—we are discussing it in a curious, but a very important climate. We cannot divorce the discussion of the Vote from the climate in which it is discussed. The Steyn report says—

In this climate I expect the Opposition, too—if they are the loyal Opposition they claim to be—to uphold this prestige, operational efficiency and fighting spirit of the soldiers in our Defence Force.

And which undermines the NP.

More than ever before in the past 35 years and since the Second World War, every man, woman and child and family in this nation is closely involved in the activities of our Defence Force in trying to safeguard our peoples, and they are being involved ever more closely. The Defence Force is intensifying its attempt to repel the onslaught on us. Where the enemy, the Marxists, the communists, are responsible for the onslaught on us, the climate must be created by the Defence Force to be able to repel this communist or Marxist attack.

The attack on the image of the Defence Force includes an attack on the political as well as the operational heads of the Defence Force, when these attacks are unmotivated and unjustified. This is the first point I want to make in my argument.

Coming to the objectives and the duty of the Defence Force, we must consider the essence of the Defence Force. What is its duty in essence? In essence, the duty of the Defence Force is to be so strong that we shall preserve the peace, that our enemy will think twice before attacking us, but when the attack comes, that attack has to be repelled. As Churchill said: “Without victory there is no survival.” We must conquer the enemy and repel the onslaught. The hon. member for Yeoville referred to R20 million in connection with the Air Force. He also referred to a bigger Standing Force, but the test is whether our Defence Force is winning the war that is being waged on our borders at the moment. If we are winning that war, then we are well-prepared and we are giving attention to the right branches of the Defence Force. There is a war on our borders. It is a war against Swapo, which is supported by the forces of the West and the forces of the East. And what is happening to our Defence Force? In this connection I should like to read what was said by Gen. Geldenhuys—

This indicates an escalation in the effectiveness of our Defence Force in South West Africa. He goes on to say—

Also the following—

He goes on to say—

For this reason, I should like to congratulate the Defence Force—it is time we congratulated them—on the absolutely magnificant role they are playing in South West. If we make a comparison with terrorist onslaughts, elsewhere, in Malaya, for example, we know that it takes 10 000 man hours to see a terrorist, and if my figures are correct, it takes 60 000 to kill one. Our forces are prepared and effective. Let this be a warning to our enemies.

The more badly things are going for our Marxist enemies and for Swapo, the greater will be the political pressure on us as well as the Defence Force in order to undermine the Defence Force politically. We must take care that this House or its members do not take part in the political undermining of our Defence Force, because if our soldiers were to be persuaded that the Defence Force was being politicized for the NP, the effectiveness of our Defence Force would immediately be reduced by about 30%. Therefore I want to ask the hon. members for the Opposition, when they talk about politicizing or when they try to drag politics into the Defence Force, to take cognizance of the fact that this will have a direct effect on the morale of our people and of our soldiers. Over the past 14 years the NP, under the hon. the Minister of Defence in particular, has been fighting against Marxist domination, and we are opposed to the Defence Force being dragged into the constitutional party political arena in South Africa in any way.

Who did that?

You did.

There are two facts I want to mention. In the first place, the hon. the Minister as well as the Deputy Minister dissociated themselves from the document concerned, and in the second place the council of inquiry under the leadership of Adm. Biermann came to a finding.

What was the finding?

We shall come to that, but perhaps the hon. member would prefer it if we did not come to it.

In spite of the two facts I have indicated, an attempt is actually being made again today to prove that the Defence Force engaged in politics. I consider it irresponsible that that side of the House should want to create an atmosphere which will serve to create the impression that the Defence Force is being dragged into the political arena.

You did that.

Did we do it?

You are responsible.

But that is absurd! [Interjections.]

If it is the intention of that side to prevent the Defence Force from conducting psychological actions against parties outside the constitutional party political dispensation, I want to tell them that they are wrong, because our Defence Force has to conduct psychological actions against our enemies. The Defence Force has to create a climate through which the Marxist and communist onslaught may be defeated.

I come now to the hon. member for Yeoville. Only two days after the report about the document had appeared in the Sunday Times, the hon. member said, according to Hansard, that the whole thing was a political action. His words are recorded in Hansard. He said this in spite of the fact that the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister had clearly dissociated themselves from it. Therefore he had no grounds for saying that this was a political action. If he can show me the finding in the concise Biermann report that it was a political action, I shall buy him a farm in Eloff Street. Where does it say that it was a political action? He has no proof, no basis for saying this, but in spite of that he does say it.

However, he goes even further. That Tuesday he said that we had not yet received any reply from the Chief of the Defence Force concerning his involvement. Here we have an insinuation, therefore, that the Chief of the S.A. Defence Force was involved in this.

Did he not send a telex?

The hon. member has no evidence whatsoever. I challenge him

Read the telex.

… to produce that evidence in which it is said that the Chief of the S.A. Defence Force is involved. The hon. member said in The Cape Times of the same day that he regarded it as a political matter. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I rise in order to give the hon. member an opportunity to complete his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I sincerely thank the hon. Whip of the NRP.

If ever there was a calculated attempt to drag the Chief of the Defence Force into politics, it is the allegation that he was by implication involved. What is the purpose of this? The purpose of this is obviously to bring the fighting Defence Force men—and we know that there are members of the PFP, the NRP, the SAP and the NP who are fighting—under the impression that the general officers of the Defence Force are regarded by their subordinates as being politically inspired. If this were to happen, the motivation of a PFP member, for example, would be completely lost. [Interjections.]

I come now to the Biermann report. That report absolves the Chief of the S.A. Defence Force of all responsibility. The report actually mentions that the telex that was sent is not interpreted as being a political document.

Do you have the report?

I am coming to that. The hon. member must just be patient.

In other words, the Biermann report cannot possibly be interpreted as involving the Chief of the S.A. Defence Force. However, the hon. member for Yeoville said, according to a report in The Cape Times—

He said that. He believes, and indirectly implies, that that telex will condemn the Chief of the S.A. Defence Force.

That is not true.

That is what he is doing. In actual fact, he is also doubting the word of the head of this committee of inquiry, Adm. Biermann. He doubts it, because he does not believe the admiral’s finding. The hon. member for Yeoville is saying by implication that there was collusion between adml. Biermann and the Chief of the S.A. Defence Force.

That is not what I am saying.

That is what the hon. member is saying by implication. The inference is inescapable. It is so illogical that I believe that hon. member has been pressurized. He has been pressurized by his own people into behaving in this way. His attitude towards the Defence Force has changed over the past three years. I believe it is that clique which has pressurized him. I want that hon. member to examine his speech, for then he will see how his attitude towards the Defence Force has changed.

I want to say at once that I have been given an opportunity to read the Biermann Report. I also know that the hon. the Deputy Minister invited all the other leaders and other people who are interested in the matter at the moment to inspect that document. [Interjections.] Will the hon. member for Yeoville say whether he was also invited? I want to say at once that I believe the S.A. Defence Force should be kept out of politics. That is my credo, my belief. I also wore a uniform at one stage. I have also been in the legal profession for a very long time and I often read evidence. I cannot find anything from which I can dissociate myself in the report which I have read. On the contrary, I want to congratulate Adm. Biermann on the full and proper summary which he gave.

That hon. member could have read the document if he had wanted to. [Interjections.] If the hon. member had really had the interests of the Defence Force at heart, he would have made sure of what is said in that document before making allegations in this House. He has made allegations here without knowing what is said in that document. Can one believe that? There is a saying in the legal profession: “There is a diligence in ignorance.” Some people really try awfully hard to remain simple-minded for then they have an excuse to talk nonsense. [Interjections.] The hon. member tried hard to remain simple-minded so that he could talk nonsense here. The hon. member has now created a certain image of the PFP. He did not want to read what was said in that report. He talked nonsense in this House, to such an extent that I believe the credibility of the PFP …

Order. Did the hon. member imply that the hon. member for Yeoville was simple-minded?

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw it. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

The hon. member has asked—he has called for it again today— that we should appoint a Select …

Go and see your psychiatrist.

The hon. member is telling another hon. member to go and see his psychiatrist, but I should like him to take a look in the mirror and decide who should go and see a psychiatrist. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Yeoville must contain himself.

Yes, Sir.

He is wasting my time, Mr. Chairman.

The hon. member may proceed.

In a debate in which we are discussing an internal matter affecting the Defence Force, the hon. member for Yeoville actually pleaded for the appointment of a Select Committee.

That is not so.

Reading the newspapers and Hansard, one sees that that hon. member is prejudiced with regard to the matter. He did not even read what is said in the report, but he condemns it. How on earth could one appoint him as a member of a Select Committee, believing that he would adopt an objective attitude on that Committee? In any case, I think that hon. member is the last person who would be able to serve on such a committee.

There is something else I want to say about this document. In respect of this document, the Chief of the Defence Force used his prerogative of taking administrative action. He cannot be faulted on that, for if one found fault with the discretion that was exercised, one would have to say either that there were mala fides or that the head of the S.A. Defence Force did not consider the matter properly. I want to say to the people and to this House that legislation passed in this House authorizes the Chief of the S.A. Defence Force to act in this way. I want to say that we have not heard one word from that side of the House to indicate that he did not act correctly. There are no grounds for saying that.

I have every confidence in the report of the Biermann council of investigation. To those who may not have read it, I want to say that they may also have the fullest confidence in it. I want to say that the last person who can criticize that report is the hon. member for Yeoville, because he had the opportunity of reading it, but he did not want to.

[Inaudible.]

I now want to say that the NP …

He is distorting the facts.

… would like to keep the S.A. Defence Force out of the political arena.

Order! Did the hon. member for Yeoville say that the hon. member had distorted certain words?

I said that he was distorting the facts because that document was not offered in a responsible way for all to read. It was offered on a confidential basis.

It was offered to you and to your leader as well.

Order! The hon. member for Yeoville must withdraw the words “he is distorting the facts”.

I withdraw them, Sir.

Finally, I want to say that all parties were openly invited to read this report.

That is not true.

Representatives of all parties have been sent to the border this year, in an attempt once again to keep the Defence Force out of the political arena. The hon. the Minister of Defence has an agreement with the Press Union so that they may obtain information. Questions are also asked in this House about Defence Force affairs. One thing is certain, however, and that is that Defence Force affairs, except for those that cannot be made public in the interests of national security, are made public so that people may see what is going on. I now want to read something from the Steyn report. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I, too, intend to reply to the matter of the civil action order and the Biermann report on it. First, however, I want to say that I agree with the plea made by the hon. member for Yeoville in regard to the Air Force, and his emphasis on the potential of the Air Force in the light of the length of our frontiers. During the discussion of this Vote last year I made a similar plea. In the new circumstances in which we find ourselves, particularly because the Zimbabwe border has now been added, this is one of the most important needs we have to provide for. That is why I am disappointed that the budget does not place greater emphasis on the Air Force and more rapid communication.

†As far as the Biermann report is concerned, I want to put my position very clearly indeed. I do not want to waste time on it, because I believe that the present situation in the world and in Southern Africa, to which I hope I shall have time to return, together with the many things in the Defence Force which I believe have got to be put right, require attention.

I was offered, and I accepted the opportunity, to read the full unedited report of the board of inquiry, including all the evidence led, with no restriction placed on what I saw. I gave one undertaking, viz. that I would not disclose what I had read, but I did not bind myself to accept either the report or the findings for purposes of debate in the House. All I undertook to do was not to disclose those details in the report which would not be disclosed in the summary of the findings. I availed myself of that opportunity, and I want to say that I am completely satisfied that the investigation sought to establish the source of and the manner in which the order of 12 February 1980 was issued, and that the investigation was fair and full. I studied, word for word, every bit of evidence that was led, and I accept the finding of the board. What I do not accept, and what I want to place on record, is the fact that officially it was felt that the creation of a climate was necessary before this debate took place. That I do not agree with, and I say publicly, for the record, that I do not agree that a Government department should use, or try to manipulate, the media in order to create a climate prior to a debate. What I believe is the right of any department to do is to seek possible points of criticism and to provide the responsible Minister with information which he can use in countering that criticism.

What is the difference?

Every department does that. One does not do it through the media. One does it as a department performing a public service job by giving information to the responsible Minister. I accept that this order misinterpreted that procedure. It has been dealt with and has been repudiated by the hon. the Minister. The order was not issued or even seen by the Chief of the SADF. I am also satisfied with that finding. I do not want, and I am not prepared, to bandy the names of serving officers who I admire and respect across the floor of this House for no purpose at all. What is one going to achieve by doing so? [Interjections.] Whatever the criticism may be, I say that I and my party accept the findings. We regret the aspect relating to the creation of a climate for the debate, but in regard to those who were concerned, I am satisfied that no further action is necessary, and as far as I am concerned, the matter is finished.

Virtually Nat is better than nothing.

I treat a comment like that with the contempt it deserves when it comes from a source of that nature.

I am talking about you.

I want to deal with certain things which I believe do require the attention of the House. The first is the total and unforgiveable shambles in the payment of wages, pay and allowances over a period stretching from last June. Hansard will show that I warned, in debate last year, of the danger of going back to Fred, the electronic computer, because of the experience in the past, and exactly what I warned about has happened. I am not going to go into all of them. These are just a few that have not been finalized yet.

First I want to pay tribute to the officers who have co-operated, particularly the local paymaster of Natal Command. If I had the time, however, to go through the sort of cases that are brought to my attention, hon. members would be surprised. Here is one case I took up in August last year. According to the authorities a cheque was sent in September. It was not received. On 5 October an affidavit was submitted. Finally, after being delayed since August last year, this specific case takes another turn when this particular serviceman now receives a letter informing him he has been overpaid by R130 and he must immediately repay that amount. I am also in possession of a certificate proving that he was not overpaid. It was a blatant miscalculation. The alleged overpayment is shown to be untrue by this certificate.

I have dozens of examples of this sort of thing in my possession. It is bad enough when someone cannot receive his pay, but when the case is taken up and no answer is received, or one is told one has been overpaid and has to repay a certain amount that one has never had, I think it is too much. This is one field to which, I believe, we should give maximum attention. Whatever the effort may cost, we should ensure that this sort of situation ends, because one thing that undermines morale is when a man knows that his money is not going through, that his wife or dependents do not receive the cheque when it is expected and have to get help from elsewhere. They do get the help; that is true. Nevertheless, they have to worry about being paid. I have cases of this nature going back more than a year. Some of them even go back 15 months. When men do not get what they have earned, what is owing to them, it affects their morale and their keenness to go on with their job. I know I am speaking on behalf of every hon. member in this House, who must have had complaints just as I receive complaints. We do not only receive one or two complaints, but we receive them daily. 90% to 95% of these cases are solved inter-departmentally. I have reached the stage now, however, where I can no longer remain silent and let this go on without stating that this is an urgent issue that has to be dealt with.

Another aspect that has worried me are the numerous reports over the last year of cases of physical maltreatment or other incidents affecting the treatment of national servicemen. In every case I know of there has been an inquiry or court action has been taken through the judiciary, which is the correct thing to do. I accept the procedure that is followed, and I accept that the department, in every case that has been brought to their attention—every case I know of—has taken immediate action in order to stamp it out. Therefore, I am not questioning what the department does. What I want to point out is that parents are entitled to an assurance that special efforts are made to get bullies out of the Force or out of positions in which they can handle men.

It is a question of supervision, of having the right leadership in order to ensure that bullying cannot take place. The action which has been taken should, I believe, be matched by a special effort to ensure that wherever people have been found guilty or where there are complaints about peoples’ treatment, the culprits should be removed from positions in which they can again resort to bullying.

Another matter which, I believe, has become more important this year—and it is also a matter we have raised before—in the light of the pressures and escalation which we have to face in our defence responsibility, is the question of a Permanent Force spearhead strike force. I believe it is becoming more and more necessary … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I merely rise so as to afford the hon. member for Durban Point the opportunity to proceed with his speech.

I thank the hon. member for Verwoerdburg.

†I believe that in the present situation it is more important than every that we have a highly trained, mobile Permanent Force—I would say that a brigade force is necessary for this—which will be the spearhead of the actual operational effort in this field. National servicemen, who do a magnificant job, should be the second line of attack and the first line of defence. The first line of attack, however, should come from the Permanent Force on a much larger scale than is the case at present. All races should be included within the Force so that all South Africans can contribute.

There is another matter I was going to deal with, but it was raised by the hon. member for Yeoville. I am referring to the S.A. Air Force Group Life Insurance Scheme. The hon. the Deputy Minister will know that I have twice had interviews with him and given him correspondence, but as the people concerned have obviously gone to other hon. members, I shall take the matter no further than asking the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he could give me a reply to the representations I made to him in recent weeks.

Now I come to another aspect which the hon. member for Yeoville touched on. I am referring to the political vis-á-vis the military solution. I do not want to deal with South West Africa and the problem as a whole, but in the light of the situation there I believe that the critical responsibility which rests on the Government is to deal with the 80% portion which is the political solution. I say this because we cannot allow the situation to drag on and on, leaving the whole burden on the military, without making every possible effort to ensure that the other partner of the Forces, the political action which can eliminate or at least stabilize the situation, is making faster progress than it is at the moment. I know that a great deal is being done by way of “burgerlike aksie”. I also know the “gesindheid” or attitude of the SADF, but I am not happy that we are keeping pace politically with the military development of our defence strategy.

In the few minutes left to me I want to come back to the global picture. In some respects I believe that what is happening in Western Europe bears some similarity to the situation that prevailed prior to the Second World War. The Warsaw Pact forces are being armed to the teeth. Year by year they are getting more, better and more modern weapons and more forces, whilst the Nato deterrent of the Western powers is rapidly being outstripped, not only because of the Salt agreement and other arms limitation agreements, but also because of the weakness of Governments and their inability to act firmly on the whole question of defence. Because of their fear of a loss of oil supplies, there seems to be a paralysis amongst many of the Western countries. Instead of giving rise to a paralysis, this fear of the loss of their oil supplies should make them rethink their whole global strategy in relation to Southern Africa itself. With the build-up of the Russian navy, the Cape sea route becomes more and more important to the West. I therefore hope that the time is not far off when, possibly with the new Government in Britain and, who knows, perhaps even a new administration in America in November, there will be a rethink on the whole question of South Africa’s participation in the global defence of the West against communism and the East, because the stability of Southern Africa is a vital factor in the global balance of power. I do not have to say what has been happening here in Southern Africa with the expansion of Marxism, the growth of surrogate troops —Cubans, East Germans and others—and an instability to the north of us in so many countries. With this in mind, it becomes more than ever vital for South Africa to retain its stability. That stability depends on our military capability. It is essential that we build up the maximum possible military capability, because if our stability should be shaken, the whole prop of the stability of this subcontinent will be endangered, not just for ourselves but, I believe, for the whole Western World.

In passing, I want to say that I think it is significant that nobody has raised any objection to the increase in the amount to be voted this year under this Vote. It is common cause—it is so for the official Opposition and for all other parties—that this is a vital need for South Africa. Nobody argues about the need to spend the money we are spending on this. If anything, I would say that, if it were possible, we should spend more. That additional money should then be spent on the human side of our Defence Force as much as on the hardware. Unless we can build up a Force here which, unlike the Nato forces in Europe, is a real deterrent to any adventure, our situation is going to lead to more and more sacrifices being demanded. The stronger we are, the more we are likely to play a part, and be accepted as playing a part, in the world context as well. I should like to see the old Capex naval exercises restored. I should like to see the links with our potential friends in the West in so many fields restored. One hopes that the arms boycott will be reconsidered too in view of the new situation which is developing here.

Speaking of the arms boycott, I think it is appropriate that we should also pay tribute in the House to our own armaments industry for what it has done in replacing the things that are not available to us now through the normal channels. I think we have done a great deal in making ourselves self-sufficient and that is something of which South Africa can be proud. All this is, however, as I see it, part of the overall scene, which demands of South Africa—and I make no apology for coming back to this—that partner of security without which the Defence Force is merely buying time, namely an administration which is guaranteeing, and maintaining the loyalty of all the peoples of South Africa. If there is any field in which I would accept the legitimacy of political expression from the Army, it would be on the need for emphasis, and more emphasis, on the fact that military defence is only 20% of the solution. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, we have listened attentively to the remarks made and the standpoints adopted by the two major Opposition parties concerning their approach and attitude towards the S.A. Defence Force. It is of the utmost importance that we should know exactly where we stand in South Africa and what the attitude of the Opposition parties towards our Defence Force is. I should like to quote from the report of the Steyn Commission. In paragraph 32 on page 20 one reads—

Then, in paragraph 34, on page 22, one reads—

This is the way we see it on this side of the House. The attitude of our political institutions and our politicians towards the Defence Force and the men who serve in it and who make sacrifices on our behalf is important and we must know what it is. The attitude and approach of the NP is well known. Hon. members have heard it again here this afternoon. The conduct and speeches of everyone, from the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister to the back-benchers on this side of the House, testify to a positive approach to the Defence Force. By that I do not mean that we do not also ask questions and that we are not also critical. The instructions contained in the document about which such a terrible fuss is being made were in fact issued to be able to rectify matters within the Defence Force which needed to be rectified and also to be able to reply to the questions put in this connection by this side of the House. In spite of the fact that we ask questions and are critical, we appreciate what the members of the Defence Force are doing for South Africa and its people. We tell them, so, too. We have heard it this afternoon and we shall hear it again during the debate.

I think the attitude of the NRP has been well-known over many years. They are critical, but at the same time their criticism is constructive. Once again this afternoon we heard the hon. member for Durban Point complain about the salaries and the bullies in the Defence Force. However, he did so in the interests of the Defence Force and the men who serve in it, in an attempt to improve their lot, and we cannot find any fault with that.

As against that, the standpoint and the attitude of the official Opposition were again stated here this afternoon. The hon. member for Yeoville—I think I am putting it mildly— made an unrestrained attack again here this afternoon and made all kinds of threats. He complained about the involvement of an insurance company in the Defence Force, and then he kicked up a terrible row about the document we have already debated on a previous occasion.

Looking at the whole row which has been kicked up about the so-called psychological offensive against the official Opposition, there are a few things which are very strange, and the report of the Steyn Commission also refers to these. Let us consider what the hon. the Prime Minister said when this matter was debated in this House on 25 March. He said that on the Saturday, the document had been in the possession of the Sunday Times for several days. According to the newspaper itself, they only brought it to the attention of the Defence Force on Saturday, 22 March, and to the attention of the hon. the Prime Minister only after the first edition of the newspaper had appeared on the Saturday night. Now one may ask why it was only brought to the attention of the Defence Force on the Saturday, a few hours before publication, while the newspaper had had several days to inform the Defence Force about it and to clear it with them, even while they were taking legal advice about it. Furthermore, it is clear from the report that the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition knew about the existence of the document before that Sunday.

I want to ask the hon. member for Yeoville where he got his information about the document. When did he get to know about it? We should very much like to know that. It is also very interesting that on Friday, 21 March, a reception was given in the Castle by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Defence in the honour of a visiting Defence Force Chief from Taiwan. On that occasion, representatives of the various political parties were present, but we noticed that the hon. member for Yeoville, the official Opposition’s chief spokesman on defence matters, was conspicuously absent. That was a strange. Then people talk about a carefully planned psychological onslaught. I want to ask the hon. member for Yeoville where he was that night. What role is the official Opposition playing in this psychological campaign which is being waged against the Defence Force at the moment? We insist on a reply.

Harry had to defend himself against the clique.

Was he defending himself against the clique, as the hon. the Prime Minister says? Were they making another attempt to kick him out?

We want to know what role the official Opposition is playing in this psychological campaign which is being waged against our Defence Force. I want to remind the hon. member for Yeoville of the speech he made in this House on 25 March. He referred to the members of the Defence Force in unflattering terms as people who did not understand this and that. An example of his barely concealed insinuations is found in the following remark—

He went on to say—

He went on to make a blatant insinuation by saying that in spite of the fact that the document had been circulated to the Chiefs of the Army and the Air Force, six weeks had allegedly elapsed without their having done anything about it. He goes on to say in column 3501—

I submit that anyone reading this insinuation will tell that hon. member that it is a disgraceful insinuation he is making against senior officers in the Defence Force. The hon. member for Yeoville also objected very strongly to the article in Paratus and he said—

He also says—

In the Sunday Times of 30 March 1980, the hon. member for Yeoville said—

This is a harsh accusation which the hon. member makes. He speaks of “false pretences”. The hon. member does this while not taking the facts into account. However, what happened here? The request for an interview was made to the hon. member on 6 February.

That is an untruth.

The hon. member says it is an untruth.

Of course it is an untruth.

On 6 February, the hon. member for Yeoville was asked for an interview.

That is untrue.

This interview took place on 11 February. On 12 February this contentious document was sent out. What gives the hon. member the right to make an allegation against people who cannot defend themselves in public? I ask the hon. member: Why does he try to do this thing and why does he try to make insinuations about the senior officers in the Defence Force? It is a disgraceful thing which he has done. It is extremely reprehensible.

Let us have a Select Committee and test it.

The hon. member for Yeoville still pays lip service in this House now and then, but I now want to talk about another hon. member in that party who did the following. According to a report in the Sunday Times of the 30 March 1980, under the heading “Resign Call to Broeders in State Jobs,” this hon. member said the following—

He went on to say—

Further on he said—

Now I suppose hon. members all want to know who this was.

You are telling a lie; I never said that.

It is the hon. member for Johannesburg North who made these outrageous and disgraceful allegations, a person who admits to having been a member of this organization himself. It fills one with repugnance, to say the least of it. The hon. member is not in the House at the moment. I asked the hon. member to be here, but it seems he cannot be here.

[Inaudible.]

He is referring to your brother Kowie. He was not referring to you. You are being the bride at every wedding again. [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon. member say it was some kind of lie?

Mr. Chairman, I said that if it were said that I had said that, then it would be a bloody lie. That is what the hon. the Prime Minister was suggesting, namely that I had said it.

No, the hon. the Prime Minister did not suggest that.

Yes. He was accusing me.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has wasted my time unnecessarily, but I just want to …

Order! The hon. member for Yeoville must withdraw the word “lie” and the description of the lie.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the word “lie”.

And also the word “bloody”.

I also withdraw the word “bloody”.

As far as the hon. member for Johannesburg North is concerned, we can only ask: What was he doing there then when he was on the Bench? After all, he was also a member of that organization.

The hon. member for Yeoville is that party’s chief spokesman on defence. What does he say about this? He does not say that the hon. member cannot say this kind of thing. We in South Africa need everyone to defend this country, and for that reason we very strongly censure the official Opposition for the attitude they are adopting towards our Defence Force and the people who serve in the Defence Force. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to endorse the damning criticism of the official Opposition voiced by the hon. member for Verwoerdburg. If we take a balanced view of that contentious document which appeared in the Sunday Times on 23 March 1980, the attitude of the hon. member for Yeoville, who, along with other elements, is sniping at our South African Defence Force, is in shrill contrast to the responsible behaviour of the hon. member for Durban Point in this debate. Apparently the hon. member for Yeoville cannot endure any more criticism, so he is leaving the House.

Taking into account that this was a classified document, one asks oneself for what purpose it was kept until that specific moment and handled in that way. It was not done with the intention of exposing the ill-advised behaviour of one or two officers, for then different steps would have been taken. It was done in order to create a certain negative climate in respect of the S.A. Defence Force by giving rise to the absolutely ridiculous idea of party politics in the Defence Force. In this way, suspicion is sowed in the minds of at least a part of our population, while they know very well what the standpoint of the hon. the Minister of Defence with regard to this matter is. After the hon. the Minister of Defence and the hon. the Deputy Minister have categorically stated in this House that they dissociated themselves from those parts of the document, the official Opposition is repeating that tirade here today. What do they mean to achieve by that? By behaving like this, they are playing the game of the enemy against the South African Defence Force.

I should prefer to confine myself to a positive image of the Defence Force. I want to refer to an important supporting element of the S.A. Defence Force, namely the S.A. Air Force, which celebrated its sixtieth anniversary this year. There were splendid celebrations throughout the country in honour of this event. It is interesting to look at the history of the S.A. Air Force, how its beginnings were small and modest, but it was gradually expanded and eventually commanded the respect of friend and enemy in two world wars, the Berlin air-lift, the Korean War, and so on. In the post-war period, the S.A. Air Force has gone from strength to strength, to such an extent that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Defence could rightly say during the celebration of the anniversary held at the Air Force base at Waterkloof that the S.A. Air Force, measured in terms of manpower and equipment, was by far the best air force on the continent of Africa, in spite of the United Nations arms boycott. He also said that according to figures of the Institute for Strategic Studies, South Africa had a greater air capacity than all the other African countries south of the Sahara combined. He also said—

I want to come back to the story of the birth of the S.A. Air Force. It is interesting that the first South African who held out the prospect of such a development, and who in fact collected information in this connection abroad, was none other than the celebrated Boer general, Gen. Christiaan Frederik Beyers. He was the Commandant-General of the active Citizen Force, as the chief of the Defence Force was known at the time, when he went abroad in August 1912. At that time, The Cape Times reported as follows about that visit—

Before returning from abroad, the General visited various countries. One of these was Switzerland. I quote again from this book— Genl. Christiaan Frederik Beyers, by Dr. G. D. Scholtz—

Now, 70 years later, we have reached the situation during the term of service of the hon. the Minister of Defence where military service in this country has in fact become part of a way of life.

The subsequent history of the Air Force is well known. It was eventually established in 1920. In the process, many aircraft and arms were used. They came and went. A variety of fighter planes and bombers was used. These varied from De Havillands Dh9s to the modern Sabres. At first, the F86 Sabre was commissioned, which was used by our pilots in Korea. Later the Canadian Mk6 Sabre was also commissioned here. For many years, these Sabre fighter aircraft were the first-line air defence element of the Air Force, and they eventually became the most important training aircraft at the 85 Advanced Fighter School at Pietersburg, until the more sophisticated Mirage III and Mirage F1 took over from them as a result of the demands of modern air forces.

It was with some nostalgia and regret, therefore, that we were able to see the reliable Sabres in action for the last time over Pietersburg on 2 February 1980, during the celebration of the 60th anniversary of the Air Force. However, the training of fighter pilots with the Impala Mk1 and Mk2 and with the Mirage III fighter aircraft continues uninterruptedly at that most active and most strategically situated Air Force base of South Africa. The fact that this fighter school, as well as the 70 Mobile Radar Unit, is stationed at Pietersburg, makes of this frontier city in the north, Pietersburg, the observation post, the look-out post, the stronghold of South Africa, which has to watch over the safety and prosperity of all the inhabitants of South Africa, in the words of Dr. Gerrit Viljoen and also in the words of the hon. the Minister of Defence at a meeting held last year. For that reason, a great responsibility rests on the commanding officer of the Air Force base at Pietersburg, Col. Moolman. That task should be appreciated by every right-thinking South Africa. I should also like to wish Lt.-Gen. A. M. Muller, who recently took upon him the responsible task of Chief of the S.A. Air Force, God’s richest blessings and strength to perform this enormous task which rests on his shoulders.

Finally, I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Defence to ensure that the circumstances and conditions of employment of this highly skilled and extremely competent sector of our community, which must constantly guarantee the safety of our South African air space, are constantly watched in a very circumspect but nevertheless effective way, so that they may always be equipped with the most sophisticated and modern apparatus and arms, and their base in the north may constantly be expanded and strengthened so that it may remain a look out post, an observation post and a stronghold of this country and all its people. Along with this country, which we received as our heritage, we also accepted the duty of defending and protecting it with all the means available to us and with all our strength. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the handsome words expressed by the hon. member for Pietersburg with regard to the Air Force. It is only a pity that some of the retired Air Force staff are unable to enjoy the sweet fruits of their service today.

The hon. members for Yeoville and Durban Point have already referred to the situation that has arisen with regard to certain life insurance schemes. What has happened is so outrageous and scandalous that a full debate ought to take place in this House about this matter. In July 1958 a group life insurance scheme was established with the approval of the then hon. Minister. The scheme was controlled by a board of trustees. It comprised senior Air Force officers who also served on the management board of the Air Force Fund. This fund was established under Permanent Force regulations, and the Chief of the Air Force is directly responsible to the Chief of the Defence Force for the efficient control thereof. Officials of the fund are staff in the employ of the State who carried out their duties with regard to the fund in normal working hours. In other words, for all practical purposes the scheme was administered by the Defence Force, and accordingly it was also the responsibility of the hon. the Minister of Defence.

The Chief of the Defence Force insisted that the benefits of the scheme be brought to the attention of members of the staff of the Defence Force and that they should be encouraged to join the scheme. Commanders had to submit regular returns indicating progress made. Refusal to join this scheme was not regarded in a favourable light. In this way the number of participants grew over the 21 years to approximately 6 000 members, about 650 of whom were pensioners in 1979. Everything went well up to and including October 1979. Then the Chief of the Air Force issued the following circular—

Dear Members,

I am only going to quote a few extracts from the letter—

I want to stress the following in particular—

When one considers this situation, and considers, in addition, the co-operation between Sanlam and the Department of Defence, it is apparent that approximately 650 pensioners who in some cases have paid their premiums for more than 20 years are being thrown on the rubbish heap like old wrecked cars.

[Inaudible.]

Oh yes. If they could afford it, they could indeed have continued to belong to the scheme, at premiums almost six times higher than the premiums they have paid up to this stage. If that is the way retired servicemen are treated, I ask how we can expect that new members will want to join the Defence Force to enable us to achieve the percentage of 13,5 to which the hon. member for Yeoville referred and which is also stated in the White Paper as the ideal for the Defence Force.

There is only one way in which this scandalous matter can be rectified. I propose that the State, together with Sanlam, pay out to the pensioners their full value.

You do not know what you are talking about.

You are talking through your neck.

I know what I am talking about. I have all the documents and if those hon. members have in fact been listening, then they do not understand the English from which I quoted. [Interjections.] The fact is that there are approximately 650 pensioners who have paid their premiums over a very long period and who today, due to the actions of the Department, are sitting with a bag full of nothing.

Surely you are talking nonsense. What is a bag full of nothing?

The premiums which they have paid are totally lost. [Interjections.] It is the responsibility of the State to see to it that those people be placed in the position they would have been in if that Scheme had not been cancelled. The situation is now that Sanlam has made an offer and as I understand it, have offered R100 000 as a “golden handshake”. That is only a drop in the bucket in comparison with what has been done to those ex-servicemen. I believe that until this matter has been rectified there will continue to be a wide gap between those who would like to join the Defence Force and the Department that has to look after their welfare. It must be stated clearly that if we do not get the necessary percentage of young men prepared to join the Permanent Force, we are going to encounter problems in the future.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister will reply in full to the allegations made by the hon. member for Wynberg as regards the insurance position.

I should like to refer to the allegations made by the hon. member for Durban Point who referred to problems pertaining to military pay and gave examples of such problems. He said this was an extremely urgent matter which justified maximum attention. I agree with him and appreciate his sensible attitude in this regard.

However, the question which arises, is what is the real crux of the problem. The crux of the problem is that the present advisory pay document administration and flow was designed for a relatively small, static routine Defence Force. Consequently it is too cumbersome to meet the requirements of an extended and mobile Defence Force. The result is that omissions, delays and other mistakes arise. This problem has been confirmed by the S.A. Institute of Chartered Accountants.

However, there is something important which I should like to point out. There has never been a problem in connection with the military pay of Permanent Force members, and before 1975 there was no problem with the military pay of Citizen Force members either. The problem basically arose in 1975 with the sudden escalation of power levels during the Angolan War. Owing to the call-up of many troops the infrastructure of the Chief Paymaster was simply unable to deal with all cases. A new computerized pay system, which was still in the development stage at that stage and untried, was hurriedly put into operation. The result was that many mistakes were made. A large part of the Chief Paymaster’s office struggled for almost three years to solve these problems. The faulty computer system was then done away with.

The problem which arose with the Angolan war was aggravated by the doubling of national service in 1977 and the subsequent tripling in national service pay. Problems were experienced with the initial documentation of 55 000 national servicemen scattered all over the country.

The problem was thus caused by the fourfold increase in the Defence Force’s activities over the past five years, and an increase in the recipients of military pay from 30 000 to 120 000. Consequently tremendous pressure was placed on the existing staff who became too few, and the existing accommodation which had become inadequate.

It is important to note that the problem which arose was a completely natural one if one takes into account the completely unnatural escalation of the activities of the S.A. Defence Force.

The solution to this problem is least of all a witch hunt for possible culprits who should perhaps have foreseen the escalation. The only logical action is for every South African to put his shoulder to the wheel and to assist the S.A. Defence Force in solving that problem. For that reason I express my appreciation for the responsible attitude adopted by the hon. member for Durban Point, since this is basically his party’s standpoint as well.

But the crucial question is, in my opinion, what steps the S.A. Defence Force took to solve this problem.

Comprehensive brochures and instructions were distributed to national servicemen in order to ensure that documentation was complete from the outset. Groups of national servicemen who have been cleared, are now being paid out in full up to the end of their national service, irrespective of the exact date of clearance. The result is that the final pay is being paid automatically and without delay. The special camp allowances are now being paid uninterruptedly until the unit has given notice that the payment must be stopped. Limited financial know-how has now been prevented by the dissolution of the closed Financial Division, and a Finance Service Corps, with finance branches throughout the S.A. Defence Force, has been established. In future staff will be trained by an established finance school. The Quarter-master-General has specially arranged for attractive accommodation for the Chief Paymaster and his staff, and it is hoped that this will be occupied in September this year. Staff shortages are being surmounted by appointing temporary staff and phasing in women on a half-day basis.

There is also a well-organized inquiries office which is operating successfully and dealing with inquiries with a minimum delay of approximately two days for telephones inquiries and 10 days for written inquiries. All Command and Formation commanding officers are involved in this action and special and co-ordinated efforts are taking place to solve this problem. Special information teams inform all paymasters in order to eliminate problems.

The Chief Paymaster made an analysis of the problems being experienced and found that 36% of cases had already been solved when they were reported to him. Furthermore he found that 39% of the problems arose owing to missing documentation. The remaining 25% have been ascribed to incomplete information furnished by national servicemen.

The important aspect now is what the position is in respect of the backlog. Where do we stand today after all these efforts by the S.A. Defence Force?

At a special meeting of paymasters from 14 to 18 April, only 1 075 problem cases were identified. The action that was taken in respect of those 1 075 cases a week or two ago resulted in 665 of them being solved. There are now only about 400 left, which could unfortunately not be finalized without the co-operation of the people involved. Thus the backlog has to a large extent been eradicated.

Now the question is: What are the prospects? Top priority is now being given by a Chief of Staff (Finance), and Chief of Staff (Personnel) Infoplan Team, to the development of a staff computer sub-system which will constantly provide the Chief Paymaster with timeous inputs of the pay status of all staff and with any changes in such status. When this system is put into operation in 1981, it will eliminate the major single problem in respect of mail documentation. Secondly, the prospect is that the staff and accommodation shortage is now under control and that all divisions of the S.A. Defence Force are co-operating in an effort to find a final solution to this problem.

The S.A. Defence Force has had to bear the brunt of heavy criticism because of this pay problem. However, the cardinal question is whether timely and effective steps have been taken to solve the problem which arose as a result of the escalation of the military threat to South Africa. I have no doubt that the upper echelons of the S.A. Defence Force or other persons involved in it, must be congratulated and commended for the almost superhuman task they have carried out to solve this problem.

Mr. Chairman, for various reasons South Africa is increasingly seen as being militarily strong. As far as I am concerned, the most important reason for this is that we have an extremely competent staff at the helm of our Defence Force. On behalf of this House I should like to start by expressing our sincere gratitude to the Chief of the Defence Force and all the staff for what they are doing in the interests of our country. In the second place I believe that we are militarily strong because we have a national Defence Force. Since we have a national Defence Force, the responsibility for defending this country rests not only with the Permanent Force and the national servicemen, but also with every member of the public. Many of us are today no longer able to participate actively, but I think we have a task to perform in the sense that we can motivate our national servicemen and the parents involved to give only of their best in the service of our country. Thirdly I want to say that the responsibility of our national servicemen does not end once they have completed their national service.

The S.A. Defence Force consists of various sections. Thus the Army consists of four sections, viz. the Permanent Force, the Citizen Force the commandoes and the auxiliary services. In the short time at my disposal I want to say something about our commando system and in particular about the national servicemen that are allocated to the commandos. The commando system forms an essential part of our total national defence strategy, particularly with regard to the unconventional onslaught at present being launched on our survival and our freedom. The commandos of the Republic have already demonstrated to our enemies that they are a force to be reckoned with, a force which must not be underestimated and a force of which the Defence Force in this country may be justifiably proud. Not only do the commando furnish a golden opportunity to every individual to contribute his share to our national security; they are also a highly effective organization.

Owing to the geographic situation of the various commandos a defence blanket is created which covers the length and breadth of our country. This creates the potential to carry out the task of the Defence Force everywhere at short notice. Last year, during the discussion of the Defence Vote, the hon. member for Pietersburg summarized this very well and I should like to quote him, for I cannot put it better. He said (Hansard, 23 April 1979, col. 4742)—

However, I have a problem. On page 5, paragraph 24, of the previous White Paper, under the heading “Commandos” I read the following—

It seems that this trend is continuing. I know that this matter is already receiving the urgent attention of this Government, because from as far back as 1953 when we started with the ballot system, the Government began diverting a certain percentage of conscripts to the commandos. Since 1960 we have changed over to the national service system. At that stage a certain percentage of national servicemen were diverted to the commandos in order to bring them up to strength. Because the commando force constitutes an essential part of the Defence Force, the significance of this is that in its role as chief protector of its area, the commando system must and can function effectively. To be able to do this, there must be a constant corps of officers and subalterns and a constant source for its manpower.

As I have already indicated, volunteers are and have always been such a source and at present still form the biggest proportion of the commandos. However, there are young men who at 30 years of age no longer have military obligations and who do not again join the commandos as volunteers. Here I refer to national servicemen who have already completed their national service at the age of 30 years. It is left to these former national servicemen to choose between voluntarily joining the commandos or be coming part of the reserve force. But for a few exceptions, the vast majority become part of the reserve force—in other words, the ranks of the commandos are not being swelled in this way.

Another matter I should like to state pertinently is that it takes any young member approximately seven to eight years before he is properly integrated into a unit. They are trained men who have a great deal of experience and once they have reached the stage to which I have referred, they prefer to be taken up into the reserve force. When a person is taken up into the reserve force, his knowledge becomes rusty. I could mention to hon. members that the cost of training an infantryman i.e. a foot soldier, up to the first insurgency level, amounts to R2 800—food and clothing excluded—over the period of eight months it takes to train him up to that level. The costs for a mortar officer are R4 000, for an anti-tank soldier R4 600, for a mounted rifleman, R3 300. Can our country afford so to speak to lose such men at the age of 30 years?

I think the time has arrived for it not to entail compulsory border service for such men if they continue to belong to the commandos, but compulsory area protection service. This will mean that experienced men will increasingly become available as officers and subalterns and that we shall also have the necessary manpower for training and planning. This ought to require no significant sacrifice from such a member, because he is simply being used within the borders of his commando area where he lives and works. Then only shall we be able to refer to proper and effective blanket coverage. I trust that this idea will receive the earnest attention of the hon. the Minister and his Deputy Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I want to start by expressing my sincere gratitude to the Defence Force for the excellent briefings we have been given this year. It started in the commands. In my constituency, which falls within two commands, I was invited to Oudtshoorn and again to Port Elizabeth. I must say that it was really worthwhile and we were exceptionally well-received. The officers tried to frighten us with those large canons which they fired in the night, but they did not succeed in doing so.

We had the briefing session in the Castle as well. We had the tour to the border which particularly impressed upon us the tremendously long borders the Defence Force has to deal with. Then we also had the very pleasant voyage to Saldanha Bay on the President Pretorius. Some men became a little ill, but I do still think that it was as well that they went along to see what is also new in the Navy there.

Yesterday and today I have really been surprised at the official Opposition, that cannot understand that the 12-point plan which the hon. the Prime Minister announced is a plan of this party. They think it is the Government’s plan. Any party has a policy as well as principles, and when it comes to power, it does its utmost to implement that policy. However, then it also has to deal with the day-to-day running of a country and is unable to implement literally every principle or point of policy. It has to negotiate with foreign countries, with states beyond our borders, and has to make adjustments. We trust our National Government, if it has to make adjustments which would make a real difference to the NP principles, to go to either the party or the nation, if this is necessary. I was really surprised that the official Opposition has been unable to understand this difference and has continued to confuse the party with the Government. In my opinion this bordered on recklessness. It has tried to impute to the Government an attitude of ostensibly misinforming the people, and making promises that cannot be implemented. The Opposition is saying to our young people, as the hon. member for Musgrave said, “to defend the indefensible”. Surely this is a totally wrong attitude. Our sons are not fighting for NP policy as we formulate it in this party; we are fighting for our Government and for our country. This is how I see this matter.

Now I want to come to something positive. We spend more than R2 000 million annually on defence. A voter would be justified in asking. Is this money properly spent? Is it not perhaps being wasted? Is it really necessary for us to have to spend so much? If we study the defence budget over the past 10 years we find that it has not risen much in real terms. It has only risen along with the country’s total budget. If we examine the total defence expenditure for 1970, we see that it has risen from R271 million to R1 700 million in 1980. This is an increase of 15%. The total national expenditure has risen from R2 007 million to R13 000 million. This is an increase of 14,9%. Thus we see that the increase in defence expenditure has kept pace with the national economy.

I believe that the citizens of this country should accept as a philosophy that the rendering of services such as defence is desirable. I want to point out that this expenditure holds many advantages for the country. The expenditure rose after the total arms embargo of 1977, but at the same time this arms embargo afforded our industries the stimulus to produce what is necessary and to develop and improve our local products. It made embargo busters of our Defence Force engineers and technicians. They have now really applied the motto, “necessity is the mother of invention”. They have done what really seemed impossible. They did not accept “no” for an answer. They have persisted in seeking the solution to the problems, and once they had solved the problems, they handed this solution in most cases to the private enterprises to proceed with mass production. I think this is a very sensible policy.

When we examine defence expenditure, we see that approximately 20% of the budget is utilized for the remuneration of employees. 50% is utilized for fixed assets, for example buildings. All of these things benefit our country.

Armscor and its associates make full use of private enterprise. I read in the report that that body makes use of 800 main and subcontractors. In that way employment opportunities have been created for more than 100 000 persons.

With a view to the military threat to South Africa, I can state as a fact that the community benefits that derive from the defence function, exceed the cost to community. I think it is important for our voters to know this.

Quite apart from all these benefits we derive from the defence budget, many psychological benefits flow from it as well. Here I want to place special emphasis on the effect it has on our indigenous population. By using national servicemen, for example, in agricultural training, the Defence Force has become involved in agricultural development. One example of this is an agricultural development plan for the Kavango which was started in co-operation with the Citizen Force and command members attached to a university. There are also research projects in co-operation with South African universities. National servicemen who are agriculturalists, are being used as information officers to advise the indigenous population in respect of crops, livestock, crop spraying, etc. They have helped to establish an experimental farm. Lecturers for agricultural colleges are provided. The indigenous troops are being trained to co-operate with the Citizen Force on agricultural projects so that subsequently they will be able to carry on with them themselves. Veterinary services are being provided to help prevent stock diseases. They assist in the training of indigenous para-veterinary officers. These people are going to be extremely useful to their people. Other forms of assistance are also being provided. I do not have the time to discuss all of these in detail. However, I do want to mention just a few examples. People are being trained as artisans, medical aid is being provided, economists are being trained, conservation officers are being trained, instructors are being trained for physical education, information officers and administration clerks, etc., are being trained. I really think that we can be proud of this assistance the Defence Force is granting these people. The fact that this assistance is being granted to our indigenous population will create in the minds of those people an image of the S.A. Defence Force as a force which consists of men who want to uplift and train people in peace and friendship to become self-sufficient. This will demonstrate to the population the value of the Army as a democratic institution.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to make an appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister. I should like to appeal to him to consider very carefully the question of the discontinuing of the Sanlam group insurance scheme. Many people have been very seriously prejudiced by the discontinuing of the group policies. Some of them have been asked to pay premiums for taking out new life policies which they are just not able to afford on their pensions. Admittedly they would be admitted to new policies without undergoing a medical examination, but that is small compensation to them. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to look at this matter again. I ask him this more particularly because of the representations that have been made by the official Opposition and which I ask him to disregard. The representations made by those hon. members are objectionable in its presentation. They are using an occasion such as this to try to make political capital out of something of which political capital should not be made. I want to ask him instead to pay attention to the representations that have been made by the hon. member for Durban Point and by myself, he on behalf of Air Force men and I on behalf of Naval people, in connection with the discontinuing of this group scheme. I want to ask him not to be prejudiced against their good and bona fide cases as a result of the political speeches made by hon. members of the official Opposition this afternoon.

He must be joking.

He is not joking. He is sick.

I want to say something in connection with the Biermann board of inquiry. The hon. member for Yeoville has said in this House this afternoon that we are not allowed to know the findings.

[Inaudible.]

He then qualified it by saying that the “public” is not allowed to know. He has had every opportunity to read those findings and to study the report drawn up by Admiral Biermann.

[Inaudible.]

He was given an opportunity to read those findings. The hon. member for Durban Point and I took the opportunity that was afforded us. Why did the hon. member for Yeoville not do it too? I shall tell hon. members why he did not take that opportunity. The reason is simply because he has an absolute obsession about Press publicity. If he had taken the opportunity, he would have been in honour bound not to talk about that report in this House. So instead of that, he deliberately denied himself that opportunity so that he could make a speech about it here and receive all the publicity he could possibly receive. [Interjections.]

What is then secret about this report?

I want to refer to the report brought out by Admiral Biermann. First of all I read the telex and, secondly, I read the “voorlegging”. As regards the drawing up and the wording of both the telex and the “voorlegging”, I must tell hon. members that I think that there has been an unfortunate choice of words. I think that there has been a error of judgment on the part of the officer who drew up the “voorlegging”. However, I want to say—and here I speak with authority—that I have known the officer responsible for drawing up the document personally for many years.

So have I.

He is a man of integrity and of high principles, and I do not think any motive, other than a genuine mistaken motive, can be attributed to him. He is held in high regard in the Defence Force and has held responsible posts, both in and out of South Africa.

I think it is important that we should ask who has leaked that document from the Commandant-General’s offices to the Press. I would like to see that there is an equally assiduous inquiry into the question of who leaked that document, because it involves our security.

What is so secret about it?

I now want to deal with the Steyn report. It is a remarkably good document. I think it is very balanced and I think it is also remarkable in that newspapers only selected those portions based mainly on the academic argument of the theory of Press freedom to claim that the South African Press should be even freer than it is and to boast of the fact that theirs is a free objective Press.

I think there are other aspects of the report that are of considerable importance, and that it is a pity the newspapers did not take the opportunity to bring to the attention of the public some of the very serious things to which Mr. Justice Steyn draws attention. I would like to quote one or two sentences. In the first place, under the heading “Salus reipublicae suprema lex” (page 21)—

I would regard that as one of the most important statements made in this report.

Further on in the report Mr. Justice Steyn makes reference to the psychological assault on all of us in the Republic, the official Opposition included. He refers to the fact that the commission found it unthinkable that foreign journalists should be given preferential treatment in comparison with South African journalists. He says (page 129)—

Then he deals with the question of the control over foreign propaganda activities which are disseminated in the Republic. He says—

He believes, and I subscribe to his belief, that (page 174)—

There are some of these people who call themselves agents who have diplomatic privilege, although many of them do not. He also stated—

Who are these people that the report refers to as agents? Mr. Steyn says (page 175)—

We believe with Mr. Justice Steyn that such persons should be registered and that a careful check should be made on their activities.

I have referred in this House before to the question of the information service of the USA Government in Soweto. This is what Mr. Justice Steyn has to say about it. He says there is this information service and that it is active in Soweto. He says, referring to a report by an American journalist called Heinzerling, in a Kenya newspaper called The Daily Nation on 12 November 1976 that (page 175)—

He goes on to quote in his report from a Press statement issued by the American Embassy in October 1977. I quote again—

Note well—

The next quote is two years later, a quote by the American Ambassador himself at the Witwatersrand University. This is an American Ambassador, acting here under diplomatic privilege. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I merely rise to afford the hon. member the opportunity to complete his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for Verwoerdburg. The report quotes him as having said—

This is the sort of activity that is taking place in the Republic and has been taking place for some time endangering our society. I would suggest that the Government takes action to give effect to the recommendations by the Steyn Commission in this respect.

I should like to refer now to another matter which is undermining the morale of the people. That is a campaign that is being launched by theologians and by politicians under the guise of Nusas on our university campuses. Individuals are being encouraged not to do military service, but to insist on alternatives. The hon. member for Yeoville and some of his colleagues, who so often boast of their patriotism and of their desire to serve their country, should take note. I can think of no better operation that they can undertake than for the hon. member for Yeoville, the hon. member for Pinelands and other hon. members who think like them, to appear on the university campuses, as I have done in Cape Town, at Rhodes and at the Natal university, as well as at the Witwatersrand University, and to plead a case for military service. It is all very well for the hon. member for Yeoville to write in Paratus when he is pressurized to do so, about the necessity for doing military service, but let him go and appear on those university campuses and let him plead there the cause of the necessity for young South Africans to do their military service. [Interjections.]

He has three sons who have done it. Do not be so silly. [Interjections.]

I have attended some of these meetings on the university campuses, and I should like to give an example of some of the statements made by those who propose an alternative to military service. First of all there is a Dr. Nash. She is one of the education officials of the S.A. Council of Churches. She is a good speaker. She is a convincing speaker and is having a lot of influence on the university campuses. I must warn the Government. What is her case? She says—

Then she refers to the chaplains in the Defence Force and says—

Next she disparagingly refers to the fact that—according to her—most of the people who do national service do not even have a Std. 8 qualification. She complains too about the fact that defaulters are given three years’ DB! That is the sort of argument she uses on our university campuses. I believe the Government has to do something about people like Dr. Nash, about Moulder, on the Rhodes University campus, and also like Dunn, an ex-Nusas leader on the Natal University campus. [Interjections.]

I now should like to say something about military correspondents. Military correspondents, both in peace and in war, have a very vital role to fulfil, mainly in the field of informing the public properly and in so doing looking after the morale of the people. Any suggestion that accredited military correspondents should be regimented as military officers and should be treated as a uniformed information service would, I think, be unacceptable. I believe that these people should be independently employed and independently paid, although at times they are obviously dependent upon, and entitled to, military subsistence, shelter and transport. They are subject to the Defence Act, the Official Secrets Act and other applicable laws, as well as certain provisions of the disciplinary code. It is the privilege and the right of the Defence Force to screen these accredited military correspondents, to approve them as candidates for the post. I also think it is a great responsibility that rests on the editors of the newspapers to see that the right sort of people are made military correspondents. I think, too, that the newspapers should volunteer to have these people wear, not an army uniform, but certainly a distinctive uniform. There are plenty of kinds of uniforms that can be worn. They should also wear a badge of office showing that they are military correspondents. We think it is highly undesirable for people, at the moment acting as military correspondents, to appear before young national servicemen and certain Defence Force officers dressed as if they were at some sort of pop festival, in jeans and T-shirts and things like that. They should present the appearance of being as involved as the fighting men.

There is a suggestion I want to make in all solemnity to the Government this afternoon. The Government should try to negotiate with the newspapers concerned for the establishment of a corps of military correspondents.

He is so far to the right of me it is not funny.

It should consist of accredited military correspondents and should be an autonomous body. It should have its own constitution, rules and regulations, and the constitution of that body should be such that no section of the media, no individual publishing group, no individual newspaper, should by weight of its influence, be able to exercise undue authority over them. This corps should be able to exercise its own disciplinary powers. So my plea this afternoon is for consideration to be given to the establishment of such a corps of military correspondents.

In the next minute or so, if I have that time left, I want to say something about civil defence. There is an Act, there are ordinances and there are regulations. It seems to me there are plenty of chiefs but not enough Indians. Where are the grassroot levels of civil defence? In some of the towns one does indeed have an active civil defence force, but the municipal authorities very often have their own staff who form the basis of civil defence infrastructures in those towns. That is commendable, but there are many people in those towns who would like to be involved but are not being involved as they should be. I want to refer particularly, however, to the outlying areas, to those people who are not actually in the villages or towns. There are many people who would like to participate in the activities of civil defence organizations if only they knew more about it, but apart from that I think that it is necessary for the Government to give serious consideration to some form of selective compulsion in the field of civil defence. If one has a form of selective compulsion for those people on whom the State does not have a first call, I think that local people appointed to be in charge of civil defence could pick and choose individuals for the purposes of establishing an effective civil defence organization. This applies particularly to the outlying areas. I think this is something the Government must give attention to. Obviously civil defence deals with natural disasters, but civil defence organizations also deal with the consequences of riots and unrest, and just at the present moment I think it is appropriate for someone to make an appeal for consideration to be given to the establishment of a selective form of compulsory registration for civil defence in the country.

Mr. Chairman, at a later stage I shall reply more fully to the hon. member for Simonstown’s request for selective compulsory civil defence. I support one aspect of his request not to accede to the hon. member for Wynberg’s request in connection with the South African Air Force Insurance Fund. The hon. member is not here at the moment, but I want to state emphatically that I accept the vein in which the hon. member for Simonstown made his request.

*I should like to start at once by dealing with a few of the matters raised by the hon. member for Yeoville, in particular the question of the Biermann Report. It is very clear to me that the hon. member for Yeoville landed us in a pricklish situation by not quoting in full a letter written to him. He omitted the last paragraph in the letter I wrote to him on 16 April. I wrote to him in connection with the Biermann Report—

[Interjections.] The hon. member for Yeoville was duly invited to come and study that report and the findings contained therein. All the documents he wanted to know more about were to be made available to him. I should like to know from the hon. member for Yeoville whether I can take it that he stands alone in his party as far as this matter is concerned. His standpoint is that he does not want to take cognizance of this document because it has not been tabled. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not adopt that standpoint. He wrote a letter to me, with reference to the offer, in which he said that he was sorry that he had not yet had the opportunity of examining the findings of the Biermann Report, that he did not have the time last week and that he would take up the offer early this week. So far he has not yet done so. I must accept his bona fides. I must accept that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has problems with time. Otherwise he would have come to read the report. Thus he does not object to the fact that it has not been tabled. In his explanation to this gentleman and to the other Opposition leaders, the hon. the Minister of Defence made certain statements which were accepted by them, inter alia, his motivation for not having tabled it. Therefore, if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition writes to me that he has a problem with time, I must accept that he does not have a problem in principle as regards studying the documents. Consequently I accept that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition accepts the whole situation as we have dealt with it. He has not written a letter to me to object to it.

That is a very thin point.

The hon. member for Yeoville now says that he himself has not had the opportunity to examine it.

My leader has not yet read the report.

He says that he was not given the opportunity of reading it. In that case my conclusion is that the hon. member for Yeoville does not support his hon. leader. This is as logical as can be. His hon. leader says he has a problem with time. This is the only reason why he has not come to read the document. Apart from that he has no objection to it.

As I have already said, the hon. member for Yeoville did not accept my offer. What is more, the hon. member implied in his speech that we ought to have known that he wanted to testify. I examined the terms of reference and could find no reference in them to the effect that they had to read the thoughts of the hon. member for Yeoville to ascertain whether he wanted to testify. The hon. member for Yeoville only informed us literally weeks after the time that he was at all interested in testifying.

He spoke in the debate.

I think I have replied adequately to the hon. member for Yeoville on this aspect. The hon. member then wrote me a letter in reply in which he said that he would make certain submissions. We referred to “leaders of the Opposition”, and in this regard he wrote—

Then he came forward today and said that he did not support the standpoint of that leader of his, to come and read the document in confidence. How am I now to interpret what the hon. member says, viz. that there is only one leader in this situation? But we understand the argument advanced by the hon. member for Yeoville. His argument and his approach is “Do not contaminate me with knowledge”. This is the reason why he would not come and read the document.

Tell me what is in the document that the public may not see.

Why do you not publish the report?

The hon. member for Yeoville threw in the towel today. We understand this, and we sympathize with him in his problem. As usual he overreacted. As usual he reacted too quickly in order to reach the newspapers, after they had asked him what his standpoint was so that they could tell him in good time what to do. The hon. member’s objection to this document during this debate concerned, inter alia, the question of a psychological action which was ostensibly being focused on him. I can understand that the hon. member for Yeoville has a problem, for he is influenced extremely quickly and easily. As far back as 1978 the hon. member gave his very strong support to our citizen affairs programme. He also pledged tremendous support to the hon. the Minister of Defence, but he is clearly afraid of the influence this hon. the Minister can exercise on him. It is on record that the hon. member said: “The hon. the Minister must be careful; I could become sentimental about the hon. the Minister, and this would be dangerous.” I can very well understand that the hon. member for Yeoville is afraid of being influenced by this side of the House, for this exposes him and his party to pressure from the clique which placed him in such a position that he had to regain credibility in his party by executing this sham action.

Steyn action.

It is either that, or the hon. member has absolutely no sense of humour, or he thinks that he can be influenced very easily. This is what the hon. member came to do. He came to confess that he was susceptible to a psychological action. He wrote an article to say what he objects to. Must we conclude from that that this article does not reflect his real opinion?

It is the procedure we are objecting to.

Was this not his real standpoint?

Of course it was.

Would the hon. member have written the article in any event, even if the document had never been published?

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

No, Sir, the hon. member had his chance to speak. [Interjections.] I conclude that he would have written the article in any event. Either the hon. member for Yeoville admits that he is being pressurized by the far left wing of his party, or he confesses that he is easily influenced, or he confesses that he is not honest. It is one of these three possibilities.

In the time left to me I want to attend to another matter which was raised here and which concerns the Air Force Fund. I want to point out briefly that the group life insurance scheme applicable to members of the Air Force, was dropped …

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Chairman, I conclude that the hon. member for Yeoville is not interested in this matter. [Time expired.]

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

Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, the group life insurance scheme applicable to members of the Air Force was dropped as the premiums quoted for the continuation of the scheme, for serving as well as retired members, were unacceptable to the board of trustees of the fund. This fund is not a state controlled fund. I have correspondence in my possession here which I went through, and I am convinced that the trustees made adjustments over a period to keep the Fund alive as far as possible and as long as possible. The group insurance scheme for the Defence Force which was introduced in September 1979, was more beneficial to the younger members and the participating members. Sanlam, which underwrote the old scheme, made an offer to members when it became clear that their premiums could no longer cover the payments. Then Sanlam made an offer to the members to convert their insurance under the scheme into an ordinary policy at the prevailing tariffs without medical proof of insurability.

At what premiums?

At the prevailing tariffs. There is a variety of possibilities, but if I had to reply to that now, we could debate that matter until tomorrow. Through the mediation of the board of trustees Sanlam has now made available a grant of R100 000 to the S.A. Defence Force fund to be used as decided upon by the trustees of the Fund. The trustees of the Fund have decided that the grant should be deposited in a trust fund until 31 December 1999, twenty years after the termination of the scheme. Subsequently the remaining amount will be transferred to the accrued funds in the Air Force Fund. A notice will be sent by Sanlam to all ex-members, including pensioners, to inform them that after their death their next-of-kin may apply for financial assistance in needy cases. Such an application must be accompanied by certain reports. I just want to state that the group life insurance scheme is comparable to damage insurance. It was a scheme which was not guaranteed by the State, as the existing compulsory assurance scheme is. It was a voluntary scheme. There was no longer a source of young and new members to cover the premium and to keep the fund viable. The hon. member for Wynberg must listen to this. That hon. member tried to created the impression here that funds had been built up of which the present 600 plus members were being deprived. That is a scandalous political and opportunistic presentation of the approach of the hon. member for Simonstown to this matter. I have perused correspondence in which Sanlam and the trustees negotiated with each other over a long period. After 1975, when the Army terminated its fund, the S.A. Air Force Fund continued to exist. Although there was an increase in tariffs, the fund could eventually no longer continue.

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

No, I do not feel like replying to questions now. As a result of representations received from the hon. member for Durban Point and the hon. member for Simonstown, both responsible hon. members, the trustees, without interference or pressure from the Chief of the S.A. Defence Force and his staff, and without ministerial interference, negotiated, and as a result of this the R100 000 was allocated. One can never do enough for a good cause. I say again, this was done without interference from the ministerial side or from the Chief of the S.A. Defence Force and his staff. There were offers to take out another form of assurance at prevailing premiums, and some people, as I have already said, took them up. Younger members transferred to the new Fund. I reiterate that one can never do enough for a good cause. As a result of the extremely responsible representations made to us by the hon. members for Durban Point and Simonstown, we can now examine this matter from the ministerial side and the side of the S.A. Defence Force. However, I want to emphasize that this will be done without acceptance of responsibility in this matter, because it is not the responsibility of either the Government or the Defence Force. The history of the matter is that it was a voluntary action from A to Z. I want to emphasize this emphatically.

This brings me to the problems of military pay. The hon. member for Jeppe referred in some detail to the steps that have been taken to ensure that this matter does not occur too often. It is true that altogether 155 inquiries have been received over the past three weeks. This includes inquiries from units within the Republic as well as in the operational area. Of the 1 365 problems in respect of units within the RSA, 90% have been solved by timely steps and intensive action. The outstanding 10% are cases where further information is required from the member himself or from the unit. Of the 190 problems in respect of the units in the operational area, 109 have already been solved. The outstanding 81 cases have not yet been solved and this is owing to inadequate unit documentation. All these problems can, however, be identified and are in the process of being rectified. The hon. member for Durban Point reminded us in a responsible way of the systems that he had criticized. As far as the computer test programmes are concerned, details are still being awaited from the combat service and in the course of the second week in May we shall be able to discuss this matter with the hon. member. I invite the hon. member for Durban Point to come and discuss the results of this test programme in the same responsible way in which he has handled this matter. We have furnished guidance within the commands and we are planning to carry out an intensive investigation of this problem in the operational area as well during the period 5 to 13 May, also because the Defence Force itself is in earnest in seeking to rectify this matter.

What are we going to do in connection with cases from the first half of last year?

I am coming to that. According to our information a considerable number of the complaints reaching the complaints office these days, are of this nature. If the hon. member for Durban Point can submit to us cases which cannot be solved timeously along that channel or another channel, we shall have to re-examine this. I invite him to do so. However, I think the hon. member for Durban Point must give us credit for informing him of the history of this situation, viz. a doubling of the intakes, and a consequent doubling of the number of people who have to be paid each month. I think the hon. member for Durban Point is sympathetic about the fact that we have experienced administrative bottlenecks in these circumstances. However, I am satisfied that the Defence Force is reacting drastically and rapidly to this situation. I want to state that well-founded payment problems comprise less than 1% of the problems of all payees, in spite of the fact that the number of paid staff has remained almost constant and that the number of payment accounts has quadrupled within four years. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am sure the hon. member for Wynberg will come back to the hon. the Deputy Minister on the question of insurance premiums.

During this debate we have heard a good deal about the military threat that is facing South Africa. All of us are aware of the fact that there is a very real threat. It is necessary, however, that from time to time we should take a look at the nature of the threat. It is also important that we should look at what has happened in other countries of the world that have faced a similar threat so that we can learn from their experiences, for, as Santayana said, those who will not learn from history are condemned to repeat it. There is a tendency to see the threat posed to South Africa purely in terms of acts of terrorism which are committed from time to time. This would be a mistake, for terrorism is merely one aspect of the threat that is facing us. Terrorism is merely one aspect of the threat of revolutionary way, and the threat that faces South Africa is the threat of revolutionary war.

Mr. Chairman, revolutionary war is a gradual process of evolution which begins with political subversion, usually in areas where Government influence is weak. It then proceeds, with the aid of persuasion, both peaceful and violent, to the political organization of the area or areas being subverted. The next step is to organize the community for guerrilla warfare. From guerilla warfare it then moves to regular warfare.

According to an expert in this field, namely S. P. Huntington, the decisive aspect of this sort of warfare is the contest between the Government and the counter-élite for the support of a communal or socioeconomic group that is imperfectly integrated into the existing political system.

If this sort of war is to be waged successfully, it is essential for those propagating it to have a cause around which they can mount their activities. If we want to counteract it, we must ensure that those who wage it will not be able to find such causes. Our opponents have stressed the importance of the political aspect of this form of warfare. It was Mao Tse-tung who said—

In other words, we must realize that we are in a battle for the hearts and minds of the people of South Africa, all the people of South Africa, irrespective of the colour of their skin. It is no good merely to win the support of the White group. This is what Mr. Ian Smith did in Rhodesia, where he won every White seat in three elections. We must win over also the Black and Brown people in South Africa to our side.

If we look at those countries which successfully counteracted a threat like that which South Africa is facing now, we see that part of their strategy was to eliminate those social, political and economic factors which gave the terrorists a cause to exploit. In Malaya, for example, the communists received nearly all their support from the Chinese population. One of the major reasons for this was that the Chinese were not accepted as citizens of Malaya. Only a form of restricted citizenship was conferred upon them. A Malayan citizen was anybody belonging to the Malayan race and who practised Mohammedanism. A Chinese had either to have both parents born in Malaya or to reside there for 15 years before qualifying for citizenship. The rectifying of this problem of restricted citizenship was one of the factors which helped to overcome the terrorist threat in Malaya.

In central Luzon in the Philippines one had the situation in which 98% of the land was owned by 2% of the population. Moreover, many of the landlords were absentee landlords. Land reform was an essential element in the strategy of the Philippine Government to overcome the threat posed by terrorists.

If we now look at those countries which lost a terrorist war, we note that they failed to tackle the social, political and economic problems facing them. One of the great causes of the failure of French strategy in Indo-China was their inability to take the nationalist movement out of the hands of the Viet-ming. In South Vietnam one of the greatest military powers the world has ever seen, the USA, lost the war because it relied essentially on its military efforts, while it ignored social, political and economic factors.

If we want to eliminate the threat of terrorism in South Africa, we must eliminate those factors which give our opponents a cause to exploit. There is an acute danger that when a socio-economic group is imperfectly integrated into the existing social system, that that group will be disposed to look upon the terrorist with favour. Once again I quote Huntington, an acknowledged expert in this field—

In other words, what we must do in South Africa is to ensure that social, economic and political conditions are such that agitators will not be able to exploit them successfully. What we must do is that we must ensure that the vast majority of our population believe that what we offer them is better than what agitators offer them. If the status quo breeds discontent, it must be changed. We must enter the struggle for the hearts and minds of the people of South Africa. We must re-establish contact between the rulers and the ruled. This is essential, because if we do not talk with the other groups, how will we ever be able to find out what the real situation is.

It is no good talking only to those who tell us what we want to hear. We must also talk to those who tell us the uncomfortable things. And we must listen to what they say, because it is only by listening that we will be able to determine what their real grievances are. We must acknowledge that while race discrimination exists in South Africa, our opponents will have an opening which they can exploit. We must realize that the best safeguard against terrorism in South Africa is to give every person in South Africa a stake in the country and a meaningful say in the governing of the country. Finally we must realize that unless we solve the social, economic and political problems that face South Africa, we increase the burden on the military forces that defend South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I listened to the hon. member for Edenvale and I find it interesting that whilst he and his party expound certain things here in the House, in many of their other actions they do precisely the opposite. In terms of what the hon. member said, and the extracts that he quoted, he is quite correct and we cannot find fault with that, because we find, when it comes to the preparedness of our country as a whole, that it depends on a few aspects. It depends on the domestic policy of a country, and this is the sphere to which the hon. member for Edenvale showed most reaction. However, it also depends on the foreign policy and the preparedness of the country. However, surely it is true, and we know it, that as a result of that, the actions of people inside the country give rise to concern in the minds of those people who believe that they are being wronged. Let us now take a look at the behaviour of certain people within South Africa.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, before business was interrupted, I was talking about the standpoint which the hon. member for Edenvale adopted with regard to the domestic policy that must be followed in order to ensure rest and peace in the country. I was also in the process of referring to action with regard to the standpoints of the PFP. The hon. member is correct in saying that the standpoint that the Government should adopt, must be such that rest and peace are brought about in the country. It is right that it should be so. Then, however, we can ask who has done more in recent times for South Africa than the hon. the Prime Minister and the NP to bring about making changes to ensure that we have rest and peace in South Africa, of course, within the framework of certain basic principles of the NP. Within the framework of these principles, the hon. the Prime Minister drew up his 12-point plan, which is aimed at insuring the desired rest and peace.

If we in South Africa accept that these things are the responsibility of the Government, we must also accept that it is the responsibility of the PFP and the other Opposition parties, as well as of all the individuals in South Africa, to do their share and to modify their behaviour in such a way that there may be rest and peace in the ethnic relations in South Africa. Surely this is what it amounts to.

However, what does the PFP do? Let us analyse what they have done over the past few days. Then, to be sure, it is very clear that the official Opposition is adopting the standpoint that they must criticize the NP within our party-political system. They also assume that they have the right to do so. It is a right that I do not begrudge them. It is quite correct that they should do so. However, what are the consequences? It means that they are also discrediting the Government of South Africa. It is the same Government that is responsible for the Defence Force, and for the stability that the Defence Force must maintain. We accept the principle that the political system in the country is contributing largely towards insuring rest and peace, but that the Defence Force also has a responsibility in this regard.

What is the PFP doing? In what they are saying and doing, they are trying to discredit the Government and to criticize the NP with a view to party-political benefits for the Opposition parties. With this objective in view, they are creating unrest and uncertainty in the minds of the people of South Africa. Not only are they creating unrest and discord in the minds of the people of South Africa, but in certain respects they are also instigating it elsewhere. We have already seen a very typical example of this here today. Simply take the behaviour of the hon. member for Yeoville and the glaring antithesis that it constitutes to the attitude and remarks of the hon. member for Durban Point.

The hon. member for Yeoville had the opportunity to persue certain documents in order to acquaint himself fully with the facts of the matter. However, he refused to do so. Why did he refuse? He refused to do so in order to gain or try to gain political advantage for his party. This is what it is actually about.

That is quite correct.

Why not release it to the public?

The hon. member for Yeoville did not want to peruse that document, and this was so that he could act in this House in such a way as to discredit the Government and the NP, and to grant himself the right, under the banner of party politics, to embarrass the NP, and in doing so to jeopardize the very Government of the country and the stability in the country.

Yes, that is true.

However, let us go further. Today the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said an interesting thing about the policy of the PFP. The NP lays down its policy in accordance with the principles formulated by the party itself. However, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that his party does not operate in that way. He is consulting everything that moves and formulating a policy on the basis of that. He acknowledged that today. [Interjections.]

You are very poor indeed. You are much better when you talk about mealies.

But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition acknowledged it today here in the House. [Interjections.] Of course he said it here today. He said that is what he is doing. [Interjections.] However, in the process he is not formulating a policy according to basic principles. He is prepared, however, to formulate a policy, even if it amounts to and leads to the capitulation of everyone in this country, and even if it is to the detriment of most population groups in South Africa.

That is correct.

That is what it actually amounts to. [Interjections.] Then another standpoint was also set out here. The day before yesterday a member of the PFP said here in the House, and I quote from his unrevised Hansard—

What is this but telling those people not to make themselves available for military service, because the decisions that are made by the Government, are such that they would be placing their lives in danger for a poor cause. If they do so. This is what it amounts to. If we want a Defence Force that can take strong action, that Defence Force must have a few basic characteristics. Firstly, there must be spiritual and moral certainty and stability amongst the members of the Defence Force. One must achieve that. The people concerned must also have the knowledge to be able to carry out their task efficiently. Thirdly, they must have the physical preparedness to be able to carry out their task. These are the principles that are at issue. However, if we have an official Opposition, and other people within South Africa, who are always breeding uncertainty in the hearts of people, people who are undermining those very principles, surely it is not to the benefit of the country as a whole. Surely then one is not making those people prepared.

It is the policy that does so.

The hon. member for Edenvale mentioned a few important facts in his speech, but the responsibility of implementation does not depend on the Government alone. Members of the official Opposition must examine their consciences and see whether their actions benefit the country as a whole. I think this is what they must do.

There are a few other points that I should like to raise. The preparedness of the individual depends largely on his state of mind. This applies in both voluntary and compulsory service. Individuals must be called up for long-term service at a stage when their lives will be least disrupted, both economically and with regard to family ties. However, we exempt certain persons at the beginning of their period of national service. We single certain categories out and tell those people first to complete their university training. However, is this correct? What is the position when those people have completed their university training? Then they may perhaps be married already. They may already have families that they must support. However, they must then be called up for a two-year period of service, and this may create family problems for them. Secondly, they may perhaps also have been absorbed in the economy to a larger extent, and as a result their spiritual preparedness may possibly be lower than it would have been if they had completed their national service immediately after Matric. However, there are advantages to completing national service after academic training. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to felicitate the hon. member for Carletonville on a very good speech. He saved me a great deal of trouble, because now I do not have to react to what the hon. member for Edenvale said. I agree with the last request that he addressed to the hon. the Minister. I agree that the young matriculant should rather complete his national service first than attend university first, after having obtained exemption, because otherwise he has to complete his two year period of national service when he may already have other obligations.

As other hon. members did, I also want to pay tribute to our Defence Force today for its service to the nation that is engaged in a war. I want to single out one specific aspect of the Defence Force. I refer to chaplains’ services in the Defence Force. I want to pay tribute to those men in the Defence Force who preach the Word of the Lord on our borders. I also want to thank the head of that division, Gen. Van Zyl. I want to wish him all God’s blessings. No matter how prepared a nation is, if it is not prepared on a Christian foundation, it cannot achieve success. That is why we say thank you very much to those people.

How many of these men are there in this important service in the Permanent Force, the Citizen Force, the commandos and amongst the national servicemen? Today there are 1 253 chaplains in this service. They serve all sections of the population in the Defence Force. It is a wonderful service and it is also an inspiration to the parents, whose sons are fighting on the border, to know that apart from the fact that their sons are militarily prepared, there are also men who are caring for their spiritual preparedness. This is the main objective.

As I said, South Africa is engaged in a war. We must propagate the philosophy of Christianity and fight against the philosophy of Karl Marx, the communist. Whether we call them freedom fighters or whatever, it has already been proved that the people who have come into power in the neighbouring States of this beautiful country, South Africa, are inspired by communism. Since they range themselves with the enemies of this nation and the enemies of Christianity, I cannot but say that the people who are in power in Angola, Mozambique, Zambia and Zimbabwe today for instance, are inspired by communism.

That is why the 1 253 chaplains have an important duty to fulfil with regard to the soldier in his lonely position in the bush or perhaps in his tent. No matter where he may be, he receives that service so that he can say: “My spiritual needs have also been ministered to by one of these men. I am spiritually equipped too.” Today we find ourselves in the position in which the Jewish nation found themselves in the days of Nehemiah. It is essential for us, as the Jewish nation did, to build the walls with a trowel in one hand, a sword in the other and our eyes on God. This is the reason why the Jewish nation achieved success. In the same way, this nation must also know that a nation relies on its military power alone in vain; a nation that relies on God’s power and is militarily equipped, is saved. That is why we in this House cannot thank the chaplains in that service enough.

Where in the world can we still find such a small nation that has so many kind people spreading the Word of God? I repeat: We have 1 253 chaplains. These chaplains represent approximately 100 different religions. One does not want to boast about this, but where else in the world will one find approximately 100 religions being ministered to by such spiritually-equipped people in such a small military force? It is an achievement. That is why I believe that this nation cannot perish. With all the mistakes that it has made, this nation cannot perish, because it has faith, because we draw no distinction between religions, provided that they are basically the Christian religion.

I pointed out the objective here. How many wonderful results have not already been achieved with young men who served their national service of two years? There are men who told me personally that, with all due respect, they knew nothing about God and his commandments, but when they were alone out there in the bush, with the Bible in one hand, they grew to know their Creator. Our Defence Force testifies that the best soldier there is, is a religious one, because he knows what he is fighting for. He is not fighting for South Africa and all its people alone, but he is also fighting for Christianity against communism throughout the entire world. This is the type of soldier of whom every parent, the Government and the Defence Force may be proud, regardless of whether the soldier is of Jewish, Moslem, Greek, English of Afrikaans descent. The Word of God is preached to all of them.

That is why I find it wonderful to think that the Word of God is also being preached by the chaplains serving on our borders to the group of Bushmen who are doing excellent work as trackers on our borders today. It is wonderful to think that this privilege can be granted to this small group of Bushmen—even though it may be for a short while—because it also make them more civilized citizens of this beautiful country of ours.

We have learned and heard a great deal in the past few hours, but one thing is certain and this is that politics definitely does not play a role in the Defence Force. That is why it is important to note that regardless of the religion a person may follow, it is his right and privilege to be preached to in his own religion by one of this group of dedicated people who belong to the same religion. We want to pay tribute to these people and wish them everything of the best in our struggle for survival. We wish them the best of luck. We consign our sons to them. We trust them and we know that in the midst of all the dangers, they will do their best for South Africa. Tonight I want to break a lance for the Chief Chaplain and all his chaplains and tell them that South Africa thanks them very much.

Mr. Chairman, very often in this House the hon. member for Stilfontein brings us back to reality with a bump, and he has done so again tonight by paying a very sincere tribute to the 1 253 chaplains of all denominations in the Defence Force. I believe that he has done a service tonight in paying a very deserving tribute to a very worthy group of people who are doing an outstanding job for our country and our national servicemen.

The hon. member for Carltonville, who we are accustomed to hear speaking on maize and maize products, gave what he believed to be a formula for an efficient and well-motivated Army.

It was an amazing speech.

Yes, it was an amazing speech. However, he left out one proviso, and that is in order to have a well-motivated and efficient Army, that Army must have no pay problems. I think, without a shadow of doubt, that the pay problems of the past year in particular have developed into nothing more and nothing less than a festering sore. This, sadly, is particularly so in the case of our national servicemen. I think it is right to say that the escalation of these problems reached an all-time high during 1979. I am pleased to say, however, that these problems have started to reduce during the more recent period.

However, I want to say that these problems have resulted in more unhappiness and frustration, in both the lives of the servicemen and their families at home, than any single other factor. I want to forcibly bring home to this House tonight that I do not believe that the hardships of the parents have been fully appreciated, parents who more often than not have had to subsidize their sons because of the fact that they have these pay problems. I therefore believe that the full responsibility must now be accepted by the authorities. Furthermore I believe that dramatic and urgent action must be taken. It is very easy to criticize, but I always believe that we must try to assist in finding solutions. I do not profess to know the complete solution, but I do think we could go a long way towards a solution if we were to indulge in the proper employment of available manpower. I think we must now look to see that we are using suitably qualified national servicemen in jobs where their talents can be best employed. I sincerely believe that we have fallen down in this regard over the years. We must stop putting bachelor of commerce graduates and young accountants in jobs where their training is wasted. I know of a bachelor of commerce graduate who is today serving in a signals unit. I heard tonight over dinner of a young man who is a computer science graduate and is a sick-bay attendant.

What is wrong with a signals unit?

The hon. member asked what is wrong with it. There is nothing wrong with it, but that young bachelor of commerce graduate and that young computer science graduate should be sorting out pay priorities. That is a stupid question to ask, and I hope the answer satisfies him. I believe we must have an on-going action unit which must be there to constantly identify and eradicate problems.

You have a point. Do not overstate it.

Thank you, Sir. I am pleased the hon. the Minister of Defence says I have a point. However, I must tell him that I have to overstate it because something has to be done about it urgently. The nucleus of this unit should consist of properly qualified Permanent Force personnel and the manpower should be drawn from those in the national service intake holding suitable degrees. I would like to suggest to the hon. the Minister of Defence that consideration be given, in respect of these young men who can serve in this particular unit, to possibly waiving their basic training requirements, because they are needed so badly in order to eradicate and eliminate pay problems. I believe that if the Army, the Navy and the Air Force do not have the nucleus of the unit I envisage, they should consider seconding them from other branches of the Public Service. I also want to tell the hon. the Minister of Defence that the Railways does not have this problem, and the Railways is the biggest employer of labour in our country. There are no pay problems there. Why can we not eradicate those pay problems in the Army? I am sorry if this is a sore point, but let us remember that during the 1939 to 1945 war people were not kept waiting, the way they are today, for their pay, and let us also remember that in those days it took three days to fly a Dakota aircraft from Waterkloof Airport to Cairo, and that men were then being paid in the field, in the Western Desert and in Italy, timeously without the problems that we have today. It was done, and that was all before the wonderful age of a computer. Some of the problems are almost comical they are so tragic. The fact must be faced that the eradication of this problem will be one giant, enormous stride towards the boosting of morale, because every man will be happier in the knowledge that all moneys due to him will be paid on the due date. I therefore make an appeal—let us, all of us on both sides of the House, put our heads together and do everything now to rectify this situation as a matter of urgent national priority. I think we can accept that there will always be pay problems to some degree, and I suggest that financial assistance in respect of those problems could also be given at command level. I know, and the hon. the Minister knows, that this is often done from welfare funds, but I should like to suggest that serious consideration be given to contingency funds being established at command level throughout the country. I think that if these contingency funds were established at command level, throughout the country, it would mean that the commands would then be in a position to meet urgent pay problems without having to resort to the usage of welfare funds which are not there for that purpose. They are there for the specific purpose of welfare. Command could then, by telex, advise the Paymaster-General who could then adjust the serviceman’s computer record accordingly and reimburse the Contingency Fund in due course. I think that this could also materially assist in cutting out a lot of delay.

I have spoken frequently about professionally trained men being used in a professional capacity. I have brought this matter up in this House over the years. Another problem has, however, started to rear its ugly head, and that is that a professional man, a man who has professional training such as a degree, is not eligible for a commission, perhaps due to ill health, poor eyesight or something like that. These men are often used professionally in the sphere for which they are best suited and trained, but because they are not commissioned officers, they cannot enjoy the professional allowance. I urgently ask the hon. the Minister to investigate this, because it is grossly unfair and certainly should be thoroughly investigated.

In conclusion, I should like to say that I have examined figures for the past 10 years. Just for the record, I want to mention that our defence budget Vote was R257,1 million in 1970-’71. Today, in 1980-’81, we stand with a Vote of R1 890 million. It is commendable that the average percentage over these years of the total budget for all departments has been approximately 14,8%, that is the average defence budget in relation to the total budget. This year, it is 14,3%. I am not criticizing, but I am merely saying, for the record, that it is incredible to note that over a period of 10 years we have come from R257,1 million to R1 890 million. We are still maintaining an average of approximately 14,8% of the total budget for defence expenditure. I want to assure the hon. the Minister of Defence that we in these benches would have no objection if this amount were to be increased, but I merely make this observation for this House to ponder upon. This is an enormous amount of money which is being spent. However, we in the NRP believe that it is being spent wisely and judiciously. We trust that that will continue to be the case.

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to cross swords with the hon. member for Umhlanga. He has made a few proposals to the hon. the Minister and I believe that if the proposals have any merit at all, the hon. the Minister will no doubt attend to them. I hope for his sake that they do have merit. It would make him very happy.

†The hon. member for Yeoville, however, said in his speech that his party accepted national service, subject to certain conditions. At the same time, however, he must have realized that there is something wrong in their approach. Therefore he immediately asked the question: “Now tell us where you think we are wrong.” If the hon. gentleman cares to listen, I am going to do just that. I am going to try to tell him where I think they are going wrong.

*I think the hon. member will agree with me that South Africa is caught up in a conflict situation in which the Marxists on the one hand and the West on the other are making intense efforts to do three things, in order to accomplish their own distinctive objectives. In the first place, they are out to destroy the existing dispensation, the stability and civilization in South Africa by external action. In the second place, they are out to create unrest, anarchy and revolution in South Africa. In the third place, they are out to undermine the authority of this Parliament as a democratic institution. What does that mean? In short, that means a total onslaught of aggression and revolution on South Africa. It is interesting to note how the Steyn report deals with this onslaught and the role of the Defence Force. Paragraph 90 of the Steyn report reads that the S.A. Defence Force is an instrument—and I should be pleased if the hon. member for Yeoville would listen—“at the disposal of the State (through the medium of the Government-of-the-day) to protect the nation’s territorial integrity against outside aggression or unconstitutional internal revolution”. That is the task of the Defence Force. The report goes further and states that no Defence Force can suppress this aggression and revolution with weapons and material means alone. Let me refer to just one example from a number of examples found in the report of the Steyn Commission. I wish to quote from paragraph 33b, in which the words of Viscount Montgomery are quoted—

That is basic.

The hon. member says that is basic. Once the morale of a nation is broken, it goes the same way as did the once mighty Rome. On page 21 of the report, the following is said about the fate of Rome—

I think the hon. member for Yeoville should begin to listen to this.

The question is: how is this morale destroyed? This is dealt with in detail in paragraphs 64 and 66 of the report. [Interjections.] It is done by continually undermining the existing social and political orders and by negative attacks on the pass book system, and the education and labour dispensation. After all, that sounds quite familiar. The hon. the Prime Minister has dealt with this very spirit of negativism and bitterness that is continually being propagated from Opposition benches. I wish to ask hon. members of the Opposition in all seriousness whether they do not think such language breaks down the morale of the nation and opens the doors to the enemies of South Africa from within. I think that that is where the hon. member would obtain the answers on what is wrong.

Paragraph 67 refers to ideological slogans in regard to human rights, with particular reference to “peaceful change” to Black majority Government. Is this not the same language as that being used by hon. members of the Opposition when they talk about Black majority Government?

Let us look at what the hon. Leader of the Opposition said in this regard in his book South Africa’s Options. On page 7, he deals with the politics of negotiation—

The breaking down of morale goes hand in hand with the breaking down of the existing structures of authority that are regarded as undemocratic and therefore unjust. The popular phrase of “an unjust society” is often used in this regard. Under the heading “in conclusion”, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says the following on page 166 of his book—

What does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition say? The statements we hear from him and other hon. members on that side of the House constitute, according to paragraphs 34, 64 and 67, the very sort of loose and irresponsible talk that contributes to the breaking down of the structure of authority that is being denounced as undemocratic. This is irresponsible talk that makes the task of the commanders of the Defence Force absolutely impossible.

Finally, I wish to make the point that in paragraph 75 of the report, the concept “unjust society” is dealt with as the basis for attacking military service in South Africa. Let me quote just a single instance from the many referred to in paragraph 76. Archbishop Hurley stated—

That is the problem with the hon. members on that side. That is where they go wrong. That is the sort of language …

Are you alleging that we say that?

That is the sort of language that opens the doors to the enemies of South Africa from within. I challenge the hon. members of the Opposition to state where they stand on these matters. [Interjections.] I challenge them to state whether they are in favour of or against this. I wish to make the point that if they do not wish to accept the challenge by stating that they are absolutely opposed to this sort of statement and also to this sort of non-parliamentary subversion, then I say they are contributing to, and are instrumental in, making the task of the Defence Force in maintaining law and order in South Africa, an impossible one.

Mr. Chairman, it is a privilege for me to congratulate the hon. member for Wonderboom on a splendid speech.

I should like to address myself to the hon. member for Edenvale who referred in his speech to the wronged community. I am sorry the hon. member for Pinelands is not present tonight, because I wish to relate his speech to the idea the hon. Leader of the official Opposition expressed towards our highly esteemed Prime Minister, namely: “Tell the nation what they must hear.” However, these people are deliberately keeping quiet about the fact that a Steyn report was ever published. In paragraph 75 of the report of the commission, we as a nation are specifically warned against sowing of suspicion, the concept of “just” and “unjust” society and “just” and “unjust” wars. The commission warns against the concepts being preached by Dr. Alan Boesak and Archbishop Dennis Hurley—they are printed here—but the official Opposition steers clear of these concepts.

That’s the way, Willa, fix them.

What should they, as the Opposition, be telling the nation if they are loyal and if they are the patriots which the hon. member for Yeoville maintains they are? [Interjections.] What should they be saying to our country and our nation about the Defence Force? Let me quote from Paratus. The chaplain-general.…

Do you not think that the hon. member for Yeoville has shown his patriotism? [Interjections.]

Order! [Interjections.] Order! Hon. members must pay attention when I call for order. I have repeatedly told the hon. member for Groote Schuur that he must address the Chair.

Mr. Chairman …

Yes, now you are addressing the Chair, but you did not address the Chair before this.

Mr. Chairman, are you ruling that interjections are not permissible?

I did not rule that interjections would not be permitted.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask your ruling on what is an interjection and what is not?

I shall give my ruling on that when I want to, and I shall allow interjections when I want to. But when the hon. member makes interjections he must address the Chair. The hon. member cannot address the hon. member speaking directly.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask you …

The hon. member must resume his seat. The hon. member is now addressing the Chair in the correct way. He must also address the hon. member speaking in the correct way. I definitely insist on this for purposeful debate.

Mr. Chairman, may I just ask you, on a point of order, how one can make an interjection to an hon. member by addressing the Chair?

The hon. member must not address hon. members as “you” and “they”, but as “the hon. member(s)”. The hon. member for Standerton may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, what should we tell our nation about our servicemen? What should we tell our nation about the task that rests on the shoulders of those men? We should convey positive understanding, as the Chaplain-General put it. He stated this expressly, and we can read it in Paratus. I quote—

So we could continue. Those hon. members, however, do not communicate that message. Surely that is something the nation should hear. After all, the nation should hear that through the collective ability and teamwork in our Defence Force of officers, noncommissioned officers, instructors and assistant instructors, and also through comradeship and teamwork, our sons are being made into men.

Hon. members should read the letters that regularly appear in Paratus, letters written by mothers telling what becomes of their sons. I can tell about my own son who is also in the Defence Force. He is a son who is still a mere boy, so shy that he would not even light a cigarette in front of his father, but a boy who has stood the test of this country, a test which I myself have not yet stood, which hon. members on the opposite side have not yet stood either—or many of them, at any rate. They have not yet heard bullets whistle over their heads. The barrel of a gun has never yet been aimed at them. They do not know what they would do if that were to happen. [Interjections.] We must tell our nation what is happening with our sons.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to show you a gold medal here tonight. This particular medal was minted when my town, Standerton, celebrated its centenary. This gold medal—the hon. the Minister of Agriculture also received one—was presented to people who had rendered outstanding services to our town, our community and our nation. The first of these gold medals was presented to a serviceman on his return from the operational area. It was presented to him for bravery. Mr. Chairman, I can assure you that at school he was just an average boy. He was not a first team rugby player. He was not a prefect. He was not a captain. However, the Defence Force was able to benefit by the education this boy had received. The Defence Force developed him into a brave man. Mr. Chairman, why do those hon. members not tell this sort of thing to our nation? Surely, they are our sons. That is what they become in the hands of our Defence Force. Why do they not proclaim that? “You should tell the nation what they must hear!” That was the message of your hon. leader. However, those hon. members keep quiet about this because …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order …

Mr. Chairman, I see the hon. member for Groote Schuur is a little red in the face. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: For the last five minutes the hon. member for Standerton has been addressing us personally.

Order! Time and again I have heard him say “Mr. Chairman”. [Interjections.]

If those hon. members are really patriots, why do they not tell it to the nation so that they can hear? They do not say it in public and in this House, where they have every opportunity to do so. They think that by kicking up a fuss about the budget and similar things, they can get away with trickery. However, I now call upon them also to be courageous, to forget their petty politics for a moment, the political capital they are trying to make out of this matter. I am asking them to forget the publication of a letter or document which either did or did not exist. The matter has already been investigated in detail. It has been disposed of. I am asking them come back now to the crux, the basis of the matter and to give our sons their due. They deserve the loyal support of every person in this country. They are achieving things for us. They are doing their work.

We could carry the test even further. We could go and read, for example, what Prof. F. A. J. Marais of RAU, with his thorough study groups and control groups, says about the potential of students who have completed their two years’ military service. He tests them across an entire spectrum of activities. Those boys put up a better performance on enrolling at university because in the first place they are motivated. In the second place, they are more mature. I say boys, but perhaps we should rather talk of young men. In the third place, those young men have no time for trivialities. In the Defence Force they are taught to leave trivialities aside. They get on with their work. Their studies show that they display a better understanding and insight. These are positive things. Why do those hon. members not tell the nation what military service means to people? People off the street are transformed into useful citizens. Those servicemen surely need our support in the fullest sense of the word. Those men are not only in need of understanding, a little sympathy, or a few parcels and letters.

That, of course, is also right, but as intelligent young men they would also like to know what this House, as a powerful institution, has to say. Are we with them in the front line? Do we appreciate their problems? Are those hon. members of the official Opposition with us in rejecting certain detestable things, moral objections, do they say that refusal to perform military service is comparable to a refusal to pay income tax? Is it said that that is an equivalent offence?

The 1950s and the 1960s were characterized by superficiality among our people! It was evident in culture, in codes of behaviour, in music, and in the style of writing in books that appeared during the ’sixties. The evil of terrorism and the threat to our country has had one salutary influence. It has committed our young people to a deeper seriousness, a deeper understanding and a more meaningful life. Let us all join in thanking our sons and thanking our Defence Force!

Mr. Chairman, we on this side of the House want to tell the hon. member for Standerton that it is always a pleasure to listen to him. We have a great deal of appreciation for the tremendous spirit in which he always puts his case in this House. The hon. member touched on the theme of my speech when he referred to the Standerton medal.

Military decorations and medals are one of the most interesting, most inspiring fields of study in the history of peoples and nations, particularly their defence forces. It is interesting, because behind every decoration and medal, whether it is decorated with jewels and whether it is made of gold, silver, bronze or steel, there is the gratitude of a grateful nation or monarch. It is inspiring, because not only heroic deeds of the past and extraordinary dedication are called to mind. At every presentation, attention is also drawn specifically to the personal achievements of the recipient. The value of the presentation of such decorations are recognized by most civilized countries. It is interesting to note that more than 10 000 different types of medals have been awarded to citizens and soldiers throughout the world. Therefore, issuing decorations and medals is one of the finest military traditions that has been handed down to us from the past. Anyone who wants to understand something of this tradition, must be sure to attend an award ceremony. The pride with which every recipient steps forward to receive his medal or decoration, should warm the heart of any patriot. These insignia become very valued possessions not only for the recipient himself, but for his family, his children and even his descendants too. One of my most valuable possession is the Anglo-Boer War medal which was presented to my grandfather for being a Bittereinder.

South Africa too has a proud history with regard to its decorations and medals. As a result of our colonial past and the fact that South African soldiers were able to come into consideration for most British medals too, our own tradition actually only started in 1953. In that year Queen Elizabeth II, our former queen, granted South Africa the first military decorations and medals of its own by royal decree. That decree was countersigned by Dr. D. F. Malan, and was retroactive from 6 April 1952, the date on which our settlement became 300 years old. With that decree, our connection with British military traditions was ended with regard to decorations and medals.

Of course, prior to the Three Year War there were also decorations and medals which originated in this country. One of the most interesting is South Africa’s very first military medal. It was the Sir Harry Smith Medal for Gallantry which was awarded to 30 members of the Cape Mounted Rifles who were trapped by the Gaikas under Sandile in Fort Cox during the eighth frontier war in 1850 and then broke away in a courageous manner and reached their headquarters in King William’s Town safely.

I also want to point out the beautiful symbolism of our own South African decorations. Their names alone immediately strike a chord in the hearts of everyone who loves his fatherland and his history. I shall mention a few. There is the Castle of Good Hope decoration, the Louw Wepener decoration, the Van Riebeeck decoration, the John Chard medal, the De Wet decoration and the Danie Theron medal. Our most well-known medal is most probably the Pro Patria medal which is awarded to the men of all our security forces, including the police, for border duty. Speaking of border duty, if my information is correct, members of the Air Force who carry out patrols along our coastlines in their Albatrosses, do not come into consideration for the Pro Patria medal. Tonight I want to ask that, if my information is correct, attention be given to this. I think that those men are doing border duty which is just as valuable as that done by the soldiers on the borders of our country.

Speaking of the Air Force: I have two more requests to make of the hon. the Minister of Defence. In the past our Air Force had very close ties with the air forces of Britain and America. One simply has to refer to the two world wars and to the Korean War. Many of the traditions of these three air forces are shared by them. However, the air forces of the first two great powers have world famous decorations that may be awarded to airmen only. I am referring to the Distinguished Flying Cross, the DFC, the Distinguished Flying Medal, the DFM, as well as the Air Force Cross, the Air Force Medal and others. As I pointed out earlier on, since 1952 our own airmen have no longer qualified for these decorations. At the moment the situation is that South Africa has no specific decoration intended for the Air Force. Nevertheless, a fine tradition is attached to the decorations concerned. I think we must consider introducing something similar for our own airmen, in spite of the fact that, just like the other branches of our Defence Force, they come into consideration for all the other military medals and decorations in any event.

There is a second matter that I should like to raise. It concerns something that struck me during the recent visit which a parliamentary group paid to the operational area. On that occasion I was very deeply impressed by the absolutely indispensable role which the Air Force is playing in combating terrorism in the area. In fact, the Air Force is playing a key role and a particular squadron of our Air Force is carrying out an extremely important task there. This is a squadron with its own traditions and history too. I think that squadron deserves the gratitude and appreciation of the South African nation by means of an award of “battle honours” to the relevant squadron so that they can affix them on their standard. I can imagine the pride of these men when they go on parade behind their standard, a standard on which the achievements of their squadron in this specific area are recognized in a concrete way.

Finally, I want to say that women are being involved in our Defence Force to an increasing extent. The products of the training college at George and other women are fulfilling a very important role in the structure of our Defence Force. I want to ask whether we should not now already investigate the possibility of a medal for excellent service specifically intended for our women in the Defence Force. I want to conclude by saying that usually it is the lot of only a few of us to achieve in extraordinary circumstances … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Ermelo talked about medals. I think he put the matter very well and the hon. the Minister will probably reply to it. While we are talking about medals, I think we should really award the Opposition some medals. We in the Opposition are so frequently under fire from the Government that we deserve some medals.

The hon. member for Standerton spoke very well and made proud mention of our young boys in the Defence Force. I want to agree with him, because I, too, have a son on the border. He came home during the Easter weekend. When he left home as a seventeen-year-old boy he was still a child. He is now eighteen, but he has become a man in the meantime, and I am proud of him.

Hear, hear!

I must agree with the hon. member for Standerton that the Defence Force makes men out of our sons, and we are all proud of our sons. But I think the real reason why the hon. member for Standerton was so excited, was the fact that they had such good rains this year. I am also very pleased that there are no interjections tonight that will not be addressed via the Chair … [Interjections.] … because I actually intend to speak about farm lads who have completed their national service and the problems they experience when they set out to establish themselves as farmers afterwards. Whether they be dairy farmers, cattle farmers or maize farmers with a wife and a family, they experience enormous problems in being absent from their farms for a period of three weeks or three months every year. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether another method could not be found to enable these young men to perform their duty towards South Africa in another way.

I want to suggest that they be given the option to complete the outstanding period of service so that they could remain on the farm afterwards and make a contribution to the country in another sense too. I think this is important. Nowadays these young people can no longer go and farm, because they still have to perform military service and because they will have to leave the farms. Therefore they go to the Public Service for those 10 years. They join the Railways or some State department or other. They cannot establish themselves on a farm because they have to perform their military service. I ask, on behalf of those men, that they be granted that period. Let them therefore serve the normal period in the Defence Force. Give them that option to finish. After that they can go and farm.

Secondly I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Ladybrand. He referred to the decrease in the number of volunteers from the farming community in the service of the Defence Force. Therefore I ask again: Let us create a type of farmers’ commando. At the time we spoke of a “home guard” and that sort of thing, but we need farmers who are trained, who can work and who can look after their farms and those of their neighbours. I suggest that a special unit be established in that area where those farmers live so that they can look after themselves. It is absolutely essential that these people should not be taken away from the farms. This is why they can no longer become volunteers, because they cannot leave their wives, children and labourers alone on the farms. It is important that these people should perform a special type of national service. They would like to, but they do not join, because they cannot leave their farms.

Thirdly I wish to refer to those boys who are placed in remote bases. Here I have in mind Walvis Bay, for example, which is very remote. It takes servicemen four to five days to get home by rail, and their parents see them only once or twice during the whole period of their absence. I ask that a special arrangement be made so that they could perhaps work for longer periods, for example, over weekends, so that they could be granted a longer period of leave to go home. Compare the time they are absent from their families with that of those who are near and who are able to go home every weekend. Some of them have to spend their whole period of service in a base such as Walvis Bay. Perhaps the hon. the Minister could consider helping these boys in one way or another.

†I now wish to turn to the hon. the Prime Minister himself where he said that conditions in South Africa would have to be created in order to motivate each man, woman and child, irrespective of colour, to defend their country physically. Everyone in this House concurs in that sentiment and I think we all endorse that view. I am pleased to see that the hon. the Minister in effect repudiated the hon. member for Umlazi and the hon. member for South Coast by stating that he had not rejected the offer of Buthelezi as yet and that he was still going to consider the matter.

That has nothing to do with this Vote, but just quote me correctly.

Through the Chair.

To address the Chair you have to stand up.

I understood the hon. the Prime Minister to say that he has not rejected Chief Buthelezi’s offer, and I think he acted quite correctly. I also think that his view is reasonable.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Vote under discussion.

This has got to do with the Vote. It has to do with the loyalty of the people of South Africa and their ability to want to fight for South Africa. It has everything to do with it, because if the situation should arise where these people are thrown out or cast aside, they are not going to be prepared to fight for South Africa.

That is what the hon. the Prime Minister said, namely that we need to get every one of them on our side. I believe that it is essential that this be discussed here. I feel that the hon. the Prime Minister took the correct stand here and I am pleased that he is prepared to discuss it with the chief of the Zulu nation. The hon. member for South Coast categorically slapped Chief Gatsha Buthelezi in the face by stating the following, and I quote (Hansard, 29 April)—

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Vote. I do not think the point he raises now is relevant.

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to argue with you, but this is exactly what I am getting at. Here we had an hon. member of this House antagonizing a chief of the Zulu people. If that is not going to create ill-will, then I do not know what will. I am very sincere about this. However, Mr. Chairman, if you wish me to sit down, I must do so. If this hon. House is not prepared to consider what is happening in this country when people like that can insult a Zulu chief and create the possibility of a civil war, I will sit down.

Mr. Chairman, during the last half of last year the S.A. Defence Force has had to undergo volleys of buck-shot from the Press. For instance, in the so-called “Care campaign” in The Star the Defence Force is accused of being responsible for the large scale destruction of game. Cartoons were even drawn in which members of the Defence Force were depicted with pockets full of biltong. Ostensibly this seems very innocent, but in actual fact it is all an attempt to criticize the Defence Force. One cannot help wondering what this group’s newspapers wanted to achieve by this. There were insinuations and criticism of the forces that have to protect South Africa against its enemies. At this time when South West Africa is a sensitive territory internationally, one could really have expected the Press to have shown a greater sense of responsibility. What are the facts? The facts are that only a few members of the Defence Force have been prosecuted since then. However, The Star and The Argus are broadcasting reports which create the impression that the Defence Force is involved in a large scale destruction of game in South West Africa. I have several cuttings here. I do not have the time to read them all now, but these absolutely irresponsible and negative reports were placed in The Star and The Argus particularly. I should like to quote from the Steyn report on page 76, paragraph 92(c), what is said about this type of report. The heading of the paragraph is “Game hunting in SWA”—

These are the impressions that are created. I quote further—

What did the official Opposition do when these wild reports were broadcast to the world? Did they talk to their friends in the Press and ask them please to make their reports reasonable, to emphasize the positive aspects too and to act in a loyal manner towards South Africa? After all, it is clear that it was not the Defence Force as a whole that was involved, but that only a few people transgressed. No, Sir. What did they do? All of them, except the hon. member for Yeoville, did nothing.

[Inaudible.]

Always full of himself.

What did he do? The hon. the Minister of Defence once said that the hon. member for Yeoville always wants to be the bride at every wedding and the corpse at every funeral. What did the hon. member do? He asked for an inquiry. However, he did not even go to the Defence Force to find out what the true state of affairs was. According to The Star he called for an independent, non-military inquiry.

That is correct.

Therefore, he does not trust the Defence Force to make an inquiry.

The hon. the Prime Minister also asked for it.

He wants an independent, “non-military” investigation. Then he also asked for a second separate inquiry. It seems as if he is concerned about the welfare of the hon. the Minister of Defence. Why is he so concerned about the hon. the Minister of Defence?

He needs protection.

The hon. member accepted the assurance that the hon. the Minister of Defence gave him. Why did he want an inquiry? Possibly he wanted it because he hoped that the investigation would prove something different. What did he want to prove by it? [Interjections.]

If I defend the hon. the Minister of Defence I am wrong, and if I attack him, I am wrong.

Just don’t kiss me, Harry. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Yeoville believes that there must be an independent inquiry because he does not believe the Defence Force. This type of attitude is adopted by hon. members of the Opposition from time to time.

However, what are the true facts? The Head of the Defence Force laid down a very clear policy in regard to nature conservation. During their visits to certain areas, the Press in South Africa received a complete list in which it is spelled out what the Defence Force is doing in the interest of nature conservation in all the areas they occupy, in South West Africa too. What is very interesting, is that while the Press blew up these hunting stories tremendously, their reports were conspicuous by their absence after they had been informed of the role which the South African Defence Force is playing with regard to nature conservation. This section of the Press is not interested in the positive aspects and in what is being done by the Defence Force with regard to nature conservation in South Africa and in South West Africa. They are simply grasping at situations to criticize the Defence Force for reasons known only to themselves. The policy of the Defence Force is the conservation of free-ranging animal life and plant life in their natural habitat, special protection of plants and animals that are becoming extinct, re-establishment of indigenous plants and animals, proper control of free-ranging animal populations in order to bring about and maintain the balance between plant and animal life, removal of foreign animals and plants in all spheres—I wish one could do this with some people too—and cultivating trees and shrubs in Defence Force areas.

Between 1971 and 1973 the Defence Force sent a team of scientists to Robben Island. They collected biological material which was sent to Pretoria and placed in an aquarium where it can be viewed by the public. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, 1 want to congratulate the hon. member for De Aar on the positive contribution that he made on the conservation of natural animal life. We have listened to many speeches tonight and we have heard positive and constructive criticism. I think the hon. the Minister of Defence and the Defence Force welcome this type of criticism, because there are many aspects that are brought to their attention which might otherwise not have been.

We listened to the hon. official Opposition, to their criticism, for instance from the hon. member for Yeoville, which may result in a drop in the morale of the men. This type of criticism is reprehensible and is not in the interests of the country.

We also listened to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, and I want to thank him for the remark that he made about the positive contribution which the Defence Force made towards the hon. member’s child. However, I think that the hon. member came to the conclusion that what he said about the Defence Force, will not cause the sensation in the Press that he could have had if he had raised a subject which does not fall under this Vote at all, viz. the matter of his alliance party. The discussion of that developed into a circus in the House the other day. However, I think that the matter is definitely not at issue tonight. The hon. member definitely needs support for his party in Natal. I do not think he has support from the Whites and now he has to seek support elsewhere.

The other hon. members who spoke, from the NP, the NRP as well as the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, expressed gratitude to the Defence Force in various ways. However, it struck me that there was absolutely nothing of the kind from the hon. official Opposition. The hon. member for Edenvale, for instance, spoke about terrorism and stressed the political aspects thereof. The hon. member for Carletonville dealt with him thoroughly in this regard. Terrorism is of very great importance in South Africa, all aspects of it. If we look at what has happened to the north of us, one must say that it is extremely important for us to take note of terrorism. We see what happened in Angola, and the effect that terrorism had on that country. The same applies to Zimbabwe and Mozambique too. If we take a close-up look at these things, there are two matters that are most important. In the first place, our Defence Force must be prepared. In the second place, the morale of our men in the Defence Force must be very high. It has often been said that nothing we can do, can combat the onslaught against us. However, I want to refer to what Igor Giagolef said—

Then I also quote from a newspaper report—

The final quotation that I want to read, comes from the Steyn report, from paragraph 88. There we read—

These are facts that we cannot argue with, and that is why it is very important for us to take note of them.

We know that Russia has succeeded in cutting us off from the rest of Africa by forming a communist belt that stretches from Angola to Mozambique. Therefore, if we think of proper planning in order to combat the present situation, it is clear that the hon. the Prime Minister is the chief planner in the process of preventing the same things affecting South Africa.

Of course, in order to plan properly, one needs reliable information. However, it is a tremendous task to gather this information. Planning for South Africa as a whole is essential, but it is a tremendous task.

There are skilled national servicemen in the Defence Force, including graduates, people who can be put to good use in several spheres. In this respect I am thinking for instance of anthropologists, medical doctors, engineers, teachers, agriculturalists, geologists, etc. I therefore want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider making use of this wide variety of knowledgeable people to organize the gathering of the necessary facts with a view to proper planning. In the isolated areas of our country in particular, expert servicemen can be used to plan a well planned strip of between 30 and 35 km in the northern border area—I should like to call it a buffer strip. Those skilled servicemen can also be used to make surveys in the agricultural area, particularly in the so-called buffer strip too. When it comes to water provision and the possibilities of irrigation, useful surveys can be made in that strip. There are also expert servicemen who can gather information with regard to providing electric power in that strip. Particulars with regard to their education of all population groups in that strip must also be obtained. Furthermore, information can also be gathered with regard to the security, police protection, labour force, commerce, consumer outlets, transport, roads, railways, industries, housing, the mining potential, health services, etc. Expert servicemen can gather information in all these spheres for us.

That so-called buffer strip must be planned in an ideal way, so that people can be attracted to it. It should be a densely populated buffer strip of very satisfied people of all population groups. Previously Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe, was such a buffer State. In view of the things awaiting us in the future, I should therefore like to address a plea to the hon. the Minister now to plan this buffer strip between us and our northern neighbouring States very well.

Mr. Chairman, the Champlain-General of the S.A. Defence Force, Major-General Van Zyl, began a short article in Paratus of April 1980, with the following sentence—

This is certainly also applicable to one’s love for one’s fatherland, the country of one’s birth and nurturing. There is a very peculiar phenomenon, however, in connection with the situation in which South Africa finds itself in respect of the terrorist onslaughts against which South Africa has to defend itself. Now, of all times, there is a growing measure of resistance to military service on the part of certain people. It also manifests itself on the part of various church leaders who are trying to imply—and I am emphasizing “imply”—that we are engaged in an unjust war. For that reason they are inciting their followers to resist the State, specifically under the pretext of religious and conscientious objections. In the Steyn report there is a very thorough study of the question of resistance to military service. Church leaders and other organizations such as the S.A. Council of Churches, Dr. Alan Boesak, Archbishop Hurley, the Church of the Province and The Committee on South African War Resisters, are actively engaged in inciting our young men to object to military service. Let us see, for example, what Dr. Boesak said, and I quote—

What Archbishop Hurley said, has already been quoted by the hon. member for Wonderboom. Let us see what the Committee on South African War Resisters has to say. They encourage people to go underground. They state specifically—

Hon. members must listen carefully—

With further reference to the onslaught, we encounter the argument that South Africa is engaged in an unjust war and the judgment on whether it is just or unjust is based on the political situation. It is therefore obvious to me that the onslaught in this field forms part of the total onslaught on South Africa and on the existing order in South Africa. It is very obvious to me that this onslaught is not based so much on religious or other principles, but that it has definitely been politically inspired and use is being made of various means for the very purpose of trying to camouflage the end.

Those who refuse on conscientious grounds to perform military service, entertain a particular outlook on life, and a philosophy that differs fundamentally from the philosophy of those who accept military service. For the sake of argument one could call it a liberalistic activism in contrast to reformatory conservatism. The former had its origin in the well-known enlightenment of the 18th century which placed the emphasis on the individual in particular. This detached the individual from authority, and the individual became the seat of authority. The slogan of that period was the exclusive right of human reason in all spheres of life. The conscience, in particular, was strongly emphasized. This was the origin of the principle of freedom, equality and fraternity, and the State was regarded as a danger to the realization of this principle. If, then the State did not act in accordance with the demands of this principle, nobody could be denied the right of resistance and insurrection, or rather that was what they said.

The reformatory conservative view of life has an altogether different background and originated from a totally different spiritual atmosphere. Here, too, there is recognition of the individual, but only in his relationship to the community. Hence the recognition of authority and the consequential respect for authority. The result of this is the guaranteed security of the individual. Both schools of thought have a particular approach to the State. The liberalistic school regards the State as something subordinate, something established by the individual, and which can be destroyed by the individual. The reformatory school regards the State as something “from above” and hold the view that the State and the office of rulers are of divine origin, and they have a direct responsibility to God. Particularly when the State regards itself as Christian, it is accountable to God for all its actions. Consequently, it has the task of protecting its subjects against enemies from inside and from outside, and even against the State itself. Consequently, the State must always test its actions against the Word of God.

Both schools of thought have a specific point of view in respect of the State. The liberalistic school of thought regards the church as being very strongly politically activist, as a sort of political party that can play the role of a pressure group, with the right of expressing itself specifically in the political field. Here, the church acts far outside its limits. To the reformatory school, the church is also politically involved, but not as a policy-making subject. The church is regarded here as a body that makes statements on principles. It has to test everything it says and does by the Word of God and consequently it is the task of the church to determine whether the State, in its actions, passes the test of the Word of God.

In respect of a particular relationship between church and State, liberalism regards the State as being subordinate to the church. That is to say, the determination of what is right and just, rests with the church, whereas the reformatory school of thought holds the view that the church and the State each has its own distinctive functions but are nevertheless interrelated. Both serve the Kingdom of God, each in its own field. The State has to make its contribution to the Christianization of society in the light of the Word of God. One of the matters expressly entrusted to the State, is the way in which the citizens of the State have to be protected. Consequently, the State has been vested with the power of the sword of God, whereas the church has been vested with the power of the Word.

This is precisely the dilemma with which we are faced, that there are churches that wish to be more than a church. When the State identifies the dangers threatening its citizens and takes action, inter alia, by calling people up for military service, where does the church obtain the right to object? Such churches and such people are saying: “Yes, but South African society is not just”. That is once again an area in which we differ with one another. The church may not advocate a form of action that would deprive the State of its authority. Those who advocate refusal to perform military service, make themselves guilty of internal spiritual terrorism, compared with the militant terrorism from outside. Such people are playing directly into the hands of the enemy. Is the State not entitled, then, to take action against such people, for the very purpose of protecting the citizens of the State, even against themselves? A State that cannot take suitable action against such people, is neglecting its divine duty and is guilty before God.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member must excuse me if I do not respond to his argument. I want to refer to a few ideas advanced by one or two other hon. members, particularly those advanced by the hon. member for Wonderboom. He referred to the so-called “unjust war” in which certain young men are supposedly encouraged not to take part. By implication he included members of this party in this House in the group which is allegedly discouraging the young men to take part in the so-called unjust war. I believe that insinuation is totally unfounded because the viewpoint of this party is absolutely clear as far as that is concerned. I should like to quote from a short contribution which the hon. member for Yeoville made to the Army magazine Paratus.

Was it a voluntary contribution? [Interjections.]

The hon. member wrote the following—

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question? [Interjections.]

Order!

After I have finished reading the extract, I shall listen to what the hon. the Deputy Minister wants to ask. The hon. member for Yeoville wrote—

The hon. member went on to say—

From that it is abundantly clear what my party’s viewpoint is. We on this side of the House are now really getting sick and tired, to say the least, of hon. members opposite continually making insinuations about this side of the House so as to create the impression that in the first place, we are not prepared to make our contribution as far as defence is concerned, and in the second place, that we are discouraging our young men from making their contributions. We flatly reject such insinuations. As regards the hon. member for Wonderboom, I believe I have now said enough about this. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Carletonville made a proposal to the hon. the Minister tonight to the effect that it would perhaps be a good thing for young men to complete their military service immediately after completing their school education so as to get the two year training period over and done with before taking up other obligations. To support a proposal like that, would be to disregard the role played by technically and academically trained young men in our Defence Force today.

Apparently the hon. member is not aware of the fact that nowadays the Defence Force is making very frequent use of modern and highly technical armaments, for which technical competence is urgently required. For that reason it is necessary for us to employ in the Defence Force young men that have qualified as engineers, technicians and medical doctors. Therefore I do not consider the hon. member’s proposal acceptable. It is a proposal made by someone who has not given the matter a great deal of thought. [Interjections.]

There is another point I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister of Defence. The hon. the Minister is probably aware that the S.A. Agricultural Union has on various occasions expressed the idea that particularly in the case of young farmers who are called up to perform military duty of one, two or three months, the Defence Force could see to it that such a period were fitted in so that they would not be called up and be away from their farms during periods of critical importance to them, for example in the middle of harvesting time, or when sowing or ploughing is to be done. I should like to see the hon. the Minister of Defence giving attention to this particular problem, which affects these people, tonight or tomorrow, and whether he could perhaps just give us an indication of what he plans for the future.

You must tell the terrorists to wait till after the harvest. [Interjections.]

I realize, of course, that it is not easy to plan in such a way as to suit all individuals. I am aware of that, but I cannot accept that the hon. the Minister of Defence should simply ignore such an appeal by saying that the terrorists will not wait till after the harvest. He must accept that those people really do have a problem and that it is not true that they do not want to perform their military service. They are prepared to do it, but if they were to be too heavily burdened financially as a result of these call-ups, it would after all not be to anybody’s benefit in the end.

In the third place I want to refer to the problem of pay. A great deal of progress has been made in this connection and we know that the situation is certainly far better than it was five, six or seven months ago. To claim that the problems have been solved, however, is not true; it is not correct. I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister that there were quite a number of trainees at Valhalla yesterday who, after their basic training, have been cleared to other camps to report for further training, and that quite a number of those men have only received 50% of their salaries and some of them, I am told, only 30%. The reason for this was simply that not enough money had been drawn by that camp to pay the young men on that occasion. It had nothing to do with computers; it had nothing to do with the fact that the names were not available yet, nor had it anything to do with the fact that they had been called up a week or two, or a month, earlier—it was simply a question of bad planning. In this case I would call in indefensible. I should like to know whether the hon. the Minister would be prepared to make a statement on this matter tonight or tomorrow.

In the time still available to me, I should like to come back to the question of life insurance. The hon. the Deputy Minister passed the buck very deftly this afternoon by saying that the group life insurance arrangement which was entered into, was a private arrangement. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I rise merely to afford the hon. member the opportunity to complete his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to take up too much time. The hon. the Deputy Minister simply passed the buck. The truth is, however—and I want to make this point very clear—that without scheme No. 2, the scheme that applies now, that scheme which was begun in 1958 would never have come to an end. In that case those pensioners would still have been contributing their premiums to scheme No. 1 today and on their death their wives or next of kin would have received the money for which their lives had been insured. By introducing scheme No. 2, however, which was the result of positive action by the hon. the Minister of Defence, scheme No. 1 was of necessity terminated. The Government may not evade the responsibility of those approximately 650 pensioners. It would be a lack of patriotism.

Mr. Chairman, I shall attempt to reply to the hon. member for Wynberg in the course of my speech. I shall do so not now, but later. However, I want to make use of this opportunity to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister of Defence and his staff most sincerely on the opportunity they afforded us to visit the border recently during the recess. Not only for me, but also for all hon. members of the other political parties represented in this House, it was a great privilege and an exceptional experience to visit the border area and the various bases there. We made the acquaintance of the men on the border, spoke to them and ascertained what their needs and grievances were. I think, too, that it is as well that the Defence Force has extended this effort not only to the politicians represented in this House but also to businessmen, academics, the Press, leaders at various levels of society, even leaders of different language groups, religious denominations and colours. This is a very good thing because in this way we show yet again that we have a national Defence Force. As various hon. members have done here today, I wish to quote from Paratus of April 1980. I found it striking that so many of our hon. colleagues quoted from Paratus. It shows what a good periodical Paratus is. It is just a pity that some of us do not read it so regularly. Therefore I, too, wish to quote from Paratus of April 1980. In it the question is asked: “Why are we fighting and how prepared is the youth of South Africa?” The section I wish to quote appears under the heading “Verdediging as ’n volkstaak”—

I also found it particularly striking that while we were visiting the border, we did not only encounter White soldiers there, but also servicemen from various colour groups. It is true that already 25% of South Africa’s soldiers are people of colour. What I find particularly praiseworthy, however, is the fact that in one respect the Defence Force has an outstanding achievement to its credit. The hon. the Minister of Defence mentions this often. This is that there is probably no other organization which has done more to bring people together across different language barriers than the Defence Force itself. I wish to say the same in respect of colour. I do not believe there is any other organization in South Africa which does more to bring people together across the various colour barriers and bring about understanding among them than the Defence Force. The latest Sunday Times reports on the most recent developments of this aspect, and I quote—

The report concerned non-Whites who are now to be admitted as pilots and navigators in the S.A. Defence Force. It is good that this should happen. It is also good that we should evaluate people as non-White sons of South Africa who can also do well in this field, solely on merit.

I also wish to dwell for a moment on the body to which other hon. members have also referred, namely The Committee on South African War Resisters. It is true that we are involved in a total war. South Africa is being threatened in every aspect of its national structure. In every possible aspect of our national structure, for example in the field of religion, in the military sphere and even at our schools, a direct effort is being made to undermine and break down that which is ours.

I want to dwell for a few moments on this organization. I want to describe what this organization is engaged in doing, what they concentrate on and what their objectives are. Firstly, it is their objective to persuade the White youth to refuse to perform military service and to persuade those who are already performing military service, to desert. Such cases have already occurred. They are trying to achieve these objectives by, for example, encouraging the USA, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Canada to receive and accommodate deserters, by the distribution of information to soldiers by way of publications such as Omkeer and Resister, by the collection of information concerning conditions within the S.A. Defence Force and by an effort to undermine the morale of national servicemen. The hon. member for Wonderboom quoted what Mongomery said in regard to the undermining of the morale of a Defence Force. It is a primary objective of these people to undermine the morale of our young boys.

When one considers who the founding members and members of this movement are, one sees that they are deserters from the Defence Force, former Methodist clergymen and people like Joe Slovo, his wife Ruth, Dr. Alan Boesak, Prof. Paul Hare and James Mulder who are holding seminars country-wide in which they condemn the military set-up.

While I am discussing this, I also wish to say that the hon. member for Wynberg said that hon. members of the NP were constantly making allegations which he wanted to reject categorically. But if that is so, how then does he explain what a front bencher in his party, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, had to say. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout was reported as follows—

What has that to do with it?

Banner headlines announced: “Vote for Nats is a Vote for War, says Japie Basson.”

That is right.

The hon. member says that is right. In other words what did the—I almost said fellow—hon. member say? He said that if one voted for the Government, indirectly one was voting for war. Where is the war against South Africa taking place? It is taking place on the borders. Against what is the war? [Interjections.] What does the hon. member for Pinelands say? He is an advocate of freeing Nelson Mandela. What does Nelson Mandela stand for? Mandela stood for one thing. I do not know whether he still stands for it. However, why was he locked up? He stands for the overthrow of South Africa’s democratic system; of this Government. Does the hon. member for Wynberg still agree with this? After all, he said we were making allegations …

On whom do you want to declare war next?

I say there are elements in that party that associate themselves with people who want to overthrow the orderly dispensation in this country. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is it permissible for the hon. member to make that allegation?

The hon. member should rather withdraw it.

I withdraw it. I am sorry, I did not hear what the hon. member’s objection was, but I withdraw it. I say that there are elements that the PFP supports, that associate themselves with the freeing of Mandela. What did he stand for? Mandela stands for the overthrow of South Africa and this democratically elected Government. He stands for revolution. I do not say the hon. member for Wynberg stands for it. I say there are elements in the PFP, and I say that the hon. member for Pinelands stands for that …

Mr. Chairman, … [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Pinelands stands for the freeing of Mandela. I could go still further, but unfortunately time does not permit. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Kimberley South on an enjoyable speech. At the outset I should just like to address a few words to the hon. member for Yeoville. I should like to associate myself with what the hon. member for Carletonville has already said to him.

The hon. the Prime Minister has already typified the hon. member for Yeoville very accurately as a “Corpse” and a “bride”, under specific circumstances. I do not think anyone can improve on that. However, the hon. member would also like to be known as the greatest patriot in the hon. Opposition, particularly when it comes to S.A. Defence Force matters. But if his actions today in the debate on the Biermann report, as well as what he said in connection with insurance, were put to the test, he does not rate the image of a patriot very highly. It would seem as though he is making common course with those who are creating a negative image of the S.A. Defence Force, a matter which is referred to in paragraph 213 of the findings of the Steyn Commission. In the paragraph concerned reference is made to the people who are wilfully engaged in discrediting the S.A. Defence Force. It is this type in particular—

There is evidence of an increase in such negative reporting and I suggest that the hon. member for Yeoville should at this stage demonstrate to us where he really stands. On what stool does he actually wish to sit? I think he must exercise his choice if he really wishes to be known as the great patriot of the hon. Opposition. [Interjections.]

I should also like to associate myself with other hon. members who thanked the hon. the Minister, the hon. the Deputy Minister and the Defence Force for the visit which members of this hon. House were recently able to pay to the border. The hospitality which we experienced from the Defence Force was all respects something to write home about. The food which we enjoyed there was of a very high quality, and we are able to tell the mothers with great confidence that their sons are getting very good food to eat there. The food is not only prepared as sustenance, but also with the view to a proper balance in the diet which is offered. There is wide choice of fresh vegetables, meat, fish and dairy products in the basic supplies of every kitchen in the S.A. Defence Force. The task of the chief is to ensure that national service men enjoy adequate and nourishing meals in the Defence Force. If we take into consideration the vast number of young men for whom food must be provided, it is scarcely possible to form an idea of the quality of food which has to be prepared and served daily in the Defence Force. If we take the S.A. Air Force Gymnasium as an example, it appears that for one specific daily meal 15 400 eggs, eight beef hind quarters, 12 beef forequarters, 30 sheep and 225 kg of potatoes were served. For another daily meal 280 chickens are prepared. In addition to that a good breakfast is served. In view of this one can take off one’s hat to those chefs, who are performing such a tremendous task.

The happiness of a national service man depends mainly, as the saying goes, on post once a week, pay once a month and food three times a day. I do not think that the work of the caterers corps of the S.A. Defence Force can be overestimated in this respect. In this connection a great task is being performed by the S.A. Defence Force training school at Elandsfontein, where each chef works seven days a week and undergoes a thorough training. Members of the Permanent Force also undergo a period of training of 18 weeks at this particular training school, while national servicemen go through a training period of 13 weeks there. This course covers all aspects of cooking and baking, and also includes training in the use of the maintenance of the mobile field kitchen for 250 men. In the field such a trained national service man must also know how to use his skill to bake bread with the help of a clay oven, for example, or to prepare a juicy, delicious leg of mutton.

We who visited the border can testify with confidence to the tasty food and other enjoyable things which we were able to partake of there. An aspect which I should like to mention to the hon. the Deputy Minister— something which I find quite worrying—is that beer on the border is cheaper than ordinary cool-drinks. I am aware that the Defence Force is giving attention to the problem of liquor abuse in its own ranks. In this connection I should like to refer to the supplement to Paratus of November 1979, in which the following was stated—

I am aware that there are reasons for beer being cheaply available there. It is very hot in that area. In addition there is of course the question of excise duty, etc. However I also wish to refer in this connection to the White Paper of 1979, in which—on page 8 of that document—mention is made of the state of the S.A. Defence Force Fund. In it is stated that the subsidization of cool-drinks in the operational area, during 1978, amounted to a total of R201 000, money which was defrayed from the S.A. Defence Force Fund. In addition it is also stated, and I quote—

I wish to suggest, with all due respect, that the hon. the Minister or the hon. the Deputy Minister could possibly consider the possibility of this subsidy being reintroduced from the S.A. Defence Force Fund, a fund to which the public does after all also contribute.

Then, too, I should like to express my thanks to the Defence Force for the appointment of Col. Robert Blake, who will assist with the administration of the Southern Cross Fund. This is a fund which, as we all know, is performing a magnificant task in South Africa. I also convey my thanks for the wonderful work which the S.A. Defence Force is doing in this connection.

Mr. Chairman, it was very friendly of the hon. member for Roodepoort to express his thanks. We all owe a debt of thanks to the hon. the Minister who introduced this custom to enable members of this House to debate here meaningfully. We are enjoying the benefits of it this evening.

A number of contentious matters have again been raised here today and also this evening, matters which perhaps got under peoples’ skin now and again. However, the image of the Defence Force is one of efficiency. In fact there have been only two points of criticism. The one concerned military pay. The hon. member for Durban Point, the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Simonstown raised the matter, and the difficult position we were in, was explained. We indicated on the basis of statistics how dramatically the number of complaints was dropping. Then, too, there was the matter raised by the hon. member for Wynberg, the issue of Valhalla. The Chief of the S.A. Defence Force and his officers are sitting here this evening, and we know that the machinery with which to give attention to that has already been set in operation. It is a large organization. As a member of Parliament I have been living with this organization for 12 years. For 18 months I have been intimately involved with the administration of this organization. Therefore, if I have sinned, it is because I look at the Defence Force objectively. With an approach which entails an objective effort to promote our administration as far as possible, I wish to state that the hon. the Minister of Defence, the Chief of the S.A. Defence Force and his staff officers have succeeded in giving this mighty organization in South Africa an image of efficiency. I think hon. members realize that attention is being given to the deficiencies that still exist. The machinery for doing so has been created.

Then, too, there are other aspects that have been raised here. We are now also reaping the fruits of visits to the border where hon. members were impressed by the tremendous responsibility that rests upon the S.A. Defence Force to protect our borders properly. The attitude displayed during that visit and during the debate today, points to the harmony which follows on the realization that the S.A. Defence Force has a tremendous responsibility. I should like to add something more with regard to the responsibilities of the S.A. Defence Force. In the course of time we shall undoubtedly realize that the S.A. Defence Force, with its particular views and experience, has been in the forefront as regards contact with nations who were the target of communist propaganda. I wish to repeat this statement; the S.A. Defence Force has been in the forefront as regards contact with nations who are the targets of communist propaganda and onslaughts. It therefore goes without saying that the S.A. Defence Force should become sensitive to the techniques, and by the same token should itself develop techniques on that front. I am aware of the fact that the S.A. Defence Force acted, and still acts, as a catalyst in making the whole country sensitive to this onslaught.

The second statement I wish to make in this connection is that the knowledge and experience gained by the S.A. Defence Force is shared daily and put at the disposal of the rest of the Governmental structure in South Africa. I think history will show that the Defence Force has acted here as a catalyst, a role which we shall appreciate in the times that lie ahead.

When it comes to the profile of the S.A. Defence Force, it is highly regarded by strategists, not only as a result of our achievements in the past, but also because they have been impressed by our preparedness as a national defence force, a Defence Force which is still developing and which envisages obtaining as components, men and women from all the different population groups, with all the different minority groups in our country. We are doing this, and hon. members are aware of it. They have had experience of it. This may be sensitive information, but the hon. members opposite, together with hon. members on this side, were impressed by what they saw of the expansion of the national Defence Force of South Africa. A facet which impressed the strategists is that we are able to provide blanket cover of the whole of South Africa, that we could provide cover over a wide area, and that we could involve a large number of people. Moreover, we are constantly working towards expanding the components.

I also wish to refer this evening to the developing involvement of women in the Permanent Force on a voluntary basis, I mean in an administrative capacity. At present there are two intakes every year, viz. in January and in July, for women who want to commit themselves to a year’s voluntary military service in the S.A. Army. They are trained and used in specialized fields and make an important contribution towards relieving the burden on the members of the Permanent Force. The service they perform is of a consistently high quality. Appeals have been made to us to consider several requests from prospective students of the July intakes in particular, to extend their period of service by six months so that they will only end their period of service after 18 months’ service. With a view to the valuable service they perform and the freeing of national servicemen for other tasks that can be achieved thereby, by virtue of the power vested in me by the hon. the Minister I gave approval that women of the July intakes who applied could extend their service voluntarily by six months. In this way a relatively large number will be at our disposal for longer periods.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South and the hon. member for Ladybrand also referred to our commando system, which is an important component in the blanket coverage we can provide. It is an important component of our national Defence Force. Both hon. members argued that we should make the system more attractive so as to attract more volunteers. As far back as last year we indicated that we intended taking another look at the system, and we have already reached the stage of being able to submit proposals to the hon. the Minister to equip our commandoes in such a way as to be able to refer to a locality-bound element and a non-locality-bound element. One will be able to join the non-locality-bound element on a voluntary basis. That element will be supplemented by people designated for that purpose by the Chief of the Army on the basis of the obligations they still have. What this signifies is that when called up for service, those who belong to the locality-bound element may be certain that they will only render service within a certain geographic area, probably within the commando borders, so far as commando regulations and the legislation in question permit. This means that in future, when members join a locality-bound element, they may indeed be sure that they will not be sent to the border and that they will not be called up for any tasks other than tasks in the area in question. I shall leave it at that. [Time expired.]

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

Mr. Chairman, I wish to come back to the reference by the hon. member for Wynberg to the very interesting article by the hon. member for Yeoville in Paratus. I sympathize with the hon. member for Yeoville. I am very sorry for the hon. member. In this article he says—

If there is one thing that the hon. the Minister has achieved over a number of years, it is to get this idea confirmed in the Defence Force. The hon. member goes on to write—

By implication and directly the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Wynberg state hereby that they are very strongly opposed to the undermining of the system of national service on the pretext of opposing a so-called “unjust society”. [Interjections.] That is right. Now, however, I want to ask the hon. members for Yeoville and Wynberg whether they are aware that the hon. member for Houghton has taken the side of Bishop Tutu who …

She is also rather “toe-toe”! [Interjections.]

… expressed himself as not being in favour of action against people who oppose national service due to “conscientious objection”.

I put forward the official policy of the party.

Must I infer that the hon. member is not prepared to stand up, if he gets another chance to speak …

I shall speak again tomorrow.

… and deal with this and specifically repudiate the hon. member for Houghton? [Interjections.] May I infer that the hon. member will rise tomorrow …

Only if I can see what is stated there.

I am prepared to make it available to the hon. member.

Read it. I am prepared to listen.

The hon. member must stand up tomorrow and either defend or repudiate the hon. member for Houghton.

Read it. I do not know what is stated there.

I shall make it available to the hon. member. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Deputy Minister always wants to give things on a confidential basis. Give it openly.

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister is speaking. I am not going to permit a dialogue across the floor of the House.

I think the time has come for the hon. member for Yeoville to concede one thing and that is that he wrote the article for Paratus of his own free will and that his conviction and …

It is my conviction, but there was a misrepresentation. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Yeoville must rise tomorrow and adopt an unambiguous standpoint opposed to those who clutch at so-called objections of conscience as a pretext under which to resist national service.

Read what Helen said. [Interjections.]

Order!

We also expect of the hon. member for Yeoville that he should express his opposition to the hon. member for Pinelands who, as far as we know, was involved in the University Christian Movement as long ago as 1972. On that occasion that movement fired the first shots the effects of which we are feeling now, namely resistance to national service. I put it that we on this side of the House are being overwhelmed by people who are dissatisfied and unhappy that any concessions whatsoever are being made to these people, that a distinction is being drawn between people who belong to the various denominations and are already being accommodated by us. However, this is a policy which the hon. the Prime Minister laid down a long time ago. There is an attitude and a feeling in this country that we must say to those who undermine national service: “Thus far, and no further.” When this side of the House attacks them in regard to this matter—and five or six hon. members have discussed national service this evening—the hon. member for Yeoville and other hon. members are upset because the sons of A, B, C and D are called up for service on alternative years to defend their fatherland on our borders and go in danger of their lives, whereas others do not do so. Therefore the hon. member for Yeoville must not hide behind an article. If that side of the House wishes to adopt this specific approach and standpoint, as hon. members on this side have done, then we can perhaps see whether we cannot be friends again.

I am not interested in that argument.

At this stage I move—

Agreed to.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr. Chairman, I move—

Agreed to.