With your leave, Sir, I should just like to inform the House what the business for the next week will be. Next week the House will deal with the Votes until Wednesday evening. On Thursday and Friday the following legislation will be dealt with: The Archives Amendment Bill, the National Education Policy Amendment Bill and the two Private Bills (Orders of the Day Nos. 20 and 21) on the Rand University and the Port Elizabeth University. However, the Votes will continue to be dealt with, so that when for example the second readings of Bills have been disposed of, we shall proceed with the Votes if there is any time left. Next week, therefore, legislation will be dealt with on Thursday and Friday, plus the Votes.

We appreciated the Annual Report of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. I found it informative and well prepared and it certainly reveals a great deal about what is happening in the Department. I want first of all to deal with the problem of rabies. The Government of course is doing much for rabies, but is it doing enough? It can hardly do nothing at all. The report shows that there has been a slight decrease in the incidence, but remarks truthfully that there is not necessarily a real diminution in the incidence of rabies, nor does it show any real control. We find that there has been a 50 per cent increase in the incidence of rabies in the Orange Free State. This is a serious matter. We find also that cats, not for the first time, are being attacked by rabies, and I think it is a serious matter that cats should be so attacked. The point is whether special rabies vaccine is being manufactured for the cats as they do at the Pasteur Institute? In fact, I know that the Pasteur Institute claims that it is necessary to prepare special rabies vaccine for cats. Our experience may be different. I would like to know. I notice a fall in the incidence among dogs since the 1966 report, but there is very small change in regard to the incidence among cattle. This is very dangerous because farmers get their arms infected and contract rabies in that manner. I presume the Department has warned farmers about dealing with cattle which they cannot really diagnose. I am also concerned about the storage of vaccine and the diagnosis of this disease. All cases must be referred to Pretoria for diagnosis. Admittedly they give a diagnosis within a very short time, but the time lost in the transport could possibly be fatal to a human who has been bitten. I am also concerned about the storage of this vaccine. All of it has to be manufactured in Pretoria. What reserves are there and what precautions have been taken should anything happen to the single place where it is manufactured? I remember the early outbreak of rabies in Zululand. I saw the chief of the Department of Veterinary Services and he told me then that he was waiting for some freezedrying machines which had been ordered by him personally from France some three or four months earlier and which he had not yet received, so that there was a further delay of some three months before the Department was able to supply sufficient vaccine to make a real attempt at immunizing dogs in the coastal towns of Natal, and Zululand. So the whole position is precarious unless precautions are taken. I have an unhappy feeling that because of the concentration of all services in Pretoria there is a grave danger that we may run short of many vaccines should a fire break out or some act of sabotage be successful. I hope it does not mean that all the cattle vaccines are stored there.

The position with regard to tuberculosis is changing and one thing that stands out is that a very small proportion of the cattle population has been T.B. tested. I think it is 18.3 per cent of the cattle population, which is small. If you read between the lines, it is an instance of the shortage of veterinary officers. I find four occasions where the report refers to the shortage of veterinarians. This is a serious matter, especially in regard to the question of tuberculin testing and other specialized services.

Returning for a moment to the question of rabies, it is mentioned that here again difficulties are being encountered in the destruction of the small animals like meercats, and this again is attributed to the shortage of staff. In regard to tuberculosis, it is interesting, and possibly it is a matter that may require investigation, that for the first time an impala ram was discovered suffering from tuberculosis. It is difficult to see how the animal acquired it. The pig losses are serious, and cause a great deal of financial loss to farmers. This is largely due I understand, to the appearance in pigs of a certain myco-bacterium, which is almost indistinguishable from the avian tubercle bacillus. This has also appeared in humans, although the percentage is very low, so far as we can tell in humans; it is about 2 per cent of cases. In at least one other country it is said to be as common as 60 per cent. Now this new myco-bacterium has been found, according to the report of the Department on feed and on bedding which have had no contact with pigs. This is a very serious matter and I would like to know what the Department proposes to do to deal with this problem.

Another point is that the Department states that they are now using I.N.H., which has been used for many years very satisfactorily on humans, and a new antibiotic, called “Rifampicin”, a semi-synethic drug, and by that means they can cure tuberculosis in cattle. Now the word “cure” is like the word “never”. It is one of those words which should rarely be used in the consideration of a disease and in humans we should not use the word “cure” in relation to tuberculosis. We speak of the disease having been arrested. [Time expired.]

Right at the beginning I want to express my gratitude to the Department of Agricultural Technical Services for the wonderful task they have performed under the most difficult of circumstances. As a result of the limited time at my disposal I can refer only briefly to this tremendous problem so that you may, at least, realize with what degree of gratitude we have noted the actions of this Department. The catchment area of the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam lies to the east, spread over 16 magisterial districts. If we remember that 20 per cent of the available water supply is allowed to flow into the Orange River Basin, where we have a run-off of no less than 70 morgen feet per square mile, you will realize what the extent of the water supply in that area is. The total area of this region is 25,000 square miles: 14,000 square miles are situated within the boundaries of the Republic and 11,000 square miles within the boundaries of our neighbouring state, Lesotho. We must picture for ourselves what the area there looks like. To the west it is level country, with a height of about 4,000 feet above sea level. As the area stretches eastward we encounter more undulating, eventually mountainous, areas, with a height of between 9,000 and 10,000 feet above sea level. I could sketch the position for you scientifically in respect of the geology and the ground formations, but because of the lack of time I cannot do so now. However, I may just say that this is a region which is geologically, and in respect of its soil, tremendously subject to erosion. As far as the topography, geology and nature of the soil is concerned, there has never been any danger. The Creator made it so. and creation is perfect, as we know. But in the course of time conditions developed which created tremendous problems in that area. At the time of its creation, and when the Creator alone prevailed there, the whole area was covered by a dense layer of grass. The north was slightly different from the south, but the ridges and plains were covered by grass. That is how we knew it. But what do we find today? To-day we find that a mere 22 per cent of the area can still be regarded as grassland —55 per cent is already a mixed area of grass and scrub veld. 90.7 per cent of the northernmost part is grassland—in the vicinity of Bethlehem and Kestell. But it distresses me to say that there are areas where 62.3 per cent is already pure scrub veld. An authority in this field recently said—

It is exactly what the hon. member for Walmer said.

I am serious about this matter and the hon. member must please not disturb me. In addition to this destruction of our grasslands we have come to the point where large areas are, not merely pure scrub veld areas, but in some cases totally denuded areas. I could mention figures, but I merely want to say that in the mountainous parts there are certain districts where 34.7 per cent of the area has already been totally denuded. Bring this in line with the fact that this region is situated in an area with a relatively high rainfall—15 inches in the west to 45 inches in the east. We who know the Highveld and its summer rains, who know the characteristic downpours, have a very good idea of what precisely is going on there. We know that 65 per cent of the silt carried by the Orange River comes from the Republic of South Africa. We are already at the stage where 320,000 morgen within the catchment area are on the brink of total collapse, while 1½ million morgen can be labelled as “poor to very poor”. We are at times inclined to point a finger at the Government, or at the Minister concerned, in respect of these problems. But we ourselves are also responsible as contributory factors. For example, we are overoptimistic about the carrying capacity of the area. A survey indicates that there are 22 large stock units per 100 morgen while we know that the carrying capacity is a mere 12.1 large stock units per 100 morgen. We thus have a tremendous problem here, and this is where I come to the Minister, his predecessors and the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. Thank goodness they noticed the position in time and are already taking positive steps. I want to express my gratitude for the establishment of a Division of Catchment Area Protection, at present stationed at Aliwal North. Except for the problems I have already mentioned, this branch of the Department is still up against many other problems. Only 23 of the 41 posts in the Upper Orange are manned, 31 per cent of the farms are inhabited by non-owners and 20.5 per cent of the units are uneconomic units. In addition, 47.2 per cent of farmers there have not yet had any contact with an extension officer. However, this position is changing. The average age of the farmers there is high while the level of agricultural training is relatively low. Only 15.1 per cent of the farmers are concerned and are taking an active interest in the care of the soil. The problem is simply overwhelming. Therefore I want to pay tribute to-day to what I want to call the combat general of that area, Dr. Pienaar, the head of the Division for Catchment Area Protection. In conclusion, I merely want to quote what he said when it was pointed out to him that the problem was overwhelming. He said—

[Time expired.]

The hon. member for Smithfield has delivered a most moving address about the catchment area of the Orange River which, in the words of the chief of that region, may yet be snatched back from a national disaster. But it has unfortunately been allowed to develop to a point where emergency measures were necessary in order to save the area. I am sure that it is only the planning of the Orange River which originally brought to the attention of South Africa, of the Department and of the people concerned the tremendous seriousness of the problem.

I want to deal with the position of the extension officer and with soil conservation. It is almost impossible to-day to catch up with the problem of soil conservation in the country. The Minister and his Department to-day are mobilizing forces to cope with the special problem mentioned by the hon. member for Smithfield, but throughout South Africa the number of extension officers are so far under the quota that the farming community is falling behind in areas where we cannot afford to lose the struggle. To me this is so serious that if it is necessary for the Department to reorganize its entire structure to cope with the problem, we should do that. The Minister some time ago made a statement in which he laid down five conditions necessary for the maintenance of a “bestendige landboubedryf”. The first one was—

In our area in Natal there is a high rainfall and good farmers, farmers vitally concerned about the problem of soil conservation. However, without the services of an extension officer, the direction and drive in order to get soil conservation under control is lacking. But the farmers themselves are still concerned about it, each within their own particular area. I have said for a long time, and I am convinced that it is right, that planning for soil conservation has to be done on a regional basis. Even a district may be too small to cope with the extent of the problem we are facing. I have said that our people there are intensely concerned about the question of soil conservation—to the extent that one of our farmers’ associations approached the Department and achieved what they thought was an understanding that an extension officer would be sent to their district. They even went so far as to build a house for him but unfortunately the post was not filled. So concerned were they that they went so far as to provide accommodation for him in the hope that he would be there permanently. This is one of the richest farming districts in the whole of South Africa. In another area an entire building was built so that offices could be leased to the Department as permanent accommodation for the officials. They even went so far as to supplement the income of an extension officer. I do not know whether this was legal, but it was done nevertheless. But this man left the service of the Department to go to a commercial organization for three times the salary paid to him by the Department. In the face of these circumstances, how can the Department win? How can soil conservation win? If it is necessary to decentralize the functions of the Department, it should be done. If it is necessary to raise the grading of the extension officer and allocate to him other powers and more staff to enable him to take the lead he has got to take, that should be done, if it is necessary to maintain their interest. The Minister has to think of some plan or other which will allow of these people being paid, not the same they can get in private industry, but at least a reasonable salary, reasonable in comparison with what private industry will pay to a person who is a university trained graduate.

Some hon. members have complained that private firms lure these people away. They are not lost to agriculture. In our area the closest possible co-operation takes place between the representatives of various companies and the extension officer. The extension officer is only too grateful to get the help, assistance and advice given to the farmers in the area by the technical representatives of these companies. He cannot do it himself and it is not only a question of the preserving and protection of the soil but the crops that should be planted, the fertilizer programmes and all the technical details which leads to the efficiency in farming. When you are efficient in farming you have the chance of making a profit on your yearly operation. When you are making a profit on your yearly operation you are then in a position to take measures to protect your soil. But when you are losing money on your farm every year it is impossible to take adequate steps to protect the soil. I believe the Department, if necessary, have to look to some regrading and reconstruction of the posts in the Department in order to increase the importance of the extension officers, in the regions in which they serve.

I now want to raise another matter with the hon. the Minister, namely that of the Cedara Agricultural College. Two years ago, I think, there was a change in the course at this college. Formerly it was a two-year course, but it was changed to a one-year course in the belief that this college would turn out more students because their periods of study at the college will be shorter. I have been informed that it has now been decided to go back to the two-year course. I want to support this change, because the two-year course gives them a far greater opportunity of getting a solid grounding. In the case of the one-year course, all the distractions there are at an agricultural college such as its proximity to Pietermaritzburg and sporting events, make it very difficult for them to concentrate on their studies. I believe the two-year course gives them a far better opportunity and they will emerge from the college with a far sounder grasp of what is so vitally necessary to us, and they will be people who are thoroughly versed in the techniques and the theories of agriculture. One of the problems we have with some of the extension officers is that they come to us new from universities and that we have to teach them some of the things they cannot do. They know the theory, but when it has to be applied in practice in a particular district where every farm varies in its reaction to the application of fertilizers, etc., we find that there is always an interaction between the extension officer and the local farming community. It seems to me that when we have been able to achieve an accord and when the man has been able to gain the respect of the farming community, he is then lured away by some other organization.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Mooi River will pardon me if I do not follow up his arguments. However, I want to pay him the compliment of being one of the few members of the hon. Opposition who in this debate at least tried to make a constructive contribution to the benefit of agriculture in this country.

With reference to the extraordinary views held by the Opposition in regard to land prices I just want to read a quotation to them from what Dr. Marais, the Chairman of the Marais Commission on Agriculture, had to say about this particular subject. He said—

Dr. Marais warns strongly, and quite rightly too, against the phenomenon of less moneyed farmers following the bad example of the moneyed farmer and buying farms with expensive borrowed money at prices which according to all calculations simply cannot be justified. Is this not precisely the attitude adopted by the hon. the Minister in regard to this matter? In this debate as well as in previous debates mention was made of the conference which was attended by the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration, the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet and myself at Graaff-Reinet a few weeks ago. I want to advise the Opposition to take note of what happened at that conference. They must take note of the dignity with which the farmers conducted themselves at that conference. These were people who were in the deepest of misery, but their dignity and conduct certainly set an example to this Opposition. Those people did not beg, nor did they make accusations left, right and centre. They stated their problem, but in a dignified way. The prevailing spirit at that conference was that the farmers should be helped to help themselves. That was the impression with which one left there. That is what the farmers of South Africa expect and also get from this Government, namely assistance to help themselves.

The wool farmers of South Africa, and more specifically those of the Karoo and the Eastern Cape, have very specific problems to deal with. Apart from the fact that they have to contend with droughts, which are increasing in frequency and in intensity, they also have to deal with caterpillar plagues, soil erosion, etc. There is also a further factor which hampers the wool farmer in practising his industry. The product which he produces is not subject to price determination. It has to compete on a free world market. The prices rise and drop, and prices have unfortunately shown a downward trend lately. Moreover, it is a fact that the production costs of the wool producer remain the same or, if anything, show a rising tendency. A drop in the price of his product therefore hits the farmer much harder than is the case in other sectors of our agriculture. It is also a fact that the wool farmers cannot readily change over to another industry. They cannot cultivate maize or wheat, because the soil and the climate do not lend themselves to it. In other words, they simply have to continue with the product which they produce, irrespective of what the conditions are, and irrespective of what the prices are. The wool farmer is indeed fighting with his back to the wall to-day. He is not only faced with this declining market and increasing production costs, heavy mortgages, high rates of interest, etc., but he is also fighting for the continued existence of his industry. On the world market he now has to compete with artificial fibres in particular. I realize that artificial fibres can never take the place of wool, and that wool will always remain a quality article. It will always hold its own in the textile industry too. I also know that the Wool Board is still making propaganda and conducting research to find more uses for wool, that the question of the increased mixing of wool with synthetic fibres is being investigated, etc. We must, however, consider which way wool is going. As I have said, there will always be room for wool as a quality article and there will always be room for better quality wool. But when we look at what is happening in the textile industry, we are filled with anxiety about the future of this product.

In the report of the Wool Board for 1967- ’68 the following is stated in this connection:

I want to mention the fact once again that wool is fighting the encroachment of artificial fibres with its back against the wall. We must take note of this phenomenon because we have to organize our planning for the wool farmer accordingly. As a result of the threats which I have just mentioned and which we as wool farmers want to counter, our greatest problem—and this problem will increase progressively—is the financing of the industry, especially on a long-term basis. High rates of interest, which cause the production costs of the wool farmer to shoot up, are not accompanied by an increase in his product. Unfortunately the very reverse is true. I therefore plead once more, as in the past, that attention should be given to a financing institution specifically for the wool farmer, namely a single-channel mortgage burden institution, so that the wool farmer can get his long-term credit through one channel only. The State should have the greatest share in and must also initiate this scheme. In view of the situation on the wool market it goes without saying that the interest payable on these mortgages will definitely have to be subsidized. I myself foresee that the system of credit provision through a single channel will have to be so flexible that rates of interest will have to be adjusted according to the state of the wool market from year to year. The wool farmer has always been able to stand on his own feet in the past and only approached the State for assistance to his industry by way of exception. But when we have to deal with a threat such as the wool farmer is in fact faced with at this stage, it is a fair request that the State should make a contribution in this way. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Cradock on the responsible contribution he has made to this debate. I do believe he has hit the nail on the head when he suggested that there should toe one channel financing. He specifically raised the question of the wool farmer who has specific problems which apply to the industry and also to the particular area where sheep are farmed. We on this side of the House are accused of being irresponsible towards agriculture and that we are just interested in making political propaganda out of this most important subject. I wish to refute this suggestion entirely. We are earnestly concerned about the well-being of agriculture and our efforts here are entirely directed at restoring agriculture to its former important place in the economy of South Africa. We object to the suggestion that we are playing politics and I welcome a speech such as the one toy the hon. member for Cradock, because I think he is making a case for the farmers in his constituency. I was a little disappointed in the speech made by the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet. He rather gave me the impression that there were no problems and that things were going fairly well. He did not cite the specific problems which are confronting the people in his constituency with whom I am so very well acquainted. I do not want to auote from the speech which the hon. member made yesterday, I rather want to quote from another speech which he made before he became a member of Parliament. Then he said what I would have expected him to say here in this hon. House. I have a cutting from the Landbouweekblad of the 10th October, 1967. It is a report of a national wool-growers’ congress. There were various speakers at the congress. Amongst others, Mr. S. A. S. Hayward is also quoted. It says:

Who said that?

Mr. Sarel Hayward. This is a speech which I honed the hon. member would have made yesterday. However, he chose quite a different line. I want to say that in respect of what he said yesterday, I agree that the South Africa Woo! and Textile Research Institution in Port Elizabeth is a great institution and it deserves all the support the Government can give it. I trust that as the years go on. the Government will see fit even to assist this institution to a greater measure than it is doing now, because I see in this institution a way of solving some of the problems of the South African wool farmers.

I now want to refer to a matter which I briefly raised yesterday. I said that it was important that the Department of Agriculture should acquire farms in the various farming areas of South Africa where they could in fact demonstrate to the farmers the various systems which have been recommended by the research institutions. They should apply these systems in practice for the farmers to see the result under practical conditions. I believe that this is a matter to which the hon. the Minister of Agriculture should give serious attention. I only want to quote one or two examples to show how difficult it is for a farmer to know in fact what to do. The following is an extract from a speech made toy Dr. S. J. du Plessis:

My contention is that if we can demonstrate on farms in a practical way that a success can be made by using the most modern methods, we are far more likely to induce the farmers to do it when they see the methods being applied in practice. There are so many different kinds of schemes which are recommended to farmers that they are not quite sure where they stand. I also want to quote from another speech made by Professor A. J. Pienaar. It reads as follows:

So, the farmer is getting all kinds of advice and he does not know which advice is the best to follow for his particular area. I think we should demonstrate on a farm which is sponsored by the Government in his particular area. In that way the farmers will be assisted in applying these very methods which the officials are recommending. Here is another system. Mr. Claassens said:

Here we have another system. Nothing is carried out for the farmer to see which in practice is the best method to follow. Then we have the system of N.S.G., in other words, non-selective grazing. This system was developed by a farmer in his private capacity. I do not say that this system is right in all its aspects: I think there is still much to be investigated. These experiments however created more interest than any other experimerits in veld conservation, because it was done by a practical farmer under practical circumstances. I attended a congress at the Grootfontein College of Agriculture. I have known Grootfontein since 1934, and this congress had the biggest attendance of farmers I have ever seen at Grootfontein. This congress had such a big attendance, because they were dealing with experiments which were done by a farmer under practical conditions. In fact, it was such a big attendance that it almost reminded me of a United Party political meeting.

Or a reception for Albert Hertzog.

At this conference they were dealing with non-selective grazing. Then there is another system, and this system is the short-graze-long-rest system. In the latest edition of Die Landbouweekblad there are two articles; the one article is about a farmer of Grahamstown who has had great success with the system of intensive grazing which was advocated by Mr. Acocks. The other article is about a Karoo farmer who has rejected it entirely, because it does not work in his area. Therefore, we are justified in saying that the farmers are at sixes and sevens because they do not know what system they should follow. It is for this reason that I request the hon. the Minister to try to carry out the suggestion I have made. I think that all the research and all the information which have been given to us by our very efficient research stations and agricultural colleges will get across to the farmers more easily if they in fact see it being carried out in practice under the circumstances in which they themselves have to farm.

Mr. Chairman, I am standing up because I am opposed to a few of the utterances which have come from that side of the House. I do not want to occupy myself with what the hon. member, who has just resumed his seat, said, except that I merely want to correct one aspect which he raised. The hon. member said that they were returning agriculture to the important place it occupied in the economy of the country. However, I maintain that agriculture today plays a greater role in our economy than it has ever played before. It is playing a greater role than before because our production is so much greater. That hon. member was thinking of the distant past, when agriculture was the most important economic factor in South Africa. He was thinking of the time when all the Afrikaners were concentrated in the country districts and were languishing there because there were no avenues open to us and none were being opened for us. I am in revolt because the United Party, through the mouths of quite a few members, inter alia, the member for South Coast, said that the National Party had adopted the United Party’s agricultural policy. This is surely not true!

What is the United Party contemplating? Are they contemplating a new coalition? If we had taken over their policy we would surely not have had over-production in agriculture today; we would be experiencing the famine which we experienced under their rule. We did not adopt their policy. If they are contemplating a coalition they will not get it, because there is too great a gulf between the United Party and the National Party. It is a gulf which cannot be bridged. But this is not the only sphere where they are wanting to snuggle under our wing. On numerous occasions the United Party has come forward with the story that we are adopting their policy. Sir, we shall once more fight this matter out at the polls, and I want to assure them already that they are going to get a bigger hiding than they did in the last election. Sir. I am in revolt against the United Party’s claim that the farmers are so poor. This is surely not true; it is surely a generalization. There are, of course, farmers who are experiencing difficulties, and there are other factors responsible for that. Take the Western Province for example; take my own constituency. Surely it is not correct to say that the farmers are poor; it is a generalization. There are farmers who are experiencing difficulties but I do not at this stage want to go into the factors responsible for that because this has already been done adequately. It is a question of land prices and other factors which have already been discussed adequately here. I now want to prove my statement: It is the farming population which has supported the Mission Church throughout the years and is still doing so today. In the newspapers this morning we saw a list of names of people from whom a Coloured falsely collected money to send people across to the Olympic Games. Large amounts were contributed and the people concerned were all farmers. Among others there was the name of one of the United Party’s farming leaders.

And he is borrowing money from Agricultural Credit.

It is not only in the farming community that people are experiencing difficulties and falling by the wayside. How many people do not fall by the wayside in commerce? People surely fall by the wayside there as well. There are many people who function uneconomically in commerce and then they fall by the wayside. There are people who function uneconomically in industry and then they fall by the wayside. This happens in all sectors of the economy; it is an economic trend.

Sir, the United Party comes along here with this story about the depopulation of the country districts and then this is coupled to agriculture. I have grown tired of that a long time ago. The depopulation of the country districts is a trend throughout the world. We have had this trend in Western Europe; there was an industrial revolution in Western Europe. We have also had that trend here in South Africa. All the Afrikaners originally lived in the country districts. We were only committed to agriculture. The population grew, but the Afrikaner remained in the country districts. At the beginning of this century, with the advent of Union, the country districts still had the most constituencies by far. But the question is, did the Afrikaner function economically in the country districts? He did not.

Sir, we were there because there were no other avenues open to us; there was no other refuge for us, and more than half the Afrikaners became poor Whites as a result of the fact that they stayed in the country districts. We eventually found ourselves with a poor White question. Who was responsible for that? It was the old United Party which was responsible for it. There were no other avenues open to the Afrikaner; we simply had to languish there; our sons and our daughters had to languish there because there were no industries in South Africa. Agriculture was actually the only industry in South Africa at that time. The other stuff was all imported. We did not have the right to do anything for ourselves; our raw materials were all exported under the United Party Government. The poor White question was only solved after the first National Party Government came into power and established industrial protection for South Africa. Sir, it is true that the country districts became depopulated. Those share croppers, foremen and tenant farmers, and others who were languishing there, migrated to the cities. Nearly a whole generation of Afrikaners sat beside small raw brick houses and galvanized iron hovels. In winter they moved their chairs to follow the sun, and in summer to follow the shade. There were no avenues open to us; we had to languish there. It was the National Government which gave us our opportunities. Notwithstanding the fact that the number of farmers have decreased, more and more is produced because there is greater efficiency.

Sir, this same United Party, this Opposition, complains every day about a manpower shortage; that is their great complaint. And what are they pleading for in this agricultural debate? They are pleading for the Government to retain uneconomical people in the country districts. We see things differently and therefore we are encouraging border industries. That is why the Government has announced that it wants to decentralize industries. Other growth points must be created. It has been proved that the growth points cannot be created in agriculture. Growth points must be created in the field of industry, and by the announcement which the Government has already made about its intention to decentralize industries, we shall repopulate the country districts.

I do not blame the hon. member for Malmesbury for making the speech which he has just made. The hon. member for Malmesbury is one of the political experts on that side, and when his political party is in a little difficulty he gets up and draws a red herring across the floor of the House. Then he wants us to follow that scent. The hon. member was here trying to fish on dry land and this side of the House is not going to follow his example. What did the hon. member say? He said that the United Party wanted people to be uneconomically active in agriculture once more. He mentioned, as an example, the people who were at that time languishing in the sun; he told us of their difficulties and he referred to the poor White question. Who was responsible for the poor White question in South Africa? That hon. member knows well enough, if he knows his political history, that there was a change of Government in 1924. He knows that the same political party was still in power in 1928. And when did the poor White question actually arise? Was it not in the late 20s and the early 30s? I still remember the days when farmers and surplus Whites had to be used to work on roads at 3s. 6d. a day. I remember the days when those people were used to build dams on farms at 25 and 30 cents a day.

And when you opposed the establishment of Iscor.

You are wrong and you know it.

Mr. Chairman …

No, I am not prepared to answer a question; the hon. member may sit down.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to allow that hon. member to tell me to sit down. I am getting up on a point of order. Is the hon. member for Simonstown entitled to say that I am telling an untruth and that I know it to be an untruth?

No, he did no say so.

Order! Did the hon. member for Simonstown say something like that?

I said that what he said was wrong.

And that I knew it. I appeal to the hon. member’s chivalry.

I withdraw it then.

I am sorry, Sir, I did not know that the hon. member was getting up on a point of order; I thought that he wanted to ask me a question. Sir, in the years, when the hon. member for Malmesbury’s Party was in power, that situation prevailed in this country, and if it had not been for the actions of the United Party Government in the years 1933 and 1934, that situation would have continued. The hon. member has boasted that the Nationalist Government was responsible for industrial development. Sir, the greatest advance to industrial development in South Africa, and at the same time to agriculture, was specifically made during the war years. It was after 1933-’34 that we solved the poor White question in South Africa.

How did you solve it?

Hon. members on that side, and especially the hon. the Minister, had a great deal to say about the so-called White Paper in which the agricultural policy of the United Party was explained in 1946.

Why do you call it the “so-called White Paper”?

The hon. the Minister said that this White Paper about agricultural policy was drawn up by us at that time. He is right. The chairman of that commission was no less a man than Dr. H. J. van Eck. Another person who served on the original commission was Mr. Carinus, and the late Mr. Wolfie Swart also served on it. The hon. member said that the United Party has not adhered to this policy. This White Paper was issued in 1946 and in 1946 we had the Soil Conservation Act, and in 1938 the United Party ceased to rule. But now I want to put this question to the hon. the Minister: If the recommendations contained in this White Paper were not implemented by the United Party Government, why did his Government not implement them after 1948? Listen, for example, to what is contained in this White Paper about farm credit—

It appears throughout this White Paper that the then United Party Government was serious about doing something to solve the agricultural problems in South Africa.

You are now running away from that White Paper.

The hon. the Minister had to be forced by his previous Prime Minister to appoint a commission to investigate the agricultural problems in South Africa. He was not prepared to do it.

That is not correct.

The hon. member said that I had to be forced to appoint that commission. I merely want to ask him one question. That commission brought out one report which the hon. member has in his hands. Does he agree with the recommendations of that commission and must they be implemented?

That commission’s report is a very interesting document.

I am not asking whether it is interesting; I am asking whether you agree with the recommendations?

The United Party will in due course indicate what steps we shall accept. We have already told the hon. the Minister what out standpoint is. I do not know why he now wants to distract my attention. In respect of what the Marais Commission's interim report had to say about the combating of drought, we have, for example, already told the hon. the Minister that the farmers must be helped by means of subsidies and fodder sheds.

Are you prepared to accept everything they recommend?

We have, for example, told the hon. the Minister, just as this Commission has stated, that the farmer must at least be able to have his own fodder bank on his own land for one year at the minimum, and that farmers should be encouraged to plant vegetation which is resistant to drought. Now the hon. the Minister has asked me whether I accept all the recommendations of the Commission.

Why do you only want to accept the cream as regards that report? Why do you not want to accept the whole report? You only want the sweet, and not the sour.

Is the hon. the Minister going to accept all the recommendations of the Marais Commission when the report appears?

I did not say that I was going to do so.

But why do you then ask me such a question? [Interjections.] I want to come back to the matter I was busy with yesterday. I said that there were considerable delays in connection with the execution of plans for farm works. The Deputy Minister then replied that farmers should continue on their own. But he does not know what he is talking about. The moment one’s farm is planned and certain works have been measured up and indicated, one cannot begin with those works, especially the concrete and soil works, unless one has officials to survey them. One is not allowed to do it on one’s own. One can do it on one’s own if one wants to, but then one is not entitled to any benefits under the scheme. But the Deputy Minister wants us to carry on without the approval of the Department, without having the extension officers to do it. The Deputy Minister wants us to congratulate them on the wonderful progress which has been made, and he has said that we have had nothing good to say about the Department. But that is surely untrue. Our argument is this. If one looks at the report one sees that there are hopelessly too few extension officers and they are already overloaded with work to-day; the Government is loading this small number of officials with even more work. What the Government is doing is to exploit the loyalty of these extension officers, as few of them as there are. All that the United Party wants is for that burden on their shoulders to be lessened. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Newton Park’s counter-attack was not impressive at all, because he has a very short memory. He has thus far not replied to the attack which the hon. member for Fauresmith launched here the other evening. I want to tell him again what his own newspaper, the Financial Mail, said about the United Party—

The whole of South Africa, the rural and the urban areas, is waiting for a reply to this accusation because this year the Opposition once more thought fit to request 13 hours for this debate and people expected them to come forward with new ideas and more constructive proposals, but it is clear that it has not yet happened. Therefore I say that the whole of the Republic is waiting for a reply to this, because otherwise they will say that the Opposition is wasting money with this debate.

The whole of the Republic is waiting for an alternative policy.

Frequent mention was made here of the depopulation of the country districts and the migration to the cities, but on looking at the gloomy picture which the Opposition painted about farming, I cannot understand the fact that the Landbouweekblad and the Farmer’s Weekly register their best sales in the towns and cities. There are few city dwellers who do not dream of their own farms and their own pieces of ground. The Opposition will never kill that love and I think it would be very interesting to determine how many city and town dwellers still farm economically in their spare time. The city and town dwellers have a fundamental interest in agriculture because we are of the soil. We are also interested in this subject because it is from that source that the products come which the city and town dwellers consume. Towns have always developed around the market squares. In the good old days this was the centre of the town. In time cities developed. The market was still the centre-point. However, modern urban planning has entailed the decentralization of certain commercial sectors. Thus chain stores, suburban stores, suburban service points, etc., came into being. But it is strange that markets, where the farmer’s unprocessed product is offered, were not decentralized. What has been the result? The urban housewife does not like travelling by car to the city; she does not like the heavy traffic; she does not like the time such an outing takes and so on. She therefore does not go to market. She buys that product from soneone else, hence the existence of the vegetable dealer on the corner. He packages his product very attractively, but the product is not always fresh and, what is more, he must also show a profit. The result is that the housewife buys less and pays more. If she had bought at the market she would have been able to get more for the same amount of money. This causes, inter alia, the so-called over-production, but it is also clear that in that way much less is consumed. I am specifically mentioning vegetables and fruit and other dairy products which can, in fact, be offered on the open market. Therefore I want to ask the hon. the Minister to make a request to organized agriculture that it should investigate the desirability of decentralizing our markets so that we can make the fresh product directly available to the housewife, thereby insuring that we do not have that double profit-taking which actually benefits the vegetable dealer. I have nothing against him, but I am pleading for greater and improved contact between the consumer and the producer.

Then I also request the Minister’s attention for the good work which the Technical College in Bloemfontein is doing. I know about that and I am therefore mentioning that school. I think that the Ficksburg Technical College has handed over some of its work to the Bloemfontein Technical College and one of these sections was the engineering section. After matriculating young farmers are taught there to repair diesel as well as paraffin tractors, to do electrical wiring, welding and soldering and anything which the practical farmer needs on the farm. It is a three-month course. We have already had evidence of one single farmer in. a Free State district saving R2,000 in the past season on repair costs because his son had taken that course. It is noteworthy, and the city dweller is also interested in this, because lower industrial costs mean lower production prices for him. Consequently I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that nowhere in the Estimates do I see any amount allocated to that department of the Bloemfontein Technical College. Since that department is doing such good work I want to ask the Minister whether something cannot be done about this and whether he cannot discuss, with the Minister of National Education, the possibility of having an amount voted specifically for this.

In conclusion I draw attention to the fact that little or no propaganda is being made about it and I ask for this matter to be propagated much more widely among our young farmers.

I should Like to continue with my argument to the effect that the situation has been reached Where extension officers are being exploited. Their loyalty is being exploited because they are being overburdened with work, and because the State and the Government are not doing enough to get more posts filled. The hon. members opposite can forget all about making any progress in respect of soil conservation unless they have these people. If one glances through the report it is very clear that there are still scores of magisterial districts where there are no information offices. One of the most important reasons why progress is not being made in respect of soil conservation is that the financial position of farmers is what it is to-day, and the second is because we do not have enough officials to cope with the technical side of the matter. I told the Minister yesterday what my personal experience had been, i.e. that 18 months had elapsed since the extension officer had been asked to come and measure the farm works, and he had not been there yet. I do not blame him. It is because his task is so demanding, and such a fantastic amount of work is thrown onto his shoulders. But if we look at this map on which all the regional and information offices are marked, I want to tell the hon. the Minister to-day that this situation cannot continue in this way. He shall have to sketch the ideal position the Government would like to achieve to us, what they are envisaging. Are they setting themselves a goal in respect of soil conservation and the opening of more information offices? As far as this side of the House is concerned, we maintain that the ideal position ought to be to have at least one information office for every magisterial district in South Africa. Then one will be able to cover all the areas properly. Then one’s people will really be able to derive advantage from the extension officers. We must do what is being done in Rhodesia to-day where there is one extension officer for 40 or 50 farmers, whereas the position in South Africa is that there is one officer for approximately 750 farmers. Is that an ideal situation? Are hon. members opposite satisfied with that? What are their goals. Where are they going to, and what is their programme for the opening of new information offices?

I want to raise a second matter with the Minister, and that is the question of the eradication of the Karoo caterpillar. After these wonderful rains we have had, we also find that large tracts of the interior, particularly the Karoo, are now infested with Karoo caterpillars and they have already caused considerable damage, almost more damage than was caused by the drought. We know that research is being undertaken, but I think the Minister ought to take us in his confidence and say how far that research has progressed, and what hope there is for the people in those areas of eradicating this plague, how it can be eradicated, and what it will cost. For it seems to me that the costs for the State as well as for the individual farmer will be tremendously high before it is completely eradicated. But if we could eradicate the locust plague, if we could incur tremendous costs in that regard, then I do not see why it should be impossible to do the same in this case, provided there is a realistic plan, to eradicate the Karoo caterpillar as well. Of what avail is it to have veld reclamation schemes, we have good rains and people save their veld and then we have this plague that destroys everything in its path. And what is more, after the locust has been over the veld there is at least a chance of recovery, perhaps soon. There is at least a chance that your livestock will remain alive. But where this caterpillar has passed it leaves behind a substance which makes it impossible for cattle to graze on that veld again, on the little vegetation that may be left. This plague is one of the most serious with which large parts of the interior of South Africa are faced with to-day. I read recently in a newspaper that a conference on this matter was held at the regional office of Victoria West. There it was stated that more than 2 million morgen of these parts were already infested with Karoo caterpillar. We should like to know from the Minister what progress has been made with research in regard to the plague, and what we can expect in future as far as the combating of this plague is concerned.

The last question I want to touch upon is that of State veterinary surgeons. The position of general veterinary surgeons had already been touched upon. Glancing at the report of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services we will see that large parts of the interior of our country are inadequately covered by State veterinary surgeons. It is calculated that there is a shortage of almost 250 veterinary surgeons in this country. I do not think it is necessary for me to emphasize the loss of livestock which we suffer annually as a result of the shortage of veterinary surgeons. I can only say that in the year 1959-’60 we lost 364,000 head of cattle and 1,283.000 sheep and goats as a result of diseases. I am not even including in this the number of pigs, horses and poultry which were lost.

Why are you not mentioning a more recent year than 1959?

Unfortunately that is the only year for which I have particulars with me. In any case, it is calculated that the loss suffered by the farmers this year, conservatively calculated, amounts to approximately R20 million. That is why I cannot lay enough stress on the importance of having more State veterinary surgeons. Of course they are not prepared to come to inland centres, not even the private veterinary surgeons. They find it better to work in the cities and the surrounding areas—to doctor cats and dogs, as an hon. member remarked here. I want to know from the Minister what he intends doing to cope with this problem.

Must we pay the same as a woman is prepared to pay for her cat?

On a previous occasion we have suggested to the hon. Minister that private veterinary surgeons be encouraged to come to the platteland on more or less the same basis as the one on which district surgeons operate. That is to say, over and above his private practice he must also make his services available to the State. Were we to do that we might perhaps influence these people to come to the platteland. The situation prevailing to-day is a tremendous source of concern for the cattle farmer, a source of difficulty. If a disease should break out among their expensive horses, rams or cattle, the animal might perhaps be dead by the time they can get to a veterinary surgeon, because in nine out of ten cases there is no veterinary surgeon in their magisterial district, and they therefore have to send for a man 80 miles away. By the time he arrives, the animal could perhaps be dead. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the United Party is trying to prove in this debate that they are the only people who really take the farmers’ part in this House and who have the farmers’ interests at heart. That is what they are trying to do. They are trying to prove that they are the only people who are now putting forward pleas in the interests of agriculture. I want to say to those hon. members, and particularly to the hon. member for Newton Park, that if they want to prove that they are acting in the interests of the rural areas, they are making a big mistake. If the farming population and the agricultural industry were to be dependent upon the pleas of the United Party they would find themselves in for more straitened circumstances than those they are in to-day. The only difference between the United Party and the National Party is that the United Party seeks publicity. The United Party makes use of this House to try to prove outside that they are acting in the interests of the farmers, whereas the National Party uses his House in a different way. The National Party uses it to try to run agriculture in South Africa in a more effective way. In the second instance, our accusation is that the United Party acts irresponsibly. The United Party is trying, in this House, to prove to agriculture that if they should come into power they will be able to do certain things. They were unable to do these things when they were in power, and they will be as unable to do so in future as a responsible government if they should ever come into power again. They will not be able to implement these things then either. This is our accusation against the United Party at this stage, i.e. that they are acting irresponsibly.

Let us look at a few aspects of their policy. Their point of departure is that agriculture in South Africa is in such a situation that there are farmers who are suffering hardships, but nobody has ever denied this. But how do they want to save the situation? They want to save the situation by means of subsidies. They have stated over and over again that agriculture must be subsidized, but we all know that agriculture is already being subsidized to a great extent. In other words, they want to go much further. They want to use the taxpayers’ money to a larger extent to subsidize agriculture in South Africa. How far does the United Party want to go in respect of subsidization of agriculture in order to achieve that object? They know that they did not do so in the past, nor will they be able to do so in future if they should ever come into power, for at the same time the United Party is pleading for a reduction in taxation. In the policy which they have drawn up, they propose that transfer duties, estate duties and many other forms of taxation be abolished. The following proof of their irresponsibility has to do with the consumers. To what extent will the consumers in South Africa be prepared to pay continually increasing prices in order to achieve the ideal the United Party has laid down in their policy, i.e. that every producer must receive payment on a cost-plus basis. This means that every farmer must be given the guarantee of a cost-plus price as far as his products are concerned. The United Party does not realize that this is a policy which cannot be implemented. It is irresponsible of them ever to have drawn up such a policy, because they will never be able to implement it. According to the policy which they have drawn up, they will guarantee every farmer cost-plus prices. I want to make it clear that any party which draws up such a policy is irresponsible, because it is a policy which cannot be implemented. We therefore expect the United Party to draw up a policy one day which they can implement if they should ever come into power. They want to reduce taxes and they want to reduce consumption as well, since they will be causing the prices to soar, and then they still want to pay higher subsidies to the farmers. In this

Col. 5195:

Line 3: For “Mr. J.J. WENTEL”, read “Mr. J. J. WENTZEL”.

In this way they want to build up agriculture in future. It will be a sway-backed agricultural policy!

I come now to what two hon. members on the opposite side said yesterday in regard to agriculture. The hon. member for Gardens spoke about the shortage of labour in agriculture. He pointed out that there was a great shortage of labour. Immediately afterwards the hon. member for Newton Park accused the Government, saying that the platteland was becoming blacker. How does one reconcile those two statements? The one member accused the Government of causing an influx of blacks into the platteland and the other hon. member stated that there was not enough labour on the platteland. Does the hon. member advocate migratory labour? Does he approve of migratory labour?

I come now to the question of soil conservation. A moment ago the hon. member for Newton Park said a few irresponsible things, which were quite incorrect. Let us look at industrial development in the country, because this came into existence at a later stage perhaps. However, I do not want to blame him for that. The hon. member stated that the first step in regard to industrial development in South Africa was taken in the thirties, but he is wrong. Does the hon. member not know that in 1926 and 1927 the National Party had the greatest difficulty with the United Party in regard to the establishment of a steel factory in South Africa? The United Party opposed these steps to such an extent that a Joint Sitting of these two Houses had to take place in order to get the legislation on to the Statute Book. They opposed it because it would have hampered Mother England’s industrial development. That was the beginning of industrial development of South Africa. The industrial development of the country had its origin in the years between 1924 and 1933. The key to the industrial development of the country was the production of steel in South Africa.

What about the I.D.C.?

A development process took place after the key industries were established. We also met with opposition when Sasol was established. The United Party did not want the National Party to make a start with any industries; the United Party opposed this. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, this ground has by now been trampled and overgrazed to such an extent that it will need a good season to recover. I shall transfer the debate to South-West Africa where a very strictly selective policy is being applied in respect of agricultural production. There we eliminate everything which does not produce, and our livestock is already at a reasonably high level of production. We are so selective in South-West Africa that there is no longer an Opposition. I want to suggest that if this Opposition is not more fruitful or cannot produce more in an agricultural debate they will eliminate themselves by means of selection. I want to return to South-West Africa and since the Vote falls under the present Minister for the first time I think that this is the appropriate occasion for paying tribute to those who have dealt with agriculture in South-West Africa in the past. I am thinking of the Executive Committee, the Director of Veterinary Services, the Assistant Director of Veterinary Services, and the Assistant Director of Agriculture, with their staff, who placed and maintained agriculture in South-West Africa on a very sound basis. They did so under difficult climatic and other conditions. I want to pay tribute to these people, and with the new dispensation which they now have to-day under this present Minister and Deputy Minister, with his directors and staff, I want to give them the assurance that they are not inheriting a bad legacy. On the contrary, I think they are inheriting a rich estate. We in South-West Africa accept them, and we want to express the hope that they will develop further in the field of agriculture. We welcome them there. With this readjustment which is now taking place in South-West Africa, agriculture is going to play a very major role in regard to how this re-adjustment is going to be accepted by the people in South-West Africa, since South-West Africa is for the most part an agricultural country. We are dependent upon agriculture, and that is why the application of the agricultural policy is going to play a very important role in South-West Africa. To comply with the condition that it be done with the least possible disruption, it will be essential that the Minister, his Deputy Minister, and all Departments keep themselves abreast of developments. We want to thank them for already having availed themselves of the opportunity of keeping abreast of developments, and I want to address a special request to the effect that heads of departments, with their senior officials, should undertake a tour through South-West Africa. I know that some of them have already been there, but the tour must not only be undertaken to Windhoek where the offices are situated, but must be undertaken intensively through the entire South-West Africa. They will then be conversant with matters, so that the agricultural policy in respect of South-West Africa can be applied effectively.

The average farmer in South-West Africa to-day finds himself in a reasonably sound economic position. Some have already recovered from the recent droughts, while others are in the process of recovery. I want to ascribe this fact chiefly to three factors. The one is that agricultural land in South-West Africa has not yet been sub-divided to such an extent that it no longer comprises economic units. The greatest percentage of the units in South-West Africa are still economic. The second aspect is that agricultural financing is undertaken on a much sounder premise, i.e. that agricultural financing does not take place above the production potential of those units. Thirdly, the human material one finds there does not merely rely on the Government in respect of rehabilitation, because those farmers are prepared, on their part, to rehabilitate themselves and to make their own contributions. I think these factors are the three main reasons why agriculture in South-West Africa is on a sound basis. Since the hon. the Minister is now going to apply the agricultural policy I want to address the request to him that he will not allow units of land to be sub-divided into uneconomic units, and that agricultural financing will be done on this same sound premise, i.e. on an economic basis, and that this will be directed in respect of farming practices in the various parts of the country. I want to address a special request in respect of the South Western part of South-West Africa, since the farmers there have to cope with special circumstances. The rainfall there is very low, while the farms are very large. I want to request that in this area, which has a surface area as large as that of the Orange Free State, an investigation should be instituted because here the people have to deal with extreme climatic conditions, and there are parts which receive an average rainfall of two inches per year. We want to make a special request to the effect that special attention should be given to that part of South-West Africa so that the future agricultural policy, and the application thereof, as well as the financing and the provision of credit, can all be undertaken on a sound basis.

Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by saying that all kinds of subjects were of course touched upon by hon. members and brought to my attention, I shall try to deal with a few of them, but hon. members will understand that I will be unable to deal with all their representations now. Therefore I undertake to assure hon. members, who directed representations in a certain direction here which I cannot deal with now, that these matters will in fact receive attention, and that the Department will write to them in order to state its point of view. There are nevertheless a few matters to which I should like to refer.

The hon. member for Kroonstad referred to the position of the Deeds Offices. Of course the work of the Deeds Offices has increased tremendously during the past few years. The hon. member referred to that aspect and another member also spoke about it. I am in complete agreement with the hon. member that the fact that these persons are regarded as administrative officers whereas they are in reality professional technical people, creates a problem in regard to their promotion. I also agree with the hon. member that since these people’s work, i.e. the registration of deeds, has shifted from the platteland to the larger cities, the question may in fact be asked as to whether the Deeds Offices should still fall under the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. I just want to inform the hon. member that I have already held discussions with the Minister of Justice in order to appoint an inter-departmental committee to go into the question of what Department the Deeds Offices should fall under in future. I do not want to say anything further about this matter, but it is my personal opinion that this office could be better incorporated with the Department of Justice. There may, however, be difficulties, and this committee will go into the matter thoroughly.

The hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) spoke about the Surveyor-General's Office, and the difficulties which are being experienced there in having matters dealt with expeditiously, with the consequential financial problems this creates. The Department of course is faced with the problem of a shortage of surveyors. The work is being done as well as possible and a great deal of overtime is being worked. This is unfortunately the position. We are at the moment giving attention to the possibility of an improvement in the salaries of the officials. In the case where he spoke about the question of the increase of tariffs for surveyors, this will of course cause the surveyors to be attracted to the larger cities where there is more work. An increase in the tariffs of surveyors on the platteland would not serve to solve the problem the hon. member sees either. I am not saying that for this reason attention should not be given to the matter. That is not the argument I am trying to put forward. It has been my experience that with the laying out of new townships, surveyors in the cities receive so much work that they would prefer to work there than to work in the platteland, even if the tariffs were identical.

The hon. member for Mooi River spoke about the training at our agricultural colleges. The training at agricultural colleges consists of one year or two year courses. If one makes a breakdown of the students attending those colleges, one finds that many of the students undergoing their training there do not return to agriculture. The percentage of them who are participating actively in agriculture is small. It was therefore decided at the time that the two year course should be shortened to one year because a large technical staff was of course required to give classes at the colleges. We were of the opinion that more students could in this way be trained in order to participate actively in farming. This of course entails that the person who wants to specialize does not receive such a good training, and in this connection I agree with the hon. member. Recently many agricultural schools have been established throughout the country, and many children are attending these schools. On a comparative basis the matriculation training at an agricultural school is almost of the same standard as the training which can be given at an agricultural college. In other words this one year course at an agricultural college does not mean much to a person who wrote his matriculation examination in an agricultural school. These courses are closely linked to one another, with the result that one asks oneself the question whether the function which the agricultural colleges have fulfilled in the past is still what will be expected of them in the future. If one could reach an agreement with the provinces to the effect that agricultural schools be established in the platteland areas in particular, where there is a need, one could perhaps begin thinking of a more specialized training at agricultural colleges which are in any case not being put to full use to-day being provided by means of short courses. This course can for example be three or four months long, and will be specialized courses, as for example in viticulture or the dairy industry. The officials who have to give classes at the college to-day and who are also in the employ of the Department, can then be placed on a specialized basis. Persons who really farm, will then have the opportunity of undergoing a short, specialized course in his specific direction. The question is whether it is still necessary to have farmers undergo a general course at these colleges. I have already referred this entire matter to a select committee that will go into all the aspects of the matter. It will be ascertained whether the Department cannot make better use of its own people for these purposes. The colleges can then be used to train persons who participate actively in farming and who are interested in it on a specialized basis. This will of course, cause a further deficiency, i.e. that there may perhaps be persons who are interested in a technical training in agriculture. Since we today have agricultural faculties at the various universities, where there are not always enough students, and since a farmer is not always interested in acquiring an agricultural degree, but wants reasonably good training, one asks oneself whether it is not time one reconsidered the training at these faculties. In fact a course, as in previous years can be introduced at universities which takes the place of a diploma course at a college. The students will then have an opportunity of undergoing specialized training, and will also share in the status of the university. These are all matters which we are dealing with at the moment, and which we are going into. I just want to inform the hon. member that this is the present situation.

Will this year’s course last two years?

No. it was decided that this year’s course will only last for one year.

The hon. member for Durban (Central) spoke about the question of rabies, measures to counteract it, etc. I just want to inform the hon. member that since a new vaccine preparation building is being established at Onderstepoort we can of course make available much larger quantities of vaccine. Better storage facilities have also been established. Therefore it will be easier in future to make these vaccines available. The Department has in its turn made good progress with the eradication of meercats. The hon. member pointed out that there were other animals as well which could carry rabies. Among domestic animals the combating of rabies is of course much easier than among wild animals. I just want to inform the hon. member that during the past year alone meercats have been eradicated on 131,000 morgen of land. This is of course, a process which is being continued. The hon. member also referred to typhus among cattle, and the danger this constitutes. The Department has for a long time been aware of the dangers constituted by cattle typhus, not only for the animal itself, but also for our people. Provision is being made in the Estimates this afternoon for an amount, so that a start can be made with eradication of this disease among our cattle herds. If we were to glance at the Estimates we would note that R300,000 has already been appropriated for this purpose. The money will in the first instance be applied for the examination of these animals, the marking of animals which have been investigated, and compensation for animals which had to be killed, at rates as prescribed in the regulations of the Animal Diseases and Parasites Act. Use of private veterinary surgeons will be made in this campaign. I want to express the hope that the private veterinary surgeons will co-operate whole-heartedly with the Department to make it possible to combat this disease among the cattle successfully. This scheme will undoubtedly cost the country many millions of rand. At the present cost it is now calculated that this attempt to combat typhus among cattle will ultimately cost the Government R30 million. As I have said we have already made a start with this, and the money has already been appropriated. The intention is that this attempt should be proceeded with, and that we, with the powers which the Act in question grant us, will attempt to eradicate this disease among our cattle completely.

I just want to refer briefly to the rooibos tea industry, which was also mentioned by one of the hon. members. The hon. member for Piketberg referred to the money which the Government was making available for research into that industry. I just want to point out to him that research is already being undertaken at Stellenbosch and Elsenburg in that direction. The control board will of course also make money available for publicity. My department has also granted assistance to the rooibosoh tea industry, since they find themselves in a very difficult position.

The hon. member for Walmer spoke about the possibility of the Government buying up farms so that demonstrations can be held for farmers as to how farming is being carried on in the various areas. The hon. member will of course realize that as a result of the numerous different farming methods which are being applied in the various parts of our country, this is a hopeless task. If the Government had to have farms, and managers of those farms, and had to duplicate so many times in order to meet all those requirements, i.e. of demonstrating to every farmer in every district what was being done there, it would be a hopeless task. We would need a plethora of officials to man the farms and exercise farming. There would have to be many scientists who could take those farms under their management and control. The hon. member is of course aware that there are such experimental farms which are being controlled and manned in this way, and at these experimental farms a pattern of farming is being followed which does not necessarily have anything to do with research, but which demonstrates particular farming methods to the people of that region. I just want to mention to hon. member that there are some of these farms in various parts of the country. On these farms they are farming on an economic basis.

However, my experience with these farms has been that when a farmer’s day is arranged, when the farmers in the vicinity are asked to attend demonstrations of farming methods, only 10 per cent of the farmers normally turn up. This 10 per cent perhaps consists of those farmers who already know what they have to do under their circumstances. In other words, our major problem is to convey the information to the farmers. Then there are of course the demonstration farms which are laid out in co-operation with the farmers. On these farms demonstrations are given of what can be done in that specific region. There are several of these demonstration farms, and they are to-day good examples of very well conserved farms in their specific regions. In a district which is not very far from my farm there is such a demonstration farm and this farm is producing excellent results. However, if you drive through this district to-day you will be surprised to find that there is not one single farmer in the neighbourhood who is applying those methods on his own farm. One must ask oneself why this should be the case, for surely they see what is being done on the experimental farm. In spite of the fact that these farms have been established for the benefit of the farmers of that region they are still hesitant to apply the methods which are being demonstrated there.

In addition, many problems and criticism in respect of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services and the other Departments’ staff shortage were raised. The basic problem to-day is that vacancies arise not only because local concerns are able to offer these people higher salaries, but also because people are not available. Apart from the problems we have to cope with, I want to express my appreciation to-day towards our present officials, because they are still, under these difficult circumstances, acquitting themselves so well of their task. I think that hon. members will agree with me in this regard. The Minister of Finance announced that an improvement in salary scales, particularly in those of the technical staff, was once again being investigated, apart from the increase they have received this year. The increase in salary scales can perhaps bring relief, and particularly in this respect that people may perhaps remain longer in the employ of the Department. The fact remains, however, that there is a tremendous demand for trained scientists and extension officers in South Africa. I want to warn our agricultural concerns to-day that they must not think that if they succeed in enticing people away from the Department with increased salaries, they are creating more manpower. It has, for example, been our experience that agricultural concerns, even agricultural co-operatives, create their own section for the improvement of seed, and then entice our officers away from the Department because they adopt the attitude that the Department does not have the staff to fulfil this function efficiently.

That may be the case, but if two agricultural concerns each take two officers of the available five, then there is only one officer remaining in the Department. The fact remains that the Department and the universities are the only sources of training for scientists, research workers and extension officers. If this staff is enticed away from the Department’s employ temporarily, it may, temporarily, be to the benefit of the bodies concerned. But if the source of training becomes depleted in this way, then it must ultimately prejudice the entire industry, and then there will in future be no people who can be enticed away from the Department. That is why it is essential that the Department should have a nucleus of people who can undertake this training for the future, because any trained scientist must keep one foot in basic research here at the source, even if he were to go in a different direction, and if the basic source no longer exists, then one cannot train people either.

I want to say to our agriculturists in the various branches of the industry, whether it be the control boards or the co-operatives, that the Department does not adopt the attitude that its people may not be taken away from it. The Department will always be the source from which these trained people are made available, but if the Department cannot retain its nucleus then it is of no avail deriving temporary advantage by taking a man away from the Department and in so doing destroying the source of training. Sir, we are all fully aware of this problem. The hon. member for Newton Park asked what the Minister’s standpoint was.

What is your ideal; what are you aiming at?

I shall come to that. Sir. the ideal set is a very high one. The ideal is such a high one that more than 40 per cent of all the funds which are being made available by the Government for scientific research is being made available to the Department of Agriculture. The ideal is a high one, therefore, but one must have trained people to do that work; they must undergo a prolonged period of training. There are certain directions in which not very much interest is being evinced, but it is nevertheless essential that people be trained in those directions. That training is tremendously expensive; that is, if you can find someone who is interested in studying in that direction. Take the poultry industry for example. Various courses in this direction are being offered at various universities. If one takes into account the number of students one attracts, and the salaries of the professors and lecturers, then it costs R46,000 to train one expert in the field of poultry. The reason for this is that there are too few people who take an interest in that direction, but the course must be offered at the university, and for that one needs lecturers. That shows you, Mr. Chairman, with what problems we have to cope in order to get these people trained. The facilities for training are there, but the people are not available for training in that direction.

I just want to point out to the hon. the Minister that I referred to the establishment of more offices and the appointment of more extension officers.

I shall come to that. I am merely mentioning, in the first instance, what the ideal of training is. It will avail us nothing to open additional offices if we do not have the training facilities to train the people who have to staff those offices. I have just told the hon. member what the problem is at the universities in regard to the training of those people. There are not sufficient people who are prepared to take up all the bursaries which we are making available, and there are many bursaries which are being made available by various bodies. That is the problem we have to cope with, it is not that the will or the ideal is not there. Our ideal is to have an extension officer in his office, not in every magisterial district, as the hon. member suggested, but in every region where he is necessary. I am not talking about an experimental farm now; I am talking about an extension office with its extension officer. That would be the ideal position, if one had enough people to appoint there. Since we did not have qualified, graduated people, we made use in many cases of technical staff who were being trained by our extension officers, to staff those offices and to render these services to the best of their ability. Many of them are men of outstanding ability who are doing excellent work. But the ideal position, if we could get the people, would of course be to fill all the posts on our establishment. I do not differ with the ideal position as stated by the hon. member for Newton Park. It is quite wrong to create the impression that we cherish no ideals in regard to this matter, because the fact remains that provision is being made for the posts, but the problem is that we do not have the necessary manpower. Within the limitations of our manpower position we are trying to serve the farmers to the best of our ability. But the hon member must remember that additional claims are always being made on the Department for an increasing number of services. The hon. member for Smithfield referred to a new section which had to be established for soil conservation in the Orange River area for example, and the hon. member for Mooi River spoke about the Tugela Basin for which a new section might also have to be established later on. Of course, one needs manpower in order to do this work. Hon. members have already pointed out that there if a good deal of work in arrears which has to be done under the Soil Conservation Act. It is not always the fault of the Department only that approved works have not yet been carried out. Very often it is also the fault of the farmer who, for economic or other reasons has not carried out those works. This is one of the reasons why we are now introducing a completely simple system, under the Soil Conservation Act, in order to make it easier for the farmer, where such works have to be completed, to obtain his subsidy. The Soil Conservation Act is also being amended. I do not want to discuss that now; I just want to mention the fact. As the situation was in the past, the farmer had to obtain prior approval for the works he was going to effect, and once he had effected them, the works had to be inspected and approved, whether the farmer put up a wire fence or built a dam or whatever it was he did. We have now introduced a completely simplified system. If it is indicated on the farmer’s farm plan that he can put up a fence he need not obtain specific approval to do so. He can simply proceed with the work and then indicate, by way of a sworn statement, where he has put up the fence, whereupon he can apply for his subsidy without any prior inspection. This will of course mean that we will have to impose certain minimum requirements to which a wire fence will have to comply, and then we will have to do away with the maximum requirements. Because we are doing away with the maximum subsidization we have now decreased the amount of the subsidy to 55 per cent. Sir, I do not on this occasion want to explain the entire scheme to you. I am merely mentioning that the system will become much simplified, and when we introduce the new legislation it is possible that we will also simplify many of the other methods. Quite possibly we will still reach a stage where we maintain that if a person has completed certain works in terms of his farm plan, even though they are mechanical works, and he has had this done by a reliable engineering firm, and he makes a statement to that effect, we may possibly pay him out without a reinspection. This will help to make many of our extension officers available for other purposes, for approximately 70 per cent of their time is now being taken up by soil conservation inspections, etc.

The hon. member asked what ideal we were cherishing. I want to indicate that in these Estimates as well there are quite a number of new services which the Department are now doing for the first time. One of these has been mentioned, namely the expansion of the measures to combat tuberculosis in cattle, and the simplification of the subsidization, and the increase thereof. It will cost us R250,000 more than it cost under the old system. Provision is also being made now in the Estimates for research in regard to irrigation. Hon. members will realize that water is one of the most important factors in South Africa and that it will very possibly determine what our economic and agricultural growth will be, and how far this will be able to expand. Under our schemes tremendous problems have arisen, particularly in regard to the flooding of land by applying the incorrect methods of irrigation, and the over-utilization of water on lands, as well as the problem of salinization. It is quite essential that we should know, with our restricted quantity of water available in South Africa, that water is being utilized in the best way possible on irrigation lands. We can no longer allow, as in the past, every man to have a certain amount of water made available to him because he has a certain quantity of land. He pays for the water and uses as much of it as he can, without taking into account what effect that irrigation may have on his land. But in the second place it is also necessary that we should have a good deal more research into spray irrigation in order to ascertain whether it is more or less economic than other forms of irrigation. At our irrigation schemes we must have more certainty in regard to what forms of irrigation should be applied. That is why we have established this Institute, for which R20,000 has been appropriated in the Estimates this year. In addition certain weeds have been declared this year, and R94,000 has been set aside in the Estimates for the eradication of Satan’s bush. There are perhaps a great many other matters which hon. members brought to my attention and which I should prefer to reply to subsequently by way of a letter from the Department.

I just want to return to a few arguments raised by hon. members opposite. The impression one gained from hon. members opposite, their accusations and the questions they put, was that they were accusing this side of the House of having said that there was nothing wrong with agriculture; that hon. members here had stated that things were going well with agriculture, and could not be improved upon. But any man who states that he is satisfied with the conditions in an industry, particularly the agricultural industry, must be ignorant. I do not think any farmer, on his farm, even if he is making enough money, is ever satisfied with the position he finds himself in. Every man must strive for improvement. With our major problems in South Africa, where agricultural land is becoming less, and where there are droughts, and with the large number of people we will have to feed in the years ahead, it would be childish to say that there was no room for improvement in the agricultural industry, and in that improvement the State is playing a certain part, but the State cannot do this on its own. The farmers must also realize that they will have to be prepared to contribute their share and to apply the information the Department supplies them with. It is they who own the land, and not the State, and they must do something for the maintenance and improvement of the soil. That is why it is not merely our task as Government members, but it is the task of us all as Members of Parliament not merely to plead for the farmers when they address requests to the Government. They can address their requests themselves to their strong organizations and it is not even necessary for a Member of Parliament to do so for them. But we as Members of Parliament have an important educational task to perform, i.e. to get the farmers to take an interest in this function and task which the State is trying to exercise and perform. If one considers what information is available to the farmers, and the enthusiasm of our officials, one asks oneself why it is that the farmers avail themselves so sparingly of it of their own accord. I have had deputations from farmers who have stated that they wanted research in connection with certain things, and they wanted information, for example, on the feeding of sheep and what drugs to use for certain diseases. I then informed them that I was also a sheep farmer and what they were asking me I had available every day, but that I did not wait for the extension officer to come to me to tell me that I should do this, that or the other. After all, I know from what bodies I can get that information and instruction. If we adopt the attitude that we in South Africa must have so many extension officers that they should, as it were, go to show each group of farmers on the farm how to farm, we would be making a grave error. That is why we have made a start with these study groups. If the farmer belongs to a study group there are enough officials to give them instruction, and then they have the opportunity of co-operating with those people and they will be able to determine what is economic in their farming. I really want to make an appeal to our farmers in this Parliament to-day to make more use of the existing facilities and not simply to go on asking for more officials, who cost the State a great deal of money, but to make more efficient use of those officials by going to them themselves and not always expecting the officials to visit them in their homes and tell them, over a cup of tea, how to farm.

Votes put and agreed to.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the privilege of the half-hour? This afternoon I do not intend to deal in any detail with broader strategy or matters, for instance, such as the vacuum in the Indian ocean, which we have already debated in this Session in other contexts. Nor do I intend to deal in any detail with the broader policy approach of this side of the House towards Defence. That policy is well-known. We are agreed on both sides of the House in regard to the objectives of our defence strategy; we are agreed in regard to the importance of defence to the country; and we are agreed in the building up of a strong, effective and efficient force to protect us from whatever threats may be made against South Africa. Therefore, this year I intend to deal more with details of training and administration which affect the hon. the Minister and his department. But before doing so, there are one or two general matters which i would like to raise.

The first is to welcome the White Paper which was tabled in the House last week end the information contained therein. We have pleaded on many occasions for more information to be disclosed on defence matters. This White Paper does two things. It indicates to the people of South Africa the high cost of security, and it indicates the determination of our country as a whole to be prepared for any dangers which might threaten us. We would perhaps have liked more details. We believe that more information could and should be made available, particularly in regard to the rather skimmed over aspects of what we are producing and making for ourselves. We realize that the Armaments Board and Armcor cannot disclose in full all their activities or negotiations, particularly their overseas agreements, but I feel that a great deal more could be told to South Africa on what we are doing. For instance, there has been very little said about the take-over of the Atlas company by the Armaments Corporation. I should like to ask for some more information in regard to this deal. There have been other companies which have been run by the Government, such as K.O.P., which was sold when it was profitable. Here is a company making aircraft under very favourable conditions of agreement with the Government, and it is now being taken over by the Government. What is the principle applied? When a company run by the Government makes money is it sold, and when there is some doubt as to profitability, is it taken over? I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to give us more information about the background, and particularly about the financial implications of the take-over of this company. I should like to ask him to what extent these aircraft are being manufactured, and to what extent they are merely being assembled. To what extent are the component parts imported? It would be interesting to know, too, whether those components are imported directly from the suppliers or whether they are bought through other companies in South Africa. I would be interested to know what changes have been made since the take-over of the Atlas Company, for instance, changes in personnel, management, directorship, etc., because here we are voting vast sums of money. From the White Paper we see that aircraft alone accounted for R254.6 million out of the R660 million spent since 1960. It is a very large slice. We recognize that this is a very important and expensive item. Therefore I believe that we are entitled to ask for more details in regard to a deal of the magnitude of this one concerned with the assembly, and later, the building of aircraft. In fact, we have very little information, either in the White Paper or from other sources, on the progress of our own manufacture and the progress which has been made in becoming independent in regard to military supplies.

Another aspect which appears both from the White Paper and from the Budget, is the fact that we are spending something like two-thirds of the Budget this year on materials and equipment, and approximately one-third on manpower. That is roughly how it is made up. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether we are not perhaps spending, not necessarily unnecessary money, but money which in some instances could be diverted to strengthening the manpower position of our Defence Force. Is that ratio of tow to one vital? Is it unavoidable? If we have aeroplanes, for instance, fighters, highly specialized planes, and we do not have the pilots to fly them, those aeroplanes are not going to be of very much use to us. If we have specialized ships, submarines, etc., without the crews to sail them, they are not going to serve the purpose for which we are voting money in this Parliament. The White Paper itself—and everyone knows it—refers to the problem of staff. I am going to deal with that a little later under administration, but the White Paper refers to the rapid turnover of staff. Perhaps I should deal with it now. The position is that we have lost in officers alone over the last three years 385 in all arms of the service. In the Army we have lost through resignation alone 185, and from the Air Force 155. Unfortunately, most of those losses are occurring in the lower ranks, the younger people, upon whom the future of our force depends. These are the young men on whom a great deal of time and money is spent in training and from whom ultimately will have to come the leaders in 15 and 20 years time. If one looks at the reasons—I do not want to deal with them in detail as I do not have time—for persons in the leadership group leaving the forces, one finds that voluntary premature retirement and resignation are the two overwhelming factors. They are the two main reasons for people leaving the forces. I know that there have been changes in the resignation procedure and the commitment. But we are deeply concerned that we may, perhaps, be spending these vast sums of money on equipment and neglecting the men who are to use that equipment.

The White Paper refers, for instance, to housing. I welcome particularly the announcement of the decision to increase housing from 60 per cent to 100 per cent. I think that is an excellent step forward. It is one of the important factors in keeping our men in the forces. But if one looks at the Budget, and especially at the Loan Votes, one finds that there are, in fact, only two new projects introduced this year with regard to housing. These are two large flat projects. But in all the pages of other projects there are nominal votes of R50. There is a total of R4.7 million on the Budget this year for housing. But if we are going to achieve this ideal of 100 per cent housing, this has to be given a great deal more priority. Where we are prepared to spend R271 million this year, I feel that a greater amount than less than R5 million could have been devoted to that purpose. If the P.W.D. cannot build the houses, they should be built by contract; then they should be put out on contract, so that we can get them at a faster rate. We have the money; we are spending R270 million. Let us see to the urgent requirements of the men who are going to run our machinery. So, we welcome the policy decision. But, like so many decisions which are often taken, they are policy decisions which are going to be implemented over the years. This is one aspect of many aspects, with which other members on this side of the House will deal, which should, I believe, be tackled as a matter of urgent priority.

If there is another criticism of the White Paper, I would say that we should not try to slide over our difficulties. We still have many difficulties. Reading the White Paper, one tends to gain the impression that there are no serious problems really—that—they are only minor problems. There is a glib sliding over of the difficulties to which I believe we as a country should be facing. Some of those will be raised during this debate. I shall not deal with them specifically in relation to the White Paper, but in relation to the various points under which they arise.

Another matter which I wish to raise, in all humility, is a small point. But here we have a White Paper which is going to be distributed and will be read with interest, not only by our people in South Africa, but throughout the world. I feel that a little bit more attention could have been given to the translation of that White Paper into English. If one goes through it, one finds minor points throughout the White Paper idiomatic expressions, which are not common English usage, but have been translated literally. They spoil, I believe, what could otherwise have been a valuable impact on English-speaking nations that read this White Paper. There are no major glaring mistakes, but it is just a question of idiomatic usage.

Are they in the English or the Afrikaans translation?

In the English translation, from Afrikaans into English. Afrikanerisms are used, like “ons het reeds”—“we have already” and so on.

What do you know about these languages?

Mr. Chairman, when I hear that hon. member get up and make a speech in English in this House, then he can criticize my use of Afrikaans. [Interjections.] I wonder then whether he would agree with this sort of English which I am going to quote. I have here an order … [Interjections.] No, I am not quoting from the White Paper; I am quoting from a military order.

Give us some examples from the White Paper.

I do not have time to waste. I will give the hon. member examples. I have noted about a dozen of them, for example on pages 13, 14, 15, 16 and others. But I have here a military order which was issued. I do not think this shows the right respect for the use of both our languages. I want to quote just one paragraph regarding hair. It reads:

There you can plead not guilty.

It continues—

Now, Sir, I think that hon. member is trying to let his hair reduce to nothing in the neck. The trouble is that it has gone into his brains instead of his neck. I suggest that he would perhaps be able to do a better translation than this one.

Who issued that order?

This is issued by the commanding officer of a commando. It is Order No. 2 of 1969, i.e. this year.

You are reading customs papers now.

No, this is an official order. Just on this one page there are six translation mistakes. As I say, it is a small matter. However, I believe that the object of the Defence Force is to build up and should be to build up a proper respect for both of the official languages of South Africa. I raise this because I feel that we should be more careful in ensuring that we do not offend against the susceptibilities of either of our language groups.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member says it should be entirely in order to issue this only in Afrikaans.

No, he said there was no Afrikaans in your time. That is true, not so?

I could mention that there are many instructions sent out which are not translated and which also, I believe, are wrong. Some call-up papers to English-speaking boys are entirely in one language, namely Afrikaans. I am merely appealing for a proper and full regard to be had to the equality of the two languages of South Africa. [Interjections.] If the verkramptes want to make a noise about it, let them make it. I stick by the Constitution of South Africa and the equality of our two languages. [Interjections.]

I want to move on to a more pleasant matter. That is to express appreciation from this side of the House to the hon. the Minister and to the Service Chiefs for the close contact which they maintain with the defence groups of this House. Speaking on behalf of the Opposition, I appreciate very much indeed the manner in which I, as chairman, the secretary of the group and where it is practicable larger groups from the defence group, are brought into the picture on matters of interest and importance in our Defence. Not only is there close co-operation and discussion with the hon. the Minister, but also with the Service Chiefs of the different arms. I quote as an example, Sibasa, where we were invited to view these very important and I believe, for South Africa, very successful manoeuvres in the field. I believe there were many lessons to be learnt. I am not going to deal with them now. However, there were lessons to be learnt in regard to mobility, particularly to communications and above all, in regard to the fine co-operation received from the local Bantu people in the area. These are lessons which are vital to our future, particularly in the light of the threats that face South Africa. There was a missile launching regarding which I would like to express our congratulations as an Opposition. We congratulate all those concerned in having developed and launched successfully South Africa’s first missile. I think this is a great effort. It reminded me that 11 years ago, in 1958, this matter was discussed in this House. At that time my colleague, then the member for Sunnyside, now an hon. Senator, raised the matter. He was told that he was absolutely dreaming and living in another world to talk of South Africa requiring guided missiles. I should like to congratulate all those who have been responsible for such a change in the thinking and the capabilities of South Africa in the intervening years. I think it is important that South Africa should know about this co-operation; that South Africa should know that in this field there is this cooperation between Government and Opposition. It is that sort of co-operation which helps to engender confidence amongst the people as a whole and, to create the spirit of a national approach from all our people towards the problems of defence. If we fight on some things, if I raise matters which upset hon. members, as I did just now, that is part of our task as an Opposition.

I should like to refer to another matter and I think that too will make hon. members cross. Last year the hon. the Minister attacked me on an issue I raised regarding certain motivation lectures at a military camp. He was supported in the Press. I do not begrudge him his moment of joy in embarrassing me. What I do want to say is that now, a year later, I can complete the chapter. I want to say that as a result of raising that matter, my objective was achieved. Firstly, I received confirmation from all over the country, from Zululand, from the South Coast, from the Transvaal, from East Griqualand and elsewhere, of the facts which I raised in this House. This was a political issue. I was charged by the hon. the Minister with not having gone to the O.C. of the camp and raising the matter there. I do not raise political issues with members of the Defence Force. My object was to stop what was going on. I received confirmation from a number of sources that those lecturers were immediately stopped. I want to quote one report. It reads as follows:

In other words, by raising the matter in this House, my objective was achieved, the evil was stopped, and I submit that I was entitled to do so. If the hon. the Minister had some fun out of it, all the better for him. He does not often get that opportunity in other fields of his responsibilities in these times in which we are living. I want to say that on many occasions I have been to the hon. the Minister or to Service Chiefs with problems. I would like to pay attribute to the immediate and the very effective action which has been taken in every case which I have raised. Problems are dealt with and investigated immediately. The problem is, of course, that my information is always given under a promise of secrecy and I am not prepared 3to break a promise of secrecy. These are young chaps who are naturally terrified if they are questioned. It has subsequently come to me that in some of the cases the very people who made the reports were questioned in the investigation. They pretended to know nothing about it, because they were afraid of being implicated. That is human nature; they are youngsters, they are scared. The fact is that I believe it is our duty to raise these matters when they come to us. If one cannot always get to the root of the problem, because of this fear, then it is unfortunate. I have on occasions been able to disclose the names. I had one case where I saw, subsequently, the sworn declaration by this lad completely denying that something had happened, while before and after he had signed the declaration, he and others assured me that it had in fact happened. One cannot force a man. Usually the information comes from the parents. It is just one of those problems. Therefore I say to the hon. the Minister that it is regrettable. I am sorry that it should happen, that issues are raised, complaints are made and they cannot be substantiated. As long as there is the present attitude of the heads towards following these matters up, then I believe it is our duty to bring them forward so that where wrong is being done, it can be put right.

I now want to deal with training. We are now in the second year of the new training scheme. It is a new scheme which was designed to overcome various problems. One of these problems was the alleged waste of time, particularly during the last three months of a trainee’s time. The new scheme was going to provide additional C.F. instructors and eliminate that problem.

I want to say that the problem has not been eliminated and that from all sources we are getting the recurrent complaint that the first three months are fine, the second three months are often interesting but that the third three months’ training are in many cases a complete waste of time. These reports are so wide-spread that they simply cannot be ignored. The same applies to the Commando’s, but other members will deal with that. I want to ask whether the time has not come that we should have another look at some of the problems which arise. The new idea of a camp every three years, spread over a period of ten years, is having unfortunate results. The one result is a loss of contact between the leadership and the manpower of the regiments, which has an effect on the regimental spirit. When officers and N.C.O.’s only have a camp every three years they lose contact with their men. Many are transferred and there is a heavy wastage.

I feel that something has to be done about these two problems of the loss of contact and of the lack of spirit and particularly the wastage of time in the last three months. We must not wait too long until we get resentment or reaction against the training system. I feel that there are three things which could be done. Firstly, to eliminate the frustration of men kicking their heels during the last three months of training. Instead there should be more of the excellent field exercises and field work which, I would like to say, has improved tremendously in quantity and quality. The time spent in the field is the best part of training as regards teaching to the men the problems which they will have to face in war, on the ground and under the circumstances in which they are likely to be met. I think we must look at the period of service with the object of trying to telescope it. Thirdly, I want to repeat my appeal to the hon. the Minister to pay Citizens Force servicemen Permanent Force rates of pay for the subsequent camps which follow the first nine months. I am not arguing on the first nine months’ camp, but for the subsequent 26-day and 12-day camps I believe we should pay them the Permanent Force scales of pay. I believe that in addition employers could do a great deal more to make up the difference. We shall be having men, married and with responsibilities, men of 28 years of age with a wife and children, a flat or home and a car. They cannot afford this month during which they are only paid 50 cents a day. I should like to appeal to employers that after the Minister has taken the first step of paying them Permanent Force rates, they should make up the difference. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Durban (Point) on one of the most positive speeches he has ever made in this House. It reminds me of the proverb, “Hope springs eternal in the human breast.” I wondered what had happened to the hon. member. Had the hon. the Minister perhaps emasculated him politically so that he was able to make a constructive contribution to this discussion? However, I want to congratulate the hon. member on that speech, for it is the task and the duty of the Opposition to play its role as it did this afternoon, with the exception of one or two incidents. However, I do not know whether I can congratulate the hon. member on his new role as language purist, because I am afraid that if we were to go into that topic, we would find that the hon. member for Durban (Point) was more at fault in that respect than he alleged the hon. the Minister’s White Paper was. Then I could perhaps refer to other aspects which, for the sake of convenience, I do not wish to mention here. However, the hon. member for Potchefstroom referred to this and said that he wondered what that hon. member had done in respect of this matter in his time when he himself held a military post. The hon. member tried to justify himself in regard to the matter he raised here last year. He made certain statements last year in regard to alleged political indoctrination at a training camp. The hon. member has now tried to justify himself, but I do not think he succeeded in doing so.

I think the hon. member has learnt a lesson, and that is why he was quite tame to-day.

Don’t be silly.

Now that hon. member says, “Don’t be silly,” but has he seen the comment on his speech in a newspaper which normally supports his party? That newspaper, i.e. the Sunday Times of 2nd June, 1968, said the following—

Even the Press which supported him, reprimanded him in this respect. I just want to point out to the hon. member that his defence —i.e. that he does not, as he says, raise political matters with military commanders and persons—does not hold water, because he does not raise it there for the very reason that he wants to make political capital out of it here. He sought out this very place in order to make political capital out of it. With these few words I believe that the hon. member has now advanced to greater maturity, and that he will now keep to the fine tone he adopted here to-day. Consequently I wish to support the hon. member in the congratulations he extended to the hon. the Minister on the White Paper. There is in fact certain information which is not contained in this White Paper, but in my opinion this information cannot be proclaimed from the rooftops, and I am sure that he will be able to obtain this information from the Minister in person.

I should also like to say here that this White Paper is to us as South Africans a source of faith and courage for the future in so far as it concerns the security of our country. I say this, because to-day it is not only possible for us, on all sides of this House and in the country as well, to discuss the defence of our country, which is dear to us, but our common source of pride is also evident from this White Paper. This White Paper testifies to the vigorous manner in which our Defence Force is being built up in recent times. It testifies to devotedness from the ministerial level down to every member of the Defence Force; in other words, those who are in the Permanent Force as well as those serving in a temporary capacity in the Citizen Force and the Commandos. It testifies to the dedication and the determination to ensure the security of our country.

I want to mention very briefly a few points which are apparent from this White Paper. I want to deal first with the progress we have made over the past year. In the first place, I am thinking of the establishment of Armcor. I believe that as far as our defence is concerned, the establishment of this Armament Corporation will prove to be of as much importance as, or perhaps of even greater importance than the establishment of Iscor was on the relevant occasion to our steel industry and our industrial development in general. This corporation affords us the assurance that we shall to a large extent become independent of those countries which do not want to admit our role in the defence of the Western world and which, under pressure, have failed to provide us with the necessary weapons. As a single and a small token of our pride in that Armaments Corporation, I want to mention the fact that in this week we were shown the first South African manufactured sports rifle, which is also an adaptation made by that factory, a rifle which is still in the experimental stage but which in my opinion will in years to come become the pride of South Africa. We are a nation which is fond of going in for rifle shooting. This rifle will to my mind become a symbol of the achievements of our Armaments Corporation. I also want to mention that in the past year we have had the take-over by Armcor of the Atlas Aircraft Corporation, to which the hon. member for Durban (Point) referred, a take-over which gives us the assurance that in respect of aircraft spare parts and eventually the provision of aircraft, we are going to become independent of overseas countries. In addition I want to mention the opening of a rocket-launching range of our own in Natal. I do not think there can be a single South African who does not feel proud of and grateful for the achievements of our scientists in developing that weapon and the fact that we have reached the stage where we can also be self-sufficient as far as that is concerned.

Then I want to refer to the launching, earlier this year, of the first submarine which will be added to our Navy. In conjunction with that I want to refer to the commencement of work on the project Advocate which will include new navy headquarters and an international radio communication system, which will, after that of America, be the greatest in the world. I want to refer to the purchases that have been announced of a whole series of new aircraft for our Air Force; I want to refer to the success of our Navy’s visit to Australia following on a visit to the Argentine in the previous year, and the favourable comment received from those countries. I want to refer to the contact there has been in the past year between the Defence Chiefs of friendly countries and us in South Africa. One calls to mind the visit of General Rebelo, the Portuguese Minister of Defence, the visit this week of the Argentine Naval Chief of Staff, Admiral Gnavi, and also the visit of the hon. the Minister of Defence and the Chiefs of our Defence Force to Portugal earlier this year. A picture of friendly co-operation between the S.A Defence Force and the defence forces of favourably disposed countries emerges from these visits, a picture which is in direct contrast with the stories we heard a few years ago to the effect that South Africa was now isolated and without friends and that, as regards defence, she could not rely on assistance from anybody. [Time expired.]

It is not my intention to reply now to all the points raised by the hon. member for Durban (Point); I shall do so on a later occasion. My actual purpose in rising is to make certain communications to the House which I think are necessary to make the discussion go smoothly. However, I just want to refer in passing to one or two points raised by the hon. member for Durban (Point). I am doing this at an early stage because I am afraid that wrong impressions might be created outside in the country. I want to begin by thanking the hon. member for the spirit in which he introduced the debate. I also want to thank him for the fact that he stated very clearly and firmly that this House was agreed on the broad principles of defence policy. I think this can only be to our benefit in the world, it can only benefit us in our relationships with friends, and it can only benefit us in our relationships with those who do not want to be our friends, and I thank him for that. I also thank him for the fact that he made it very clear that there were no drastic differences between us in regard to broad planning and broad policy. But the hon. member makes one mistake: instead of keeping to that level, he always comes along with one pr two waspish little things that have nothing to do with sound criticism. I told the hon. member last year that I welcomed criticism, but then it must be criticism which is based on facts. The hon. member again proved here to-day that his statements are not founded on established facts. The hon. member has received a number of little letters in which boys wrote to their parents that this, that and the other had allegedly happened. These are not the kind of facts one should bring before this House. Hearsay gives rise to many lies. What did I tell the hon. member last year when he raised that point about lectures? I told him—

I did not say that the hon. member should go to the commanding officer in the first place. I said he could discuss it with me or with the Commandant-General. Now the hon. member again read a letter to us in which it is said that as a result of articles that had appeared in the Sunday Times, a change had been introduced. I want to tell the hon. member this afternoon that neither I nor the Defence Force will allow ourselves to be ruled by the Sunday Times. Let him understand this clearly.

What a man!

But instructions were given to stop this.

Precisely. Sir, I want to say this here because I am afraid that the wrong impression might be created outside. We have to deal with two population groups in the Defence Force, and the attitude adopted by me and by the Supreme Command is that of equal treatment within the Defence Force. [Interjections.] If the hon. member wants to make an interjection, he should just speak a little louder.

He is merely buzzing like a gadfly.

Would the hon. member just make his interjection a little louder, if he has the courage to do so?

He does not have the courage.

Sir, I say that the attitude adopted by me and by the Supreme Command is that we see to it that both English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking boys are secure and welcome in the Defence Force, and this we are proving throughout the Defence Force. We are also proving this with the application of bilingualism in the Defence Force, and consequently no wrong impressions must be created. The hon. member brought forward a case this year in which he, without wanting to mention names, charged one of our young officers with us of having acted sadistically towards a trainee. I want to tell the hon. member that I have had that matter investigated. There was a board of inquiry. The hon. member has again made an anonymous complaint here and he is coming off very badly.

The matter has not yet been concluded.

The matter has been concluded, and I am now going to ask the hon. member by letter to furnish me with the name of the person who lodged the complaints, because the meanest allegations were made against a very worthy young man in the Defence Force, and not one word of those allegations is true; this was proved by the inquiry. I therefore say to the hon. member and to any other member that the Defence Force is not a football that one can kick around as one likes; it is a sensitive instrument and therefore, when hon. members lodge complaints, they should not do so on the strength of gossip that finds its way to them; they must raise such matters on the strength of facts which they possess. This latest thing the hon. member brought up is an insulting allegation against a young officer who has been cleared of all blame. I am telling the hon. member in public to-day that I am going to give him the opportunity of furnishing the name of the complainant to me, because we are taking this matter all the way.

He will probably do it now.

I repeat that I want to thank the hon. member for the fine spirit in which he began his speech, but he must not spoil his case with this kind of thing. Neither must he believe everything that a few trainees come and tell him, because a trainee who is a man—and most of them are—has no complaints against the Defence Force.

Then the hon. member referred to the question of the discrepancy, as he called it, between what is spent on the staff and what is spent on equipment. I shall reply to the other points on another occasion, because this may also create a wrong impression. But I just want to say this to the hon. member: I have here a list of price increases that must be taken into account when the White Paper is judged. The price of the R.1 rifle increased by 104.2 per cent from 1960 to 1968; the price of the 8 mm. mortar increased by 105 per cent; the price of the armoured car “VA 60 complete” increased by 45 per cent; the price of the Mirage aeroplane increased by 52.6 per cent in one year’s time, between 1964 and 1965; the price of the Land Rover increased by 29.3 per cent; and the price of 25 pounder ammunition increased by 435 per cent; and I can mention many other examples. When dealing with a Defence Budget, one must take into account the fact that it just so happens that in the case of these sophisticated armaments one has the problem that price increases are taking place throughout the world. This complicates the problem of achieving a balanced defence pattern.

I said that the other points mentioned by the hon. member I would deal with at a later stage. I do not want to send the debate in a different direction now. I should like to make use of this opportunity to make three announcements.

†In the first place I want to make a statement on a new weapons system that South Africa has been able to acquire.

In conformity with the Government’s policy of aiming at the greatest degree of self-sufficiency in the field of weapons manufacture, it was decided some years ago to make an early start on our own development and manufacture of guided weapons.

With this aim in view it was decided to embark on a project which would serve the triple purpose of training a nucleus of South African engineers and scientists in the mechanical, electronic and chemical aspects of guided weapons, of developing and manufacturing a useful weapon for the South African Defence Force, and of establishing the necessary industrial manufacturing know-how and capacity. Systems for defence against air attack have achieved notable success in the medium and high altitude brackets, i.e. up to the 10.000 ft. and 60,000 ft. levels, but, until recently, the very low altitudes had been poorly catered for, mainly because of technological problems associated with developing an effective guided weapon defence system against low-level attacks.

As this appeared to be an attractive field in which to launch our own guided weapons development project, the S.A. Defence Force in conjunction with the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research drew up specifications for research into and development of a mobile ground to air guided weapon system for defence against low-level air attacks. It was decided that the weapon-system had to comply with the following broad requirements: (a) to have an all-weather capability; (b) to provide defence against attack by supersonic aircraft at tree-top level; (c) to be mobile with a crosscountry capability comparable to that of the average military vehicle, and to be air transportable. (d) to be capable of going into action within five minutes on the march, with a reaction time of a few seconds; (e) to be capable of integration into other air defence systems, both conventional and sophisticated; (f) to have its own tactical and fire guidance radar and computer capability; (g) to be capable of defending static points as well as tactical formations on the move.

These specifications were accepted by the Government.

We have been fortunate in obtaining the services of a reputable overseas French electronics firm, as well as a number of subcontractors, for assistance in the training, research, and development tasks involved in this venture. The project was also officially approved and partly financed by the French Government and as such has proved to be a happy example of fruitful international co-operation.

Preliminary firing tests have proved a great success and we have reason to believe that the system will comply fully with the stringent specifications set at the start. Once in operation, we believe that the Republic of South Africa will have at its disposal the most advanced and effective Weapon of its kind in existence for the purpose of fulfilling the most difficult task of defence against fast low-level air attacks. The system is mounted on a number of electrically driven wheeled vehicles which are in themselves a novel departure from normal military vehicles. The whole system is air transportable.

Developments are now nearing the production stage, and the Armaments Board is already engaged in the task of setting up in South Africa the necessary production facilities. Endeavours are being made to recoup a portion of the research and development expenditure by sales to other countries. The interest shown is very encouraging.

Meanwhile our engineers and scientists have completed their training overseas and returned to South Africa. Immediately after their return a second project for the development of an air-to-air projectile was approved, as a purely South African venture. This weapon too embodies some unique characteristics and was recently successfully tested on our own missile testing range at St. Lucia Lake, where hon. members were present. It is now also nearing the production stage.

That our approach to the problem of the manufacture of guided missiles has been sound is proved by the fact that the Armaments Board has made considerable progress towards the establishment of an industrial capacity for the manufacture of highly sophisticated weapons systems in South Africa. Our scientists and engineers have acquired sufficient knowledge and experience in a number of related technological aspects to enable us to proceed with further independent research, testing and development, for which the missile test range at St. Lucia Lake is an invaluable asset.

I thought it was only right to inform the House of the progress made in this regard.

*Then I should like to make a second announcement with reference to the manpower position that was referred to here: I can now inform hon. members that as part of the endeavour to alleviate the shortage in the private ranks of the Permanent Force, an inquiry was recently instituted by my Department in close collaboration with experts of the office of the Public Service Commission into the possible improvement in the salary structure of private ranks. Certain proposals arising from this inquiry have recently been approved. The most important improvements can briefly be summarized as follows.

The following improved salary scales are to be introduced for non-artisans, operatives and artisans—

The previous maximum salaries are hereby increased by the following amounts, which will be granted by notches in the course of years—

The existing salary scales of technicians remain unchanged for the time being until an inter-departmental evaluation of the posts concerned has been completed. The present minimum salary of R1,020 for matriculants is increased to R1,200 per annum. An instructor’s allowance of R120 per annum is payable to all private instructors in order to compensate them for their training responsibilities and long and irregular hours of service. This represents a substantial improvement in that all privates, irrespective of their trade classification, now have the prospect of being able to advance to R4,200 per annum, and we trust that these improvements will contribute to our obtaining the services of trained privates for the Permanent Force. Particulars of the salary adjustments to the new scale will be released within the Department by the Chief of Personnel as soon as practicable.

I now come to the increase in the flying allowances. In order to ensure that suitable volunteers will be available in sufficient numbers for flight training to meet the needs of the S.A. Air Force in respect of pilots and navigators every year, and at the same time to retain the services of trained pilots and navigators for the Air Force by means of attractive conditions of service, an increase in the special allowance payable to pilots and navigators has been recommended by the Public Service Commission and approved by Treasury with effect from 1st April, 1969. Whereas this allowance has up to the present been R300, R600 and R450 per annum for pupil pilots and navigators, second lieutenant to major, and commandant and higher, respectively, it will be as follows with effect from 1st April, 1969—

The flying allowance of aircrew (other ranks) is still under consideration and will be announced shortly.

Up to now a staff qualification allowance has been payable to officers of the Permanent Force up to and including the rank of commandant who have completed an approved staff service course. This allowance fell away at promotion to the rank of colonel, but will now be continuous to the rank of general. The allowance amounts to R270 for officers with the rank of colonel and higher and will be payable with effect from 1st April, 1969.

I think as a result of this we have taken a step forward which will be of considerable assistance as regards our manpower position, and which will not only do this, but will also meet with great satisfaction in the Defence Force. I regard this as a major step forward.

Then the hon. member asked me about the question of Atlas. In respect of Atlas we have already made a statement through Armcor. I could not furnish any information earlier because one cannot furnish information while one is busy with negotiations, and protracted negotiations took place between Atlas and Armcor under the leadership of the chairman of Armcor, Professor Samuels. I want to make use of this opportunity to-day to thank him for the contribution made by him and the able manner in which he made it.

The objects and the general powers of the corporation are very clearly stated in section 3 of the Act, i.e. to provide the armaments requirements of the Republic in as efficient and economic a way as possible. And in section 3 (a) reference is made to the take-over of undertakings of the Armaments Board for the manufacture of armaments. Now the hon. member asked me what the reasons for the take-over were. The reasons for the take-over of the shareholding in Atlas were briefly that the Air Force has until now been the only consumer, and will always remain the largest consumer. In the second place, the motive of Armcor is not profit, and as a result of the take-over the profit is now being saved for the State. In other words, because the profit motive has now disappeared, it must necessarily have an effect on the cost. In the third place, Atlas has facilities which can be utilized very effectively for the manufacture of other highly strategic armaments, for example, rockets. Otherwise this would have meant a duplication of certain facilities. This further proposed manufacture is of such a nature that it is necessary for it to be under the full control of the State.

In this connection I also want to tell hon. members that I have great appreciation for the people who established Atlas years ago at a time when South Africa could virtually get no assistance outside its borders to maintain a proper Defence Force. I want to express my appreciation for the people who under the leadership of a man like Dr. Tienie Louw took those steps. The establishment of our own aircraft industry was undoubtedly a very important breakthrough for South Africa, and its importance cannot easily be overrated. I think that only in the years to come, in 10 or 15 years’ time, will we really enjoy the fruits of what has been established at Atlas. We should not have the least doubt about the fact that there are difficulties involved and that teething troubles are being experienced. The hon. member said here that we were glossing over our difficulties in the White Paper, but that is not correct. We admit in the White Paper that we have difficulties and I want to admit it too. But difficulties are there to be overcome. That is why they come in one’s way and I believe that we have the managerial ability to cope with those difficulties.

Except for the major and important task of keeping the aircraft of the S.A. Air Force in the air, great progress has been made with our own manufacture since the establishment of Atlas. With the know-how that has already been acquired, South Africa will in the foreseeable future—I cannot say how soon—be capable of undertaking virtually the complete manufacture. If the Armaments Development and Manufacturing Corporation had already existed at the time when serious thought had to be given to establishing an aircraft industry of our own, it would undoubtedly not have been done in that way. You yourself know that we received a series of reports which were made known and were also discussed with members from time to time, namely the Verster Commission reports, from which it appeared that it would be best if eventually in South Africa not only the present set-up of armaments manufacture were established, but also the system of procurement of armaments, cost control and quality control, which we have under our present dispensation. In other words, if Armco had existed earlier on, Atlas would most probably have been established as a subsidiary thereof. As a result of the negotiations which took place over the past few months, it was agreed that Armcor would take over the entire shareholding of 14½ million shares of R1 each at par. I should like to stress that although Atlas showed an accumulated profit, the shares were taken over without any premium.

Was this not a guaranteed profit? Did the State not guarantee it?

That may be, but the State is just as dependent on Atlas’s factory to keep its Air Force in the air. As you probably know, the new board of directors of Atlas has been announced, and has had a meeting since. Mr. V. R. Verster is the chairman. He is the person who carried out all these investigations during the past few years in respect of the Defence Force and in respect of armaments. Furthermore, the board of directors consists of the following members: Dr. S. Kuschke of the I.D.C. Mr. J. E. K. Tucker of Vekor, Mr. Tony Trollip, on account of his knowledge of the Companies Act, Mr. L. W. Dekker, accountant and auditor, Dr. W. de Villiers, a very well-known engineer, Mr. C. F. Hafele, an engineer and general manager of Armcor, and Mr. F. S. Malan, an engineer, who will continue as Managing Director. The possibility of appointing another two or three able and experienced persons to the board of directors is being considered. I am going into this matter in consultation with Armcor. I have already appointed a representative committee which has to investigate and report upon certain matters. This committee consists of representatives of the Armaments Board, of Armcor itself, of Atlas and of the Air Force. This committee must as soon as possible investigate possibilities of entrusting Atlas with an even bigger load in respect of various strategic requirements. As soon as the recommendations have been considered and accepted, the implementation thereof will be proceeded with immediately in order to ensure that Atlas will be able to operate in the most economic way. Under the leadership of the chairman of Armcor negotiations are at present taking place between Armcor and certain undertakings which I cannot mention today, which are manufacturing strategic items for the South African Defence Force, with a view to possible participation by Armcor, as stated in the object of the Act by which Armcor was established. As these negotiations have not yet been finalized, particulars can, for understandable reasons, not be furnished to the House at this stage. We are implementing an Act that was passed by this Parliament. It was supported by both sides of the House, and is aimed at placing South Africa, by means of its Armaments Board and by means of Armcor, on a road which must lead to the greatest measure of self-sufficiency. This is what we have tried to achieve in this connection.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to delay the House more than two or three minutes. I had no intention of coming into this debate, until the hon. the Minister spoke just now. I heard what he had to say to my colleague, the hon. member for Durban (Point), in regard to complaints which are brought to him and his department and which, on investigation, are found to have no substance or no evidence to support them. Because I seem to recognize certain circumstances which were described by the Minister. I asked the hon. member whether the case referred to was in fact one which I had brought to his notice. He assured me that it was. Under the circumstances I think it is only fair, and I am sure that the Minister will agree with me that I should indicate that this case was brought to the notice of the hon. member for Durban (Point) by me. The hon. member is therefore not in a position to disclose the name of the complainant in this matter. I withheld that name, and I explained to the hon. member at the time that I was not prepared to disclose the name. I may say that I made all the investigations I could possibly make amongst the young men concerned. I am more than satisfied with the inquiry which took place. That there was no evidence to support this complaint is a matter of the very greatest concern to me. All the details regarding the people concerned in this inquiry, the senior members of staff in the Defence Force who took part in the inquiry, the manner in which it was conducted, etc., were explained to me. I have no complaints. In fact, I have nothing but the highest praise for the manner in which the inquiry was carried out. My one regret is that all that should have taken place, because the young men concerned, for their own reasons, which I am not going to go into, decided that they were going to say nothing whatever which was going to incriminate the person against whom the complaints had been made in the first place. I can merely assure the hon. the Minister that this had nothing whatever to do with the hon. member for Durban (Point).

I accept that.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) is the chairman of our defence group and therefore, in conformity with ordinary practice, I referred the case to him. I am, however, not free to disclose the names of the complainants in this matter. There was not only one complainant. There the matter unfortunately rests, but I want to see the Minister about another matter altogether. This is not a made-up case. This is a matter of fact. I intend to see the Minister. I shall put certain points before him, and he may tell me that they are wrong. Nevertheless, I want to have the right to approach the Minister and to say to him: This is information that has come to me, partly from the public and partly from another source altogether. I want to ask him what the position in regard to these points is. I want the hon. the Minister to realize that he must leave the door open for even anonymous complaints which are groundless if he wants to be sure of receiving the complaints which have substance. He may get frivolous complaints from time to time, and so may his staff, but if he is going to close the door to complaints which may finally prove to be fruitless or groundless, he will also close the door to those people who have substance in their complaints. There are from time to time very good reasons why peonie will not dislcose their identity in regard to matters of this nature. I should, however. like the Minister to accept the fact that he has to accept our bona fides in the matter. My colleague and I are senior members of this Parliament. We are front benchers, and we are not going to approach him with complaints which we have investigated and found to be frivolous. When we have satisfied ourselves to the best of our ability that there appears to be substance in a complaint, we must ask for the privilege of having the Minister’s door open to us. He must accept our bona fides in this regard. If the Minister, after investigating our complaints, finds them to be groundless, he must not stand up in Parliament and charge us with having brought a frivolous complaint to him. What will he close the door to? I think that that will not be the right approach. We are willing to help the Minister, and my colleague has said so. We are just as keenly interested in the well-being of the Defence Force of South Africa as anybody on that side of the House is. Here, as my hon. friend has said, we stand together as one Parliament, and we are unanimous in our decision to support our Defence Force. I know that complaints will come. I have been in the Army, and I know exactly how the machine works. Nobody can tell me about how the machine works. I have been a rookie, and I have been much higher up in the scale. I have taken the knocks there from the time I started until I got out. I therefore know exactly how the machine works. I appeal to the Minister: Do not close your door to complaints which come to you if they come from responsible persons. That is the test. If the complaint comes from a responsible person, I should like the Minister to open his door. I am going to ask him to open it to me in the course of the next few days, when he has this Vote behind him. This relates to a matter which I do not wish to raise across the floor of the House.

I did not raise this one in the House.

That is correct. The hon. member did not raise this point in the House. Let us leave it at that. The Minister has accepted my explanation that my hon. friend cannot give him the names of the complainants in this particular matter. I have those names, but I am not going to disclose them. As far as I am concerned, I must tender my apologies and regret for the need for that inquiry, and for the fact that it was fruitless. I should like to thank the Minister and his staff for the manner in which the inquiry was carried out.

It was not fruitless.

No, it was not fruitless in the sense that nothing was achieved. I may say that the atmosphere there has changed completely. I am pleased to say that from that point of view those young men are happy where they were previously extremely unhappy. From that point of view, great benefit was derived from the inquiry. Sir, I think I should leave the matter at this point. I merely wanted to explain the matter.

Mr. Chairman, I shall most definitely accept the bona fides of the hon. member for South Coast in this case but it was clear to everyone that the hon. professor for Durban (Point) was again going to come up against the Minister at some time or other. It happened last year when he started with the United Party story of the meeting at Voortrekkerhoogte. Last year the same thing happened with regard to the piece of gossip to which reference was made here and which was used by the Sunday Times. Now another senior member, the hon. member for South Coast, has been placed in an embarrassing position in that he has had to help the hon. member from his predicament this afternoon. I hope the hon. member for Durban (Point) has learned his lesson this afternoon so that he will no longer come to this House with matters of that kind but will make use of the right channels. I cannot see why he should always be experiencing problems. All of us who are members of this House, receive complaints about the Defence Force, but we know what the right channels are. We then go through the right channels. But the hon. member comes to this House with his letters and raises matters here for the first time. As a result the kind of situation which embarrassed him this afternoon arises. [Interjections.] If I should have the opportunity to do so at a later stage, I should like to come back to the lesson in Afrikaans which the hon. member gave here this afternoon.

Mr. Chairman, is the hon. member entitled to say, “How can you twist anything like that?”

Which hon. member said that?

Mr. Chairman, I said that I had not raised the matter to which he was referring in the House.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Mr. Chairman.

The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I shall tell the hon. member … [Interjections.] If the hon. member would only tell me what he was objecting to, I could possibly reply to that. [Interjections.] No, I was not wrong.

Order! Let the hon. member proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to … [Interjections.]

Order! I am warning hon. members now. I am here to maintain order. If they do not want to listen to me, I shall order them to leave the Chamber. Allow the hon. member to proceed now.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to the announcement made here this afternoon by the hon. the Minister, especially the announcement concerning our armaments and extensions in the field of armaments, i.e. the particularly important announcement with regard to the missile which has been developed further.

I should like to refer in brief to the opening paragraph of the White Paper, which to me cannot be more appropriate, i.e. the following statement by the hon. the Prime Minister—

Earlier in the week it was said here that somebody had a screw loose, but one thing is sure, if anybody should try to trouble us in future, he would have more than a screw loose, because he would be struck by a strong arm which our Defence Force is developing.

Another aspect to which I should like to refer as well, is the salary increases announced by the Minister. The Defence Force staff forms the corps of instructors. They are the people who concentrate the entire fireworks of the Defence Force on them. They are the men who undertake training year after year, some of them for a lifetime. Whereas the ordinary young men liable to military service have to put up, for a period of one year, with the measure of inconvenience which arises from their training, members of the Permanent Force staff do so year after year. They are the people who work long hours of overtime, day after day and year after year, who sacrifice week-ends and who are informed at short notice that they cannot be given leave for certain occasions because something else has to be done urgently. They are the people who give the trainees their field training and who share the uncomfortable and inconvenient circumstances in the field with the trainees. They are the people who have to compensate the wear and tear of clothing and uniforms partially from their own pockets. The large increases announced by the hon. the Minister will most definitely be received with a great deal of gratitude and a great deal of enthusiasm by the members of the Defence Force who are affected by those increases. It is interesting to note that a Warrant Officer Class I will now receive a bigger salary than an M.P. Perhaps there will again be improvements in this direction as well in the future.

I should also like to make particular reference to the White Paper which was published. The difficulty with which the hon. the Minister is confronting us in this debate is that such a fine and detailed White Paper has been published, one which contains so many particulars and which is so full of dynamic and positive planning, that it is completely impossible for one to do justice to that White Paper and to comment properly on it within ten minutes. When one consults this White Paper and moves about a little amongst the Defence Force men, one thing strikes one and that is that the morale in our Defence Force has never been as high as it is at present.

Nonsense! What about the war days?

Now I am not referring to the time when the United Party was in power. At that time there was nothing to which one could refer. This is the attitude which emanates from the officers and the men throughout the Permanent Force, from the commanding officers of the Citizen Force, their regiments and their men. Hon. members opposite would like to speak on Defence matters. If only they want to take the trouble to move about a little amongst these people! They need only go to the commandos if they want to do so. They will learn from the commandos that people who did service before and ceased to be members of the Force, are streaming back to the commandos to do voluntary service. These people are not supporters of the United Party who left the Force because they were upset with the hon. Mr. Erasmus. They are people who have completed their service and who are now coming back.

May I ask a question?

I only have a few minutes left.

[Inaudible.]

Order! I wish to point out to the hon. member for Transkei that I have been making appeals to him all afternoon.

Not all afternoon, Sir.

Well, most of it. In any case, the hon. member is a Whip and I appeal to him to assist the Chair in keeping order. The hon. member may continue.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your assistance. It is very plain to see how sensitive hon. members opposite are when one starts pulling their ears. As regards the morale of the Defence Force, I want to say in conclusion that the morale of any Defence Force is as high as that of its Minister and its Supreme Command. It is due to this vital Minister, Commandant-General and Supreme Command we have to-day that our Defence Force is in this condition to-day. That is why it is possible to publish a White Paper informing us of what is being done by these people, and of the scale on which that is being done.

Another important factor which hon. members of the Opposition obviously overlook when they so eagerly sit and pass remarks, is that the stronger the Defence Force of a country is and the more a country is capable of defending itself, the stronger a guarantee that is for a sound economy in that country. This we must never overlook. Since we are spending these large amounts of money, that is one of the strongest factors in support of the economy of our country. Surely it is very essential for us to note the kind of planning which flows from the White Paper. Let us examine the increases. The increase in the Permanent Force alone was an increase of 65 per cent over the past few years. The numbers of the Citizen Force increased virtually six-fold and those of the commandos by approximately 18 per cent. As regards the increase in expenditure, expenditure on the Department of Defence constituted 0.9 per cent of the gross national expenditure in 1960-’61. This year, 1968-’69, the figure is 2.5 per cent. In 1960- ’61 it constituted 6.6 per cent of the State’s total expenditure from the Revenue Account; this year the figure is 16.8 per cent. Therefore one is grateful that planning is being undertaken in this way and that an account of such planning is given to this House.

I do not want to comment again on what was said about Armcor, but I just want to say that I, too, was fortunate enough to be able to attend the launching of the rocket at St. Lucia last year and to share in that historic occasion. I should also like to associate myself with the congratulations which were extended and the gratitude which was expressed to all the scientists, technicians and officers who were concerned in that project and who have made it possible for us to have progressed such a long way already in that field to-day. I should also like to refer in brief to the Sibasa exercise and the opportunity we were given from this side of the House to attend that exercise.

Before my time expires, I should like to mention another matter in respect of which I shall be very pleased if the hon. the Minister can let us have his comments at a later stage in this debate. This matter is the girls’ unit, which was announced by the hon. the Minister some time ago, but which still was in the planning stages, and for which a suitable site and area had to be found. I have already discussed the matter with the Department, but I should like to mention it once more in this House to-day. In my opinion there is no more suitable place at which to establish this girls’ unit than Potchefstroom. [Interjections.] I regret that no hon. member opposite has a place like this to offer for the girls’ unit, but Potchefstroom is a national constituency, one which is pre-eminently suitable for such a training centre. In Potchefstroom this training centre for girls can be linked up with the university. The teachers’ college is situated on a site adjacent to the military camp and adjacent to the Dam, the recreation centre there. It is an ideal cultural centre for the training of these children. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Potchefstroom has spoken of the high morale in the Army. He said that it had never been so high. I am certainly not going to decry the morale of the Army at the present time. But I will say that when he says that it has never been so high, he is making a very sweeping statement.

I should like to make a few observations on the announcements the Minister made here this afternoon. The first one concerns the announcement of the development and manufacture of the new weapon system. I think it is a source of pride to every South African to know that we in this country are able to tackle the design, development and manufacture of this very highly technical kind of equipment. I think it is a good thing for all of us to know that. I think it is also a good thing for our enemies to know what South Africa can do.

The second announcement the hon. the Minister made, in regard to improved scales of pay, I think will be universally welcomed by the members of the Forces. Without having had an opportunity to study those improvements in detail, it would appear that they are in fact very good. All one can say is that when we are dealing with the Defence Force to-day where you require such highly trained technical people, improved and good salaries are, and should always be a must. You cannot recruit the type of person you require in the Army to-day or retain him unless you pay him well. I am quite sure that these improvements will go a long way towards remedying the shortage of men, especially in the Permanent Force. You know, Mr. Chairman, listening to the announcement in regard to improved pay, I was thinking whether it would not be worth my while to try and ask the Minister to have me back. I think I will do better there than I am doing here. I see the hon. the Minister is smiling.

The third announcement I think was a very timely one. I say so, because al sorts of allegations and unpleasant rumours are going around about Atlas over the last couple of years. We sincerely hope that the steps they have taken now to bring a change and to put the factory on a different footing, will put an end to all these unpleasant stories that we hear. One must expect, as the hon. the Minister quite rightly pointed out, that when you start a new industry like that, something quite new to South Africa, that there will be growing pains. There will be difficulties. So we only hope that the new steps that he has in mind will to a certain extent overcome those difficulties.

Reference has been made by various speakers to the White Paper. I have studied the White Paper and I found that it is a most interesting and informative document. Reading through it one cannot but come to the conclusion that, if all this is correct, all must be well in the Defence Force. There is only one question that worries me, and that is whether all we read and see in there can, in fact, be implemented.

That brings me to the question of the training of the men, from the lowest to the highest rank, men who are to handle our equipment, our fighting formations and the various units that we may have. As was mentioned by the hon. member for Durban (Point), the new training scheme has been in operation for approximately two years. There is no doubt about it that it is not as yet running smoothly. It is not running as we visualized it would run at the time the legislation was passed. As was mentioned previously, I think all of us, and both sides of the House, get very much the same sort of complaints, namely that of a waste of time, especially in the latter part of a soldier’s training. Some of these complaints are quite ridiculous. I received a complaint the other day from a young permanent naval rating. He did his training at Simonstown where he got so fed-up that he eventually could not stick it any longer. He told me that his time was taken up by polishing brass and all that sort of nonsense. I straightaway took up the case but before I could follow it up and trace this man, I found that he had deserted.

He was probably that type.

He may have been that type. One cannot take notice of these individual complaints, but complaints are there that there is a waste of manpower. This points to the fact that there are not sufficiently trained and experienced personnel in the branches of the Service to train these people properly. There is another point that we must remember and that is, whether we like it or not, that the military service to-day is unpopular with most of the boys. It is popular with some of the parents, because when a young man has been through his military training, he is a better man. Many parents realize that. To those people military service training, as. we do it to-day, is popular. But there are very many other parents who maintain that it is a waste of time. They want their son to go to university. They want their children to start on the farms. They want them to go into commerce, and so forth. I think with the rank and file the feeling is that military training is not popular.

They want to keep their baby at home.

Lots of them send their babies to the war.

It is not popular. The average young man does not see the threats or the dangers facing South Africa. He thinks that these people are just scaremongering and that this training is not necessary. The economy is buoyant and they can find a job outside the moment they leave school. When they come to the Army they have to work for very much less. Those are the reasons why the military service we expect from our young people to-day is unpopular.

I do not think it is fair for anybody at this stage to condemn the training scheme. I do not think it has had a long enough trial period. I am wondering whether it is not time to start giving attention to an alternative. In this respect I am thinking of a Permanent Force Brigade, a composite brigade with all its supporting arms and services. I know that I will be told at once that it is not even possible to fill all the posts in the present Permanent Force. I know there is a shortage. This is, however, merely an idea. Such a unit will be very highly trained and will be very much more effective than the training which we given these other young people. It will also be flexible; it will be trained to a very high degree of efficiency. These people can have their equipment up to date, they could be at home with their equipment, they will know how to handle their equipment. It has ever so many advantages. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to know in which respect that hon. member who represents North Rand and farms in my constituency and goes on holiday during the recess, has contact with the youth so that he can say they are not enthusiastic about the Defence Force? However, I leave the matter at that.

With the introduction of the White Paper, one thinks with great sadness this afternoon of the previous Minister of Defence, Advocate Frans Erasmus, who has since passed away. It does one’s heart good to see how all these matters which he initiated, have grown and developed until they have reached the stage to-day which he had been planning from 1948 to 1959. In fact, this White Paper is a major tribute to his memory. On page 5 of the White Paper we find the following paragraph—

This is, inter alia, precisely how Advocate Erasmus viewed this matter. I mention this because a particularly great responsibility rests on the shoulders of the commanding officers of our commandos to-day. I am thinking of those leaders of the Commando Force who, as my hon. colleague for Potchefstroom has said, are taking great pains and are sacrificing their spare time, etc., while they receive only a very small commanding officer’s allowance from which, among other things, administrative costs in respect of the commandos have to be defrayed. I should like to advance a plea to-day on behalf of the commanding officers of the Commando Force for this allowance to be increased in the light of the greater responsibilities they carry. Also, I should not like to see a portion of this allowance go back into the pocket of the Receiver of Revenue. Such allowance should not be assessed by the Receiver of Revenue. I also want to plead that the adjutants and the quartermasters of the Commando Forces be paid a proper remuneration. More duties have been assigned to them as well and they have to spend much of their spare time in organizing the commandos. In fact, they are the pivots on which everything hinges. These people should also be paid a proper remuneration for the valuable service they render during their spare time. Mention is also made in the White Paper that the commandos are of the utmost importance as far as protection of their own home regions is concerned. Since the commandos are so essentially important, I want to plead that the Department of Defence, in co-operation with the local authority, should provide facilities to serve as headquarters of the commando in the main town of the area in which it operates. There is a great need for something of this nature. If the commandos have their own headquarters, it will also create a feeling of pride among the civil population who will see it every day.

In the second place, I also want to thank the hon. the Minister for the announcement he made as regards the 100 per cent housing loan which is anticipated. However, I also want to plead that the hon. the Minister and the parties involved in this matter, may consider introducing a housing allowance in the meantime in respect of those people who occupy their own or rented houses until such time as they are able to obtain permanent accommodation in official quarters. In spite of the increased salaries members of the lower income groups, such as corporals and so forth, have to make considerable financial sacrifices in order to fulfil their tasks in the Permanent Force. A great number of these warrant officers are living in flats and rented houses with their families and they have to incur considerable expense in order to get to their work. The result is that the wives have to go out and work and the result is ultimately that they resign owing to the difficult position in which they find themselves financially although they would not have liked to resign for other reasons. If a housing allowance could, in the meantime, be paid to all ranks up to the rank of, say for example, colonel, it would provide in a very great need.

I now want to refer to the question of pensions, although this does not fall within the scope of the White Paper. It is a fact to-day that the pension of a member of the Permanent Force dies with him. If he dies while he is still in the Service, his widow is not well provided for. If he dies after having retired on pension, his pension is discontinued immediately in spite of the fact that he may have been in the service for 20 to 25 years. The widows’ pension which is paid out amounts to very little and the widow cannot provide for herself and her children, not to mention sending the children to school and possibly to a university later. I want to plead that the pension which accrues to a member of the Permanent Force, be paid to his widow until such time as she marries again or up to the time of her death. I think she is entitled to it because her husband has contributed his full share in the Service. I very much like to advance this plea, because I know that a great number of these Permanent Force widows are having a difficult time. We also have the example of young married members of the Permanent Force who get killed in accidents. Recently we had the case of a young Permanent Force pilot who was killed in an accident after having been married for only one day. This young widow merely qualified for compensation in terms of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The contributions the pilot had paid to his pension fund up to the time of his death were not refunded to her. I want to ask that the full amount of the pension contributions be paid out to young widows in cases such as these.

A military bio-medical institute is being erected in my constituency at a cost of more than R1 million. Provision is made in the Estimates for the erection of this building. There is a possibility that a large military hospital will be built there in future. Therefore, I want to ask the hon. the Minister even at this early stage that, in view of the fact that the area of Verwoerdburg has no medical services and has to avail itself of the services of Pretoria, provision should be made for the civil population of this area to make use of these services during peacetime as well. If this request is granted, Verwoerdburg will provide the nurses who will assist with the nursing of the civil population.

As regards the publicity aspect, I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the fine progress that is being made in respect of the publication Commando. It has been a long time since the publication maintained the high standard it is maintaining at present. A variety of articles are published in this publication, and the standard is quite high. However, I am very sorry that this publication is not distributed to a greater extent among Citizen Force members who are liable to military service and members of the commando forces. Maybe the Supreme Command could give its consideration to this aspect of the matter.

Two years ago I raised the question of the erection of church buildings for our army chaplains in this House. I now want to thank the hon. the Minister on behalf of our people for the fine church building we have at Oudtshoorn to-day and to which the Defence Force made a substantial contribution. [Time expired.]

The hon. member who has just sat down is my member of Parliament. [Interjections.] I am not bragging.

You can approach me through him to get back into the Air Force.

Thank you, very much. It must be quite obvious that his admiration for the late Mr. Erasmus and my admiration for him are not exactly the same, but for us to pursue that matter now is going to be a waste of very valuable time, except that I would like to say to him that Mr. Erasmus kicked me out and that Dr. Verwoerd was so cross that he kicked Mr. Erasmus out.

Sir, before I sat down I was speaking of the idea of a permanent composite brigade instead of our present training. There are many advantages and many disadvantages to a scheme like that, but I leave it to the Minister and his staff. One of my colleagues on this side will elaborate on this in the course of the debate, and perhaps attention could be given to this as we go along. The big trouble in the Permanent Force, as we all know, is the question of trained Permanent Force personnel. If we could fill our Permanent Force establishment, most of the Minister’s troubles with regard to training and everything else will be greatly reduced. The new pay scales will undoubtedly help and we hops that during the course of this debate the Minister will be able to give us a few more instances where he is able to improve the lot of the Permanent Force people over the next couple of years.

Mr. Chairman, there is one matter that distresses me very much. It is not a very pleasant matter to talk about and that is the question of discipline. I am not entirely satisfied that everything is in order as far as discipline is concerned, and I want to tell you why, Sir. We had the case which was reported in the newspapers the other day where a number of young Permanent Force people went over from Pretoria and interfered with the students in Johannesburg. I do not want anybody to think that I have any sympathy whatsoever with the small minority of long-haired adolescents who have not got enough work to do, but what distresses me is that it looks very much as though this was an organized effort to interfere with the students. I speak subject to correction but if the newspaper reports are correct, it would appear that there were N.C.O.s present and that this was an organized effort. I think that is a very bad manifestation.

Order! Is that matter not sub judice?

I am just talking about the fact that such a thing could happen. I do not want to discuss the merits or the demerits of the case. I know that this matter is being investigated. It would appear, however, that this was an organized effort and that is what distresses me.

Order! I do not think the hon. member should pursue that matter; it is still sub judice.

What worries me is that a thing like this could take place at all. I was in the Permanent Force for many years, and I cannot describe to you in parliamentary language what we would have done to people if they had taken the law into their own hands like this.

Order! I wish to point out that S.O. 119 reads as follows: “No member shall refer to any matter on which a judicial decision is pending.” I hope the hon. member will, therefore, abide by my ruling.

Very well, I will not pursue the matter; I think I have made my point. There is another matter that I would like to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister. It is not a very serious thing, but it is something that disturbs and distresses some people. I live very close to Voortrekker Hoogte. I have been driving around the place quite a lot and I see that quite a number of the street names there have been changed. Names which have been there for many a day have been changed, and these streets have been renamed after persons who, quite honestly, are completely unknown to me. I do not know who or what they are. This seems to be so unnecessary; there seems to be no point in changing these names. After all, these old names are part of our history. They are being obliterated and replaced with other names. There is no originality about it and, as far as one can see, there is no reason for this.

Is there a Bronkhorst Street?

Sir, I do not want to be frivolous about it. We might have a street there with a little black light at the one end …

Bezuidenhoutskraal.

I can mention for the Minister’s information that there is an Andries Pretorius Street and there is a Piet Retief Street. One does not want to detract from the importance of these people in our history, but in every little village and town there are streets named after them. Why introduce their names there as well? There is, for instance, a Jacobus Jooste Street there. I have not got a clue who Jacobus Jooste is.

He was a “rapportryer”.

At any rate, all this seems to be so unnecessary. It hurts people and it could so easily be left alone.

The hon. member for North Rand made a few important remarks at the beginning of his speech and I think that, in view of his experience in the Defence Force, one may probably take notice of his remarks, but the hon. member also reminds me of a cow which gives a large pail of milk but kicks over the same pail of milk once her hobble is removed. This is what the hon. member reminds me of with the remarks he made at the end of his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I want to make a few remarks in connection with the training of our Defence Force for combating terrorism. I believe our Defence Force will have to be trained to an increasing extent in future to combat terrorism. It is my well considered contention that we are going to have one of two wars in future: The one war which is going to be an atomic war which I do not think will ever take place in Africa although it might take place in Europe. I think the war which is going to affect Africa or probably South Africa in modern times and in future, will be a war in the nature of that which is being fought in Israel at the moment, namely a war of terrorism, in other words, a hit-and-run war. I think we will have to prepare our Defence Force for this type of war to an increasing extent. A report was published recently to the effect that a terrorist leader, Lazarus Kavandame, had surrendered, a report to which too much value was probably attached in that I do not think that the fact that this terrorist leader had surrendered in Mocambique, will have any effect on the infiltration of terrorism in Southern Africa. I do not think this is the case. I had the opportunity to make a few interesting observations in connection with this matter at U.N. last year. I discussed matters with a great number of the African leaders, leaders of the Arab states and with terrorist leaders who gave evidence at U.N. as well as with petitioners, and so forth. It was interesting to have found that our enemies at U.N. have more or less abandoned the idea that South Africa would ultimately be attacked by one or more of the African states. One can accept that they have abandoned that idea. But, in the second place, they have more or less abandoned the idea that the U.N. or some of its organizations will one day succeed in bringing South Africa on its knees. The Security Council as well as the General Assembly will continue taking resolutions from time to time and South Africa will still be subject to abuse in future, but it more or less amounts to the fact that our enemies at U.N. have given up hoping that they will achieve their aims through the organs of the U.N. But it is interesting to note that they rely to an increasing extent on terrorism to conquer South Africa. One of the delegates, Barutti of Saudi Arabia, put it to me very strikingly. He said to me: “Young man, Algeria was conquered through terrorism; Cuba was conquered through terrorism; Israel will be conquered through terrorism and South Africa will, in fact, be conquered through terrorism.” This is constantly the tone of all the discussions which take place at the U.N. Frelimo’s delegates gave evidence there. They showed films to the delegates at U.N. to bring to the attention of the world the struggle which is being waged by the terrorists, and the films they showed, which were of Russian and Czechoslovakian origin, were interesting. The hon. member for Yeoville, who is not here now, and I saw those films. The way they presented the case of terrorism to the world was rather striking. The film began by showing how the white regime in Southern Africa was allegedly suppressing the Blacks and how they were being trained for the task of terrorism from a very early to a very advanced age and how they were being trained, and so forth. They presented these things in a very striking manner. Prelimo’s national anthem—Sane Mozambique! Sane Mozambique!—constantly served as background music until it actually gave one goose-flesh. It was presented in a very emotional manner. To me it was an eyeopener, so much so that when we left the place in which the films had been shown, seasoned delegates of Western countries actually had tears in their eyes. It is also interesting to note that while this subject of terrorism was being discussed in one of the committees, the terrorists were referred to as “terrorists” by South Africa’s delegate to that particular committee, Von Hirschberg. The Tanzanian delegate jumped to his feet and told the chairman, Farah of Somalia, “Mr. Chairman, I object to this white racist of Pretoria referring to these freedom fighters as terrorists.” It is interesting that one delegate after the other took up this refrain and the chairman of that specific committee ruled that those people should not be referred to as terrorists in future, and that they should be referred to as freedom fighters. It was a source of great pride to me when South Africa’s delegate, Mr. Von Hirschberg, said: “Mr. Chairman, I am compelled to accept your ruling, but I want to put it to you and to every delegate who is present here to-day and, in fact, to the world, that whatever terminology South Africa may use in future in respect of these people, we shall, when speaking of them, mean that they are terrorists and nothing else.” To me it was an eye-opener to see, while these people were giving evidence, how many representatives of countries got up and offered financial aid amounting to millions of dollars in order to promote terrorism in their attacks against the white minority in Southern Africa. Representatives of other countries got up one after another offering aid amounting to millions of dollars. Virtually half the number of countries which are members of U.N. committed themselves in one way or another, whether financially or morally, to promote terrorism in Southern Africa. This is an aspect which we should take into account. It is a fact that the terrorists in Southern Africa have enormous financial sources and even military equipment at their disposal to-day. I find it interesting that a report was received only a few days ago to the effect that they are provided with even aircraft, modern jet fighters. I do not think we should view this matter lightly. In fact, I have here a report which was published in Die Burger of 26th March, 1969, in which it was stated that between 400 and 600 terrorists armed with modern weapons were waiting in camps in Zambia to invade Rhodesia across the Zambesi. This report came from Salisbury. My time is limited, but I nevertheless want to emphasize that we shall in future have to take into account these attacks by terrorists. I now want to refer to a speech made by the hon. the Minister in this House on 3rd April, 1968, as reported in Hansard, volume 23, column 3328. He. used the following words and I want to ask the Minister to repeat in no uncertain terms to those countries in Africa which are accommodating terrorists the warning he issued in that speech. On that occasion the Minister said—

I think the time is opportune for the hon. the Minister once again to issue a strong warning to African countries which are accommodating, inciting and assisting terrorists who are directed against Southern Africa. For this reason I also think that we should equip our Defence Force in future in such a way for them to have a sound knowledge and the best training methods to combat terrorism and that they should also be provided with the necessary weapons to deal with it.

I think we are all grateful to the hon. member for Middelland for having raised this question of terrorism. The attitude of this side of the House is well known in this connection. We are as keen as the Government to eradicate terrorism whereever it may raise its ugly head on or within bur borders, and there will be no lack of support from this side of the House whenever it comes to any constructive steps being taken against terrorist incursion into South Africa.

I wish to refer this afternoon to naval matters and I would like to congratulate the Minister and the Supreme Command on the part they must have played in arranging for our visits to the Argentine and to Australia. I think it would also be remiss of me if I did not congrtulate the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the diplomats who made those visits possible. But what I think is most important is that we on this side and the Government should congratulate the members of our Fleet on the magnificent performances they put up as ambassadors for our country, both in the Argentine and in Australia. I think it is fair to say that these cruises to both those countries have been of inestimable value to the members of the Fleet, more particularly because an opportunity was given to the men in those ships for training over a long period of time, sometimes in most adverse conditions, conditions which do not necessarily obtain off our coasts. They have therefore had practical experience of long cruises and I think that is to be welcomed. I hope also that the visits to these two countries foreshadow perhaps defensive alliances between South Africa, Australia and the Argentine.

Now I should like to deal with the speech made by the hon. the Minister on 31st March, 1967, at Simonstown on the occasion of the 21st birthday of the South African Navy. Under the heading “Botha Pledges Top Conditions for the Navy” in the Cape Times, he said:

I think that two years now having elapsed, we are entitled to ask the Minister whether he will make a report to the House on the progress that has been made in these connections. There are some noteworthy matters which I should also like to bring to his attention.

The first is that in response to a question from me it appears that there is a vast increase in the civilian personnel at Simonstown. I should like to tell the Minister that there is much criticism in Simonstown, from both people in the Navy and outside, of the fact that there are a number of employees in the Navy and in the Dockyard for whom there does not appear to be enough work. It seems to me that we are perhaps increasing that side of the Defence Force far too rapidly and without much purpose. I would also mention that the Dockyard police have been increased by 12 in the last three years, whereas criminal offences by members of the Permanent Force in the last three years amounted only to 22 and those of trainees to 2.

Then I should like to refer to the question of dismissals. Here I think there is an alarming trend not only in regard to dismissals but also resignations. Of the officers who are on general duties, four have been dismissed in the last five years, together with five technical and administrative officers. Of the other ranks, of those in the technical services, 20 have been dismissed, and in the non-technical services 252 were dismissed. Now, dealing with the resignations—and this gives cause for considerable concern—of the officers on general duties, in the last five years, 35 have resigned. Resignations in the technical and administrative services number 35; of other ranks in the technical services, 265, and those in the nontechnical and administrative services number 1,088. I think it should be borne in mind that there are many members of the Defence Force at Simonstown who would like to resign because they can enjoy better conditions outside of the Defence Force, but they are prohibited from doing so because of arrangements made between the Defence Force and other civilian concerns, whereby the civilian concerns agree not take ex-employees of the Defence Force.

Now I should like to deal with the question of admissions to the S.A. Navy. I have had occasion to take up with the Minister a number of cases where applicants from the seaside areas of South Africa have applied for service in the Navy and have been refused for some reason. I want to make the suggestion this afternoon that preference should always be given to those applicants for the S.A. Navy who come from the maritime areas above those who come from the inland areas. I think it is far better for the reason, that they are more readily available when required after they have completed their service, and it seems a sine qua non that they will be more familiar with the conditions of the sea than those from inland areas.

Now there are some strange things that occur in the Defence Force, and more particularly in the Navy. I should like to deal with the question of selections of those who go to the Naval College at Gordon’s Bay. It appears that they are selected to go to that Naval College on the basis of their success in the Senior Certificate. It appears also that they select them after aptitude tests and after personal interviews. In response to recent questions, the Minister said: “Slegs die beste word gekies”. I am sure that only the best are chosen, but it is a very strange thing that when I inspected the college at Gordon’s Bay recently, in one working party of 12 I found no fewer than three Ministers’ sons. I am sure that they must have obtained first-class Senior Certificates and I am sure that they must have passed the aptitude tests with flying colours, and I am sure that they must have made an enormous impression on those who selected them to go to the Naval College. But I think we should ask how many other Ministers’ sons and how many other Members of Parliament on that side of the House have had their children at the Naval College at Gordon’s Bay on the basis of these criteria of selection.

What are you suggesting?

I am suggesting that undue preference is given to them.

I shall take you up on that; you should be ashamed of yourself.

I believe it is in the public interest that these matters should be brought out into the open and the Minister now has an opportunity, as the result of what I have said this afternoon, to explain to South Africa why it is that these things happen. Then there are some other strange things that happen in the Defence Force and I should like to quote from the publication Commando. I have mentioned this matter in the House before. Among the books reviewed by Commando was a book colled Positiewe Nasionalisme by Prof. Kotzé. It was recommended as suitable reading for members of the Defence Force. The Minister’s answer at that time was that the Defence Force was in no way responsible for the opinions of those who reviewed the books, and I accept that, but I do not believe that to review a book like that and to make recommendations such as that brings about the spirit of harmony in our Defence Force.

Then there is another matter, and that is the question of the use made of Defence premises. I asked a question in the House as to why the Nationalist Party celebrated its 21st birthday in the Naval Gymnasium at Saldanha. The Minister’s reply was that Defence premises such as that gymnasium hall could be used for social and cultural purposes. The social and cultural matters, that the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs addressed that social and cultural gathering about were such as “The movement outward was no departure from Nationalist Party policy,” inter alia. That is a blatant abuse of Defence premises, and I hope the Minister will comment on that as well.

Then, lastly, there is something I raise in all seriousness. I do not think the names of the submarines were well chosen. It transpires that the names were chosen by the Supreme Command plus the Minister, after consultation with Dr. Punt of the Simon van der Stelstigting. I would with very great respect commend to the Minister that in future when we acquire submarines or other surface vessels, members of the Navy should be given an opportunity to suggest appropriate names for those vessels. I hope that the Minister takes that suggestion in the spirit in which I mean it. There has been considerable criticism in the Navy about the naming of those submarines and I would ask the Minister sincerely to take that into account when naming vessels in future. I see the Minister is looking at me angrily and that he is going to reply to what I have said in the same way he has replied to me before, in a bitterly hostile, attacking manner, but I would just like to say that I have raised these last matters in the spirit in which we approach Defence matters on this side of the House, namely in the interest of South Africa. [Time expired.]

It was not my intention to participate in this debate so soon again, but the hon. member for Simonstown has an unpleasant way of doing things. I want to tell him that it does not do him much good in the Navy. He will be surprised at what is being said about him, not by officers sharing my political convictions, but by officers who have his language in common with him and who have never revealed their political convictions to me. He will be surprised. I want to tell him that his actions create the impression in the Navy that he has ulterior motives.

He is a nosy parker.

It will be more becoming of him to act in a way which will not detract from the prestige of the Navy. I am going to deal with a few of these points and I am going to start with the submarines. When the names were chosen for the submarines the Navy was specifically asked to make recommendations.

Why did you not say that in answer to my question?

Must I reply to all the questions of the hon. member when he chooses or when he puts his questions in such a stupid way? I said there was proper consultation, and let me now tell the hon. member what happened. The hon. member must listen now, otherwise I shall resume my seat and not reply to him.

I am listening.

I adopted the attitude from the outset that I would only name the submarines after I had had proper consultations. What happened in this case was that the Navy made suggestions. In the second place I want to say that when an Acting Minister replied to that question, it was in my absence. The Naval Chief of Staff was not here either. Those names which were suggested by the Navy plus the other names which were considered—there were, as far as I can remember, three groups of names—were referred to the Supreme Command. Only after the Supreme Command had signified their agreement did I approve of those names. In other words, I consulted the Supreme Command of the Defence Force. I want to point out that there is nothing unusual about naming submarines after women. This happens in many countries. The submarine in which I went for a cruise in France had the name of a woman.

I am aware of that.

In the third place I want to tell the hon. member that we chose these names of women because we want to honour the women of South Africa. If this had to happen again, I would again do so without consulting the hon. member.

I did not ask to be consulted.

In the fourth place I can tell the hon. member that I was very circumspect as regards the choice of these names. The wife of Jan van Riebeeck was a brave woman. She came to South Africa under difficult circumstances.

I am not denying that.

Why then is the hon. member kicking up a fuss? Johanna van der Merwe was one of the greatest heroines the Afrikaner nation ever knew, and Emily Hobhouse was an English lady who did more good for relations in South Africa than anyone else. These are the grounds on which those names were chosen. The Supreme Command had the opportunity to consider these names. The Navy had the opportunity to suggest names. Only after that did I take my decision. I do not know why this matter is again being raised now.

We want to know what the Navy people have to say about this.

Well, it is strange that the complaints do not reach me [Interjections.] I shall tell you where the trouble comes from. The trouble arises when people who have nothing to do with these matters start sowing suspicion and writing articles which disparage the names of the submarines. I do not intend shirking my responsibilities in that way. We made proper, reasoned statements as to why we chose the names. It is my responsibility to take the final decision. I intend doing so as long I am Minister. Now, I have again given the reasons this afternoon.

I now come to Commando. Commando is a publication that has improved tremendously lately. It is my point of view, and I think it is the right one, that members of the Defence Force should read as much as possible. That it why reviews of various books are published from time to time. I have never had any reason to complain about books reviewed in Commando. Now the hon. member selects only one of those books. He makes a fuss about it. Does the hon. member also look at other books reviewed in Commando?

Yes.

But why then does he have to drag in these trifling matters? Then the hon. member did a very nasty thing, which I hold against him. I hold it against him because it is a reflection not only on the integrity of the people whose sons are at the Naval College, but also on the people who have to select those boys. It is also a reflection on our Naval Chief of Staff. I will not allow that hon. member to insult the Naval Chief of Staff of South Africa. I will not allow the hon. member to do that. And I want to say the following to him this afternoon, because the I.Q. of these boys are tested. The qualifications of these boys are examined as well as their achievements at school. They are also given a medical examination. It is on the basis of these things, and these things alone, that these boys are selected. Now the hon. member asks whether there were other boys as well. Let me tell the hon. member that my own son was there, and what does that matter to him?

If he was there on merit, that is fine.

Very well, then. Just as he was there on merit, so the other boys who are there now, are there on merit. I now want to ask the hon member to stop with this gossip, because it is an insult to the officers who select those boys. I will not take it, not from him. That is why I was dissatisfied. What the hon. member really wants to suggest is that pressure is brought to bear to get boys admitted there who cannot be admitted there on merit. I challenge him to give me one example of a boy who was selected for the Naval College and who did not gain admission to the college on merit. I challenge him to mention one single boy’s qualifications which have not been ascertained on merit.

How can he do that?

I shall give him an opportunity to interview and question the officers who did the selecting.

And submit all the statistics to me?

Sir, have you ever seen a more arrogant attitude in your life? The hon. member for Simonstown now want to arrogate to himself the right to hurl insults left and right, to arouse suspicion, in the first place about the children of honourable people, and in the second place about the action of honourable officers. And then after having used this slanderous language he wants to sit in judgment.

You challenged me.

Surely you are now acting on the basis of knowledge you have. Now let me have that information.

The fact of the matter is that three sons of Ministers are there.

What is wrong with that? Even if there were ten sons of Ministers there?

If they are there on merit, that is fine.

Well, they are there on merit.

If they are there as a result of influence it is not fine.

They are there on merit. They are able boys. They are enthusiastic boys who gained admission to the College on the basis of tests. I am prepared to reveal the grounds on which a man is tested. I think the action of the hon. member is petty and as I know the hon. member for Simonstown it is the type of thing which he will bruit about.

The hon. member also referred to a speech I made in Simonstown in which I envisaged certain improvements. That is true. I did envisage certain improvements. In the first place 129 houses in Da Gama Park were renovated at a cost of R66,000 by the Department of Community Development during 1968. Formal tenders are being invited at the moment for the renovation of a further 104 houses at an estimated cost of R60,000. The tenders will be disposed of within three weeks. At the moment 13 houses are under construction at Da Gama Park. These are virtually completed. Tenders will be invited this year for two blocks of flats, semi-detached houses and houses which will provide 90 housing units. It is hoped that building operations will be commenced in the second half of this year. During the past year 16 housing units were completed at Wingfield, while 19 housing units are still under construction. In Durban 19 housing units were completed at the Bluff during the year, which are available to staff of the Navy, Army and Air Force at Durban. The Department of Community Development is at present negotiating for the purchase of private houses at Simonstown which will also become available to Naval staff after the houses have been converted and renovated.

Order! Hon. members whose seats are so near the Chair, should not converse aloud; it is very annoying.

Mr. Chairman, may I draw your attention to the fact that the hon. member for Transkei sat there mumbling the whole afternoon long while I was replying.

I called him to order on previous occasions, but it seems to me he did not hear.

I am discussing a matter which is of interest to all of us and in respect of the basic principles of which the hon. member for Durban (Point) said we did not differ. Why do hon. members not give me the opportunity now to state these facts properly? I was saying that private houses, after conversion and renovation, would be made available to Naval staff. Offers have been received from the town council and the matter is in the hands of the Department of Community Development now. In addition I now want to tell the hon. member that we have just invited applications for the submarine staff. The hon. member also referred to the resignations. Of course there were resignations. Of course there is a great demand for well trained people in the country. Of course wonderful offers are made to persons in the entire Defence Force. We have never said that that position does not cause us any concern. It does. It is also causing us concern in the Navy. But we have now invited applications for submarine staff. We have had 841 applications. In other words, we shall be able to select the successful applicants. Among those applicants there are quite a few with good academic qualifications. In other words, the situation is not as bad as the impression which is being created. The position is that in certain divisions of the Defence Force problems really exist. That is why we said some time ago when we introduced compulsory military service that we hoped to combat some of our manpower problems by means of the system of national service.

†The intention with the system of national service was to solve some of our problems through that system. We are gradually gaining the success we expected. It is not only a question of resignations.

*The reverse side of the picture is also promising. I now want to tell the hon. member that I am prepared to argue with the hon. member 100 per cent on merit as regards any argument of that kind. I am prepared to accept criticism from him in the form of arguments based on merit, but I am not prepared to accept criticism from him in the form in which he expressed such criticism, i.e. criticizing boys who are doing their duty. To come back to this matter, I want to ask him with regard to the boys who are selected for the Naval College to go on that short officers’ course, whether the hon. member has satisfied himself as to what a stiff course that is.

Yes.

The fact of the matter is that after three months of basic training they are made to undergo a very stiff course for three months which requires not only a great deal of energy but also intelligence. Then these young chaps go on to the ships. Some of those people held key positions on the ships that went to Australia last year. They did excellent work. When a boy is capable of satisfying those requirements without complaining, we should not try to use it as a subject for politicking as happened to-day. That is why I got up immediately to tell the hon. member that I feel ashamed and sorry about the fact that he made a point of this.

Mr. Chairman, it was really pleasant …

Why not see the member for Germiston?

Order! What does the hon. member mean?

The hon. member for Simonstown wanted to reply to the attack made by the Minister.

I will decide who is going to take part in this debate and when. I do not need any directive from the hon. member.

Mr. Chairman, it was really pleasant to listen to the way the hon. the Minister exposed and completely shattered the hon. member for Simonstown. If I had been in this shoes, I would have been so ashamed that I would have risen and asked permission to leave the House. But while I was listening to all his attacks and charges, which have now been proved to be groundless, I was proud of the fact that in respect of the base at Zeerust no specific complaints in regard to the staff or servicemen had ever been brought to my notice. That made me feel free again to bring the development of that basis to the notice of the hon. the Minister once more. In that regard I also want to say that at that base there is a particular need for a recreation hall, for the good of the trainees as well as the staff.

Now I want to drop that subject and associate myself with the congratulations which other hon. colleagues extended to the hon. the Minister and his staff. I want to congratulate him on his excellent and illuminating White Paper which he tabled here. It is a report which furnishes information in regard to the composition, the training, the development, the equipment and the striking power of our Defence Force, which is really reassuring to every interested citizen of the country who wants to take cognizance of that. The information furnished in this White Paper can also have a beneficial effect extending far beyond the borders of our fatherland. It can enhance the prestige and the status of South Africa, also with military strategists when they determine the value of South Africa’s Defence Force within the set-up of the Southern Hemisphere. The significant role it can play in combating the communist threat as well as the strategic Western bulwark it already is at the southernmost point of Africa while the Suez Canal remains closed and will in any case remain a dangerous sea-way into the distant future, is irrefutable. A strong, mobile defence force means security. Security gives rise to confidence, and confidence gives rise to rapprochement—rapprochement and understanding with other states which have common threats to combat and distinctive interests to protect—these are the things for which South Africa has a need and which can always mean a great deal to us. Information in respect of the position of our Defence Force and the striking power of South Africa can always, as far as that is concerned, be of great importance. I find it a pity that there are still people in South Africa, and in this House as well, who hold the view that too much is being done in respect of Defence and that too much money is being spent on it, people such as the hon. member—I could almost say the eccentric hon. member—for Houghton. But we do not want to dwell on that.

I want to come to the introduction to this White Paper, which I found particularly striking. The hon. member for Potchefstroom read it out here and only referred to it briefly. In order to emphasize what I want to say, I myself should really have read out the whole introduction once again, but there will not be time for doing so. When I read it, I got to think that this was really the military confession of faith which, in a few significant words, summarized in a nutshell the object of the development of our Defence Force in South Africa. One has to read, re-read and analyse it in order to be able to enjoy and emphasize at its true value the full import and striking power of every word and every sentence which the hon. the Minister used in such a summarizing manner. The very first sentence starts with the words, “For those who want to listen …” This is a statement with a message in the widest sense of the word intended for the ears of all the inhabitants of our own fatherland, of every population group, but also for the ears of our friends as well as our enemies, including those who are far beyond the borders of our country. It is intended for all citizens who are willing to listen attentively and who are prepared to pay attention to what is said in this briefly summarized introduction. Unfortunately it is true that many people and even statesmen do not want to listen to the truth and do not wnat to accept the real facts in respect of the objects of the development of our Defence Force. They see nothing but hostile motives in this. That is why the words “want to” have such a special meaning in this sentence; in other words, to give everybody who wants to with the emphasis on “wants to”, i.e. everybody who is willing to listen in an honest and unprejudiced manner, the assurance that no subtle, no secret, no imperialist motives are involved; it is only aimed at defending, not at attacking. This reduces the object to the most basic and primary human right of self-defence and safeguarding what is by rights and unquestionably one’s own sanctuary, one’s own possession, one’s own way of life and one’s own fatherland. This is very important and must also be understood and accepted this way in the outside world. The hon. the Minister went on to say: “We threaten nobody …” There are no aggressive motives, no land-hunger, no economic considerations for our wanting to fight, no bloodthirsty or destructive urges, no hankering after “lebensraum”. All of this whilst we are deeply conscious of the fact that we are well and truly being threatened by ill-informed and prejudiced enemies in Africa, in the Orient, and by the communist bloc of the Russian and the Chinese combination, as well as, to a lesser extent, by other sections such as our many enemies in international organizations and the terrorist movements to which the hon. member for Middelland rightly referred. In addition there is the threat from underground movements here in South Africa. This message concludes with these words, “… but we will also not suffer being attacked …” In other words, we shall employ, to the maximum, the striking power, the power of resistance of an excellent Defence Force and the spiritual power of the whole of South Africa against any attack. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Marico will not mind if I do not follow him on the interesting topic of underground and subversive activities, of which I understand he has considerable knowledge.

I should prefer to come back to the hon. the Minister of Defence and the matters which he raised across the floor of the House with me. First of all, I should like to say how much I welcome and we on this side of the House welcome, his statement regarding improved housing facilities at Simonstown. He made a promise in 1967. It seems that the first part of his promise is coming true. I welcome that and I congratulate him on it. I am sure that all servicemen in Simonstown will be just as pleased as I. The hon. the Minister also mentioned that he would welcome from me an objective discussion about the state of the Naval Forces, more particularly those points that I drew to his attention, such as the dismissal and the resignations from the Navy. I gave those figures to the House and to him, because I thought they were a cause for concern. I am glad that he shares that concern. I hope that as a result of some of the better facilities that are to be provided at Simonstown, the spate of resignations will at least be stopped.

Now I should like to move on to the question of the Naval College at Gordons Bay. First of all, I seldom speak in this House unless I have intimate knowledge of the subject on which I speak as a result of a personal inspection. [Interjections.] I went to the Gordons Bay Navy College after raising a question here and at the request of the captain of the college. I might say, as I have said before in connection with Saldanha, in connection also with all the naval installations of Simonstown, that I was most impressed with what I saw there. When I spoke earlier, I pointed out to the hon. the Minister that there were some matters that seemed to be strange and that required answers, inter alia, the fact that there are three sons of three Ministers at Gordons Bay undergoing training. In answer to the question that I asked recently, the hon. the Minister said that the people who went to that naval college were chosen on the basis of their senior certificate results, on the basis of their aptitude tests and on the basis of personal interviews. Now all the Minister had to do this afternoon, was to say that the hon. member for Simonstown must not make insinuations which are incorrect and that he has proof positive that each of these Ministers’ sons were chosen only on the basis of merit. He need not have gone any further. This is not the first time that this hon. Minister has reacted in such a touchy manner. On each other occasion that I have raised matters to do with the naval forces in Simonstown, he has attacked me. The same applies to the questions that I ask. Invariably at the end of his answer, there is some snide and some cheap remark. I think that I am entitled to say that this Minister’s past is surely catching up with his present.

I should also like to deal with the question of the names of the submarines. I ask the hon. the Minister to accept what I say. I asked the question in the House as to how the names were arrived at when he was overseas quite fortuitously. It happened to be appropriate at the time and I put that question on the Order Paper. This is what my question was and this is what the answer was. I asked whether the naval personnel were invited to suggest appropriate names for the submarines. If so, which personnel, what names and in what order of popularity were names suggested? The answer then given me was that naval personnel were not invited to suggest appropriate names. Until the answer which the hon. the Minister himself, gave to me this afternoon, I was under the impression that naval personnel had not been consulted. I am perfectly correct in saying that naval personnel generally are dissatisfied with the names given to the submarines. I made a constructive suggestion that in future the naval personnel should be consulted. In fact, they were consulted as the hon. the Minister now tells me, but not according to the answer that was given to me by the gentleman who answered my question on the Order Paper for him in his absence overseas. I was quite entitled to raise those matters across the floor of the House, namely those that are constructive, those that I believe give cause for concern, those that seem to indicate that certain aspects of the Defence Force activities are not quite right. I would like to be able to protect this hon. Minister from the sort of statement that was made by the retired chief of staff in 1953 about his predecessor bar one. The Navy and the other members of the Defence Force are at one in their praise of his immediate predecessor, but are not at one in their praise for his predecessor bar one. This is what Gen. Beyers said in 1953:

I accepted the appointment of chief of the general staff in the first instance on the distinct understanding that there would be no departure or deviation from military principles. When, in breach of this understanding, the Minister departed from those principles, and in doing so was upheld by the Cabinet, I resigned.

Moreover, as a professional soldier and a chief of staff, I could no longer tolerate Mr. Erasmus.

I hope that no member of the Defence Force will be able to say this about this Minister at the termination of his period of office.

Mr Chairman, the hon. member for Simonstown will not get away as easily as that with his story in regard to the reference to the naval college at Gordons Bay. While he was speaking, I made an interjection and asked him what he was suggesting. He said in reply that he maintained that irregular political influencing had taken place. We can get a copy of his Hansard. The hon. member said that he maintained that those young men were there as a result of irregular political influencing. That is what I objected to. That is what the hon. member said after he had received a reply from me to a question on the Order Paper. In that reply I told him on what grounds young men were chosen. That is why I challenged him to furnish his proof. That is why I told him that that was a grave, slanderous accusation against the Naval Chief of Staff. The naval chief of staff informs me that when those young men are screened, the officers in charge are not aware of who those young men are; they do not know with what young man they are dealing. They only have the results of that young man’s achievements before them.

Could you explain to me how the system works?

I have asked the Naval Chief of Staff to get it for me. I shall explain it on Monday. However, I am prepared to take his word for it that, when the screening takes place, the men in charge do not know who those young men are. Now the hon. member comes along, having received from me a reply drafted after thorough consideration, and he thinks that towards the end of the afternoon he can get away here with a very ugly accusation which does not only cast a reflection on the integrity of the Ministers concerned, but also casts a very serious reflection on the integrity of officers. I object to that in the strongest terms, because Gordons Bay is one of our fine institutions. A very fine spirit is being maintained at Gordons Bay. I have had dealings with those young men, and I have dealings with them from time to time. Some of those young men visited my home last year. Amongst them there were English-speaking young men, young men from Jewish families and Afrikaans-speaking young men. A very fine spirit prevails amongst that group of young candidate officers.

That is exactly how it ought to be.

Precisely. In that case, why does the hon. member level this nasty, slanderous accusation? Why does he do it if he does not want to cause trouble by doing so? That is what I revolted against.

The hon. member also referred again to the question about the submarines. The Naval Clref of Staff and I were overseas at the stage when that question was replied to. The commandant general was also overseas at that stage. If a wrong impression had inadvertently been created through that reply, I apologize for it. However, the fact of the matter is that the Navy was in fact consulted. The Naval Chief of Staff consulted his chiefs of staff. I want to be honest and say that I really do not think that there is a defence force anywhere in the world which has to hold a referendum before giving a name to a man-of-war or a submarine. I think that would be childish. When we gave the names, we decided to determine first of all what kind of names we wanted to give to the submarines: names relating to nature, or names relating to animal life, or names relating to marine life, or names relating to the lives of heroes. At that stage we decided that it was time we honoured the woman of South Africa. We decided on that because it had already been done in various other navies of the world. I do not say that this has been done on a large scale, but I can mention to you several submarines which bear the names of women. That is nothing new!

I suppose we shall eventually have a submarine with the name of Ou Tante Koba.

If one calls to mind the history of South Africa, what three names are less controversial than these three names are? In what way shall we have more success in paying tribute to the women of South Africa? In the first place, we are honouring the wife of the architect of civilization in South Africa, and she also happened to have French blood in her veins. One of the reasons for my selecting that name, was that France was the country which helped us when no other country wanted to do so. I did not say that she was a French citizen; I said that she was of French descent. That is recorded in the statement. Subsequent to that everybody who wanted to make comment, started writing, and they can write as they please. I do not mind. However, it is not their task to take the final decision; it is mine, and I intend to carry it out. In the second instance, we chose the name of Emily Hobhouse for the second submarine, because Emily Hobhouse occupies a position of honour in the history of South Africa.

All three of them occupy positions of honour, and I do not dispute that!

If all three of them occupy positions of honour and all three of them are heroines, what is wrong with these names?

Why does the hon. member want Doris Day?

Furthermore, we decided not to give aggressive names to our submarines, because South Africa’s defence policy is based on the concept of defence, and not on aggression. This was also important for very good reasons which are obvious to a person who wants to think intelligently and does not merely want to engage in smear politics.

That hon. member ought to know that.

I am not referring to that hon. member, but I want to tell that hon. member that I did not encounter any unpleasant criticism in regard to this matter. That is why I am terribly sorry that, having succeeded in obtaining these three submarines and in obtaining them in such a fine manner, we once again find disparagement. Is it perhaps because these submarines come from France?

They are angry because we got them.

Or are you perhaps dissatisfied about our getting these submarines? Or are you perhaps dissatisfied about there being a Johanna van der Merwe amongst them?

Not at all.

No, I am merely asking, because an hon. member who is prepared to level these slanderous accusations at these colleagues of mine and at officers of the Navy, is capable of anything. Now the hon. member blames me for reacting to this in such a way. The hon. member knows that I always accord him decent treatment in any matter with which he approaches me. However, the hon. member should not try to employ tactics of this nature, because they do not have a beneficial effect on the Defence Force, nor do they have a beneficial effect on relations in the Defence Force. That is what I am guarding against. I hope the hon. member has learnt a lesson this afternoon which he will remember in future.

The hon. member for Simonstown gave a masterly performance of how a member of the House of Assembly should dissociate himself from courtesy and chivalry. We are very grateful to him for showing us his true colours in such a first-rate manner.

We notice that in the Defence Estimates an amount of R380,000 has been voted for new building works at Bloemfontein. We are very grateful that there will also be extension in this sphere. Having referred to extensions and possible extensions, I want to point out to the hon. the Minister, in regard to a training centre for young women, that in addition to Potchefstroom similar facilities exist at Bloemfontein. Over and above all these facilities which Potchefstroom can offer in respect of our young women, Bloemfontein has an airport as well. The hon. the Minister is, in addition, aware that the Municipality of Bloemfontein has offered, free of charge, almost 30 morgen for that project. Moreover, the Municipality has also offered certain services. This matter is, I hope, still pending, and I hope the hon. the Minister will take cognizance of the fact that that offer still stands. We appreciate that the costs involved and accommodation are possible problems. If accommodation should be available elsewhere, is it possible that the hon. the Minister will pay attention to it? However, we also want to submit to you that throughout the country there are nurses’ homes which, if one were to judge by the shortage of nurses, should have numerous vacancies. If the hon. the Minister could liaise with the hon. the Minister of Health, we might cut the Gordian knot in that respect by simultaneously reducing the shortage of nurses, because in the training programme for our young women provision is also being made for nursing as a very important subject. Therefore I foresee that there can be liaison between these two aspects.

We are also very grateful for the attention paid to housing in the White Paper. I notice, as did the hon. member for Pretoria (District) that 100 per cent housing is envisaged. I also want to associate myself with that hon. member’s representations, i.e. that the hon. the Minister should, in cases where military staff have provided their own accommodation, consider paying certain allowances to them until such time as the ideal of 100 per cent housing has been attained.

Furthermore, I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Middelland said. It is obvious from the White Paper that a defensive policy is envisaged and is also being implemented. That is right. If one analyses it further, it is very clear that in terms of this policy we foresee that, operationally, action will take place on our own territory. In other words, we shall not act in foreign territory. It is clear to us that our Defence Force is well prepared. There is no doubt about that in our minds. According to evidence received from abroad our Defence Force is well prepared. This is not evidence given by our own people; it is evidence given by overseas journalists. These people regard our Defence Force as being prepared and ready for every possible contingency. However, this is not the complete picture, for the policy of the hon. the Minister also makes provision for civil defence, which is integrated with the Defence Force. The present state of affairs is that provision is being made for nursing as well as fire-fighting, etc. Why did Germany pass Switzerland by during the Second World War? The reason is that every man, woman and child knew precisely what was expected of him or her. In other words, it was possible for every man, woman and child to be integrated with the programme of defence as a whole. Their task did not only include nursing or fire-fighting. I also want to mention to you, Sir, the example of wartime France. Wartime France took a long time to mobilize underground. In that process everybody eventually knew what was expected of him. Women could handle weapons; they knew how to handle the intelligence service and they could perform all sorts of other services, secondary services, otherwise performed by men. It is very clear to me that if we as a national front should want to frighten away intruders from outside, it would be inadequate if we merely took the concept ‘civil defence’ to mean nursing and fire-fighting. Civil defence should embrace much more. I just want to illustrate this in a practical manner. Suppose the inhabitants of Messina were to wake up one morning to find the police station occupied by terrorists. At this moment something like that seems absurd, but in Vietnam, for instance, the terrorists infiltrated Saigon in one night and occupied strategic positions. We must be aware of this possibility. Now my question is what would the inhabitants of Messina do if they were to hear such news on that morning? They would be panicstricken. That is why I say that the public of South Africa should be aware of the fact that in future they will have to do much more towards forming a national front as regards the outside world, in order to discourage any possible onslaughts, be they unconventional or conventional. The reason why the public are so easy in their minds, is that they are conscious of the readiness of the Defence Force. For a future perfect deterrent it will be necessary for us to be in a position to mobilize, as it is alleged Switzerland can do to-day. In a time of emergency in Switzerland the head of every family will open an envelope on being given a certain codeword. This envelope contains all the instructions for every member of the family. In this way co-ordination is effected between one and all, between the Defence Force and the civil defence services.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to dwell too long on the remarks of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (West) and I do hope that the Minister and his Supreme Command will not be rushing into a 100 per cent mobilization as has been suggested by the hon. member. I am sure that the threats and dangers which beset our country are fully and reasonably appraised, and that the preparations which are being made are necessary and reasonable. I want to make a confession to the hon. the Minister and that is to tell him that I never at any time had any liking for being involved in conflict under the sea, on top of the sea or in the air. Therefore I want to discuss matters regarding the cream of the Army, i.e. the Infantry. The hon. the Minister has given us a great deal of interesting information regarding the development and the production of missiles in this country. He also gave us other information regarding the armaments which are available. However, I think there is one thing we must bear in mind when assessing the preparedness of the country for the type of warfare in which we are likely to be involved. If we should be involved in such a conflict at all, be it with terrorists or any other infiltrators, the Infantry will be the ultimate group which will be involved in this war. No matter what the weapons might be, be it from the air or from the sea, the final winkling out of the terrorists is the job of the infantryman. We have seen it in Vietnam, where with all the power of bombardment the terrorist forces can only be hindered, but not subdued. I raise this matter because I believe that although the standard and programme of training which is required from the Infantry by the Chief of Combat Forces, is excellent, there is a tendency for the infantryman to become more a digit than a member of a regiment, more an individual serviceman than part of the regimental or battalion unit in which he eventually will be involved in the case of war. I believe that this is one reason why there have been suggestions that the young men are not particularly interested in army service. Sir, many of us recollect the days before the last war and the period of training in the Active Citizen Force, as it was then, when there was regimental spirit which was maintained in sporting activities and things of that nature. There was a camaraderie which was built up in times of peace which was extremely valuable when it came to operations in wartime. Sir, I wonder whether some of the procedures which are being adopted at the present moment are really necessary. For instance, when the serviceman starts his period of continuous training, he is equipped with clothing and equipment but when he has finished that period of training he retains merely what one terms the pimlico items, the articles of clothing, but all other articles, such as his arms, his field equipment, his sleeping equipment and so on, are taken back into ordnance. I wonder whether people always realize what a tedious job befalls a unit commander if he wishes at some stage to draw rifles for a weekend bivouac with his regiment. The numberings on these rifles mostly run into eight figures, and when these rifles have to be drawn from an ordnance store, the numbers have to be checked and the rifles checked in again; an inordinate amount of time is wasted. This wasted time and the tedious work can be avoided by just not having that type of operation and that type of training, and I wonder whether it is not possible for the Supreme Command to consider the establishment of regimental armouries where these arms can be properly kept under care and are easily accessible for the regiment at any time. Sir, the other matter which I believe is detracting from the development and retention of the battalion unit as such is the looseness in regard to the continuous training periods which are required for servicemen after they have done their first 9 or 12 months, as the case may be. At the present moment they must do three periods of 26 days, one in each year of a three-year cycle. I believe that it would be far more valuable if it was laid down that this should be the second and the fourth and the sixth year or the third year, the sixth year and the ninth year, because one would then have into the unit a regular intake of men for their short-term continuous training or refresher courses and one would be able to retain more of the regimental spirit within the unit. I believe that that would assist considerably in the twelve-day annual periods done by N.C.O.’s and junior officers. I have experienced it in my own family that when these youngsters go off to do their twelve-days’ training, they do not go to their unit; they are sent for training to the training battalion at Oudtshoorn and they are given people to train who are quite unassociated with the particular regiment to which they belong. I believe that these are matters which are important and deserve consideration from the Supreme Command.

Then I want to deal with two other matters and I have to deal with them very briefly in the time at my disposal. The first is the functioning of the selection boards which have been set up where the armed forces cannot take in the full number of persons liable for training. I have had it reported to me from a responsible source that where a local selection board cannot absorb the total number of people available, there is some cause for disquiet, not from the point of view of where the person is to be sent but from the point of view that persons are not selected for particular units. This is a matter which is causing some concern. I know that it is a difficult problem. I see from the statement which was issued by the Commandant-General that there are now 120 of these boards, and I wonder whether the hon. the Minister can assure us that each of these selection boards has a code of procedure which must be followed and that there is not too much left to whatever the local feelings of the members of the board might be. I think if it could be confirmed that there is a definite set of rules and procedures to be followed, it would allay and stop a certain amount of comment. I pass this on to the hon. the Minister purely as hearsay. I was in fact talking to some of these servicemen the other night socially and one of them said: “The man who does service nowadays is the man who does not have any influence to get out of being selected.” Sir, this is for ordinary service. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could give that assurance and allay fears which exist in some quarters that preference might be given to some people in local areas.

In the one minute that is left to me I want to deal with a matter which I raised with the hon. the Minister last year. Sir, we have had a lot of talk about culture in this House during this Session. I want to suggest to the Minister that if there is one culture which is common to all sections of the South African population, English and Afrikaans speaking, it is the Scottish culture, and I want to ask the Minister again, as I did last year, whether means cannot be found within the framework of his finances to assist Scottish regiments in regard to the procurement and the provision and maintenance of their Scottish uniforms for those regiments which have been long established in our South African Defence Force.

I should like to offer the hon. member for Green Point my apologies for not following up on what he has said. Mr. Chairman, we in South Africa are extremely fortunate in possessing so much we can feel proud of. We have a fine country of which we are proud. Each of the two language groups are proud of a fine past. I could continue in this way and mention a good many things of which we are proud. But I think that whatever our feelings towards all these wonderful things we share, we are not less proud of our Defence Force. It has already displayed dynamic growth in recent times, and we are justly proud of it. Arising out of what we have heard in this debate, and after the hon. member for Durban (Point) had commenced his speech, I firmly believed that this was perhaps a topic on which we and the Opposition could see eye to eye; that it was common ground on which we could approach closer to one another. When the hon. member for Durban (Point) was some distance into his speech, I began to have second thoughts. [Interjections.] Sir, I still have hope for the hon. member. He need not be so concerned about this. I think that if one were to knock off the rough edges and polish him up a bit, he would perhaps be able to make a speech next year which would be quite in line with what he announced at the outset of his speech here. Then the hon. member for Simonstown rose to speak with the same fine preamble, but to my great disappointment he subsequently adopted that course he adopted. To me, and to the good taste I should like to see maintained in this debate, it was a disappointment. My reservations increased, and the Opposition must not take this amiss of me. During that minor skirmish between the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Simonstown, it was clear to me that with their attitude and with their persistent interjections they were satirising either the Minister or the entire situation, and I find that quite deplorable. The spirit they displayed here is not the spirit they ought to display.

I said that we were justifiably proud of our Defence Force. Recently one finds it striking that the old stigma which formerly attached to the uniform has completely disappeared. I can still remember, when I was a young child, how a worthy old gentleman one day refused to greet a prison warden simply because he was wearing a uniform. We are grateful that that kind of thing is something of the past, but it probably had a lot to do with our history. But it is a thing of the past and we are glad that this is so. The men in our Defence Force, whether on land, on sea or in the air, are the men of whom we as ordinary citizens expect that if it should be necessary they will even be prepared to offer up their lives for South Africa and for us. Let us hope that that day will never arrive. Let us rather hope and pray for a lasting peace, but we will not allow ourselves to be caught napping. It we make these exacting demands on them and they are prepared to choose that profession, for our country and our people, then I believe it is the task of each one of us outside the Force to make much of these men, since this is the most suitable time, and accept them as people who are prepared to make the greatest sacrifice for South Africa. Let us give them our goodwill, our sympathy and our hospitality. I would like to put it like this. Let us regard each of the men in our Defence Force as a member of each family in South Africa. Let us give to them now which we may not, alas, be able to give them later on.

I want to express another idea. I should like to ascertain from the Minister whether it is possible for us to expand and develop the commando system further. What I really mean by that is whether we cannot attract more of the people outside the Active Force to it? In times of extreme emergency we know that civil defence, in every place where there is a concentration of people, is of the utmost importance. I feel that we should in fact launch a campaign to expand the commando system further. I also want to express my pleasure at our having progressed so far that we are able to incorporate civil defence in the Defence Force. This is only the beginning of a new era as far as that is concerned, but we have every confidence that under the competent leadership, which we have always been able to rely on, it will be developed into something exceptional.

The idea I want to conclude with has been expressed on various occasions. I want to say this, that South Africa desires nothing from any country in the world except friendly relations and commercial ties. That is why we have a Defence Force, and why we are not adjusted to onslaughts or antagonism. That is why we can make an appeal to every individual in our country, and I am speaking in particular to those who are supporters of the Opposition, to give everything in our power to develop this Defence Force of ours into something fine so that it can meet the greatest expectations we have of it.

I should just like to say to the hon. member for De Aar that it is precisely for this reason, i.e. that we want to see our Defence Force expanded in the way he says it should be done, that we are levelling this criticism of ours, so that if a wrong course is adopted in any section it can be quickly stopped. I should like to focus the Minister’s attention on the item for tuition fees for overseas courses. I presume of course that the amount we see in the Estimates does not include the costs of conversion courses, such as those for submarines and aircraft etc. The amount which we appropriate annually for this matter is something which gives me great cause for concern, particularly when one takes the tendency over the last few years into account. In this way we see that the amount decreased each year up to 1968, when we appropriated only R60,600 for that purpose. Last year, of course, an appreciable amount was spent on this again, but now we see that such a small amount is being allowed that, in my opinion, the position is quite unsound, and for the following reasons. Since we—and this has been mentioned more than once to-day as a small country make it our goal, with our relatively small Defence Force, to successfully withstand any attack which is made on us, we must prepare our Defence Force to its maximum efficiency. This must take place within the limits of the financial means which we are at this very moment giving the Minister. We all know that the necessary munitions are expensive. The Minister told us this afternoon how the prices had increased. But there are not only the direct costs; there is also the fact that the munitions rapidly become obsolete as a result of rapid technological development. The purchase of the right kind of munitions is therefore of the utmost importance. It is not only the price and the type which is of importance, but also in what respect it is suitable to our country in our circumstances, and above all to our soldiers. I am fully aware that munitions cannot simply be purchased, but I definitely believe that there is probably no better opportunity for a true evaluation of such munitions as when officers and men go overseas on courses dealing with these munitions. Secondly I want to say that it is a disturbing aspect of our Defence Force that we are rapidly approaching the time when many of our senior officers who went through their baptism of fire during the last war now have to retire. Nor do I wish to imply that a leadership can only be competent if the leader has been under fire. But let me put it this way: Fighting a war and playing war games are two different things. I believe that war games are extremely important and play an indispensible role in the training, not only of the leaders, but of the Force as a whole. They must be used as a source of experience precisely for the purpose of preparing for the real thing. In the same way it is important that this should not be done on one’s own or in isolation. The techniques and utilization of munitions also change. It ought not, as it were, to be acquired by correspondence course. For efficiency the expansion of knowledge is essential. For our country that expansion is only possible if members of our Force are able to co-operate with those of others.

There are of course problems. We all know what the attitude of overseas countries is. May I just say in parentheses that I think the time has come for overseas countries to realize that we as an Opposition, although small in numbers in this House, nevertheless have a large following among the voters outside. [Interjections.] It is not much less than 50 per cent. We are quite capable of dealing with the Government if it should make a false move, without any need for their (overseas countries) having to lend a hand with their ridiculous boycotts which not only endanger South Africa but also their own way of life. I am saying therefore that those problems have to be solved by diplomatic action and mutual visits as has been suggested to-day. That is a very good thing. But in addition I believe that a great deal can be contributed by sending as many members of the Defence Force as possible on overseas courses.

In the third place, since we read every day and hear about the manpower shortage, and the Permanent Force also has to contend with that problem—we are glad to learn of the increased salary scales which the hon. the Minister mentioned this afternoon—the possibility of an overseas course is one of those additional benefits which can contribute so much, not only towards keeping a man in the Force, but even towards attracting him to the Force. I firmly believe that the Navy, for example, will receive an increase in the number of applications from compulsory trainees, as a result of additional benefits which these welfare visits have resulted in. You see, Sir, it is that possibility only, the fact that one has a chance, that makes the world of difference.

Lastly I just want to say, although it is not possible for us to purchase all the different kinds of munitions there are, and because it would also be ridiculous and nonsensical to want to try to, it is nevertheless quite essential that our chaps should know how those munitions function, and what their possibilities are. It is essential, because the time might come when they will need that knowledge. What is the easiest, the cheapest and the best way of acquiring that knowledge? It is naturally by taking a course and becoming acquainted with it. This is by far and away the cheapest. I am therefore saying, Sir, that in order to achieve this purpose I should like to see quite a number of zeros being added to the figure which is at present indicated in the Estimates, even though these have to be taken from some other place. I hope the hon. the Minister will see his way clear to doing this.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member will pardon me if I do not refer in detail to his speech, except perhaps to say in passing that a great shock is awaiting him next year, since he has presumed to state that the electorate is behind him. If the hon. member is perhaps absent here at that stage he will have to come and find out what happened.

What I should like to discuss to-day is a matter which is very dear to us in the platteland, namely our commando system. I want to express my gratification at the fact that the old stigma which attached to the commandos is slowly but surely disappearing. I think I am justified in saying that we who were involved in the initial stages of the re-organization of the commandos, who took the courses, etc., are of the opinion that that old stigma is disappearing. We are grateful that we have our own training centre in the shape of the Danie Theron combat school at Kimberley …

There were Opposition objections to that name as well.

… where our commandos are now receiving training on the basis which is adapted to the kind of defence they will have to undertake. I want to congratulate the Minister, as well as the High Command, on this step. In the past a deficiency definitely arose in regard to the training of commando members, officers as well as men. I had the privilege of attending quite a number of courses, and I always felt that there was a deficiency owing to the fact that one was actually receiving training in a direction which was not adjusted to the purpose of the commando system.

Did they make you a lance-corporal?

For the hon. member’s information, I was Information Officer of my commando. I think it is perhaps more than he can say. Incidentally, I took it very much to heart that I had to resign as officer from the commando, because I was also Second-in-Command of the commando. We in the rural areas are very pleased that this tremendous adjustment and amendment in regard to the training of officers, as well as men, has taken place. I can give hon. members the assurance that, arising out of the reports which we receive from time to time from officers and men attending that military academy, they find it particularly instructive, and that they derive from it the true benefit of civil defence, the real purpose for which the commando system exists.

Over the years a certain degree of antipathy towards the commandos arose. It was a heartbreaking matter for us in the rural areas, who also wanted to play a part in the defence of our country. We always felt that we did not form part of the defence force. I attended two courses at Voortrekkerhoogte, Pretoria, and I must honestly say that as far as the officers were concerned we were well received, but that there was always a feeling that one was not altogether welcome. We were called “commies” as well as other names.

“Commies”?

If the hon. member cannot understand what I was saying he should face the front. That antipathy has completely disappeared. I put it down to a proper, well-founded planning in regard to civil defence and the commandos. In the isolated parts of the Cape, however, we have a great many problems in regard to this commando system. I may perhaps be sticking my neck out too far, but I wondered whether the Minister would not at some time or other consider imposing a little more compulsion on able-bodied men to join commandos. In the old days we had what we called the Shooting Associations. We had a great time, shooting at targets, etc. We are still doing so to-day, thanks to concessions from the Minister. But in the rural areas a certain resistance has grown in some people as far as training is concerned. I wonder whether one cannot strengthen the commandos in the isolated rural areas by means of a certain degree of compulsion; for we are having a difficult time. I must admit we are even having a difficult time getting C commando up to full strength, particularly when the men have to cover long distances. However, I want to pay tribute to those who by way of voluntary entry rendered tremendous services, and particularly the commanding officers of commandos, who may have to make great sacrifices and contribute a good deal in order to expand the commandos to the best of their ability.

In passing I also want to express my gratitude, by way of regulation, Members of the House of Assembly, Provincial Council Members, Senators, etc. can once again participate to a certain extent in the affairs of commandos. and that we can, as in the old days, go and have an enjoyable time shooting and practising to be marksmen. We will still be able to handle a rifle if it should be necessary. I do not know whether some of the chaps will still be able to lie on their stomachs, but perhaps they will still be able to sit and shoot.

Vause!

However, I should like to express my gratitude for the fact that we can once again participate in shooting practice.

Lastly I want to say that I have heard about a new sporting rifle—and have also seen one —that was developed by Armcor. I want to convey my congratulations to this organization for the fine weapon they are manufacturing. Perhaps I should invite the Minister to come and test that rifle properly at some suitable place.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet on the commandos. I think every one of us who represent country seats, have a very real interest in the commando system of training. If it ever comes to trouble in this country and terrorist operations, the commandos are going to play a very important part indeed. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet asked whether it would not be possible to create a bit more interest in the commandos in some of the outlying areas. One of the points that seems to bother a lot of the young people that I speak to in the commandos, is that the training they undergo—not the central training, but the camps that they have to go through every year —seems to be confined to guard duty for one or two periods, and only the third one is out into the country to do manoeuvres and similar operations. I am quite certain that a lot of the feeling against commando duty is the fact that there is an excessive amount of guard duty that has to be done by commando trainees, as against the far more interesting, and I think the far more important, aspect of their training, which is to get them out into the countryside. Mr. Chairman. I want to make the point that the Commando trainees—I think I am right: certainly in my area, anyway—are mainly the people connected with farming. One of the matters that worries me a great deal about the training in our Army, is the fact that there are to-day so few of our white copulation who are connected with farming and at home in the countryside. I want to make the point that we in South Africa are to-day facing a threat which comes from the Chinese Communists. If there are going to be terrorist activities, it is going to be inspired by the Chinese Communists. The whole message that one gets through all the activities of Chinese Communists is that it is based on control of the countryside. We see it in Mocambique, Vietnam and wherever the Mao thought is in control of the situation. They want control of the countryside, because once they have gained control there, the towns fall into their hands like ripe fruit. It seems to me that we have to concentrate on the training of our infantry. The hon. member for Green Point referred to them as the cream of the Army. That is something which we can discuss at another time. However, the foot soldier is the only answer to terrorists and guerrilla activity of the sort that we have seen in our modern world inspired by the Chinese. The vehicle and the road can be made and has been made into an absolute deathtrap by well-organized guerrilla activity. The classic tactic is to strike at an isolated post of some sort and then ambush the major roads leading to it. This is something which we have to bear in mind when we are training our people. The mobility of the foot soldier has to be based to a large extent on his physical fitness and his ability to cover the ground as a foot soldier, because the vehicle while it can be used in certain areas as a means of transport, is so liable to ambush because it has to make use of certain tracks and certain roads sometimes through impassable territory.

When we talk about the commandos, in my area we have the Highway Commando, for instance, which covers the Pinetown area. We also have the Umkomaas Commando which covers the tremendous great valley of the Umkomaas itself which is ideal guerrilla territory, because it is heavily bushed and heavily wooded. It is country where people can hide out. I believe that the ideal training for the members of the commando would be to scout out now the difficult spots, the places where people can hide, on the ground so that when the time does come that there is that sort of trouble, they will be completely at home in the country that they will have to defend. I believe that this is something that we just have to keep in mind. The hon. member for Middelland mentioned the terrorist chief that came over to the Portuguese in Mocambique and said that he did not feel that this was the end of the story. I am quite certain that he is right. This is not the end of the story in Mocambique. The problem that we have to face, behind the beginning of the guerrilla activity, is what happened to the French in Vietnam where there was a screen of continuous guerrilla activity behind which the training of regular soldiers took place. What defeated the French was the emergence of a regular trained army. It was an army which was built on the foot soldier and on thousands and thousands of people who were forced to carry every single thing that was used by those soldiers: the food, the ammunition, the medicine and everything else to enable them to be mobile. I think that we have to study very carefully indeed and realize the implications of the campaigns that were fought in North Vietnam and are being fought to-day in South Vietnam, and to the north of us in Africa, to realize the immense mobility that dedicated fit foot soldiers have, moving through difficult terrain, and the surprising amount of logistical support that can be provided to these people by means of foot carriers, people who are conscripted or forced to carry the actual materials of war of the people who are functioning as guerrillas.

There is one other point, which is the question of the supply techniques by air to our own forces where they are mobile or where they are cut off in the extended areas where they are searching for these people who move about in this way. I think we are fortunate that a great deal of our country does not lend itself to guerrilla activity of this nature. But then we in Natal are in a particularly vulnerable position, because we are right up against the border of Portuguese East Africa. We have a tremendous amount of country which is ideal for this sort of operation. If one was looking out for places to stage operations of this nature to train our forces, Natal is the one place one could come to and find thousands and thousands of acres where one would be able to stage this sort of operation and train our forces in anti-terrorist activity. I believe that this is the direction in which we will have to look. I mention particularly our commando troops, because I feel that they, being so much better acquainted with their own locality, the area in which they reside and live, if they are specifically trained for that particular area, would have a far greater striking force in this kind of warfare than the regular army who have to be based in certain areas and still have to be transported to the areas where they are needed. The commandos are the chaps right there on the ground and should be ready at an instant’s notice to participate in warfare of this kind. I do suggest to the hon. the Minister that he might consider that more time for training purposes be allocated to the commandos. The people called up in my area seem to spend much time in doing guard duty. I do not pretend to know everything about commando training, but as I understand it, the real nature of commando troops in the countryside should be to be a fit mobile striking force.

Mr. Chairman, I find it a pleasure to follow the hon. member for Mooi River to-night. I think the hon. member set an example of constructive criticism and recommendations as one would expect from the Opposition where they support every aspect of our Defence policy. The remarks he made were not of the same nature of those we had from certain other members of the House earlier this afternoon. I want to commend him for that. I think he did a proper job to-night. I want to associate myself with him as well as the hon. member for Middelland as regards the role the foot soldier should play. After all, it remains a military axiom that the Artillery and the Air Force can be used to strike hard and soften up the enemy, but that it is the foot soldier who consolidates the position and has to go in afterwards. That is why I am particularly glad of the announcement made by the hon. the Minister here this afternoon in connection with low-flying attacks and the weapon which had been developed to counteract such attacks. This weapon might still mean a great deal to us, but that does not mean that we should not apply our techniques and even this technique of low-flying attacks itself. I shall come back to this matter at a later stage.

In the first place, I should like to congratulate the Minister as well as the Air Force as a whole this afternoon. I want to congratulate them on the establishment of the advanced flying-school at Pietersburg. I have watched the whole of that operation since its beginning. I must say that the whole of the operation went off smoothly and effectively. It was really surprising. The Air Force had a very competent commanding officer there. His liaison work with not only the public of Pietersburg but also with others who were involved was particularly good. The result was that the public of Pietersburg was proud to welcome the members of the Air Force. The members of the Air Force, in turn, enjoyed the hospitality of Pietersburg. I can say that the members of the Air Force are quite happy there. Much has been said in this House about morale this afternoon. In this connection I can only say that the morale of the Air Force is as high as it was at any time during the war. I shall not say the morale is better, because it is a relative thing. The one was in wartime and the other is in peacetime. Nevertheless, the morale is extremely high. The Air Force base at Pietersburg became the home of, inter alia, the well-known and famous No. 1 Squadron of the Air Force. We are very proud to accommodate that Squadron at Pietersburg. In the second place, Pietersburg also became the home of an advanced flying-school for the training of pilots in advanced jet-flying techniques. In the third place, Pietersburg also became the home of a training-school for flying instructors in attack techniques. There is also a large radar unit at Pietersburg. One can therefore appreciate that the base at Pietersburg plays a particularly important role in the functional management of the Air Force and that it also plays a very important role in the general defence of the country as a whole. Problems are always experienced when a new base such as the one at Pietersburg is established. One of the problems we have there, is the problem of housing. That is why I want to express my gratitude to-night for the fact that an additional amount of R520,000 was provided in the Estimates for the erection of new single and married quarters. This amount is in addition to the amount of R300,000 which was appropriated previously. If this building complex is erected, I believe that housing will simply be a temporary problem and that the future will look after itself.

I should like to refer to the White Paper which was issued. I want to associate myself with all the other hon. members in their praise of the White Paper. Personally, I think it is a most informative document. It is also a very timeous one. Every right-thinking and right-minded citizen of South Africa will feel proud when he reads the White Paper. He will also experience a feeling of safety because he knows that this Government is looking after the future of South Africa. However, there is one minor matter which causes me some concern. I want to refer specifically to the Air Force. We are all concerned about this; it is something that cannot be helped, namely the fact that we are so utterly dependent on foreign organizations for our aircraft. I want to refer to the assembly and the partial manufacture of the Impala training aircraft. This is an enormous breakthrough as far as we are concerned. We are very glad about it. But I want to advance a plea with the hon. the Minister to-night in respect of something which may have received his consideration already. I believe he has already discussed the matter with the Supreme Command. However, I feel I should raise this matter all the same. I want to advance a plea here for a major issue, namely a development programme for the design and possible manufacture of our own air-to-ground aircraft. It does not have to be such a sophisticated aircraft at this stage, but I appreciate that it is going to be an enormous programme, the cost of which will at least be between R3 and R4 million. If such a programme were to be initiated it would take at least four years from the day the first blue prints were prepared until we would be able to manufacture the first prototype. But we have to think big; we have to think seriously, because I am sure we have the scientific and technological know-how at our disposal. I say this because I believe in what I say. I should like to quote a few lines from paragraph 68 of the White Paper. It is stated there that “As regards the acquisition of armaments the policy is to exploit our own scientific and industrial capacity as far as possible”. I am virtually convinced that the way Atlas is constituted at the moment, it will be able to carry out such an order. I may be wrong, but I was told that Israel designed and manufactured a cargo plane in these times it is experiencing at present. This aircraft is able to take off and land within a short distance. If Israel can do this, I believe we have the technological ability to do the same. Such a breakthrough will free us from this octopus-like stranglehold of being dependent on foreign organizations. I want to add that there is a deficiency in our Air Force as regards our striking force from air to ground, particularly as far as unconventional warfare is concerned, which presents the major threat, rather than conventional warfare, as has been said by other hon. members. I believe we can safeguard ourselves even further by that means and I hope the hon. the Minister will see his way clear to initiating such a development programme. A programme of this nature may possibly be on its way already.

Mr. Chairman, in the dying hours of a Friday afternoon and with the parade about to be dismissed, I do not intend to follow on the questions which I have raised earlier this afternoon or the Minister’s reply at this stage. I shall wait until we have heard from him further on Monday, and then I should like to follow up those matters. I should, however, like to associate myself with those who have commented on the welcome statements which were made by the Minister in regard to the new weapon system and the improvements in the pay structure. We shall have the opportunity to study the details more: carefully and then comment on them later.

In regard to the question of training I should like to add two points. The first is in regard to selection boards. I do not want to go into a lot of detail; I have asked numerous questions about the selection and allocation of servicemen, but one thing worries me and that is that these boards apparently are at this stage not being designed to carry out the original intention. When we debated the amendments to the Defence Act, the hon. member for Kensington, who shares this bench with me, according to Volume 21 of Hansard, column 7452, said—

The Minister, in reply, and I quote from column 7457 from the same year, 1967, said:

In other words, bringing in people with local knowledge and knowledge of the people. In 1967, when we questioned the hon. the Minister, he said that he had not had the time and that it was a rush appointment and therefore they had only been able to use Permanent Force officers on the boards. However, another year is gone and on the 11th February this year I asked the hon. the Minister firstly how many selection boards were appointed during 1968. The hon. the Minister said that there had been 120. Secondly I asked the hon. the Minister how many of these persons were not members of the Permanent or citizen forces or officials in the Public Service. The answer was that there was none. In other words, this selection is being made entirely from one point of view, the point of view of the Army without taking advantage of the local knowledge which should be available. I appreciate that there is consultation with school principals but we asked that school principals should be co-opted to the boards, but the hon. the Minister refused that suggestion. Local people can give information on local conditions and on the backgrounds of the people involved. Admittedly there is tremendous competition for the Navy, and more people apply to go into the Navy than there are vacancies. But when one hears of a person with a completely naval background, for example sons of naval officers who themselves have had training in say fishing, yachting or skin diving, being posted to other units, whereas we hear of other people who have no link with the sea being put into the Navy, it makes one feel that the selection boards could well do with the advice of local people who, in regard to the individual youngsters, could advise the selection board. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to review his attitude in regard to these selection boards, and I should also like the hon. the Minister to carry out the undertaking which was given when the Bill was originally introduced.

The other matter I want to raise is the question of mid-year call-ups. When the Bill was originally introduced in this House, and in the discussions that followed, we were told that the later call-ups would mainly be comprised of Public Service personnel who would not suffer because they would be paid before and during their training. We were also told that as far as possible the later call-ups would come only from that group of people who would not be affected. Instead of that we find that persons who planned to take for instance a university course, or a course at the technical college, in other words people planning activities which necessitate them starting at the beginning of the academic year, are being called up, although they had said before the selection board that they intend to go to the university or technical college. I accept that when such a case is taken up, it can be put right. All the cases I have heard about, when taken up with the department, are transferred to start their training at the beginning of the year. However, there are many chaps who do not go to their M.P.s, who do not take up the case and they are adversely affected.

Are you aware of the fact that some of them are bluffing too?

Yes, some of them may be, but the cases I know of are cases where arrangements had already been made. In some cases relatives of mine, whom I know personally …

In genuine cases they are met.

The problem with the midyear call-ups is that these persons cannot get work say from January to May. No employer wants to take on somebody who is going to be called up in a few months time and who will then be away for nine months. It is creating a great deal of hardship. But what is worse, these lads are hanging around for five months without a job and tending to get in with the wrong crowd and get into trouble. Numerous parents have spoken to me about the problem. They say, “My son spends the day on the beach; he cannot get a proper job. He had a temporary job. but he gave it up.” Idle hands lead to mischief and they tend to hang around without keeping themselves occupied and therefore they often get themselves into trouble. I am worried about this and I feel that we should be able to meet a great deal of the requirements from those who were originally contemplated. We were given the assurance that all the mid-year call-ups could come from Public Service sources. We should at least try to do something about this blank gap, which means that a boy does not only lose a year of his life, but in fact a year and a half. I do not want to go in any further upon the training aspect. However, I do want to follow up one or two points which have been made earlier in this debate.

There seems to be an extraordinary sensitivity to any sort of criticism on the part of hon. members and the Minister himself. I do not know what hon. members such as the hon. member for Pietersburg, who spoke last, expect; do they expect everybody to get up and do nothing but praise the Minister and praise the department? Every time there is criticism there is a squeal to high heaven. We are entitled to raise criticism.

Constructive criticism.

We are entitled to raise any criticism we like. I intend to raise criticism and I am not going to be dictated to by that hon. member what sort of criticism I shall raise. I want to raise the question I asked the Minister in regard to the approach of the Press to him for information. He refused the approach on the grounds that it was not in the public interest. However, a week or so later it was released to a different section of the Press.

What are you referring to now?

I refer to question No. 10 of the 14th March. This question dealt with an approach by the Sunday Times for information on aircraft. The information had been published overseas, it had been broadcast overseas, but the Minister refused to allow this newspaper to publish it. A few days later he suddenly found that it was in the national interest that it should be released. It was, however, released to another group of newspapers. We criticized the question of the Minister’s power of censorship at the time. I think he is carrying it too far. I, for instance, asked a question about the various strengths of the Permanent Force, and the hon. the Minister said that it was not considered in the public interest to give these figures. However, here in the Budget all the figures are given. On the 21st March it was not advisable, but when the Budget was issued it was advisable, because the number of officers and the other ranks are all clearly stated. But a few weeks before it was not in the public interest to give it. I do not believe that that is how the Minister should control censorship and secrecy. He is carrying it to extremes.

Do you want to give the public the Budget beforehand?

I asked the figures at the end of the year and the hon. the Minister could have given an approximate figure without disclosing anything that would do any harm to anyone. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, when one has a good case, one does not mind receiving criticism. Therefore we on this side of the House do not mind at all if hon. members on the other side criticize us from now until next week. The hon. the Minister has never hesitated one moment to spend all his time dealing with every point of criticism and replying to it fully. I think the hon. member for Durban (Point) should not be so sensitive, because what does he do? He comments on the translation of the White Paper. We have no objection against comments that the translation of the White Paper could perhaps have been worded differently here and there. Let us keep this discussion on a high level. The example mentioned by the hon. member is that of a person whose English does not seem to be too good, which has nothing to do with the White Paper at all. He quoted the order issued by a Commando C.O. as an example, knowing full well that one could do the same by comparing the Afrikaans of an English-speaking person. This was the objection, and the sensitivity mentioned by the hon. member has nothing to do with criticism of the Budget. If one wants to politicize in this way, as the hon. member for Simonstown also wanted to do here this afternoon in the case dealt with by the hon. the Minister, then it is not a case of sensitivity on our part, and we shall reply to them on it. Hon. members opposite must not think that we will take actions of this kind lying down. This is what it is about. It has nothing to do with sensitivity. Our case is so sound that we are not sensitive when criticism is expressed.

I still have a minute or two left and I want to try to finish a matter which I was discussing with the hon. the Minister when my time expired earlier this afternoon. I was discussing the matter with the Minister and I should like to complete it now. This matter is in connection with the establishment of the girls’ unit. I was explaining why Potchefstroom is so excellently situated with all the facilities in the cultural and other fields for the establishment of such a girls’ unit. I should like to take this further now. [Interjection.] Unfortunately the hon. member for Durban (Point) has no idea what this is all about, because he has never heard of this. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to look at the matter from another angle as well. Potchefstroom is situated on the perimeter of the Vaal Triangle, where one-third of the white population of South Africa lives. Can the hon. the Minister and the Government not consider establishing two of these units in due course? One could be situated in the southern part of the country, somewhere in the Cape Province, and the other at the place I have requested. These girls will have to travel long distances by train. If one such unit can be established here in the Western Cape somewhere, where there is a large concentration of Whites, and another one at a place like Potchefstroom, for instance, then these units will be at the two poles. Young men and boys do not mind travelling a thousand miles by train, but we should not like girls to have to undertake such long journeys unnecessarily.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.