Mr. Speaker, in the three or four minutes for which I spoke before the debate was adjourned the week before last, I mentioned that this budget had been very well received in all quarters. A few hon. members of the official Opposition looked rather startled at this and apparently thought it would be a good idea to comment on this across the floor of this House. I then said that I would quote examples to support my statement. What I should therefore like to do now is to quote examples of comments made on the budget. I think it is important that this House and the general public should see this budget in its correct perspective. The people I am going to quote, are people who speak with authority. They include academics, economists and prominent businessmen, people who have to deal with this budget every day in practice.

One prominent businessman had the following to say in a letter dated 26 March 1982—

†The chairman of an important industrial group, also in a letter dated 26 March 1982, states—

The president of the Federated Chamber of Industries was reported in the Press as having said—

* According to newspaper reports the president of the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut had the following to say—

Die Burger of 26 March 1982 summed up the budget seminar organized by Nedbank and the Old Mutual as follows—

†I should also like to quote a young Nedbank economist, Mr. Rudolf Gouws, who, I believe, is an exceptionally able economist. He said—

*In addition a leading banker said in a telegram: “Die begroting pas die ekonomie soos ’n handskoen.” In this regard I should also like to quote the hon. member for Smithfield. I think his summary in the following words was very accurate—

I feel that this is exactly what we are applying—a consolidating and stabilizing policy.

†The Financial Mail said the budget was—

That, in essence, is how the budget is being perceived. It went on to refer to the budget’s “remarkably fine balance”.

You will be getting another medal if you are not careful!

After detailing various proposals in the budget, the Financial Mail went on to say—

I do not have many more quotes. I do, however, want to read the following one. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I have a whole file. I do, however, also want to deal with some of the matters raised by hon. members opposite.

Is your file bigger than our file? [Interjections.]

I have a massive file. A leading firm of stockbrokers said—

Mr. Speaker, I can remember asking hon. members opposite a number of times what the estimate of the gold price should be for the year ahead, so that at the end of the year, when we talk about budgets, it would not be necessary for us to speak with the wisdom of hindsight.

Who is blowing his own trumpet now?

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central evaded that question like the plague, and so did other hon. members as well. I want to come back to that now. [Interjections.] The same leading firm of stockbrokers continued its comment by saying—

Then, the Financial Times of London, in the course of a factual report of the budget highlights, quotes the economist of a leading British bank as saying the budget is “excellent”.

Little wonder that the hon. member for Pinelands should have lost heart when, speaking for his party said—I think he was the last speaker speaking for the PFP—

Apart from our criticism, of course. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, quite a few excellent speeches were made by hon. members on this side of the House during the course of this debate. Of course I have great appreciation for this. I also appreciate the wonderful and encouraging words addressed to me by hon. members. I shall return briefly to hon. members on this side of the House later.

On the other hand the contributions made by the Opposition, particularly the official Opposition, with literally only one or two exceptions, were characterized by a lack of consistency. In referring to the official Opposition and the NRP I immediately want to single out the hon. member for Umbilo.

†Once again the hon. member for Umbilo made a contribution which was completely unbiased, fair and objective. [Interjections.]

*In contrast the contributions by the official Opposition were once again characterized by a lack of consistency, by a lack of realism and such a degree of negativism that it was impossible for them to play a constructive part in an important financial debate of this nature and to discuss the budget in an authoritative way. As far as the basic design of the budget was concerned, the official Opposition erred seriously in its judgment.

†What then is the basic design of this budget? It is—

1. (a) to keep Government spending as low as possible, consonant with no impairment in the provision of necessary services. The reasons for this requirement are obvious, and it has been lauded by every serious critic;
2. (b) to keep the “deficit before borrowing” to a minimum to preclude any serious pressure on the local capital market and hence on interest rates;
3. (c) to finance the budget’s requirements in a non-inflationary manner and, in particular, to ensure a proper balance between direct and indirect taxes;
4. (d) to insulate, to the maximum degree possible, the lower-income groups and the aged from the effects of the prevailing inflation. Thus for example the budget provides for very substantial food and transport subsidies, for record pension increases—social, civil and military—and a loan levy on individuals applicable only to those earning R7000 per annum or more or whose basic tax exceeds R150, and to those taxpayers who are under the age of 70 years.

I must say one of the nicest things about the budget is the wonderful letters I have received from literally scores of pensioners throughout the country. The budget furthermore aims—

1. (e) to provide liberally for social amenities and educational services for all sections of the population; and
2. (f) to ensure the safety and security of the State and of all its citizens.

Where does the official Opposition stand in relation to the budget, Sir?

One of the purposes of the annual budget debate is to give members of the Opposition parties ample opportunity to criticize not only the details of the budget itself but also the Government’s handling of economic affairs in general. In doing so, they have an important advantage on their side: They have the benefit of hindsight! Thus they know in detail what happened to the gold price during the past year, what happened to the American economy, to the European economy, to international exchange rates and interest rates, and so forth. In fact, one might say they have the benefit of a television video replay! They can put the cassette on the video and play it over and over again, in slow motion if they wish. They can even stop the picture from time to time for closer detailed examination!

And then, of course, it is easy to be wise after the event. It is very easy to say what should have been done here, and what should have been done there. I think any child can do that. They should, however, give us the right prescription beforehand. That is the essence of constructive criticism. Here again I should like to cite as an example the question that I have repeatedly asked Opposition members in this debate, i.e. to tell me what the estimate for the year ahead of the gold price should be, because it is such an important parameter. Yet I have had absolutely no answer whatsoever. [Interjections]

You tell us!

But next year they will be very wise after the event.

What did you work on? [Interjections.] Should we put the figures in an envelope and say “Here it is”?

And yet even with this enormous advantage of the benefit of hindsight, Opposition speakers have struggled to find legitimate grounds for criticism of the Government’s economic policies. I say “legitimate” grounds because for the greater part they were criticizing the Government for such developments as the decline in the world price of gold, the recession in the United States, the United Kingdom, West Germany and other countries, the high overseas interest rates, the drought and so on. If they think the public is going to fall for that they are mistaken! If there is to be criticism at all, it must be levelled at the way the Government handled these developments, how it reacted to them, and not at the developments themselves, developments which are clearly beyond the control of anyone in South Africa. During a budget debate it is not only the official economic and financial policies of the Government which must be scrutinized, but also the alternative policies put forward by the Opposition parties. They are supposed to state clearly what they would have done in the circumstances, and what they believe should be done in the period ahead. Their policies, too, are on trial, as it were.

It is precisely in this respect that the performance of most Opposition speakers during this debate was disappointing. Whereas several hon. members on this side of the House made positive contributions and criticized constructively—I have read practically every speech and am therefore in a position to express an opinion—most Opposition speakers merely tried to exploit the country’s present economic difficulties for political gain. My main problem with the comments of hon. members from the Opposition was that they were seriously inconsistent. That particularly applies to the PFP. No clear picture emerged during the debate as to what alternative fiscal and monetary policies the Opposition parties would have preferred, still less how they would have carried them out.

I should like to give a few examples of these inconsistencies. Firstly, they criticized the Government for increasing general sales tax and company tax and for imposing a surchage on imports and a 5% loan levy on individuals, and yet they also criticized the Government for making use of bank credit and thereby contributing to the increase in the money supply.

Secondly, they criticized us for allowing the money supply to rise at an allegedly excessive rate, and yet they also criticize us for raising taxes and allowing interest rates to increase. Every first-year economics student knows that a tighter grip on money supply in circumstances such as those of the past year, must inevitably imply higher interest rates and/or higher taxes, even assuming that Government spending is restrained as much as possible.

Thirdly, the Opposition criticized us for not doing enough to curb inflation and at the same time for not doing more to stimulate the domestic economy.

Fourthly, again, they criticized us for not doing enough to curb inflation, and at the same time the hon. member for Yeoville talks of his “grand new order of priorities”. Incidentally, he did not tell us what they were. The hon. member talks of very important new priorities but he does not tell us where to find “the massive resources to finance them.”

I think you can do better.

I read this in your speech. I have read the hon. member’s speech very carefully. The hon. member should go and read his own speech. He says absolutely nothing as to where these massive resources should come from, and I challenge him to deny that. The hon. member also says nothing of the drastic consequences the corresponding massive expenditures will have for the cost of living of all South Africans. He merely talks of a complete “new order of priorities” and the “massive resources” required to finance them.

Fifthly, the Opposition criticized us for not allowing capital to be sent abroad when the economy was flushed with liquidity. Here they refer right back to 1980. They say that capital should have been sent abroad. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central and at least two other hon. members said that we should have sent capital abroad, but they overlook the fact that we did in fact send huge amounts of capital abroad. We redeemed huge amounts of foreign debt at that time. In fact, in a comparatively short period during that time we paid off nearly R2 billion. That is a record of which this Government can be proud. Incidentally, in the same period we transferred R1 240 million to the Stabilization Account to pay particularly for extremely important strategic imports. All these facts are left out of account by the Opposition, although I have clearly stated the facts in the House before.

The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, in his zeal to criticize the monetary policies of the Minister and the Reserve Bank, so far forgot himself as to compare a real rate of increase with a nominal rate of increase, and as a result reached a conclusion completely the opposite of the true one. I refer to the remarkable assertion by him that—

And then comes this remarkable aberration—

In that regard there is at least one thing I can say: That is not my analysis. However, I had just come into this House when the hon. member made this remarkable statement and I immediately warned him by way of an interjection that he was comparing apples and pears. But the hon. member was very over-confident at that point and he swept that aside and proceeded to put his foot into it completely. What are the facts? The facts are that whether one makes the comparison in real terms or in nominal terms—that is, adjusting the increases in both the GDP and the money supply in real terms, or comparing the increases in both in nominal terms—the money supply in fact rose slowly from 1976 to 1981 than did the gross domestic product. It was thus just the opposite of what he said. I should have thought that that circumstance, over a difficult five-year period, was greatly to the credit of the Government and of the Reserve Bank.

Of course, we would all like to see a lower rate of inflation, a stronger rand, a still higher real growth rate, a stronger balance of payments, higher gold and foreign reserves, lower taxes, lower interest rates, increased availability of funds for housing, still higher salaries, wages and pensions, and so on. To say that is, I think, to state the obvious for most people. But to blame the Government because this state of Utopia does not exist is completely naive and I think it tends to make a mockery of our parliamentary system of government.

In my budget speech I took the country into my confidence and presented the true facts of economic life in South Africa and in the world today. I did not minimize the economic difficulties confronting us. Instead, I analysed them in detail and set out the policies we intend to follow to deal with them. I remain convinced that this frank and open approach is the only correct one. And I am naturally really gratified to see that, in their reaction to the budget, the overwhelming majority of economists, businessmen and other commentators agreed with me and the Government.

I should now like to refer briefly to what the hon. member for Yeoville has had to say with regard to interest rates. As I listened to and afterwards read his speech he appeared to criticize our interest rate policy on two counts. On the one hand he said interest rates were too high on the other hand he said that interest rates were too low. Now which is it? The hon. member must read his speech carefully. [Interjections.] He must not get cross. He cannot have it both ways. At one point in his speech he clearly seemed to be blaming the Government for the fact that interest rates were as high as they were. Apparently, neither the decline in the gold price, nor the recession overseas, nor the high American interest rates, nor the natural and healthy tightening of our own financial markets had anything to do with it. It was simply all the Government’s fault. And yet in the same speech he blamed us for not allowing the interest rates on Government stock to rise faster to higher and more market-related levels.

You are mixing up the times …

The hon. member asked a question, and I quote him—

You do not seem to know the difference between December and April.

The hon. member went on to say—

That is right.

It is of course always easy, as I say, to be wise after the event and to know today precisely what interest rate should have been determined on specific Government bond issues six, eight or 12 months ago. Here is another instance where I think the hon. member for Yeoville has put his foot into it. I say this because, entirely contrary to what he said, it is very well appreciated in financial circles throughout the country that the Treasury and the Reserve Bank have, during the past year, followed a conscious policy of allowing interest rates to rise to realistic market-related levels.

Except for your own stock.

There have been one or two exceptions such as Land Bank rates and certain housing interest rates where rates have deliberately been kept below market levels for important special reasons. However, with these rare exceptions, I say that interest rates have, quite properly, been determined by market forces at realistic levels. This policy has also applied to interest rates on government securities. There is no shadow of doubt about that.

To underline this market-oriented approach, I introduced a new method of issuing Government stock by way of tender in February this year. Although the first issue was made at a time of severe seasonal tightening in the money and capital markets, it proved successful, more successful than in fact a number of people have been suggesting.

So successful that the Reserve Bank …

The results of the tender issues made last week exceeded the most optimistic expectations. Without any participation by the Reserve Bank or the Public Debt Commissioners, tenders of no less than R1 036 million were received for the R400 million of stock on offer—an amount in excess of R1 000 billion in response to an issue of R400 million. The whole operation was therefore a resounding success. This establishes beyond any doubt that we have a policy of relying on realistic market-related interest rates and that this policy is not only working but is working remarkably well.

Mr. Speaker, at this stage I should like to interpose an announcement in regard to gold sales policy in connection with which we have just recently taken a decision of some importance in this rather important field. The South African Reserve Bank has traditionally sold gold to overseas buyers in the form of “standard” bars, that is bars weighing approximately 400 troy ounces each and having a minimum guaranteed gold content of 99,5% or 9 950 parts per 10 000 units of fine gold. Since November 1970 the Chamber of Mines of South Africa, through its gold marketing arm, the International Gold Corporation Limited, or Intergold, has been selling the Krugerrand range of coins in the South African and overseas markets, and this very successful operation has absorbed no fewer than 35,5 million ounces of gold during the past eleven years.

The liberalization of the private gold market in many countries in recent years, e.g. in the United States of America and in Japan, has had an important effect on the total demand for gold by private buyers and also on the quality and form of gold required. Just recently, with the upsurge in the demand for gold from the Far East, a marked increase occurred in the demand for “high purity” gold, that is gold with a minimum guaranteed gold content of 9 999 parts per 10 000 units of fine gold; in other words, 99,99% purity. Investigations into these markets confirmed that it would now be possible to procure a premium on the high purity gold that would be sufficient to cover the cost of the electrolytic refining process used to convert gold from 9 950 to 9 999 parts per 10 000 units of fine gold. The Chamber of Mines has now applied for permission to market one kilo bars of high purity gold outside South Africa in addition to the Krugerrand coins which the Chamber will continue to market as in the past. I have agreed to this proposal—in fact the Cabinet endorsed it today—and the Reserve Bank is now finalizing arrangements with the Chamber for the marketing by the Chamber of one kilo bars high purity gold.

What about internally?

It has also been decided that the Reserve Bank will make a limited number of 400 ounce bars—those are the standard bars—of high purity gold available to foreign buyers who would be prepared to pay the minimum premium required on the price of standard bars to cover the additional refining costs. I have been informed that the Rand refinery has the necessary capacity to produce a sufficient amount of gold in high purity form. It has been decided that the new arrangements will come into effect on 1 June of this year.

*Sir, I referred briefly to the contributions which came from this side of the House. The first speaker on this side was my good friend, the hon. member for Malmesbury. I want to thank him sincerely for the sturdy contribution he made to kick off in the debate from our side. In the course of his speech he asked whether our country’s membership of GATT held sufficient benefits for us to justify our continuing with it.

I think there are specific advantages for South Africa in its membership of GATT. The customs tariffs of all our major overseas trading partners are of a dual nature, i.e. there is a relatively low most-favoured-nation tariff which applies to GATT members and a considerably higher general tariff for non-GATT countries. If South Africa were to terminate or lose its GATT membership, our export goods would have to gain access to those markets at the general tariff which is between 50% to as much as 200% higher than the most-favoured-nation tariff. This would be a fatal blow to our exports to the USA and the EEC countries in particular. Our GATT membership also affords us protection against discriminatory trade practices as a result of non-tariff measures against our products in the industrial countries—an action which is not allowed in a GATT context. Article 1 of the GATT charter provides that all member countries of the agreement shall be treated alike and receive most-favoured-nation tariff treatment. In my opinion, if South Africa were to terminate its membership of GATT, it would, under the present international political conditions, have very little chance of succeeding, by means of bilateral negotiations, in holding out for most-favoured-nation tariff treatment in many of its important markets. I therefore feel that the agreement is still of exceptional importance to our country.

I am very glad that the hon. member raised this matter, because I think it is a good thing for us to reflect in this House on important aspects of our economic activities from time to time and to reconsider them.

†The hon. member for Berea raised the matter of the Public Debt Commission—the PDC—in a factual, proper way. I should like to reply to him in similar vein. He asked a number of questions concerning the contribution of the PDC to Exchequer financing during the 1981-’82 financial year. He inquired among other things what degree of co-operation had been received from its investors, how reliable the PDC’s estimates of investment to be made with the Treasury are, what the specific reasons for the shortfalls experienced were, and he made a particular point that the PDC’s small contribution to Government loan funds had forced the Exchequer to make use of bank credit during the fourth quarter of 1981.

In reply I should like to point out that as the hon. member has already stated, the PDC receives its funds from a multitude of investors and funds and that by virtue of the fact that such investible funds are normally only available when not needed by such investors themselves, the staff of the PDC has perforce to rely on the advance information furnished by these agencies or bodies as to their own particular cash flow requirements ahead. Such cash flow requirements fluctuate daily and it is virtually impossible for anyone, let alone the PDC itself, to vouch for the accuracy of any particular estimate. Just how much cash flow fluctuate and hence complicate the estimating of the balance of funds ahead is well illustrated by the most recent figures. On 15 March 1982 there was an amount of R300 million invested in Treasury bills with the PDC. By 30 March—two weeks later—this amount had fallen to R124 million and the very next day had risen by R121 million to 245 million. By contrast, at 31 March 1981, for that one day, an amount of R345 million was invested. Taken as a whole, however, the fact remains that in more normal years there usually does exist a rough pattern of investment with a hard core of funds on which to base an overall estimate. In retrospect it appears that, due to the financial stringency exercised by the Government itself, and the speed and unpredictability with which conditions in the financial markets tightened in 1981-’82, a number of the major investors have not been able to make ends meet within the limits of their normal budgeted cash-flow totals and have therefore either invested smaller amounts with the PDC than was indicated by them in their initial and indeed revised projections, or have in fact been net withdrawers of funds. This was, for instance, the case with the S.A. Transport Services and the Strategic Oil Fund, as the hon. member said, and as I also indicated in my budget statement.

As hon. members will realize, estimates have of necessity to be prepared some months in advance and, although updated subsequently, variations are bound to occur during the course of say the 12 to 13 months prior to the close of any particular financial year.

Events such as the sharp rise in interest rate levels that have taken place during the past financial year, as well as the general tightening in the money and capital markets, have resulted in substantial unbudgeted withdrawals. The nature of PDC investments is such that they are volatile, so that accuracy in estimating the movement of funds in and out is impossible. The daily or even weekly drawdowns and deposits cannot be forecast with any degree of accuracy, be it in a positive or a negative direction. [Interjections.]

As to co-operation with the PDC, as Chairman of the Public Debt Commissioners I can vouch for the fact that we receive nothing but the fullest co-operation from all the investors concerned, but some of them, at least, had undue difficulty in predicting their financial requirements ahead in the face of the unusually volatile conditions I have just set out.

The hon. member for Berea has indicated quite correctly that the Strategic Oil Fund did, in fact, withdraw money from the PDC instead of being a net investor, as originally expected. This can mainly be ascribed to the fact that the construction of Sasol II and III proceeded more rapidly than originally anticipated. In addition, Sasol did not receive a further contribution from the Exchequer in the form of share capital, as initially intended, and therefore had to draw more heavily on other sources of finance, including the PDC, for the purpose of bridging finance. Once the larger withdrawals and smaller deposits received established a definite trend, the Treasury adjusted its non-PDC borrowing requirements in good time and compensated for these developments accordingly.

The Exchequer’s temporary financing problems during the fourth quarter of 1981 cannot be directly attributed to low PDC investments. Seasonally the fourth quarter is normally a time in which the State receives less revenue than it spends. This situation was aggravated, in 1981, by the somewhat lower response to the Treasury’s December loan issue, when net redemptions took place again due to the fact that interest rates hardened unexpectedly after the terms of the issue had been set. This matter was immediately set right during the first quarter of this year by the Exchequer’s entering the market as borrower via the new open-tender, issue system I mentioned a moment ago. The aberration of the fourth quarter was unfortunate, but being substantially seasonal, was put right immediately thereafter.

The truth of the matter is that the PDC is akin to a very large banking operation administered by a small staff of dedicated officials, to whom I am happy to pay tribute today. The real reason for the reduction in the funds available to the Public Debt Commissioners in 1981-’82 below the earlier estimates is the rapidity with which the conditions of financial stringency set in the financial markets in the second half of the year, a quite abnormal situation actually. Because of the importance of the Public Debt Commission in the whole scheme of Government finance, the commissioners, together with the Treasury and the Reserve Bank, have for some time been examining the procedures employed with a view to ensuring the greatest degree of reliability in the estimates of the financial position and the cash flows which are submitted in advance to the PDC by its many clients.

*The hon. member Dr. Marais, during the course of a very interesting speech in which he made many interesting statistics available to this House, asked whether more attention could not be given to older unmarried persons as far as the subsidy schemes for housing were concerned. Actually this has already been done. I think he himself mentioned that the Commission for Administration was engaged in an investigation into this matter. I have just received information on it.

†The report I have says that the home-interest subsidy scheme for civil servants has been extended to married officials of all races, following an announcement yesterday by Dr. Rautenbach, the Chairman of the Commission for Administration. Unmarried officials, who until now had been excluded from the scheme, allowing for the subsidy of interest on home loans of up to R40 000, would in future be allowed to participate in the scheme under the existing conditions.

*I am pleased that I am in the position to make this known here. I hope this satisfies the hon. member Dr. Marais.

†The hon. member for Mooi River referred to the issue of Government stock some while ago to farmers under the Government’s purchases of land for consolidation purposes. He said that Government stock amounting to some R119 million was issued in lieu of cash and that farmers were forced to accept such stock. That is not quite correct. They were not forced to accept such stock. It was, however, a convenient form of part payment to many farmers at the time. He said some 60% of the stock has been redeemed and that that leaves an amount in the hands of the payees of R30 million. I have done a few calculations and find that 60% of R119 million amounts to R71 million. One would therefore have to deduct R71 million from R119 million, which leaves R48 million still unredeemed, if these figures are correct. The fact of the matter is, as I have said in the House before, that at the time when a farm was purchased from an individual farmer, payment consisted of a portion in cash and a portion in Government stock simply because the cash requirements were extremely large. That Government stock (together with the cash) if sold at that point in time in the secondary market, would have realized the full purchase price agreed on for the property. Once the farmer accepted Government stock in part payment, if he wanted to sell it at any time before due date, the selling price would obviously fluctuate with the movement of interest rates, the capital value moving inversely to the movement of interest rates. This is of course a basic requirement for marketability of securities. Otherwise such paper would not be negotiable. Obviously, if a holder of Government stock retains it to the redemption date, he not only receives interest as offered, but he will again receive the full nominal value of that stock. I admit that certain farmers cannot wait that long. They are in difficulties. The Government has tried very hard to meet them by asking the Land Bank, as the hon. member knows, to regard such paper as security for certain transactions.

But what if they want to go farming again? Then that does not help them.

The hon. member must just listen to what I am saying. Then he will see exactly how this is being handled. The principle is, of course, a clear one. If one has a security earning a fixed rate of interest, one can either sell it immediately or hold onto it until the redemption date. In either case one would get the full nominal value. One would therefore not lose. The difficulty is that in practice some farmers would find that they have to sell in between. I must say, however, that with all the sympathy this Government has for farmers in general, and for these farmers in particular, it remains an extremely difficult matter for the Government to compensate now all those farmers for the losses they have suffered. It would set a precedent such as we have never had in this country before. The financial burden on the Government would also be very large indeed.

It stands to reason-—and it is also well known—that every farmer in this position can apply to the Reserve Bank to have that unredeemed stock regarded as security for farming purchase transactions. The Land Bank has only received a small number of applications, and has approved practically every one. I think there is only one exception, and in that case it was clearly quite impossible to approve it on its merits. I do not therefore believe the Government can be blamed if the farmers who are involved have themselves not applied to the Land Bank to have this concession granted to them. [Interjections.]

It is a very important concession, and I have received some very nice letters from farmers involved. It is a very substantial concession, and they are free to make use of it. Nevertheless, only a very small number of farmers have done so.

*I should also like to refer to the so-called Buthelezi Commission. I do not know why it was given this name. Usually a commission is known by the name of its chairman, in which case this commission should have been called the Schreiner Commission. But that as it may, the matter of the Buthelezi Commission was raised here by the hon. member for Sea Point. The hon. member for Berea also referred to it. They tried to get at the Government because we had not immediately accepted the findings and recommendations of the aforesaid commission. However, I feel that the hon. member for Durban North replied to them very effectively.

†In fact, I thought it was an exceptionally effective reply which the hon. member for Durban North gave. I believe that the hon. member for Sea Point and the hon. member for Berea were probably both very sorry that they had raised the matter at all after the hon. member for Durban North had finished with them. [Interjections.]

We made our position absolutely clear right from the very beginning.

Do you mean to tell us that Ron Miller acts as an apologist for the NP? [Interjections.]

We said there was a Government in this country and that Natal was an integral part of the Republic of South Africa. [Interjections.] KwaZulu is, of course, a self-governing national State. As such KwaZulu set up a commission, the terms of reference of which required the commission to investigate and make recommendations on a whole number of basically important issues relating not only to KwaZulu—which it was, of course, absolutely free to do—but to Natal. Time and again it was stated that the Buthelezi Commission’s investigations involved both KwaZulu and the whole of Natal. [Interjections.] Right at the beginning, after the most careful consideration, the Government decided that it could not participate in this commission. It has never since changed its mind, and I believe this was absolutely the correct stand to take. In fact, I believe the hon. member for Durban North will agree with me that, in the light of what has happened, it would have been better if his party too had kept out of that commission altogether. [Interjections.] This, however, apparently not being the case, I submit that the NRP must be the most inconsistent political party possible because it says it cannot accept a whole number of recommendations by the Buthelezi Commission.

Do you accept every report you receive from every commission?

I am pointing out that one cannot sit on the fence and be on both sides of it. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Durban North said he was not prepared to sign that commission’s report. [Interjections.] In other words, he rejected it. That is what it amounts to. [Interjections.] What is clearer than that? If one does not sign a report issued by a commission of which one was a member, one is in actual fact not accepting that report. In the Government’s opinion, and in my own opinion, that was the right thing to do. Where I think, however, the hon. member went wrong, was when he agreed to sit on the commission in the first place. [Interjections.]

Are you a boycotter too now? [Interjections.]

No, I have never been a boycotter; nor has this Government. We participate in things over which we have jurisdiction, and similarly we expect other authorities to participate in things over which they have jurisdiction and not in matters which fall right outside their jurisdiction. [Interjections.]

Order!

I thought hon. members of the NRP were going to support me today. It appears, however, that their consciences are worrying them so much that they do not quite know on which side they are. [Interjections.] At least as far as the official Opposition is concerned, we understand each other very well: We are on completely opposite sides. [Interjections.]

What is our standpoint as I made it public when I issued the statement on behalf of the Cabinet? I said—

At the time we gave our reasons for not serving on the commission. I stated further—

We are not prepared to compromise on those important matters of policy. I also said—

1. (i) advocates a single political unit for Natal;
2. (ii) runs counter to the policy according to which the Government believes race relations should be regulated in South Africa.

There is really nothing more to be said, Sir. That is our considered view, and I believe it is absolutely correct. What is interesting, however, is the very large number of letters we have received, apart from telephone calls and personal conversations from people in Natal.

You have been inundated with letters!

I have been. I have a real correspondence problem at the moment. [Interjections.] These letters come from people some of whom I know have never voted for the NP, but they now say they are supporting the Government. Indeed, one man said the scales had fallen off his eyes! [Interjections.] He says there is only one party that he can support, and that is the NP. A lot of this is the result of the so-called Buthelezi Commission report and of the very sad break-away of our friends opposite, the CP. That has also played a part in it. I think a lot of people in the country, certainly in Natal, of which I can speak with some authority, are realizing what is the right and proper direction for this country to take under the inspired leadership of the hon. the Prime Minister

What is the future of KwaZulu?

He has not had a letter about that.

Of course, when one is caught out, one is inclined to feel bitter! After all, no one likes to be on the defensive, and the Opposition parties are undoubtedly on the defensive now. However, in this connection we are in the right, and the vast majority of the voters in the country support us unequivocally.

And you have a letter to that effect.

I have many letters, and the hon. member can have a look at some of them if he wishes to. He will learn a lot!

*The hon. members for Ventersdorp and Ceres are representatives of our important farming community, and I want to thank them for the fine contributions they made in this debate. The hon. members asked that consideration should once more be given to the acceptance of the Jacobs Committee’s recommendation that a reserve fund be established in which farmers could invest part of their income during good years, and would only be taxed on it when they withdrew the money. I should like to refer to this again, because I believe one may justifiably say that if ever there was a Government which was sympathetic towards the farming community in this country, it has been the National Party Government. However, I feel that a certain degree of confusion exists in connection with the relevant recommendation of the Jacobs Committee. The recommendation reads—

It is therefore quite clear that a request was made here for this recommendation to be referred to our highest authoritative body on taxation matters for investigation and recommendation. The Jacobs Committee was therefore not convinced of the feasibility of the proposed scheme, and therefore did not recommend that the reserve funds should simply be established, but that further consideration should be given to the matter by a body with the necessary expertise to assess all the aspects of the tax implications which this could involve in their correct perspective. In the meantime the Standing Commission has given the matter thorough consideration—as a matter of fact, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and his department also did so—and found that the proposed scheme was open to serious objections. These objections are, briefly, that—

1. (a)it seriously impinges on the sound principle that revenue should be taxed in the year in which it accrues;
2. (b)there are also other industries in which the problem of fluctuating revenue is experienced and the establishment of such a scheme for one industry will make it impossible to refuse its establishment for other industries; and
3. (c)the adjusted levelling system already lends itself very well, by means of a more equal tax rate, to enabling a farmer in a good year to make provision for poorer years by means of tax savings.

The commission also drew attention to the fact that, because it would have to be an inherent requirement of the scheme that amounts withdrawn from the fund would have to be fully taxed in the year in which they were withdrawn, the scheme could under certain circumstances have adverse effects, particularly on the death of a taxpayer. In this connection it must be pointed out that, because it is only logical that a person cannot continue to be a taxpayer after his death, the Income Tax Act requires that a deceased person shall be taxed on all income received by or accruing to him up to and including the date of his death. The total amount to his credit on that date in the proposed reserve fund and not yet taxed, would therefore have to be taxed at that stage and, if it was a large amount, an excessively high tax burden could result.

The commission’s recommendation that the proposed scheme should be discontinued, was accepted and at that stage already I informed the president of the S.A. Agricultural Union in writing of this decision. Although we are very sympathetic towards our farmers and towards a proposal of this nature, there are really major practical problems regarding the implementation of such a scheme. However, we are always prepared to give thorough consideration to any matter raised by the S.A. Agricultural Union or individual farmers, and I shall willingly discuss similar proposals with our friends at any time.

†My time is running out, but I still want to refer to a remark made by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central when he stated that the rate of company tax is now the highest that it has been. If regard is had only to the rate of company tax as such, then the statement is correct, because it is now 42 cents in the rand after we have incorporated the old surcharge. If, however, the cash flow position as a result of Exchequer incursions into a company’s funds through basic taxes, tax surcharges and compulsory loan levies is taken into account, it will be seen that, compared with the proposed all-in 46,2% impost proposed in the budget—that is together with the new 10% surcharge—the total tax and levy exceeded this percentage in 1977, when it was 49%; in 1978 when it was 49%, and in 1979, when it was 48%.

That included the loan levy.

Yes, it includes everything. However, if one excludes the loan levy, one will also find that this is not the highest, because one has to take the surcharge into account and there have been pretty substantial surcharges in the past.

Do you think the surcharge is a tax?

Yes, the surcharge is here taken as part of the tax, it is compulsory. It is a surcharge on the tax.

In other words, there is no point in calling it a surcharge.

It is a surcharge. It gives the clear impression that it is temporary. We would like to reduce it as soon as we can. That is why we use the surcharge and have done so for a very long time. In fact it is used in several countries. That is in fact the position.

I should now like briefly to refer to a report that was given some publicity in the Press, particularly in The Argus under the big headline “State to grab extra R3,3 billion.” The article stated—

The article goes on to say—

The impression is created here that additional taxes to the tune of R3,3 billion will be extracted from taxpayers’ pockets this year. From what I can piece together, this amount is made up of ordinary normal growth, which, of course, has already been accounted for in the estimates of revenue on which the budget is based. That is not what we call extra taxes. That is in the system.

But it is obviously taken into account in the article together with new impositions announced in the Part Appropriation debate and in the main budget debate. These amounts are all lumped together. A breakdown of this amount is as follows—

Therefore the additional tax is R1 700 mi] lion. I think one must be very careful how one puts these things because otherwise completely unreliable picture can be given Incidentally, it is interesting to note where they talk of companies tax that the growth of R400 million relates to companies other than mining companies. This represents a growtl rate of 13% compared with the 1981-’8: financial year which in turn had a growtl rate of 26% over the 1980-’81 financial year Having regard to prospects for this financia year, the growth rate of 13% is regarded a realistic. It is significant that nowhere in the article is mention made of the fact that gold mining tax revenue and lease payments an expected to yield R1 271 million less than in 1981-’82 and which has to be replaced. That of course, is the reason for the R1 700 mil lion in new taxes.

I should like to conclude by saying that have enormous confidence in the future c this country’s economy and I think we are i a very fortunate state compared with the res of the world.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the Question,

Upon which the House divided:

Mr. Chairman, it is with some measure of regret that I have to raise the matter of the parliamentary diningroom again this year. [Interjections.] We have been left with no choice …

I hope we have a bit of healthy table-sharing!

I have expressed my regret at the fact that we have to raise this matter again, but we have been left with no choice. [Interjections.] Indeed, it is fitting that we should cut across the platitudes that splash across the floor of this House with sickening frequency.

There will be at least two immediate responses, from hon. members opposite, against this party’s decision to raise this matter again. Firstly it will be said, perhaps by the hon. the Leader of the House or other hon. members on that side, that we should go via the correct channels, the correct channels in this case being the Select Committee on Parliamentary Catering and the Select Committee on Internal Arrangements. We have specifically raised this matter in both the Select Committees. I myself raised it in the Select Committee on Parliamentary Catering and my colleagues have raised the matter in the Select Committee on Internal Arrangements? What is this matter I am referring to?

Apart from Cabinet Ministers and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, no other hon. member of this House can invite South African citizens who happen to be Blacks, Coloureds or Asians as guests into the parliamentary dining-room. There is no choice in the matter. There is a total prohibition. There is absolutely no choice whatsoever.

A further objection that will be raised by hon. members on that side is that the diningroom should be regarded as a club. In the short session last year the hon. the Leader of the House actually suggested this in so many words. Let me refer hon. members to Hansard of 24 August 1981, col. 1726—

I now want to look at that assertion on two levels. If it is a club, is the hon. the Leader of the House telling this House, and consequently South Africa, that the NP is not prepared to have Black guests in the club dining-room, unless of course they are accompanied by a Cabinet Minister?

Let us take an example of a distinguished Coloured educationist who often sits in the gallery of this House and listens to the debates that take place here. It is possible these days to play sport with him, but we cannot invite him to lunch or dinner. We cannot even invite him to have a cup of tea or coffee. We certainly cannot take him for a drink unless we take him to our offices. He has to be smuggled through in subterranean fashion and taken to one of our offices. He may even be good enough, in the eyes of the Government, to serve on the President’s Council, but hon. members on that side of the House, unless they are Cabinet Ministers, cannot take those colleagues, whom they feel are good enough to serve on the President’s Council, into the parliamentary dining-room. [Interjections.] So what I am saying, of course, is that when it comes to sport they are acceptable. In that regard it is only the CP that has any reservations. When it comes to the parliamentary dining-room, however, they remain lepers, that is unless they are accompanied by a Cabinet Minister.

Let me, however, regard this issue on another level. Is the parliamentary diningroom a club? Is it not, in many ways, a show-window? Do we not have guests or visitors from all over the world? How would they regard it if they knew the prohibitions that exist, prohibitions which are based entirely on the colour of a man’s skin? I should like the hon. the Leader of the House, if he is going to participate in this debate, to reply to the following question: Is not the diningroom subsidized, and if it is, is it not subsidized by taxpayers of all races? How then is it possible for us to exclude them simply on the basis of colour?

There are two further changes which have developed recently and which I believe give us cause to think again and to change our present attitude. Firstly, we have had in the last few weeks an amending Bill to the Group Areas Act. One no longer needs a permit, one does not have to apply for a permit: Sportsmen of all races, of all colours, can come together and play sport …

They can play darts.

Yes, they can play darts and they can drink together. They can be together provided they are participating in a bona fide sport. That, of course, could include a variety of things. We all know, too, that numerous restaurants have been declared open in the very vicinity of Parliament, but still we remain with the shutters up. So I think there has been at least one definite movement by the Government away from the racism that keeps people separate and towards allowing them to participate in the matter of freedom of choice, freedom of association.

There is a second reason, I believe, which should be taken into account by the House, viz. the split in the NP. The word is out that the hon. the Prime Minister has got rid of his right wing and can now move and that therefore we must support him. I then want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister: “All right, you have got rid of your right wing; so move!”

Not in your direction, though.

What is the excuse now? There is no excuse whatsoever. The policy, it seems, is still at root level based on racism. We do not expect the CP to support us …

You will not get our support.

… and the NRP will give their usual coy fencesitting speech, but the NP now has an opportunity to be bold and actually to move and make sure that Parliament, which is a symbol and show-window, can be regarded as open to all. Therefore I would ask hon. members on that side of the House to consider very carefully the amendment I want to move, viz.—

Mr. Chairman, I wish briefly to restate our position which I outlined last year. We believe that our diningroom should be open to all races. We believe that each and every member of the House should have the right to choose whom he wishes to have as a guest in any place in Parliament. We believe that that should be his right. We have supported such proposals year after year. We have also brought this up in the two Select Committees concerned, viz. the Select Committee on Internal Arrangements and the Select Committee on Parliamentary Catering. We have found that we have not been able to achieve that which we have tried to achieve in those committees. I still regret that we have to debate this issue across the floor of the House. Because of that regret, I shall be brief and simply say that we shall support the amendment of the hon. member for Pinelands because we too believe that we must have the right to choose our guests, and they should be guests of any race or colour in this land of ours.

We are not sitting on the fence either.

Mr. Chairman, it is correct that I said last year in a debate on this same matter that there was an avenue for conducting an argument of this nature, which was to refer the matter to the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders. That is the correct way of doing it. In fact, this matter has already been raised on that committee. However. I must point out that a reply to this question has also been furnished.

What was that reply?

Hon. members of the official Opposition stated their standpoint there, and they were furnished with a reply, the same reply which I am now going to give them again. The matter was raised on that Committee, and is once again being raised here today not of course, as is being purported, to obtain a reply because there is real concern about the parliamentary dining-room. No, the matter is being raised, but not in fact for the sake of the audience now listening, but for the sake of an audience far beyond our shores. [Interjections.] This matter is raised every year, and every year a reply to it is furnished. Surely that reply is as clear as can be.

To dine together is unhealthy. [Interjections.]

This question is put every year. The reply remains the same. Everything remains the same. The dining-room remains the same too. It has not become any bigger. [Interjections.] The arguments also remain the same. [Interjections.]

I want to point out to the hon. member for Pinelands that the guests of hon. members may not simply enter the dining-room. They must be in the company of the hon. member whose guests they are. This is a rule which applies to everyone. This has been made clear in the past. However, I have to make it clear again. I am sorry that I have to repeat the reply to this question time and again. The dining-room is there for the sake of the convenience of hon. members and their families.

And their guests.

Yes, guests as well. In the first place, though, the parliamentary dining-room is there for hon. members and their families. [Interjections.]

And what if family members do not happen to be White? [Interjections.]

In the past it was expressly stated that we had a shortage of space in the dining-room. What I really want to say, however, is that the impression is being very adroitly created here that Black people may not dine in the parliamentary dining-room. Surely that is not true. Black people may dine in that dining-room.

Moreover, the hon. member for Pinelands has alleged that the Government is to blame for our having retrogressed as far as this matter is concerned. Surely that is not true either. It is this Government which enlarged the parliamentary dining-room so that Black people could also dine there. Surely that is true. We enlarged that dining-room, and no one else. [Interjections.] Surely we caused a de luxe addition to be made to that diningroom so that Black people could also dine there. This was done as long ago as 1968. In 1968 this Government also created the opportunity for people of colour to dine in the parliamentary dining-room.

So you were lying, Boraine!

Surely what the hon. member for Pinelands said was not true. He tried to create the impression that Black people could not dine in the parliamentary dining-room. Every hon. member sitting on the opposite side of this House may bring people of colour to this Parliament as guests.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs allowed to say to the hon. member for Pinelands: “You are lying”?

Order! Did the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs use those words?

Mr. Chairman, I said that the hon. member for Pinelands was therefore lying. I withdraw those words, Sir.

I therefore contend that the impression is now being created that people of colour may not dine in the parliamentary building. That is not true. Provision has been made for them, and every member on the opposite side may bring a person of colour as a guest to this Parliament and allow him to dine here. [Interjections.] However, I am convinced that hon. members opposite use this argument, not for the sake of those of us who are sitting here, but for the sake of other people, who in their turn are required to use it against South Africa. That is precisely what this is all about. [Interjections.] That is why the arguments and representations of hon. members on the opposite side remain the same year after year. The reply to those questions also remains the same. Matters have not changed at all during the past 12 months. The reply remains the same, and the standpoint of the Government also remains the same. Therefore my reply to hon. members of the official Opposition is that the status quo is being maintained. [Interjections.]

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

Mr. Speaker, even if amendments are effected, the legislation we are discussing here today will have a very direct effect on the way of life of a very large number of South Africans. It is not only we in South Africa who take a very great interest in this legislation. Whether we like it or not, South Africa is a focal point of international attention today. As a result there is greater interest on the part of both friends and enemies when matters of defence are discussed. Therefore, we who take part in this debate must make very sure that what we say in our speeches is absolutely responsible.

This brings me to the speech by the hon. member for Sasolburg. In that speech the hon. member harmed more than he helped South Africa. What the hon. member said is not in accordance with stated Defence Force policy, and it is certainly not in line with the PFP’s approach to the defence of the country. I just wish to refer to a few statements made by the hon. member. For example, the hon. member said that Swapo was now limited exclusively to the north of South West Africa. That is of course correct. We agree with him. We are pleased that this is so. He went on to say that up to the present there had not been any terrorist incidents in the south. That, too, is correct and we are also very grateful for that. However, the hon. member went on to say that Swapo’s physical presence in the north had in fact become such a rarity that we had to cross the border regularly to seek contact with them. That is what the hon. member said: We have to cross the border to seek contact with Swapo. I want to ask the hon. the Minister since when it has been our policy to cross the border to seek contact. This is a new policy if it is indeed true. It is internationally recognized that hot pursuit operations are acceptable if they form part of the defence against border violations. That is generally accepted.

That is what I said.

That is not what the hon. member said. It is also internationally recognized that borders may be crossed and that pre-emptive operations can be carried out, once again with the aim of preventing border violation at a later stage. However, to cross borders in order to seek contact would be irresponsible, and I therefore do not believe that the hon. the Minister agrees with what that hon. member had to say. I believe that the Minister must repudiate the hon. member in that regard. If he does not do so, that will be an indication of poor leadership on his part and will also create the impression that we as South Africans are attempting to destabilize our neighbouring states. I expect that the hon. the Minister will give attention to that statement that has been made. [Interjections.]

If it is asked whether I repudiate my hon. colleague, I could point out that it has never been my hon. colleague’s standpoint that we cross our borders to seek contact. Hot pursuit operations, yes; we accept that.

Listening to the speech of the hon. member to whom I referred reminds one of one’s university days, and in particular of the evening before intervarsity. To him it was a “big brag” speech! What is interesting on the evening of a “big brag”? It is interesting to see that those who are to play the next day do not have a lot to say that evening. I wonder whether the hon. member is a spectator or whether he does in fact form part of our Defence Force organization and its planning in order to bring about the best possible programme.

We in the PFP are irrevocably committed to peaceful change in South Africa. We believe that stability and peace is a prerequisite for development away from the present closed community towards an open community in which all South Africans will enjoy equal citizenship rights. That is our standpoint. We further believe that anyone who uses violence to bring about change must be opposed, whether that violence comes from without or within the country. Accordingly, that is why this party has repeatedly compared the Defence Force, in symbolic terms, to a shield which protects the entire South African community, to enable political adjustments to be made peacefully. That is our approach.

We in the PFP further maintain that change must take place in the political, economic and social spheres and that the Defence Force must provide the stability to enable that development to take place. That is our approach. We also say that while our young men do their duty by providing that shield, politicians must utilize the opportunity to make those adjustments. We have repeatedly pointed out that the stabilizing role of the Defence Force is important in a changing community but that the role of the political, economic and social leaders is far more important. Therefore, while we build up the Defence Force and assist in its development to enable it to perform its role, we feel that insufficient progress is being made with the political development in this country.

†I now want to refer to the Bill. There are a few aspects of the Bill which I think should be discussed in detail. Firstly, there seems to be a belief among hon. members on that side of the House that South Africans are not likely to join up in sufficient numbers to become members of the Permanent Force to swell the ranks of that component of the Force. I want to say now that as it has never been the policy of the Government really to establish a substantial Permanent Force, the belief which they held is probably a myth because it has never been tried. Secondly, I want to say that the argument which is put forward by that side of the House that a permanent standing army is less cost-effective than our present system, is not a true argument. I want to say that calculations have never been presented to this House to enable it to make an intelligent evaluation of the various systems which can be followed so that we can vote the required funds for whatever system is the most effective. Thirdly, I want to say that there seems to be a great reluctance on that side of the House to admit that the highly trained, highly motivated, well-disciplined professional soldier is on the whole superior to any part-time soldier. There is a reluctance on that side of the House to admit that.

Having made those three points, I do not want to say that our young men are not doing a sterling job. Obviously, we all know that they are. The point is that we are dealing here with legislation that is going to lengthen the period of conscription without having really made a study of all the well-known and tried alternatives. This is why I say—and in this I agree with my hon. colleague in front of me—that this Bill should have been referred to a Select Committee before Second Reading rather than after Second Reading because this House has not had the opportunity to make an in-depth study of all the systems available to us. The comparative strengths and weaknesses of all the systems should be studied.

It is interesting to note that while internationally there are a vast number of sources available in this regard—books have been written on the subject—the strange thing is that in South Africa these publications have not really been made available, they have not been forthcoming. The reason for this is that we just do not have sufficient intelligent debates on defence matters because as soon as defence matters are discussed, the matter is pooh-poohed and we are told to leave it to the professionals because they always know best. Nevertheless we find that an analysis of the Citizen Force system shows that there are many problems.

Firstly, a very extensive training staff is required on an on-going basis because large numbers of new recruits are taken in on a regular basis. This is one problem that we have to deal with under the present system. Secondly, it takes some considerable time to train young recruits up to combat level only to find that they are lost to continuous service in our case within two years. Thirdly, weapons are changing very rapidly and are constantly being updated. Simply in order to keep pace with the new weapons available takes considerable time which again perhaps our system does not adequately allow for. The fourth problem that we have is that a Citizen Force soldier has a prime responsibility to another job and it is therefore unlikely that his first loyalty will be to the Army. I think anybody will understand this. It is, in fact, one of the major problems with which we have to contend in this Bill before us. Fifthly, because the Citizen Force personnel are usually busy with matters other than army matters, such an army may be very vulnerable to a surprise attack if it has to respond at short notice and, having to respond at short notice may well mean that the economic machine in its turn will become very vulnerable. Sixthly, experience in other countries has also shown that with the type of army that we have where we lean very heavily on Citizen Force soldiers, there will always be a shortage of efficient officers unless highly-paid professionals are recruited to fill these positions. Finally, as our community becomes more mobile in a country as large as ours, I would say that mobilization in times of crisis will become increasingly difficult. These are only some of the problems which I believe we should have dealt with and which we could have dealt with had this Bill been referred to a Select Committee before rather than after Second Reading. The PFP has always supported what I call a mixed system. This is one in which one finds the ideal balance between a professional volunteer army, making up the corps of the fighting and training force, supplemented by young men who automatically have a duty to serve and from whom the professionals are drawn when their period of training has expired. I therefore want to make a suggestion. Even if we refer this Bill to a select committee after Second Reading, we should be given the opportunity of dealing with these matters, considering these arguments, rather than simply approving the Bill and letting it go through.

Mr. Speaker, apart from what the hon. member for Wynberg said at the outset, which I will react to just now, he also made quite a few wild statements. I very much doubt whether I am at all inclined to reply to them …

Apparently you do not understand them.

I also very much doubt whether the hon. the Minister will have the time to react to them.

You never have time for anything.

The hon. member saw fit to say at the outset that in these times every member in this House will have to speak responsibly. Coming from that hon. member, that is the most ridiculous thing imaginable.

[Inaudible.]

On that side of the House, words have certainly been used repeatedly by the hon. member for Constantia which, in my opinion, hon. members on that side of the House do not endorse wholeheartedly. For instance, I am convinced of the fact that the hon. member for Yeoville does not support what the hon. member for Constantia said. I do not know whether the hon. member for Wynberg supports it, but the hon. member for Wynberg is well aware of what the hon. member for Sasolburg meant …

I listen to what he says.

Very well, that hon. member concentrated on the words. However, he is well aware that this is a petty political point the hon. member is trying to score in this House. In any case, it does not become him to do so. That hon. member is making a fuss about the fact that there should be a larger Permanent Force. He advanced a few arguments in this regard. It is surely very clear to all of us in this country that we are suffering from a lack of manpower in so many areas. In fact, it is not necessary for me to debate that point further, as that hon. member knows it as well as I do.

[Inaudible.]

That hon. member who is wearing shorts should rather be quiet, as he knows nothing of this matter. [Interjections.]

What do you know? You know everything!

The hon. member for Wynberg sees fit to attack the hon. the Minister and the department on the basis that an adequate study of any other solution to the problem has supposedly not been carried out. Can hon. members imagine the hon. member for Wynberg taking the liberty of asserting that the department, which is concerned with these matters day after day, would submit an amendment Bill such as this without any study? It is too ridiculous to give it any further attention.

I ask myself: What are the main principles of this amending Bill before us? The hon. the Minister spelt them out very clearly to us, but I merely wish to touch on them briefly. There are three main principles, firstly, the lengthening of the period of service after initial training, secondly, the increase in the number of days’ service after training and, thirdly, the extension of national service to a greater number of Whites. These are the three main principles in this Bill before us. I ask myself: Why is it necessary to come forward with amendments to our defence legislation? Firstly, I wish to say that it concerns Russian expansionism. I know that the hon. member for Constantia argued against this, and I shall return to him later, but I wish to state that one of the main reasons is that we are dealing with a well-known Russian expansionism which must be resisted. Secondly, it is because we have taken cognizance and still take cognizance of the frenzied UN statements, fired by a fuming Third World, which are threatening our country because they wish to impose their own political objectives for this country upon us. Thirdly, there is terrorism from Black States on our borders which either use their own soldiers for this, or house terrorists from other countries in their own States. We have a further reason as to why it is necessary to adapt our defence legislation. We are experiencing a political and economic onslaught—we are all aware of this—the intensity of which may decrease as a result of having a strong Defence Force. We are dealing with urban terrorism and potential unrest and revolution and I know that it is, in the first instance, the task of the S.A. Police to fight this, but any hon. member in this House will concede that a strong Defence Force would also make an important contribution in this regard and could effectively control such a possibility.

Now I ask myself: Why, then, the objection on the part of the official Opposition? What has induced the hon. member to propose an amendment with regard to the defence legislation before us at present?

To improve the legislation.

Allow me to analyse briefly a few of the reasons for this. There has been a chorus of objections from the Opposition side. In all fairness, I must add that it comes from certain Prog elements within the official Opposition.

From the whole country.

It is contended that there is no such thing as a total onslaught against the Republic of South Africa. The hon. member for Constantia said this, as did various other hon. members. Some hon. members, such as the hon. member for Yeoville, expressed themselves very circumspectly on this. I did not hear the hon. member for Yeoville arguing along these lines.

What are the facts? The main finding of the Steyn Commission was that the Republic of South Africa and its people were being subjected to an onslaught which is total in magnitude and escalating in intensity. According to the Steyn Commission, this onslaught emanates mainly from the Soviet Union, but also from the Third World. This is according to the Steyn Commission, which has made an intense study of the onslaught. Then the hon. young member for Constantia says that this so-called threat from the Soviet Union is a myth. He said that it was a myth to speak of a communist threat. He even went further and said that even if there were no communism, there would still be the ANC. I wish to ask the hon. member for Yeoville whether he agrees that the communist threat is a myth. He will not reply, since to do so would amount to a repudiation of the hon. member for Constantia.

It is your policy that makes their job easier.

It is very clear, and we all know it, that this is foolishness. If the hon. member for Constantia wishes to put forward those arguments, they are the same blank cartridges which the hon. member for Wynberg used. If the hon. member for Constantia wants to contend that the ANC would be there anyway, he should do his homework. I could ask him: What came first, the chicken or the egg? One thing is certain, and that is that everyone in this House and anyone in his right mind knows that the ANC is already being used by the communists. It is a foolish argument to say that the ANC would be there anyway, whether there were communist expansionism or not.

The Steyn Commission further found that the world-wide situation was dangerous and unstable. If this is not sufficient evidence that we are faced with a total onslaught for which we must prepare, I do not know what else we should look for.

But your policy is part of the onslaught.

The Steyn Commission further finds, with regard to the onslaught from the Soviet Union, that a struggle of world-wide dimensions has already begun. There is no doubt about this. After all, this is known to us from different sources.

Furthermore, the commission finds that the onslaught on the Republic of South Africa by the Soviet Union is being stepped up, and will increase rapidly during the remainder of the present decade. Since we know this to be true, I ask whether we should sit and wait until that problem is upon us, before we try to find a solution. This would be completely irresponsible.

The Steyn Commission goes on to deal with the standpoint that the so-called onslaught against the Republic of South Africa is a product of the imagination, and states that such an approach is difficult to reconcile with reality. The commission finds that people who adopt this view, are blind to the realities. Who are the hon. members opposite, therefore, to tell us—after a thorough investigation has taken place—that we have no problems whatsoever with a total onslaught? Furthermore, the commission finds that the complete abolition of apartheid would not cause the Soviet Union to relinquish its imperialist goals with regard to the Republic of South Africa. Now the hon. member for Constantia says that the increased threat to South Africa can only be warded off by means of reforms, and not by force of arms. What kind of reforms has the hon. member for Constantia in mind? Is he speaking of reforms based on the Prog policy? Does he mean capitulation? Does he mean the relinquishing of identity and of ethnicity, and the acceptance of a Black majority rule? [Interjections.] Does he mean total integration? Are these the reforms the hon. member for Constantia has in mind? If these are the so-called reforms which the hon. member for Constantia envisages. I ask whether, in such a political dispensation—as hon. members opposite recommend—there will be peace in South Africa. Would there be no minority group which would object to this? Now they are quiet as mice, in any case. We hear nothing from them now. [Interjections.]

As a reason for his amendment, the hon. member for Yeoville maintains, inter alia, that it is necessary to obtain greater public support for the present legislation. Now I want to know from the hon. member for Yeoville whether he really thinks that we can obtain greater public support when the hon. member for Constantia is talking such rubbish.

I think we shall obtain greater public support if you do not talk such rubbish.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yeoville has been sitting with his head down throughout, and now, when he lifts his head for once, he speaks absolute nonsense.

You are talking absolute rubbish. [Interjections.]

I want to know from the hon. member for Yeoville …

What do your voters say, Harry?

I want to know from the hon. member for Virginia whether he supports the defence of South Africa. If this is so, he should rather sit down now.

Does the hon. member for Yeoville support the standpoint of the Steyn Commission? The hon. member for Yeoville is not prepared to reply to my questions. All he does is sit here shouting nonsense. However, he does not reply when questions are put to him.

I am no longer listening to you. You are merely talking nonsense.

I want to know whether the hon. member for Yeoville agrees with the hon. member for Constantia.

You are handicapping the defence of South Africa. [Interjections.] You are part of the total onslaught!

Mr. Speaker … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yeoville says furthermore that the Government has not succeeded in motivating the population … [Interjections.]

In any case, you are utterly ridiculous!

Mr. Speaker, the skin of the hon. member for Yeoville is so thin, he does not even give me a chance to speak.

Of course, you are the one who started all the trouble! [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yeoville …

Why do you not rather sit down, Piet? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Yeoville may not conduct a dialogue across the floor of the House with the hon. member for Virginia.

No, but he is afraid, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Yeoville must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, but he is afraid, Mr. Speaker.

He is apprehensive! [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Yeoville must withdraw his statement unconditionally.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it, but still he does not want to fight. [Interjections.]

He is merely apprehensive!

The hon. member for Yeoville goes on to say that the Government has not succeeded in motivating the population sufficiently with regard to voluntary national service, nor with regard to understanding fully the nature of the dangers to the stability of South Africa. I did say initially that I respected the hon. member for Yeoville, as he did, in fact, perceive the threat to the Republic of South Africa. However, the hon. member for Yeoville maintains that the population does not fully understand the nature of the threat. Now I want to know from him whether he thinks that the hon. member for Constantia, the hon. member for Houghton, the hon. member for Sandton, the hon. member for Berea and, of course, the hon. member for Pinelands as well, really understand that threat?

And what about you? Do you understand it at all?

Does the hon. member for Yeoville think that those hon. members really understand the threat? Now the hon. member for Yeoville is trying to disparage the nation by alleging that they do not understand the threat.

Who governs the country?

These amendments are timely and they bear witness to a responsible Government and of a sound evaluation of the threat to the Republic of South Africa. We cannot wait until the danger becomes a reality, because what would the Opposition say then? Far more important, however, is the fact that it would not be responsible towards the country and all its people if we were to wait until the stage when there is a real problem. Besides, it will be a few years before this plan is fully implemented, especially when one takes into account the mass of work which it entails and the tremendous cost involved. By delaying the amendment of the legislation, the official Opposition is trifling with the security of the State. The time has come for all White citizens to have a more equitable share in the defence of the country. The entire plan attests to a more equal distribution of responsibility and participation, and for many people will be a proud and welcome opportunity to make their contribution. Therefore I should like to support the legislation on behalf of this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Virginia has made a number of superficial attacks on the hon. member for Constantia, attacks which in themselves explain why the public is not sure why this Bill must suddenly be rushed through Parliament. The hon. member for Virginia criticized the hon. member for Constantia for stating, for example, that even if there was no communism, there would still be the ANC, and he wrote this off as a farcical suggestion. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member for Constantia. We know, and the average man in the street knows, that the ANC is basically motivated by Black nationalism, but we also know that they are being exploited and used by Soviet sources and that is what we, through our Defence Force, have to combat. To try to pretend and tell the public that the ANC equals communism, and that that is how simple the problem is, is contra-productive. [Interjections.] It is that sort of information that is dangerous and which creates so many questions in the minds of the public.

The hon. member for Wynberg has referred to the widely-held view that one must leave all matters relating to the military to the professionals because they know how to deal with them. The view is that we as politicians should not enter that area for fear of our patriotism, etc., being questioned. If there is, however, one example where the professionals have failed dismally this time, then it is the way in which they have marketed this particular Bill. It has in fact been a marketing disaster, and it is no use blaming a leak or accusing the Press for being critical of the Bill during the past two weeks. To anyone who has followed the debate until now and who has taken note of public reaction to the Bill, it has become abundantly clear that the hon. the Minister is trying to steer this Bill through a difficult situation, a situation that has been complicated by his department’s own marketing disaster.

The Bill contains many drastic amendments, and the hon. the Minister has confirmed this in his Second Reading speech. It would appear that it was published without the public having been prepared for it and without any detailed studies having been made as to how the manpower problem would be effected. The hon. member for Virginia says it is ridiculous for us to suggest that the department would introduce a Bill of this nature without having made detailed studies and without consulting the parties concerned. One merely has to look at the public reaction from important bodies in commerce and industry to realize that to them this Bill came as a surprise and that they were not consulted or asked to advise on possible solutions regarding the manpower situation. Hon. members may have read an article in the Sunday Times of 4 April in which the president of the Federal Chamber of Industries of South Africa, Mr. Van Zyl, expressed his concern at the effects this Bill could have on commerce and industry. Hon. members may have read the comments in the same article by the president of the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut where he appealed to the Government to do everything possible to limit the effect which this Bill could have on commerce and industry. Do these appeals and comments suggest and indicate that important bodies such as these two have been consulted and questioned on or have been advised of this Bill? Obviously not, and that is the criticism we have in regard to the marketing of this Bill. That is also the reason why we want the Bill referred to a Select Committee before Second Reading because, if that were to happen, bodies such as these and the public as a whole would be able to put their input into the Bill without being limited by principles which have already been accepted. Why not allay the fears of these bodies and of the man in the street by having an open, free from any shackles or bonds Select Committee on this Bill?

South Africans have in the past made sacrifices in regard to the defence of their country, and they will also be prepared to make those sacrifices in future. However, they must then be informed as to why it is necessary to take such far-reaching measures as are contained in this Bill. It is not enough to beat the drum about the communist threat, although the Soviet Union is obviously involved. People are asking themselves whether we are preparing ourselves for internal strife, whether we are in future going to face internal conflict. The words “civil war” are being used and people are asking whether we are moving in that direction. These are real fears which the man in the street has.

If one looks at how the fuel crisis in 1974 was dealt with from a marketing point of view, one finds that the man in the street was asked to make sacrifices in the national interest. He was properly informed as to what the reasons for this were and there was general acceptance that the public would go along with any restrictions which were applied. The same has not happened with this Bill. It was suddenly thrust on the public and the public now ask: “Why? What will the effect be?” If the Second Reading of this Bill is approved, the impression will certainly grow that the military is already in top gear in its efforts to contribute its 20% share to the solving of South Africa’s problems, whilst we, the politicians, are still fiddling around with the first gear in order to get ready to contribute our 80% of the solution to the problem.

The hon. member for Wynberg has today again stated our policy as regards the shield effect of the Defence Force, and it is not necessary for me to repeat that. We have to guard against the situation where the Defence Force is seen not merely as a shield but as an instrument which is used by the Government to complicate and retard internal reforms. That situation may arise if the Defence Force is in future—we hope it does not happen—drawn more an more into internal law and order operations. The hon. member for Virginia mentioned that we will have to deal with internal unrest. No doubt we will have to, but if South Africa has reached a stage where internal unrest has to be dealt with by the Defence Force, under normal circumstances in other countries that would be seen to be as close to a civil war as can be imagined. The Defence Force should only be called in when it is really necessary. These are all questions which the public want cleared up and these are all aspects which can be highlighted and dealt with by a Select Committee which is not bound by principles which have already been accepted.

I have the privilege of being a member of the Select Committee on the Arms and Ammunition Amendment Bill. It is a Select Committee which is basically looking into the question as to whether or not there should be tighter control on the carrying of fire-arms. If in regard to a Bill of that nature a Select Committee could be appointed before Second Reading, I cannot understand why a Bill such as the one before us, a Bill with far, far more drastic implications, cannot be referred to a Select Committee before Second Reading.

I support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Yeoville.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban Central’s contribution was phrased in the usual PFP terminology viz. the Bill has not been properly marketed, it is a marketing disaster although I must say, he did not use the phraseology used by Mr. Mulholland on television who stated that we were being driven into becoming an armed garrison of a nation. For the rest, however, his arguments and phraseology are familiar to members of this House. Therefore I do not think that there is much need to deal with them. He did, however, state that the public have expressed doubts as to the extent of the communist threat and he also wanted to know whether we were preparing for civil war.

My approach to this Bill deals first of all with the threat, and then with the question of the enemy. The hon. member will recognize the latter because a query has been raised in the columns of the local newspaper that supports his party as to who is the enemy. I shall try to deal with that.

First of all, as to the aims of the Bill, as I see the Bill, its purpose is to guarantee the necessary manpower over the next five years, evaluated against the expected escalation of the threat; secondly, to have an effective system of regional defence, more particularly in the country areas; and thirdly, to bring into training those people who so far have not had any military training at all. What is the purpose of this? The purpose of this is to place South Africa on a basis of war-preparedness so that if the threat escalates in the next five years South Africa will be properly prepared. The possibility of there being a conventional war here in Southern Africa is by no means excluded.

The average South African has been comparatively free from the obligations of military service for a long period of time. The average South African has escaped military service. We do not really know what military hardship is, not in the same sense as another beleaguered nation such as Israel has experienced military hardship. In the First World War, South African Whites were divided. In the Second World War, South African Whites were divided. In the case of Korea, it was a remote war and there was little reason for South Africans to get excited about it. In the case of the Angolan War, the English language Press were against participation in the war and possibly, for understandable reasons at that particular time, a substantial number of Black people in South Africa were opposed to our participation in Angola. But with the scheme for military preparedness, as contained in the Bill now before the House and which the House will pass at Second Reading, it means that South Africans, irrespective of colour, who are fighting for survival are going to be involved more and more in that fight for survival in the same way as all Israelis are involved in their fight for survival.

What is the extent of this threat? The Soviets are aiming at world domination through revolution. One of their first aims and objectives is to try to gain control of the energy and mineral treasure-houses in the Middle East and here in South Africa. In the Middle East, they are well on their way to achieving their objective. They already have control of Afghanistan. Their next objective is Pakistan. This will be followed by Iran. This will ultimately be followed by a prime prize, namely Saudi Arabia. They already have control of the naval bases of the Persian Gulf. They have the use of naval bases on the North African coast where there are considerable forces of Soviet allies and assistants to Gadaffi.

Look at the picture in the Indian Ocean. Russia has unquestionably the largest navy and the largest fishing fleet which are the eyes and the ears of the Russian navy stationed in the various strategic oceans of the world, not excluding the Indian Ocean where they have a substantial presence. Russia has naval facilities from Aden to Mauritius. It has the use of Luanda. It has its eyes on Walvis Bay. It has successfully promoted revolution in all those parts of the world which are sensitive to Western interests. I think here, for example, of Central and Southern America, the Middle East and Southern Africa. Overall, Russia has achieved a position of military superiority over America and all the Western nations combined. Russia could even sweep through Europe and reach the English Channel within a week. To this extent is the Soviet threat a world-wide threat.

Let us look at the position nearer home. Only seven years ago, there were something like 160 000 people involved in the fight against terrorism in Mozambique, Angola and, to a lesser extent, in Rhodesia. The Portuguese were in control in Mozambique and in Angola and the Rhodesians were firmly in control of the warfare on their borders. What has since happened? We have seen the collapse of metropolitan Portugal, the handing over of Mozambique to Machel, chaos in Angola which we tried to rectify, intervention by ourselves in Angola with the Western Powers unable to support us, and the exposing of the Rhodesian flank to incursions from both Mozambique and Zambia. Today, we have something like 16 000 people in all fighting terrorism in Southern Angola in the form of the Unita forces, and those forces fighting against established communist power in Mozambique. Besides these, we have the South African army ready to play its part in the defence of South Africa. However, our position has weakened immeasurably over the past three years and mainly because of the fall of Rhodesia. Zimbabwe today is a Marxist State which is stronger under Soviet influence and North Koreans are already there as precursors to other communist forces in that country. Zimbabwe is also helping Swapo. Evidence of this was, for example, the hero’s welcome that was given to Nujoma in Salisbury recently. With the Rhodesians out of the way, we are now the main focus of Soviet terrorist attention. We must not therefore be prepared only to fight terrorist incursions but we have also to be prepared for conventional warfare on our traditional borders. Such conventional warfare can only be waged from two quarters, the first of which is from our various neighbouring States and the second from the sea. The front line States have been encouraged by what has happened in Southern Africa as well as by resolutions by the OAU and UN to the effect that the remaining White régimes in Southern Africa are to be terminated. They have also been encouraged by the belief that South Africa will ultimately fall, as a result of the successes that were achieved in Mozambique, Angola and Rhodesia. They, to a man, and, to a State, support the terrorists and they will give even more and more support to terrorism. They will make bases available to the terrorists. At present, they are making broadcast facilities available to the terrorist, and they are also making facilities available for the opening of ANC offices in their countries.

Let us look at the increase in their ground forces. This increase has taken place over the past five or six years from 87 000 to 270 000. In the case of tanks, over the past five years the increase has been form 360 to 740. As far as aircraft are concerned, they have today something like 525 aircraft, over 100 of which are Mig fighters. We now have set up on our borders for the first time—this has taken place over the past year or so—anti-aircraft systems with radar coverage which will make our job of hot-pursuit and retaliatory operations across our borders ever more difficult. The activities of Swapo have materially increased in the last few years. Five years ago, there were something like 500 skirmishes; last year there were 1 200. They suffer heavy losses, but their bases are now being established further and further to the north in Angola. The value of operations like Protea has been immense to us. Such operations have had immense value to us mainly in the propaganda field in that they have exposed the existence of Russian equipment and Russian advisers in Angola. There has been clear evidence, not only of Soviet participation in Angola, but also of the assistance given to them by the East Germans. The retaliatory operations from the Republic will have to continue and in my opinion will have to be intensified because South West Africa is vital to the defence of us here in the Republic. It is not a far-off country isolated from South Africa; it is vital to our defence here in the Republic.

The future military scenario is more or less this, as I see it: The need for at least a brigade to be in South West Africa to defend it against Swapo and any other nations that might be helping Swapo, the need for a brigade to oppose incursions from the border with Zimbabwe and the need for at least another brigade to combat incursions coming from Mozambique. Those are the external threats.

The internal threat comes from the ANC, which has a strategy to try to isolate us internationally. Its aim is to become the only recognized freedom movement and a South African Government in exile. Its objectives are to try to have sanctions imposed upon South Africa this year, boycotts and propaganda. Internally its objectives are school boycotts, strikes, sabotage of key installations and the breakdown of White morale. Those are the objectives of the ANC.

It is not only the ANC, however, who are helping them to achieve their objectives; there are people like those hon. members sitting in the Opposition benches and the newspapers that support them who are contributing substantially to the breakdown of White morale in South Africa. [Interjections.] They ask: “Who is the enemy?” The enemy is anyone who goes overseas from South Africa to be trained in order to be used against South Africa. The enemy is anybody here in the Republic who tries by revolutionary means to subvert the State. That is the enemy. Whether those people are White, as some of them are, whether those people are Coloured or whether they are Black, they are the people who are the enemy of South Africa.

We had warnings about what was happening on our university campuses seven to ten years ago at the time of the Schlebusch Commission. We had warnings from the two Steyn Commissions. We had warnings from the Rabie Commission on our security situation. The present hon. Minister of Defence and Gen. Viljoen, the present head of the Defence Force, have given us warnings time and time again. If those warnings are not enough, then there are the warnings in the booklets issued by Gen. Sir Walter Walker.

Those are the threats that South Africa is facing, and if an hon. member in the Opposition benches who claims that he has goodwill towards South Africa suggests that this is an over-estimate of the dangers facing us, whether they be external or internal, he reveals either a complete ignorance of what is going on or, I would say, perhaps something even worse.

Like what? [Interjections.]

In conclusion I should like to ask the Opposition in view of the fact that they have boycotted the President’s Council …

Who are “they”? [Interjections.]

… they have boycotted the Johannesburg Council, whether they are also going to boycott once again and therefore not serve on the Select Committee the House is going to appoint.

Wait and see.

Let some of them be honest. There are some of them who wish to participate on that Select Committee and who would like to make a real contribution. My eyes stray along some of the benches and some of the people who sit on those benches of the PFP …

Your eyes have always been straying.

… and I see those who have no wish to serve on that Select Committee and who would have liked this Bill to be read this day six months. They are deeply divided on security; they are deeply divided on defence. They are divided on the same issues that are prevalent on the university campuses. On various university campuses the Progs, for example, take part in discussions on alternatives to military service. They are active in church organizations and support some of the churches’ stand that chaplains should not serve in the Defence Force.

Who?

They support, for example, the views of those newspapers, whose views are also the views of the PFP…

Who are you referring to?

… namely that there must be a redistribution of power, of wealth and of land and that there must be Black majority rule. In a nutshell that is the thinking …

Do not put words into other people’s mouths.

… of many of the hon. members of the PFP. [Interjections.] The Government, however, has a clear policy about what has to be done under the present circumstances. First of all there has to be a new constitutional dispensation.

The Wiley whine.

Secondly there has to be a reaction, on the part of the Government, to the psychological warfare that is being waged against the White people in South Africa. There has to be counter-insurgency propaganda. Lastly—and this is the main reason for having this Bill before us today—South Africa has to be made militarily strong against both the enemy outside and the enemy within.

Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to listen to the hon. member for Simonstown. I do not necessarily agree with everything he says, but I do believe that he puts a lot of time and effort into his presentations in this House. I compliment him on certain aspects of his speech, even though there are certain aspects I would rather not comment on.

At the outset we want to warn against a feeling that is taking root in many quarters. I am referring to a feeling I encountered during the Easter recess. Amongst certain prominent people in our country it is felt that this Bill is all part of a new political stance. There are some who are saying that this is a new political “posturing” in order to influence the course of certain delicate international negotiations that are currently taking place. I do not think I have to spell out exactly what I mean when I talk of “delicate” negotiations. If what is being suggested is in fact so, it is regrettable, because then this Bill, with its clumsy presentation—I am sorry to have to use that word, but the Bill was indeed presented clumsily—is having a negative effect on the people of South Africa. I agree with my hon. leader’s remarks about two left feet probably being the order of the day in the presentation of this Bill. I want to add that a subsequent television programme did very little to help. It only highlighted the hamhandedness of the whole exercise.

Now you are making clumsy remarks.

No, I am speaking the truth, my friend. I said that this Bill has had a negative effect, particularly on our young people. It is counter-productive to the healthy development of a stronger and better-motivated defence force that requires an extremely high standard of morale. That is the first requirement.

I want to re-emphasize our stance in regard to this Bill, because for the reason I have just stated—and there are many other reasons—we believe that this Bill has gone for the overkill. We know that the governing party has a penchant for using a 16-pound hammer in its approach to certain issues. I think that the view that a 16-pound hammer is once again being used is being confirmed by the reaction of a large percentage of our population. We stand foursquare behind the need for a well-manned, well-equipped and well-trained defence force that should be capable; not only of conducting anti-terrorist campaigns in our country and on our borders, but also, if called upon, to fight a conventional war. I think we need look no further than the current situation in the South Atlantic. We do not have to look further than the Falkland Islands, which incidentally are not too far from where we are sitting right at this moment. We only need to compare that potentially explosive situation to a permutation of what we may have to face with an enclave that belongs to the Republic of South Africa, namely Walvis Bay, to appreciate what I am driving at. Walvis Bay is a part of the Republic of South Africa and I think we would be foolish if we were not to realize that it could very easily become a focal point in the not too distant future and could, just as suddenly as has happened with the Falkland Islands, be brought into the international spotlight.

We must learn more than one lesson from the Falkland Islands crisis. The most important lesson of all is the lesson that arises out of the understandable determination of the British to retain their property and to defend their people as against the reported fear—it was reported in this morning’s Press—amongst the young Argentinian militia who, according to these reports, would rather run than face a certain well-known bulldog that is apparently not as toothless as people would have one believe. The British bulldog may be a little stiff-jointed, it may be a little arthritic, but it looks as though it is warming up and as though the old joints and muscles may yet become formidable if that dog is unleashed. I should like to quote from The Cape Times of this morning. I think the situation is frightening—not for us, certainly, but I want to show how it could apply to us—

Let me say what lesson it is I believe we must learn. I ask: Do we want a well-motivated, a well-disciplined and a determined defence force, or would we, by steamrollering this Bill through in its present form, expose ourselves to the danger of having an army, a navy and an air force of sufficient numbers in terms of manpower but, due largely to resentment, sadly lacking in morale and motivation? I think we must face that question. I do not think we should duck that issue.

We in this party accept that every able-bodied South African has an obligation to serve our country. We further accept the need, as embodied in the principles of the Bill, for the extension of service and an age ceiling as well as the mechanics for involving those who have escaped any form of military service until now, but we do not—I want to emphasize this—and we will not subscribe to or support the envisaged periods contained in the Bill in its present form.

Having had the assurance of the hon. the Minister, as well as supporting opinions given by officials of the House, that we may limit the scope of the Bill after Second Reading in a select committee, we will accept that the measure may be read a Second Time, but we give notice of the fact that we will do our utmost to bring the envisaged periods of service down to acceptable levels. There is no shadow of doubt that the Bill in its present form has had a psychological effect on young South Africans. Quite frankly, it is nothing short of frightening. Young men who are embarking on their careers are embittered by what is proposed in this Bill. I want to warn that the brain drain will become the brain flood. If this Bill is put onto the Statute Book in its present form, just watch the graduates from our universities who are costing the State R3 000 per year to train! Can one honestly blame such a young man, when, as was pointed out to me by a colleague on this side of the House earlier today, in terms of this Bill he will face having to spend some 12% of his life to the age of 60 in the armed services? I do not think we can blame him. I think we should do some straight talking with each other. The young South African does not believe any of the assurances that may be given to him anymore. It is a tragedy to record that experience has taught him not to believe any longer. He resents the fact that when he goes to do his military service jobs are harder to come by when he returns home because—and I am sad to say this too—jobs that he thought were his for the asking he finds he cannot fill because people of his age group—people of colour—are already filling those positions. This is a tragedy of our system.

On the positive side I have to point out, however, that everybody will now at least know where they stand, and credit will be given for every day served. If nothing else, I ask in this House today that we should never ever allow the present iniquitous system to continue, the system of a young man serving for 90 days with a credit of 30 days. This we should never allow to become part of the system again. We must never allow that to happen again because I believe that that has done more damage to credibility and trust than anything else ever has or possibly could.

Finally, speaking of credibility—and I am sorry that the hon. member for Constantia is not in the House at the moment—I want to take issue with that hon. young gentleman. I believe the hon. member for Constantia made a speech here that was absolutely shocking. He must live with that, however, and not I. The thing I resent most in his speech is the fact that he accuses my hon. leader of saying, and I quote (Hansard, 2 April 1982, col. 4206)—

The rules of this House preclude me from saying what I regard that statement to be. The strongest language that I can use is to say that it us an untruth. This is the tragedy of what is taking place in this House. That a man can get up here, within an hour or so after hearing a responsible front-bencher of this House speak, and have that statement recorded in Hansard as the truth, is what I look upon as a tragedy. It is simply not so. At no time has the hon. member for Durban Point or any other hon. member of the NRP said that we accept this Bill in its present form. We do not accept this Bill in its present form. That is why we are looking forward to serving on the Select Committee. This is why we have accepted the assurances that have been given both by the staff of this House and by the hon. the Minister that we will be able to limit the scope of this Bill at thát Select Committee, and that it will then come back to this House for debate at Committee Stage and at Third Reading. I do think, however, that it is a disgrace that anyone could make this sort of statement and allow it to go forward. As my hon. leader has said, it is blatant, but the rules of this House preclude me from saying exactly what I think of the hon. member for Constantia.

Mr. Speaker, I am accustomed to the hon. member for Umhlanga making a very positive contribution in this House. Today, however, I am rather disappointed at his attitude and the attitude of his party. I am disappointed at the criticism he expressed of the legislation now under discussion. While I was sitting listening to him, I almost began to believe that he needed convincing as to exactly what this legislation involved and why it was an essential measure. I found it difficult to accept that a person like him, and a party like his, could place obstacles in the way of the acceptance of the legislation under discussion. He referred to “a new political stance” and to “clumsy representation”. It has been stated quite clearly here why this legislation is essential, and why it must be brought home to the public that there is a choice, namely to retain the system of two years military service together with further obligations or, if necessary, to extend that period to three years. It was decided not to extend the period to three years, but that the members of the public would in general have to accept greater responsibility for our country’s defence.

The hon. member also referred to the negative effect this legislation would have. However, I do not know in what respect he feels it will have a negative effect. He spoke of our seeking to kill a fly with a sledge hammer. In view of this it would appear that he agrees with the Progs. Obviously he is not aware of the threat facing South Africa if he expresses such ideas here.

The hon. member went on to say that we were carrying on as though a conventional war was in progress, or at any rate as though the possibility of such a war existed. Surely the possibility of a conventional war exists, and this is something we have to plan for. He referred to the events in connection with the Falkland Islands and said this ought to be a lesson to us. Sir, do you know what lesson these events can teach us? At one stage Britain was one of the most powerful nations in the world, but as far as defence is concerned it has deteriorated to such an extent that any nation now sees its way clear, whether legally or illegally, to opposing Britain. This is the lesson we must learn from the events in the Falkland Islands. The best deterrent South Africa can have at this stage is therefore a very strong and prepared Defence Force, and the hon. member realizes this. The hon. member also knows that time is a factor in our planning. For example, he knows that Russia first planned its expansionism with the year 1990 in mind, but that it is now aiming at 1985. Surely the hon. member realizes that planning is essential and that we must speed it up. Over the next five years a plan with regard to our manpower must be put into operation to cope with the intensified threat. Something like this cannot be done overnight. If we want our Defence Force to be at the right level in five years’ time, we must begin planning now.

The hon. member referred to a toothless bulldog. I am not suggesting that England is a toothless bulldog, but, as the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs says, we must not be caught with our pants down in this regard. After all, the hon. member knows what is awaiting us.

The hon. member also referred to “every able-bodied man in South Africa”, every White man, and then referred to Israel. He said they were in the same position we are in now, and for this reason we must do as they did and register every White man in South Africa. They must be available so that we can use them at all times. However, this is what is being contemplated with this legislation. All people between the ages of 17 and 60 must be available. This does not mean that we are going to use them, but they must be available. And these people are willing to serve. The Opposition is now pleading for the public, but if they were to make inquiries they would find that in general the public is quite prepared to make a contribution. The object of this legislation is to involve everyone and to prevent certain people from evading national service. Everyone will now be treated in exactly the same way.

And that the public shall be properly informed.

Yes, and that they shall also be properly motivated. The hon. member is now suggesting that the Government should undertake the motivation, but why does he and his party not also undertake this motivation? Why do hon. members of the official Opposition not undertake the motivation? Why do they not tell the public how essential it is for everyone to make a contribution to the country’s defence? [Interjections.] Judging by the behaviour of the official Opposition, they are opposed to this legislation and therefore to the defence of South Africa as well. They are therefore siding with the enemies of South Africa. The official Opposition should inform their voters of where they stand. Up to now the official Opposition has been able to speak about national service on the border. Now, however, they are faced with the reality and they have to prove whether there are enough patriots in the PFP, and indicate who they are. Which hon. members on that side Of the House are prepared to stand up here and prove that they are patriots?

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member entitled to question the patriotism of the PFP?

I understood the hon. member to say the PFP has to prove who the patriots among them are. The hon. member for Vryheid may proceed.

I want to go even further and allege that there is greater patriotism among the Coloureds than there is among some hon. members of the PFP. The patriotism among the Coloureds is clear from the fact that between 4 000 and 5 000 Coloureds want to join the S.A. Defence Force every year as volunteers, while owing to a lack of funds the intake can only total approximately 1 500. These people are motivated. As a matter of fact they are more motivated than hon. members of the PFP. Surely we are not serving a political party, but the Republic of South Africa. We must at all times be able and prepared to defend the country, and that is what this legislation seeks to do.

We in South Africa are striving for equal treatment and a system in which everyone must be prepared to make equal sacrifices. Hon. members of the PFP live on the fat and plenty of South Africa, but they do not want to make sacrifices. They want other people to make those sacrifices for them. The legislation now before us affects the PFP in particular, and that is why they are complaining to such an extent. The PFP itself is going to be affected by the legislation. In future we will be able to get at those persons living off the fat of the land who are not prepared to serve.

The former Minister of Defence, the present Prime Minister, said in a Defence White Paper in 1977 that unity is strength. He said that a sudden vacuum had been left after the withdrawal of the colonial forces and that the instability in Africa is being exploited by a certain major power. But five years ago this was still a vague concept. He also said that stability, orderliness, economic development, a forward-looking Government and individual freedom were inimical to Marxism. The former Minister of Defence drew our attention to this, but these were still vague concepts at that stage.

However, let us consider what the current hon. Minister of Defence says today and let us consider how the position has changed over the past five years. Let us also consider how the position will change during the next five years, because all of us—and that includes the hon. members of the PFP—ought to know what the position is. In his White Paper this year, the hon. the Minister of Defence said—

Surely this is plain language. In the White Paper the hon. the Minister also mentioned that the pattern of world-wide Soviet aggression and expansionism was being more clearly revealed all the time. This stranglehold Russia wants to apply to us as well is creating endless problems at the southernmost point of Africa, in fact for the whole of Southern Africa. The White Paper also says that we are standing virtually alone in the path of Russian expansionism in Africa, on Russia’s way to world domination. This is after all the Russian objective. Hon. members must understand that in the future we have to attain a certain military level and that it will not become easier to do so, but in fact more difficult. Sophisticated armaments are streaming into our neighbouring countries on a large scale. Surely the PFP is not unaware of this. Nor is the possibility excluded that a conventional struggle will now begin to develop. The S.A. Defence Force must therefore be prepared, willing and able, with determination and perseverance and with the help of all its inhabitants, to defend the RSA against any attack. In this regard we can learn from Israel. Because Israel prepared all its inhabitants and compelled them to undergo military service, it has been able to remain standing for four decades now. As a result Israel has a Defence Force with a strong will and motivation to defend their country. I want to ask the PFP to bring this matter to the attention of their voters themselves, and not merely to leave it to the Government.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to start off by saying to the hon. member for Vryheid that we reject with contempt the scandalous allegation that he made when he said that the official Opposition are against South Africa. I think the hon. member should apologize to this side of the House for the allegations that he made. He does not seem to understand what is going on in this House. He says, for example, that we are against this Bill. We are not against this Bill. No one on this side of the House has ever argued that we are against the Bill. Therefore we must accept the fact that the hon. member has made allegations with no substance whatsoever and in that respect I am not even prepared to deal any further with the arguments of that hon. member.

However, I should like to react to another member on the Government side and that is the hon. member for Simonstown. We have got used to his hysterical outbursts in this House. This is just another one of the treatments that we have been subjected to over the years. Whether he sits on this side of the House or on that side of the House appears to make no difference to him. With regard to the allegations and the submissions that the hon. member has made to this House and with regard to the picture that he has painted of the total onslaught against South Africa by communist Russia, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister of Defence, if this Bill becomes law in its present form whether we would be able to muster an army of sufficient size and efficiency to be able to stand against the might of Soviet Russia, whether it be against a land assault or against a naval assault as mentioned by the hon. member for Simonstown. Does the hon. the Minister really think that this can be done or would he rather, if he is of the opinion that such an onslaught against South Africa is possible, seek a South Atlantic Treaty, look to allies of South Africa to resist such an attack if ever such an attack were to take place?

What do you think I have been pleading for for years?

I think the hon. member for Simonstown has gone to ridiculous lengths in order to make out his case. We also treat with contempt the type of submissions that he makes in this House. They do not really warrant investigation and his arguments do not bear the weight that they should.

As far as the hon. member for Umhlanga is concerned, we listened with interest to him. We do not differ very much with him, except in the standpoints that we have taken and the amendment that we have moved. However, I should like to draw his attention to the difference in emphasis that he placed on the Bill today when referring to the impact that the Bill has had on the whole of South Africa. There are men up to the age of 60 who are wondering how they are going to keep their families going or how they are going to keep their businesses going when they run one-man businesses. They wonder what the future holds for them.

How do they do it in Israel?

How does a young man feel who is starting off his profession or business knowing that he will have to do military service for 14 years or that he will have to do military service for a period of 720 days? That emphasis is not the same emphasis placed on this Bill that was expressed in this House and in the Press by his leader, the hon. member for Durban Point, with regard to his support for all the recommendations contained in this Bill. That makes a big difference.

Will you give us some evidence in support of what you are saying?

Let me return to the Bill, however, and I wish to address my remarks to the hon. the Minister of Defence. I was always under the impression that a good general is one who, when under fire, can think clearly and rationally and who can make the correct decisions when under stress. I would also have thought that a general in the army would have continued to show those qualities when he was appointed to a Cabinet post. Therefore, when he is under fire from the Press and the media such as TV as well as the many people from whom there has been an outcry in respect of this Bill, I would have thought that the hon. the Minister would under those circumstances too have remained level-headed and calm and not have painted himself into the situation of forcing us into a debate of this nature in this House. Matters of a military nature are normally apolitical and the details of such matters are dealt with at the Committee Stage. Because of a so-called leak the hon. the Minister decided to introduce the Bill as it was but by that time the damage had already been done.

The hon. the Minister has tabled a printed White Paper issued by the Department of Defence on Defence and Armaments Supply, 1982. Having been tabled in this House, that White Paper has now become a public document and I should like to make a few quotations from it. Firstly, in paragraph 14 on page 3 we find, inter alia, the following—

In other words, this provision gives us to understand that the hon. the Minister was clearly contemplating the incorporation of Coloureds and Asians in the Defence Force as was originally provided for in the Bill. Furthermore, in paragraph 73 on page 12 we find, inter alia, the following—

Again, in paragraph 85 on page 15 we find the following—

It would appear now as though the question of the utilization of more females has also been left in abeyance. In the same paragraph we are told in regard to the Citizen Force that—

It is also estimated that the extension will not be for less than four years. Therefore, all these elements that were contained in this Bill and that surprised the whole of South Africa are in fact contained in this White Paper which anybody can read. Why then the panic? Why worry about this so-called leak?

You are the ones who are panicking, not we.

Surely this matter could have been dealt with in a calm manner. We say that this Bill is of such importance that it should have been referred to a Select Committee before there was any discussion of it in a Second Reading debate. [Interjections.] Let me make it absolutely clear that we are in favour of an efficient and well-trained Army in South Africa, an efficient S.A. Defence Force. We will support the making available to that Defence Force of sophisticated and modern weaponry and the fact that every member of the S.A. Defence Force should be properly trained to use this sophisticated and modern equipment that is available to us in South Africa today. We support this and we also hold the hon. the Minister of Defence responsible for the defence and security of South Africa under all circumstances. However, what do we find? We find that we have a Bill before us containing certain principles which have been outlined by the hon. the Minister himself and which have just been repeated by the hon. member for Virginia. I also wish to repeat these principles. Firstly, there is the extension of the period of military service after the completion of the initial continuous period of service. Secondly, there is an increase in the number of days of service to a larger section of White males. Those are the three principles which the hon. the Minister sees in this Bill and these are the principles to which we shall be committed once this Bill has been read a Second Time. As we understand the position, the Bill will then be referred to a Select Committee after Second Reading. However, this House would then have committed the Select Committee to the acceptance of these three principles. The only changes that can then be effected will be in regard to details, for example, such as changing the number of days from 240 to any figure below 720, whether the total service should be 12 years or less and whether White males should be conscripted up to the age of 60 or 55 or 50 as the case may be. However, we are now obliged to accept the three principles I mentioned. Is that the only answer? Is that the only way in which we can approach this matter? I say that we want an efficient Defence Force in this country, we want proper security for this country. Is there nothing else we can do? Is this the only way to strengthen South Africa’s Defence Force? What about the question of a standing army? The question is whether we can have a Permanent Force that can do the job, a Permanent Force in which we can give employment to many thousands of South Africans who perhaps want to be employed at this stage and also need to be employed in South Africa. If they can do the job, is it therefore necessary to commit men up to the age of 60 years?

There is, for example, also the question of conscientious objectors. Surely there must be some formula that can be worked out to cover the contingency of conscientious objectors, so that they can be used to replace other people who are being called up and therefore removed from the manpower field. Let the conscientious objectors do service in the place of other people who are valuable to our economy but have to do military service.

Another category I should like to refer to is that of immigrants. They can now become South African citizens when they reach the age of 25 years, unless of course they elect not to do so beforehand. Many of us on this side of the House feel very strongly that those young, able-bodied men that have come to South Africa as immigrants and whose families have made South Africa their home, should be made to do their stint in military service as well.

You made one of them an MPC in the Cape.

They should not be able to take the jobs of people born in South Africa whilst the latter have to go and do their duty in the S.A. Defence Force. We must share the burden more equally. Again this is a matter for the Select Committee, because the Select Committee must weigh up the manpower requirements and economic needs of South Africa against the needs of the S.A. Defence Force. That is why it is so important for the hon. the Minister—there is still plenty of time—to leave the issue open before we are committed to the principles he has outlined in this Second Reading debate. He must make it possible for us to come back to these issues. It may well be that there are other methods that can be employed in South Africa to achieve the same objectives that the hon. the Minister wants to achieve. This is not a division between the hawks and the doves. Some of us may be hawks and others may be doves, but that is as may be. If one has been under fire, one may want to be a hawk and defend oneself as best one can. One would then want the best armaments one can get and one would want to win whenever one goes in to fight. If one is involved in a war, one does want to win that war. I want to submit that there is still time for the hon. the Minister to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Yeoville so that we can discuss all these aspects in a Select Committee. Let us then decide how we can improve the Defence Force.

To end off, let me say that the public relations division of the Defence Force should look a little more carefully at how a measure of such great importance can be presented to the public of South Africa in future so as not to be so damaging to the morale of the people of South Africa by pressing so many panic buttons. There is, of course, a precedent for this. On 9 March 1967 the hon. member for Durban Point moved an amendment identical to the one recently moved by the hon. member for Yeoville, an amendment that was, at the time, accepted by this House. I refer hon. members to Hansard, Vol. 19, col. 2704. I believe that that amendment is the amendment that should now also be accepted by this House.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that we on this side of the House and the official Opposition speak past one another to a large extent when the subject under discussion is at issue. I think this was stressed once again by the hon. member for Hillbrow. This side of the House maintains that an escalation of the activities against South Africa must be foreseen and advance planning done to cover this eventuality. However, this is for the most part denied by the official Opposition. What we are now debating is whether the Bill is to be referred to a Select Committee before the Second Reading or only after the Second Reading. The official Opposition argues that it should first be referred to a Select Committee so that the whole package may be considered, whatever it may be. In brief, what this amounts to is that it is said that it is unnecessary to take into account the increase in the threat facing South Africa and that it is unnecessary to plan in advance for the future manpower needs of the S.A. Defence Force.

That is really a non sequitur concept.

Then the official Opposition further proceeds to make the statement that reform is the basis of the solution of the problem. However, the fact is that no reform is possible without a sound and powerful defence capability. In order to make political development and change possible, the utmost degree of stability, law, order and security is necessary. The aim of the onslaught on the RSA is specifically to create a situation of destabilization and then, in such a situation of destabilization, to achieve the overthrow of all authority. The existence of so-called apartheid, as the hon. member for Constantia said, is not the target; the target is the overthrow of any authority which is not Marxist-inspired. I am now specifically addressing the hon. member for Constantia when I point out that this is the crux of the question: How can we ensure a better alternative for the majority of people in South Africa? He also said this. To be able to do that, we must keep our military power base as strong as possible, whether it involves 20% or more of the total solution, because the fact is that it is an important component of the total task of the State to ensure that our political development and change can take place on a basis which can ensure stability in the long term. If this power base cannot be effectively maintained, then no government is safe, nor is any political development, or any reform of whatever nature, possible.

If, then, the military are not an important target in this onslaught, why then is the onslaught specifically aimed at the build-up of the military capability around us in our neighbouring States? In this regard we need not necessarily consider only our own evidence to support this point. We need not only look at the White Paper to support it; we can consider evidence submitted to the US Senate Committee on Safety and Security, for example. Under the heading “The Red guns that spread over Africa” in The Sunday Times of 4 April, reference is made to evidence submitted by a certain Dr. Peter Vanneman of the University of Arkansas. He is known as an authority in the field of Soviet policy in Southern Africa, and in his evidence he says, inter alia, that the cornerstone of Soviet policy in Southern Africa is to provide arms, ammunition, training and advisers to its clients in this part of the world in order to destabilize the region. He refers to the provision of arms specifically to Angola, Mozambique, Zimbabwe and Zambia over the past few years. According to the report in the The Sunday Times he made the following significant statement: In February, 1981, Brezhnev committed Russia in a very authoritarian way to extended involvement in Southern Africa. He refers, inter alia, to three spheres in which this takes place, for example, by way of the expansion of three State Departments in the Kremlin with Southern Africa as their specific brief. Then, too, there is the despatch of new diplomats to these regions, specifically to Botswana, where there are 50 members attached to the Soviet Embassy. He refers, too, to the military equipment and advisers provided to these States in Southern Africa. Dr.Vanneman goes on to state in his evidence—

In my opinion all this simply assumes the fact that the onslaught on South Africa is inspired by the Soviets. It would be foolish of us to deny this point to the extent of not wanting to take our manpower needs in this regard into account in our advance planning. Militarily speaking, we can have the best equipment, but that is not enough. The hon. member for Hillbrow states that he will always be in favour of the provision of the best military equipment to our men on the border and our men in uniform, but I recall that last year, during the Defence Vote, we had to conduct a serious debate with the official Opposition to convince them that we had to expand our defence expenditure with regard to the acquisition of military equipment. How, then, can the hon. member for Hill-brow suddenly say that they support this at all times?

The hon. member for Constantia said earlier that he and his party believed in the so-called “shield concept”. This means seeing to it that the country’s military capacity is such that one will be able to tackle the necessary internal reform. My question is: Why, then, allow the country’s military capacity to become relatively weaker while we know that the total onslaught on the RSA is increasing? There is sufficient evidence of that.

Finally, there is a bone I want to pick with the hon. member for Constantia. Towards the end of his speech he said, inter alia, that when the Black man dreamt of a better dispensation in this country, that ideal should not be met with guns. Surely that is a preposterous statement devoid of all truth. After all, that is not what this legislation envisages. That is not what this side of the House envisages by way of this legislation, viz. countering with guns the hopes and aspirations of the Black man in South Africa.

In conclusion I want to put a few questions to the official Opposition. Do they deny the Russian expansion in Southern Africa? Do they deny the build-up of conventional forces in our neighbouring States on our borders? Do they deny that the aim is to conquer the RSA, whatever Government is in power here? Does the official Opposition deny that in the given circumstances it is necessary that the SA Defence Force should do everything in its power to defend the RSA against any attack? Finally, do they deny that the available manpower is the most precious commodity for the S.A. Defence Force and serves as an important point of departure to ensure efficiency and the resultant success of military action? If the official Opposition replies in the affirmative to these questions—and I believe they must reply to them in the affirmative—then I think they have no reason to argue that this matter should first be referred to a Select Committee. I take pleasure in supporting the measure.

Mr. Speaker, during the course of his speech, the hon. member for Johannesburg West suggested that perhaps the Opposition and the Government were talking past each other. I think that to some extent he is correct. One accepts that there is a threat facing South Africa. There is no doubt about it—one has only to read the papers. We know that the communists are involved in that threat. The cardinal issue, however, is how we can best overcome the threat that is facing us. That is really the critical issue. Let us be quite clear about it. The threat we face in South Africa has also been faced by other countries. If one looks at the period after World War II, one sees that it was in fact characterized by a very high incidence of violence in Latin America, Asia and also in Africa. I am not saying that we do not need strong military action to counteract revolutionary warfare, because that is the threat we are facing. What I must stress, however, is that, if one looks at the successes and failures of others in combating revolutionary warfare, one realizes that something else is needed apart from military activity. Indeed, the danger exists that one can place so much emphasis on the military aspect that one begins to ignore the other aspects of the problem. A very good example of this was the efforts of the USA in South Vietnam. They started off in 1961 with 1 000 advisers there. By 1965 that had grown to 150 000 men. Nine months later there were 275 000 American troops in South Vietnam, 25 000 South Koreans and 4 000 Australians. Despite overwhelming superiority in the air, and despite an attempt to bomb the enemy into submission, the USA lost the war. One of the greatest military powers the world has ever seen could not defeat a relatively small country in revolutionary warfare. One of the reasons why it failed was because it relied essentially on military might to win the war.

If one looks at the experience of the French in Indochina—we have all heard of Dien Bien Phu—what many people do not realize is that for a long time the French did incredibly well in the war in Indochina. In 1951, for example, General Lattre de Tassigny defeated the Viet Minh at Vinh Yen. The Viet Minh, in that particular battle, lost 6 000 people. He subsequently defeated them at Mao Khe, and at the Day River. Subsequently France built 10 000 forts, bunkers and concrete emplacements in Indochina. These were manned by between 120 000 and 140 000 men. Yet, they too lost the war in Indochina. Once again the emphasis was on the military aspect of the problem they were facing.

Experts tell us, and I think the hon. the Minister of Defence has said so himself, that the solution to the problem is 20% military and 80% political, social, economic and psychological. Obviously, if one concentrates most of one’s activities on 20% of the problem one should not be surprised if one ends up winning the battles but losing the war. We must beware that we do not make the same mistakes others have made by concentrating only on the relatively simple military aspects of the problem, while ignoring the more complex political, social and economic aspects of the problem.

If one looks at those countries which successfully overcame the threat of revolutionary warfare—and this is where I come back to the hon. member for Johannesburg West—one notices that they were successful because they tackled many of the underlying problems facing them in their society. I am sure the hon. the Minister will know that in the Philippines Ramon Magsaysay, when he was secretary of National Defence, introduced a policy in terms of which he tried to win over the hearts and minds of the peasants. He realized that in the eyes of the people—of the general population—a democratic government was not necessarily better than a communist government. He also realized that the communist party bred on poverty, unemployment and the exploitation of certain classes. He realized that in an area in which 2% of the population owned 98% of the land, if the communist party came with the banner cry of land for the landless it would meet with success because the general population there, as he realized, knew little about communism but they knew a great deal about absentee landlords.

It was only after a programme of land reform and a policy of minimum wages were instituted that the Philippine government began to win the war against the communists. In Malaya Sir Gerald Templar, who was the High Commissioner there during the period 1951 to 1954, said they were fighting not only on the military front, but on the political, social and economic front as well. In Malaya the communist party groups were supported essentially by the Chinese, which was not surprising, because if one looked at Malaya one found that a person born in Malaya and practising Mohammedanism, was automatically a citizen of Malaya. Chinese had to reside there for 15 years before they could become citizens of Malaya. Consequently only one out of seven Chinese residents in Malaya was a citizen of Malaya. It was only when the citizenship question was solved and when the Chinese were for the first time given a title to land that the British in Malaya were able to break down the support of the communists amongst the Chinese.

The point I am making is that in the type of war that we are fighting military activity is essential, but the need to act in the political, the social and the economic spheres as well, is also great. The critical aspect of the type of war which we are facing is the battle which is taking place between the government of the day and the revolutionaries for the allegiance of those sectors of our population that feel estranged from the existing political system. There is no doubt that in South Africa a large sector of the population feels estranged from the government of the day. One just has to look at the report of the Buthelezi Commission—and I should like to bring this to the hon. the Minister’s attention, because in my view it is a chilling finding—which shows that 48% of Blacks in KwaZulu and Natal, which is a relatively conservative Black area, felt that the population would either strongly support or would be favourably disposed toward the ANC if they came secretly asking people to help them. We must remember that T. E. Lawrence, as stated in the Encyclopaedia Brittanica, said that if 2% of the population supports it and 98% remains neutral, that is all that a guerrilla army needs to be successful.

Are you banking on those percentages?

No, but if we fail to acknowledge that there are legitimate complaints against the present system, we are dooming ourselves to defeat. We know that the communists exploit injustices that exist in society.

They are more popular than the NRP.

It was Mao Tsetung who said that revolutionary warfare can only succeed if it has a political objective which is compatible with that of the population. Indeed, he said that if guerilla warfare has no political objective, it must fail; and that if it maintains a political objective that is incompatible with the political objectives of the people and therefore fails to receive their support, then this too must fail. Then he made the critical observation that once the guerrilla movement is deprived of the support of these masses or fails to enlist their participation and co-operation its survival and development is not possible. In other words, where there are legitimate grievances that can be exploited by one’s opponents, one must take steps to eliminate these grievances, and this is the point that we are trying to make to the hon. member for Johannesburg West.

It has been said by two experts, Valenano and Bohannan, that in Indochina the French assumption that communist indoctrination and ideology was the mainspring of the Viet Minh movement contributed substantially to the disaster in Indochina. It seems to me that we are making the same mistake in South Africa, for the Government sees any opposition to its policies as part of a total onslaught. It refuses to recognize at its peril that there are legitimate grievances that large segments of the South African population have against the existing order. If the status quo breeds discontent, then one must see if it is possible to alter it. There is no doubt that in South Africa the status quo breeds discontent, otherwise 48% of the Black population of KwaZulu and Natal would not be prepared to support the ANC. In the eyes of the Black population the present system of government is not necessarily better than a communist system. They know little about communism, and they confuse capitalism with apartheid.

In Malaya and the Philippines land played an important part in reducing the threat of revolutionary warfare. If in South Africa we were to give Blacks freehold title to land in urban areas, would we not defuse the problem? In respect of most things in life there is a trade-off. One cannot have more and better public services while paying less tax. In combating revolutionary warfare we face a similar problem. We can build up a strong military force. Indeed, we will have to do so. The critical question is, however, how much of our resources must be tapped, because one of the most critical resources in South Africa is skilled manpower and, obviously, resources that are tapped in one area will have to be supplemented from other areas. If we rely too heavily on armament might, we will be taking away resources that are needed to create the economic wealth that is essential to bring about social change in South Africa. If we do not have economic growth, I fear we will not have the time in which to bring about political reform, and without political reform we will find ourselves in an escalating military conflict to which we will be committing more and more resources. However—and this is the critical point—we will only be concentrating on one-fifth of the problem and be ignoring the remaining four-fifths. It is the total problem which requires our attention, and this is why this Bill should go to a Select Committee before its Second Reading. Moreover, it should be referred to a Select Committee so that cognizance can be taken not only of the military aspects of the problem, but of the total nature of the problem, because, if we do not look at the total problem, we are in trouble. If we do not realize that military activity must go hand in hand with finding a solution to the political, social and economic problems facing us, and particularly the problems regarding the urban Blacks in our society, then we are doomed to failure. We must learn the lessons of history, for those who will not learn from history, are condemned to repeat it.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Edenvale has once again pointed out the need for involving the entire population so as to keep a nation in a state of preparedness at all times. The hon. member referred to aspects such as 20% military and 80% economic preparedness, as well as to morale and other aspects. The intention with the Bill is precisely to utilize to the fullest possible extent, and in the fairest and most equitable way, this 20% military preparedness on which a country’s involvement is based. If one section of the population feels that it carries a heavier burden than any other section, one will not obtain the moral support of the entire nation.

It is the task of the S.A. Defence Force to maintain law and order within the borders of our country, but it is also its task to deal with the threat from beyond our borders. The dangers which threaten us from beyond our borders have been repeatedly spelt out in this House today, and one finds it unbelievable that there are still people who would dismiss this escalation of forces and threats against us as being merely imaginary.

In addition to these two tasks, the S.A. Defence Force also performs a civic duty. The S.A. Defence Force plays an important part during disasters, such as droughts, and also helps to expand and maintain the infrastructure. In this way, the S.A. Defence Force also supplies teachers and other staff. However, the S.A. Defence Force must have sufficient manpower available to it to perform these tasks. If we expect the S.A. Defence Force to perform these tasks competently and efficiently, it is our duty to ensure that the Defence Force has adequate manpower available to it. The present system of national service does not provide for enough guaranteed manpower and imposes an unfair burden on less than 25% of the male White population between the ages of 60 and 17 years. In order to spread national duty as fairly as possible among all age groups, it is necessary that the legislation which is before us today receive our wholehearted support.

The 25% of the total manpower who have to perform this task at the moment are mostly young people and they still have to embark upon their careers in the economic, financial or other spheres. They still have to find their feet. However, they also have a family life, and for that reason it is very unfair to expect only them, only a part of the population, to do operational service repeatedly, to work longer hours, to be away from home for long periods, while their friends sit peacefully in front of the fire every night. The Bill now provides for every citizen of the country between the ages of 17 and 60 years to contribute his share, for the Bill provides for a choice between discontinuous and continuous service. Provision is also being made for the unique circumstances of farmers, as well as for factory and other workers in towns, by enabling them to serve even for only a few hours at a time. Therefore, people will no longer have to make sacrifices by leaving a one-man business unattended for weeks and even months at a time. Therefore a very equitable dispensation is now being created.

For this reason, it is not possible now to make exceptions and to discriminate against certain workers. In terms of the legislation, a worker who is willing to do national service will no longer have to contend with opposition from his employer. Everyone will now be dealt with on an equal footing and everyone will be subject to the same national duty.

I have also referred briefly to the escalation of the threat against the Republic of South Africa, and I suppose it is only logical that there should be an increased demand for manpower in the S.A. Defence Force so that it will have the men to perform the task, the men to pull the trigger. Therefore, as I said a short while ago, it is the duty of the legislature to ensure that the Defence Force will receive its share. We are all a part of this country, and if we can all share the burden, it will become a pleasure, as Langenhoven said.

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to reply to all the points raised by hon. members. That does not mean, however, that I have not taken cognizance of their contributions. I should prefer to confine myself in my reply to a few of the principal ideas that have been expressed.

I am thinking in particular of the interesting statement made by the hon. member for Sasolburg, a statement which went completely unnoticed in this House. No one had anything to say about it. I think it would be advisable to examine it. He said that this Parliament realized how good the S.A. Defence Force was at carrying out operations, i.e. at performing its primary function. My interpretation of his words is that the S.A. Defence Force is effective and successful in all its operational actions. I fully agree with that statement which he made. The S.A. Defence Force and by implication the entire Republic, have for 16 years been involved in revolutionary warfare and faced with the problem of providing enough manpower to counteract such a revolutionary war. What makes it even more remarkable is that during these 16 years, the nose of the S.A. Defence Force has not even once been bloodied. I think that is the reason why we are so highly regarded as a very good and successful organization which has very good human material available to it. When one goes to see how these operations are carried out, one sees that there is always an element of tension and danger present, because shots are fired, after all; in other words, there is mortal danger. One also sees that operations have to be carried out under difficult circumstances, and those who have had the experience of seeing their comrades killed or maimed beside them are aware of the sacrifice which is made by their relatives in this war.

I gained the impression, because there was no comment from anyone in this Parliament, that we all fully supported the S.A. Defence Force and believed that it was performing its task effectively. The hon. member for Sasolburg went a little further by saying that after making a thorough study, the Defence Force made certain proposals. In the course of this thorough study, which extended over a period of approximately two years and which it was able to undertake without any tension or pressure, it got 23 employer’s organizations to give evidence before it. It also got the Citizen Force, the Commandos and civilians to give evidence. In other words, it was a comprehensive inquiry. The Defence Force went further and also examined the historic course of revolutionary warfare. It investigated the demands made by this on the manpower of a country and the lessons that could be learnt from this in order to incorporate them in the planning for the manpower requirements of the S.A. Defence Force. It went so far as to say that the manpower had to be motivated. It said that the economy of this country must be able to meet these manpower demands, for it serves no purpose if one does not have the funds or if the economy of the country is ruined. All these factors have to be considered. It also looked at certain other countries. A very interesting country, one which has not been referred to, is Rhodesia. When the situation there was at its worst, the people of that country served for six months of the year, not at home, but on the border. And what was the result there? Rhodesia was ruined. In analysing the manpower plan and the escalation of the threat to the Republic, the study group went further and said that the Defence Force could meet the expectations provided it had people available to serve in their own areas for twelve days a year if this was necessary.