Unless notice of objection to the adoption of the Report is given before the commencement of business on Wednesday, 2nd September, 1970, the Report will be considered as adopted.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of explanation, I should just like to point out that when the Vote of the Department of Transport was being dealt with in this House on 25th August, 1970, the hon. member for Orange Grove asked me by way of interjection—

Unfortunately I did not hear him mentioning the freight terminal as well, nor did the Hansard reporter, because it was not in the original draft report. However, I have had the opportunity of listening to the tape recording and it is clear that the hon. member did in fact mention the freight terminal, but at a stage when I was already replying to his question about the passenger terminal. In order to prevent any misunderstanding, I want to make it very clear that my reply that followed on the interjection related to the passenger terminal only, and had nothing whatsoever to do with the freight terminal.

When the debate adjourned last night, I was speaking about the elephants in the Knysna Forest. Mr. Carter carried out a very good survey and found that the elephants, although not a separate species, were nevertheless very exceptional elephants, because they had learned to remain only in the shade. That is why it would be regrettable if the elephants had to disappear. But last night I said that if we must make a choice between the natural forest of Knysna and the elephants, most people would choose the preservation of the forest. We do not want that beautiful natural forest to be destroyed, and that is why I would certainly want to lay down very strong conditions for the continued existence of these elephants there. The first I want to mention is that they should not cause damage to the inhabitants in the vicinity, which does, in fact, happen. The problem is that the elephants do not have a master, and that the farmers do not know which body to approach if damage has, in fact, been done. It still remains a quarrel between the Departments that are actually responsible, and in the meantime the farmers themselves must bear the damages. The second condition I want to lay down is that the forest should not be destroyed. The fact is that if one keeps more than one elephant per square mile, then the forest is, in fact, destroyed, and therefore very strict limitations will have to be placed on the numbers. The area of forest which, according to recommendations, must be put aside, is 17 square miles in extent. In other words, the largest number of elephants that can be allowed there is less than 20. Because they are such shy elephants, virtually no-one will ever see them. A camp will first have to be constructed with an “Armstrong” fence to stop the elephants on those sides that are not bordered by the ocean, with a view to protecting the farmers and restricting the elephants.

In the past it became evident that when one totally protects elephants in this way, they increase rapidly in numbers. This happened in the Kruger National Park and it is also happening in the Addo, and therefore very strict steps will have to be taken to limit the numbers. I would like the Parks Board to take careful note of this survey of Mr. Carter. It is worth reading, and it is very necessary that something be done about this matter very quickly. It cannot only be a source of attraction because of elephants, but because there is such lovely scenery it could also be very attractive for other purposes. I should like to quote the last paragraph of Mr. Carter’s report (translation) —

I altogether agree with him, and that is why I ask the Parks Board to take very careful note of this report, and to do something about the matter.

I should like to say something about a remark the hon. member for Newton Park made in his introductory speech. He said that the risk factor is a very big problem for our farmers, and that it causes a great deal of difficulty. Then he spoke of crop insurance. Crop insurance is one of the riskiest forms of insurance, and we have found that private insurance companies are not interested in it. But for the Government to make large-scale crop insurance available, or to establish an organization for that purpose, would therefore also entail very great risks. And there are very many good reasons for this. This is so because if one wants to treat everyone alike one would find that poor farmers and good farmers would all have to be treated in the same way. The man with the good crop and the man with the poor crop would both have to be paid out, and in many cases this would amount to the good farmer having to pay for the poor farmer. Then one also has the great regional differences. In the one region there is hail, and in another there is no hail at all. This makes things very difficult. There is also the very large variety of agricultural products that are produced, which would necessitate numerous and varied small schemes. This would, therefore, entail very big administration costs. I can imagine that if we were to have a general crop insurance scheme, and the claims were to begin streaming in, what a tremendous organization would be necessary merely to investigate the claims. That is why the administrative costs would be very high. Then we must not forget that in order to obtain crop insurance the farmer must pay a premium, hence an extra cost, which many farmers would be unwilling to pay. That is why we come to the conclusion that such a crop insurance scheme must be a voluntary scheme.

But now I just want to say that here in South Africa we did not sit still as far as that is concerned. Our co-operative movement did, in fact, take careful note of the farmers’ need for crop insurance. We now already have three co-operative companies handling crop insurance. We have Sentra Oes of Ficksburg and Farmers’ Insurance of Paarl, who do, in fact, undertake crop insurance. Then we have Sentrakas, a central co-operative society that is also interested in crop insurance. For the reasons I have mentioned, crop insurance will probably have to be done in terms of a pool system, where every region must stand on its own feet. That is why the co-operative system of insurance is, in my opinion, the ideal system. I want to express the thought that we should go further along these lines. I also want to ask that when the hon. the Minister of Agriculture once more examines the Co-operative Societies Act, which we know he has to do one of these days, he should take careful note of the need for co-operative crop insurance, and even if it is necessary to introduce legislation, that he will make it possible for co-operative societies to do this kind of work for our farmers.

Then I want to go further, and I would think that financing for such a crop insurance scheme could be done very well by the Land Bank. I shall go even further and say that the State could even endorse such an insurance scheme which has a proper foundation. I think that we are on the right road in leaving this crop insurance in the hands of our cooperative societies.

I do not know why the hon. member for Humansdorp has just been fighting with me, because now the hon. member himself has come back and said it would be a very good thing if we have crop insurance schemes in South Africa, and that the State would also take a hand in it. That is the matter we touched upon. But the hon. member must not try to convince me; he must also try to convince his Minister that more should be done about this.

But the hon. member for Humansdorp touched upon a matter here last night that cannot be left at that. He did not think it a good idea that wool, for example, be subsidized to-day. While he was speaking I asked him if he now thought it wrong that the Wool Commission itself has decided to subsidize wool from its own funds during the new season. Sir, our attitude on this side of the House is that it does not matter if there is a particular sector of agriculture that is in financial difficulties on the overseas market, or whether this relates to a product which is chiefly dependent on the domestic market. But if there is such a sector that is experiencing financial difficulties, it becomes the duty of the State to support that sector as much as possible and to ensure that the farmers do not go under. That is why we supported Government subsidies to those people two years ago when Britain devalued and the South African fruit farmer suffered considerable losses on the foreign market. And to-day it is still a source of criticism among the fruit farmers in his constituency who say that they have lost another R5 million in the past season as a result of the British devaluation a few years ago. That is why those people are in financial difficulties, and if the State thinks fit to give them financial support, we on this side of the House would have no objection.

I have no objection to that.

Why is the hon. member arguing then?

I said that it must not be for ever.

Now the hon. member says it must not be for ever. What does “not for ever” mean? It simply means that if there is an improvement in the overseas market. and the farmers can again obtain a reasonable wage for his labour, such a thing would fill away. That is a good way of thinking, but if those people, no matter for how long. are in financial difficulties, it becomes the duty of the State to give them support.

But I want to come back to another matter that was raised here in the House yesterday as an interjection by the hon. the Minister of Defence, i.e. that on 12th January, according to Die Burger, he had not said certain things. I now have a cutting in front of me to which I want to refer the hon. the Minister. It is from Die Burger of Monday, 12th January. According to the report, the hon. the Minister then said, inter alia, the following (translation) —

Then Mr. Botha replied—

He did not reply to the hon. gentleman about the 9 to 10 per cent interest rate that people have to pay, but he then came to his reply. [Interjections.]

You are afraid of yourself.

He said that since Mr. Van der Merwe was now asking him he would tell him the truth, and then he said—

Just as you are making no great success of yours.

—

This is now that hon. Minister gossiping on a public platform.

I was defending myself.

Then he said—

I now want to ask the hon. member. Since this gentleman paid too much for a farm, it was most certainly not a private loan he came along to ask the Minister of Agriculture for.

When did I speak of a Land Bank loan? Since when does Minister Uys grant Land Bank loans?

The hon. the Minister was referring to the loan he could not obtain from the Minister, and then replied as follows—

[Interjections.] But then Minister Uys stood up—

But these hon. gentlemen deny that they ever referred on a public platform to people’s Land Bank loans.

That is untrue.

According to Die Burger, the hon. the Minister himself said—

You and the truth do not belong to the same family.

I now want to say this to that hon. Minister who also had so much to say about the Kolver incident.

You and the truth have never belonged to the same family.

Remember, Sir, he is the tin soldier responsible for our defence.

Order! I want to ask thi hon. member for Newton Park to moderate his language. If he does not do so, I shall ask him to sit down.

I shall do so with the greatest of pleasure if the hon. the Minister Would also moderate his language.

On a point of order, Sir, was the hon. the Minister in order when he said that the hon. member for Newton Park and the truth are not related?

Order! I now appeal to everyone to moderate his language and not simply to use all kinds of expressions, otherwise I will have to take action. The hon. member may continue.

I accept your ruling, Sir. I want to say this. Yesterday the hon. the Minister made certain statements here. He said that I had told lies during the election. I have now issued him with that challenge, and I shall repeat it this morning. He must bring along that proof and repeat his statement outside about the lies I told during the past election; and if he has the courage of his convictions he will do so. He is the Leader of the National Party in the Cape, and we are going to test him at this election, and this is one of the best ways of showing whether he will say it outside, if he really has the courage of his convictions.

The hon. member for Newton Park is trying to obscure his actions in regard to Land Bank loans during the election. That is what he is trying to do now. He quoted newspaper reports in which certain things were said. But I have also read newspaper reports of what was said by the hon. member.

Remember, I was there.

This has nothing to do with that hon. member. [Interjections.]

Order!

I have also read newspaper reports of what the hon. member allegedly said. According to the report in the Sunday Times the hon. member said that the Prime Minister’s son-in-law had obtained a Land Bank loan. That was a lie.

Did I say that?

The Sunday Times said that you had said it, and you never repudiated it.

Of course, I did.

Order!

According to the report of what the hon. member had said at that meeting, he said that A. P. Kolver and Co. had allegedly obtained a Land Bank loan, i.e. the Prime Minister’s son-in-law. This is according to the report which appeared in the paper. The hon. the Minister of Defence never made any reference to a Land Bank loan to Mr. Van der Merwe. What Mr. Van der Merwe did, was to accuse the Minister of Defence of not having taken notice of him, i.e. of Mr. Van der Merwe, when he approached him, i.e. the Minister of Defence, in regard to certain assistance. At the time he said to Mr. Botha that he, i.e. Mr. Van der Merwe, had been to see me in regard to certain assistance, and that he the Minister of Defence had done nothing about it. At that stage I rose, in pursuance of Mr. Van der Merwe’s accusation that nothing had been done for him, and stated what I and also the hon. member for Paarl, whom he was to oppose, had done for him: On his behalf we made representations for a Land Bank loan; we made representations on his behalf for a mortgage loan; subsequent to that he applied for a second mortgage loan, in regard to which the hon. member for Paarl made representations on his behalf, but this he was not granted for certain reasons. Therefore, neither of us levelled an accusation in regard to Land Bank loans. All we did, was to respond to a direct question by the hon. member, “What was done for me? Why did you do nothing for me when I was in difficulties?” In reply to this question I told him what had been done for him. And if the hon. member for Newton Park asked me that same question, I would also have given him the same answer. As against that hon. members opposite went around and, without having any reason to do so, they disclosed at meetings and in newspapers what Land Bank loans had been granted to certain persons.

What did Connie Mulder do?

Order! The hon. member must please give the hon. the Minister a chance to put his case.

Subsequently the Leader of the Opposition also did this, a la the hon. member for Newton Park and other people who were huckstering with Land Bank loans. Subsequent to that I issued a challenge to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in order to warn him that if they on their part continued to disclose the Land Bank loans of people, I would be compelled to do the same, that I would then be compelled to furnish the Leader of the Opposition with a list containing the names of members on his side of the House who had obtained Land Bank loans, and also to mention their names at public meetings. Well, I am still waiting for a reply from him. However, at that stage the hon. the Leader of the Opposition told his members behind him to keep quiet.

No.

When the thing started to boomerang on him, he said, “Now you must keep quiet”. Now the hon. member for Newton Park has come along and accused me of having allegedly been the first person to refer to a Land Bank loan, and this is being said when I did so in reply to a question which had specifically been put to me.

You were merely trying to get Fanie van der Merwe under.

Make no error—Mr. Van der Merwe always tries to be on top. It is very clear to me that the hon. member for Newton Park, when he started finding out that his actions and those of his colleagues were boome-ranging on them, is now trying to extricate himself by these means. On a certain occasion a good supporter of his party approached me at a meeting in order to thank me for the assistance I had granted him in obtaining a Land Bank loan. Unfortunately, so he said, the names of people with Land Bank loans were being disclosed at that stage. For that reason he wanted to know whether he should still take the loan. I told him to put this question to his Leader and to the hon. member for Newton Park, for they were the people who were disclosing these particulars. [Interjections.]

Why are you laughing now?

Order!

It is a pity that the hon. member for Newton Park’s colleague who is responsible for this particular report in the Sunday Times on what the hon. member allegedly said when he was asked to comment on this loan, is not present at the moment. Now the hon. member for Newton Park wants to extricate himself from a difficult situation by launching an attack on the hon. the Minister of Defence, who never made any reference to a Land Bank loan. All he did, was to talk about assistance which had been granted to a certain person. That is why I say that the hon. the Minister of Defence has every right to say, on the strength of the report in the Sunday Times, according to which the hon. member for Newton Park allegedly said that the Prime Minister’s son-in-law had obtained a loan, that the hon. member was telling an untruth in saying that. The Minister has every right to say that.

What about the judicial commission?

What is that hon. member suggesting now? Now I am coming to another matter which was mentioned here yesterday by the hon. member for Kempton Park, a matter which I cannot simply allow to pass without comment.

For Newton Park..

Yes, I beg your pardon, Sir, for Newton Park, I apologize to the hon. member for Kempton Park. Yesterday the hon. member for Newton Park repeatedly made the statement here that by reducing the fixed price for mealies, the Minister was the cause of the income of mealie farmers being reduced.

I was referring to the price.

No, the hon. member was not referring to the price. The hon. member for Newton Park said …

Order! I want to warn the hon. member for Newton Park. He is afforded ample opportunity to speak. Therefore he should not interrupt. I shall call upon him if he wants to speak. I want no further interjections.

The hon. member levelled the accusation that the Minister of Agriculture had been responsible for a reduction in the income of the mealie farmer. He referred to the reduction in price, and then he said—the hon. member can read his Hansard —that this meant a reduction in the income of the farmers. He continued and mentioned that I had allegedly said that it was a good thing that the income of the farmers was being reduced and that they were getting a lower price. Then the hon. member referred to production costs. He claimed that production costs had not been taken into consideration in the determination of the price. If this is not what he claimed, why then did the hon. member say that if the United Party came into power, they would take into consideration production costs plus? Surely, in saying that he was insinuating that production costs were not being taken into consideration at present, because for what reason did he say that he was going to do a thing when that thing was already being done? But I want to tell the hon. member this, i.e. that in spite of the reduction of 10 cents in the price of mealies, the gross income of the mealie farmer was R66 million more last year than it was the previous year; and this was achieved on a smaller planted surface area. This additional R66 million meant a gross additional income of R13 per morgen in respect of all lands under mealie production. However, it is very easy for the hon. member for Newton Park to say here that the reduction in the price will also bring about a reduction in the income of the farmer. To my mind the hon. member could be slightly more responsible when he discusses these things. Fortunately the Mealie Board adopted a more responsible attitude than he did, for it was the Mealie Board that recommended this reduced price, and that is the way I accepted it. How many times have hon. members opposite not attacked me for supposedly not accepting the recommendations made by the boards? How many times have they not criticized me when I did do so in exceptional cases? But now the hon. member for Newton Park is criticizing me for having accepted a recommendation. I think the time has arrived for the hon. member for Newton Park to make a choice. Does he want the Minister to accept, under all circumstances, recommendations made by boards, or does he want to reserve to himself the right to be able to criticize the Minister in both ways? This double-talk in the agricultural sphere has got to stop now. They do not only engage in double-talk, in the words of their leader in Natal, when it comes to labour, they also engage in double-talk in the agricultural sphere. That is why I say that the time has arrived for the Opposition to decide for themselves precisely what they want. The hon. member says that if they came into power, they would guarantee production costs plus in respect of any product. But on what basis is he going to determine production costs? Now, he may tell me that as far as mealies and wheat are concerned, he does have a basis. But these are not the only products being produced in South Africa. I think the time has arrived for our people to analyze this standpoint of the United Party, i.e. that of production costs plus, a little more closely. On what basis is the hon. member going to determine the production costs of other commodities? How is he going to do so in respect of fruit, vegetables, wool, etc.? Is he going to do so on the basis of the average costs, or on the basis of the costs incurred by the best farmers who are producing above the average or at less than the average costs, or is he going to confine himself to those circumstances where owing to climatic conditions the crop is reduced to such an extent that the production costs become higher? Which of these is the hon. member going to take as a basis? The hon. member must tell the people outside now. But irrespective of the basis on which the hon. member is going to determine production costs, if he does not determine these costs on the basis of the very poorest farmers in the industry, there will still be people leaving the industry, there will still be farmers farming in an unremunerative manner. Now the hon. member for Newton Park says that, because the Government does not take production costs plus into consideration in determining the price, a lot of farmers are landing in debt. According to him sufficient regard is not being had to the price factor in order to afford them protection. If the price factor is now to be the protection, is the United Party in favour of the costs being calculated on the basis of the poorest farmers in the industry, or on the basis of the average? If it is to be the latter, what would then become of the weaker ones, in what way are they going to be kept in the industry? With these general statements and with this verbosity the hon. member may succeed in bluffling a few people. But the farmers in South Africa penetrated a very long time ago this false impression which the United Party has been trying to create in regard to its policy. They know from experience that whenever circumstances arise which create problems in certain sectors, this Government has always been prepared to help those sectors in those difficult circumstances. The Government did not want to help them by holding up to them irresponsible and impossible promises, but by helping them within the framework of the practical possibilities. They are fully aware of that. This will also be the case with products which will be produced in the future and which will have these difficulties. I think hon. members opposite owe it to the country to rephrase in a more responsible manner these general statements which they have been making here and which one can analyze one by one only to find that none of them carry any weight. They should state a policy which can be implemented in practice. When I consider the conduct of the United Party here, it seems to me as though they do not have any hope of ever coming into power in South Africa, for what they are promising here and, especially, what they are promising to the farmers, they will never be able to implement in the event of their coming into power. I shall tell hon. members why they will not be able to implement it. Their own people who are supporting them in the cities, the consumers and others, will not allow them to implement those absurdities which they are propagating here.

As regards the discussion in this debate, I want to say that I am quite prepared to listen when people come forward with constructive criticism. I would be quite prepared to grant the hon. member that he has a good proposal, if he were to come forward with good proposals. For instance, I am thinking of the question of costs insurance which was raised by him. The hon. member for Humansdorp told the House that a long time ago emergency schemes had been introduced to see whether the possibilities for this existed. But the hon. member did not refer to an ordinary scheme. The hon. member said that the Government had to introduce such a scheme.

No, that is not true.

Of course, it is. The hon. member did say that the Government had to introduce a scheme in order to insure agricultural costs. I gave him a reply to that. Now he is saying that the hon. member for Humansdorp said something different from what he had said. I said that we could not have insurance schemes for the agricultural industry, as there were many products, such as meat and others, the production costs of which we could not determine. Even if one could determine such costs, how would one insure them? This is what I told the hon. member. But now, once again, the hon. member wants to tell the hon. member for Humansdorp that he differs with the Minister. I do not want to say any more about the hon. member.

I just want to refer to the speech made by the hon. member for Harrismith. Unfortunately he is not here, but I think I must refer to his speech. He referred to the establishment of smaller abattoirs in more areas. I have no fault to find with the attitude adopted by the hon. member, but I want to call his attention to the scheme of auction on the hook, in terms of which meat is concentrated at certain points. If we were to permit abattoirs to be established outside the controlled areas and meat to be brought into the controlled areas, we would not be able to implement this scheme. As it exists in South Africa at present, this scheme can only be implemented if there are slaughter facilities and auctions at central points. In my opinion this is one of the shortcomings of this scheme, but the producer, the Meat Board and all the people who are engaged in the meat trade want this scheme to be the way it is. As long as this is the case, it will not be possible to establish outside the controlled areas abattoirs—private or otherwise—which may deliver meat inside the controlled areas. That is the problem. This is one of the factors which are complicating this issue.

Two hon. members, the hon. member for Benoni and the hon. member for Humansdorp, referred to the conservation of flora and fauna, and this was particularly the case with the hon. member who confined himself to the protection of our nature resorts. I want to tell both of those hon. members that I agree with them to a very large extent. In South Africa, with its increasing population, holiday resorts and places where people can relax, are becoming fewer and fewer. Our seaside areas are becoming more and more densely populated, our cities are becoming bigger and bigger, and our people are living in more and more difficult circumstances. The demands made on such holiday resorts are becoming bigger and bigger. I think we have already gone too far by not reserving enough land for these holiday resorts around our cities. I am thinking to-day of cities in Europe and in other parts of the world with their extensive parks which must be worth millions of rands. Then one comes to a city such as Cape Town and finds that people want to build up Cape Town’s “Golden Acre” by erecting large buildings. Then one asks oneself this question: Can a city such as Cape Town not afford a few open spaces? This is also what I want to say in regard to our conservation of nature. Of course, our national parks are doing a tremendously great deal in this sphere. Whenever the State has land available at places where holiday resorts can be established, it has always been prepared to hand over such land to the provinces for the purposes of holiday resorts. This will always be the position in the future as well. I believe that especially we in South Africa, with our beautiful scenery and our splendid holiday resorts, should go much further in respect of the conservation of these natural assets.

While I am saying this, I want to make an appeal to our public. In driving along our roads, especially past these holiday resorts and other places, one sees how our beautiful scenery along our roads, or even our towns and football fields, are sometimes being marred by our public; on such drives one also sees how much filth there is as a result of papers and plastic bags which are lying around. These things are simply thrown away through the windows of motor-cars and create an unsightly situation. There are so many people in South Africa who are establishing organizations. The one group establishes an organization for the purpose of forming a pressure group against the Government, and the other group establishes an organization for the purpose of propagating this or that. I think it is high time that an organization was established in South Africa for the purpose of educating our public in regard to the pollution and defilement of our fields, roads and open spaces. Such an organization may educate the public in this regard in order that fewer instances of such conduct may occur. If one visits other countries such as America, one is struck by two things. I was there last year, and what struck me, was not the vastness of America or their wonderful potential, but the way in which they were polluting their water and air and the tremendous problems which water and air pollution, as well as refuse, were creating for that country. That is why I think that, although we are giving our full attention to water and air pollution, the time has arrived for our people to be more on their guard as regards this matter and to realize to a greater extent what problems such pollution may create for us.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has now given a conclusive reply to the hon. member for Newton Park, and I want to tell him that he has now been exposed to such an extent—and he realizes this—that he must not waste the time of this House any longer by trying to justify himself as a result of his very doubtful actions. We have listened to him repeatedly in regard to this matter. He must now try to raise his standards so that it will not be necessary for him to try to defend himself like a plucked chicken. However, this does not apply only to him, Sir. It actually applies to the United Party as a whole, as far as agriculture is concerned. I have listened attentively to these hours of discussion, and they put forward very little that was positive.

One matter which they continually raise is the question of fodder banks. In this connection, I just want to say that the best fodder bank in this country is balanced conservation farming. It is simply not practical to think that we should spend a tremendous amount of capital in order to gather more fodder for times of low rainfall and great drought. Therefor I think that the Government is already doing enough in this connection by training our farmers to farm in such a way that it will not be necessary to have large stocks of fodder available. That fodder will be available on the farmer’s farm as a result of his farming methods, and I am convinced that the three agricultural departments will succeed in this. It is a major task. It is not a task which can be completed overnight, but nevertheless they are bringing these facts home to our farmers.

If I therefore have to summarize what I have heard thus far, I must say that, apart from a drought, the greatest catastrophe which can strike the farmers and agriculture in this country, would be if the Opposition were to take over the government. It is very clear to me that this would be a greater catastrophe then we have ever experienced in the history of farming in this country. Why do I say this, Sir? What is the task of the farmer in this country? What is the task of the agriculturist? Yesterday the hon. members for Lichtenburg and Bethal and others indicated how agriculture in this country has progressed, how it has grown and how production has increased. This does not mean that there are no bottlenecks. We shall never solve all our problems.

I just want to elaborate on that and say that our primary task is to educate the country. In the second place, it is our task to provide our industries with raw materials. The farmer in South Africa has not done only this. He has also exported. There have been many complaints about the wool industry. The wool industry is mainly directed at the foreign market. The citrus industry, the deciduous industry and others are also directed at the world market. Problems arise in connection with these industries as a result of the fact that they are directed at foreign markets, because it is not so easy to exercise control over them. However, let us consider export in general. In 1959, processed and unprocessed agricultural products which were exported earned R316 million, while exports amounted to R509 million in 1968. Therefore agriculture not only fulfilled its primary functions, but also earned foreign currency, and year after year more is exported in order to bring prosperity to the country as a whole.

Let us now consider the overall position. What is imported into this country by way of processed and unprocessed agricultural products? In 1959 such imports amounted to R50 million, while in 1968 they amounted to R40 million. But how is that amount made up? Most of it is in respect of rice and rubber products, Until a few years ago, wheat represented a considerable portion of it. This is very clearly a picture of success, in spite of the extremes of climate and other problems which we experience in agriculture. In spite of our shortage of technicians, etc., agriculture has achieved exceptional success. I want to congratulate the farmers of South Africa on that achievement. People must stop presenting our agriculture as a struggling industry in this country. It is an industry which has achieved very great successes in this country. Under this Government the industry has fulfilled its task, and we are proud of the Departments which are supporting us in that connection. I think these sad tales about agriculture must come to an end now. The farmers of this country are proud of their achievements.

I now want to discuss a few matters which are of local importance to me, but which are also important generally. Let us forget about the problems and failures for a moment, and take note of the success of farming, which I have mentioned. In this connection there is one movement which has played an exceptional role. Actually, as far as marketing is concerned, there are two. In the first place, there are the marketing boards, the schemes and everything associated therewith, which were established in terms of the Marketing Act, and in the second place there is the cooperative movement in this country. I now want to mention two branches of agriculture in my area, namely citrus and tobacco which can say with pride to-day that last year was the best year they ever experienced in their history. They are organized on a co-operative basis from top to bottom. In this respect the farmer has a mighty weapon which he should use to an increasing extent. However, three years ago we had a report from the Steenkamp Commission. That commission made 65 recommendations, and the Co-operative Board of the South African Agricultural Union differed considerably on them. I just want to ask the Minister to try to solve those differences as soon as possible. If new legislation is necessary, it must be passed as soon as possible, so that our co-operatives do not have to sit and wait, wondering what will happen. In this connection there are a few matters which are troublesome to the co-operative societies and which are hanging in the air. For example, there is the question of differential bonuses. and the questions “what are farming requisites?” and “how far can the interpretation be taken in future?”. I shall be very pleased if the Minister will try to solve the matter as soon as possible under these difficult circumstances, in which there are a considerable number of differences in organized agriculture about this report, so that we can continue building constructively in respect of this important aspect of the agriculture, namely the co-operative movement, and can render an even greater contribution than in the past.

In this connection I want to mention a matter in respect of which there is a difference between the Steenkamp Commission and organized agriculture. This is the question of income tax. I personally think that the cooperatives should pay like any other business concerns, but unfortunately all our farmers do not agree with that. They do not all have the same circumstances. However, I want to point out that when a farmer erects buildings on his farm and acquires equipment in order to process his products, he may write them off for income tax purposes, but if he invests that capital with his fellow farmers in a cooperative, he may no longer do so. I think there is something immoral in the fact that, when farmers co-operate in order to execute a combined task, they do not receive the same benefits which they would have received had they stood alone. I would like to ask that this aspect be borne in mind.

In addition, I want to refer to what has been achieved by co-operative insurance. Mention has been made of comprehensive insurance for the risks of the farmers. I feel that here, too, certain of the risks of the farmer, for example hail, can be dealt with very effectively on a co-operative basis. In the Lowveld and in Rustenburg we have the tobacco co-operative society, where the production costs of tobacco are covered in a very effective way. Then, of course, in respect of wheat, there is the well-known hail insurance which has been in operation for many years.

Another local matter relating to my constituency is the question of the Kruger National Park, which is endemic for foot and mouth disease. In certain areas, especially at Komatipoort, but also elsewhere along the boundary, stock farmers are continually threatened as a result of not only foot and mouth disease, but also buffalo disease, malignant catarrhal fever, etc. We must remember one thing. Game preservation and stock farming cannot be done on the same farm. I hope that as a result of the work of the committee which carried out an investigation especially along the Crocodile River boundary, the Minister will find a solution to terminate the continual infiltration of game in the stock-farming areas of the Komatipoort-Hectorspruit vicinity, because it is a continual threat to our farming communities there. I hope that he will try to reach finality in connection with that investigation as soon as possible. [Time expired.]

Sir, I want to say a few words this morning about a cardinal problem in agriculture, namely the question of uneconomic units. I want to say immediately that I shall try to be much more positive about the matter than the United Party. They tried to discuss this matter in their election programme under the title “And the small farmer”. To my surprise, their total solution for this entire problem is that the small farmer should be assisted with housing, water, electricity and the financing of implements, and that there should be no interference with his labour. Sir, coming from a party which poses as an alternative government, I regard this solution of theirs as something pathetic, although certain measures are mentioned here which must in fact be taken for the benefit of the small farmer.

We have already passed the Act which prohibits the subdivision of land. This Act is of course most welcome, but I think we shall agree that this is only the negative side of the matter; it contained only the prohibitions against further subdivision. The positive side of the matter is, of course, the question of enlargement and consolidation of farms, and the commission on the White depopulation of the rural areas quite rightly combined these two matters. The commission said in one paragraph that further subdivision should be terminated or controlled and that attention should be paid to the enlargement and consolidation of units. I do not wish to examine the need existing in this connection. The commission which I have just quoted, outlined the alarming need existing in this connection. I want to content myself with saying that it is obvious that uneconomic units constitute one of our cardinal problems in agriculture as far as the small farmer is concerned.

Sir, the question arises whether the existing machinery is adequate for carrying out this enlargement and consolidation effectively. Let me say at once that I am in no way advocating that the good work of the Land Bank and the Department of Agricultural Credit should be discontinued here. Over the years these institutions have done excellent work by making millions and millions of rands available for this purpose. On the contrary, I think that in future these institutions will still be absolutely essential as financing institutions which can support any new methods. But I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the time has not arrived for an intensive investigation to be instituted in this country as well as into overseas systems in order to ascertain whether we cannot introduce more effective machinery for the enlargement and consolidation of farms. In certain countries of the world, for example Canada, this process takes place quite naturally, and especially in countries where it is only an economic problem and not a socioeconomic problem. Thus, for example, the number of farm units in Canada decreased by 100.0 between 1951 and 1961, at a rate of 10.0 per year. But in other countries, especially in Western European countries where this problem is a socio-economic one, special enlargement and consolidation programmes were introduced. Thus for example, 3 million hectares were consolidated in France between 1942 and 1961, but another 10 million hectares must be consolidated urgently in France. Sir, a writer with the name of M. E. Andal investigated the position in Western Europe, and he made this interesting summary of the systems there in the magazine Agriculture Abroad, volume 21 of 1966. In respect of Western European countries, he said the following—

I am not saying it must necessarily happen in South Africa as well that the State will make financial contributions towards such a consolidation programme, but I do say that it may be investigated fruitfully. Furthermore, the question arises whether it will not be fruitful to investigate whether one should have a specific agency in South Africa too which will be charged with this task, because institutions such as the Land Bank and the Department of Agricultural Credit do not in the first place take the initiative in looking for units of land and consolidating them. Before sitting down, I should just like to quote briefly from an article entitled “Farm Restructuring in France”, which appeared in Foreign Agriculture in May, 1967 in which the following is stated in respect of an agency with the name of “Safer” which was established in France—

In most cases this agency itself has the preemptive right. I suggest that these systems can be fruitfully investigated and that an agency can be established which can promote the enlargement and consolidation of farms in this country tremendously. I feel it will help to solve our cardinal problem rapidly, namely the problem of uneconomic units.

The hon. member for Kroonstad discussed the question of consolidation here, and I think he made out a good case. However, I want to refer him to certain figures which were recently published in the “Abstract of Agricultural Statistics” in the Farmer’s Weekly. Sir, it is an interesting phenomenon that many of the agricultural farms are in fact becoming larger; in other words, consolidation is taking place, not necessarily by the State, but also by farmers themselves who require larger units. They said the following—

Now comes the interesting part—

This is therefore a process which is already in operation, and I think that if it is necessary to accelerate the process, any farmer should support that direction when it happens according to a natural process.

The hon. member for Nelspruit told us to stop telling sad tales about the agricultural situation in South Africa. What the hon. member would really like, of course, is that we should not express any criticism.

Nonsense.

What have we done in this debate? We pointed out the economic bottlenecks in agriculture, we indicated the lack of sufficient extension officers; we pointed out the fact that the Department fails to pass on the results of research to the farmers quickly; we pointed out the tremendous increase in production costs. Sir, the attitude of hon. members on the other side is interesting. They say that there has in fact been an improvement in income, but that production costs have also increased. But nowhere in the calculation of the production costs of the farmer—and I am saying this especially for the information of the hon. member for Lichtenburg—according to the statistics of the Department is recognition given to the increase in financing costs in agriculture, and nowhere is recognition given to the increase in labour costs. Hon. members on that side should know how tremendously financing costs and labour costs have risen in agriculture in South Africa.

Sir, I believe that we are fulfilling a role here by continually imploring the Government to give attention to these bottlenecks in the agricultural industry. The picture is not as pretty as the hon. member for Lichtenburg tried to make out. I want to refer to what Mr. Chris Cilliers said, according to the Landbou-weekblad of 18th June, 1968 (translation) —

And this is what Mr. Cecil Crous, the Chairman of the East Coast Agricultural Union, said a while ago (translation) —

His figures are wrong.

That hon. member says the figures are wrong. This was some time ago, but the fact remains that the dividend, as this agricultural leader indicated, is a figure which is equal to half the present minimum interest rate on mortgages. But I want to point out another figure to the hon. members, and this is that the average income per person in the economy as a whole rose at 1.55 per cent a year, but the income of the farmer per capita dropped by 0.67 per cent a year. This is the situation. Now the hon. the Minister of Agriculture says to us that we want to bring the farmer under the false impression that we shall always guarantee him his production costs. But the farmers are finding us out, he said. But has he forgotten about the time 20 years ago when he promised the wheat farmers of South Africa that they would receive £5 or R10 a bag for wheat? What did he base those figures on? On what is the figure being based to-day in order to determine a price?

He never said that. I asked him and he said that this definitely was not the position.

He said it in the Bredasdorp constituency in 1948. He made that promise from house to house. We say that it is the ideal and that we should work in the direction of giving the farmer a reasonable wage plus his production costs. Now I want to know from the hon. members, if this is not their direction, what do they think the agricultural policy in South Africa should be? Must we tell the people that we cannot even guarantee them their production costs? Because the United Party realizes how difficult it is to guarantee a reasonable return plus the production costs in times of drought and damage, we say that one should have this comprehensive crop and stock insurance scheme which can be supported by the State, because the farmer is simply unable to pay the high premiums charged at the normal institutions to-day. At least one would then be helping the farmer to recover his production costs in difficult times.

In connection with Mr. Fanie van der Merwe, the hon. the Minister also told us that those questions were elicited by him. Sir, originally the questions were put to the hon. the Minister of Defence when Mr. Van der Merwe told him that he was submitting a plea about the position of the farmer who has to pay 9 to 10 per cent interest a year. This is the question he put to the Minister of Defence. Was is necessary to reveal the man’s private affairs and mortgage loans on that occasion? But what was the object of the hon. members on that side? It was because Mr. Van der Merwe differed with them. Therefore they wanted to crush him politically at the very first opportunity, and they did not care what methods they used in order to crush that South African farmer. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, have you ever listened to a more disappointing agricultural debate in this House? The official Opposition, which had to set the tone, has failed miserably as usual. We would have expected the Opposition, which is the alternative government with a shadow minister of agriculture of Land Bank loan fame, to undertake a penetrating analysis of agricultural problems and to try to impress the electorate by advancing concrete alternatives or at least by making constructive suggestions. But they have simply displayed their inability once more and this was also proved by this, probably the last, speech of the hon. the shadow minister. They did not reply to one single challenge we issued to them that they should suggest something constructive. All he did was to quote from the views of others on conditions prevailing in agriculture and he went no further. Is that the climax that was reached, the climax the voters were looking forward to in regard to the actions and the behaviour of the Opposition in this debate on this most important sector of our national economy? What did they do? What was the concensus of their speeches? What we had, was banal attacks by the hon. member for Newton Park on Ministers and prominent people. Mention was made of Land Bank loans. What has that to do with real agricultural problems? I should like the hon. member to tell me this. He introduced his Land Bank stories in February by launching an attack on ex Minister Haak, and what was the result of it?

Then you kicked him out.

There was a chain reaction which had repercussions throughout the country. Newspaper reporters investigated Land Bank loans of Ministers and other prominent people and these matters were bruited about to the great embarrassment of the people concerned. Even commercial bank loans were made public to the great embarrassment of those concerned. The methods that were used were reprehensible and I accuse the hon. member of being the person who started it all across the floor of the House. This is what we have had. It really does not become a front-bencher and a shadow minister nor does it enhance his acceptability in that capacity among the public outside. Instead of a methodical debate, in which they could have indicated to the voters what they, as alternative government, had to offer in the place of those aspects in regard to which the Government had allegedly failed, we had such low-water marks in this House as we saw last night when that hon. member—and I want to accuse him of this—said, as the hon. the Minister of Agriculture entered the House while he was speaking: “There the bigwig himself is coming in now.” It really does not become him. That was the vein in which he carried on and we had a repetition of it this morning when he made the impolite remark that the hon. the Minister of Defence was a “tin soldier”. No, one does not expect this from the Opposition in such an important debate, particularly not during these final hours of the debate in which a climax should have been reached.

The Government is quite aware of the bottlenecks there are in agriculture as well as the problems the farmers have to cope with. Satisfactory figures were quoted in the House to prove what the Government had done to assist the farmer. I am also concerned about matters which should definitely receive attention constantly. The grave shortage of farm labour presents a major problem to grain-farmers and particularly irrigation farmers; this also applies to the increasing working costs as a result of the high demands placed on agriculture by farming to-day. Farming is no longer a way of life. It is an intensive industry. Farming is evolving into a business undertaking which has to be managed very carefully if a profit is to be shown. We are aware of the increasing fear and anxiety among the small and medium farmers about firms and land barons entering the field of agriculture to an increasing extent to compete with them. We are concerned about the fact that the large farmers who are making use of battery systems in the poultry and pork industry are already in the position where the small farmer can no longer compete with them because they are practising this form of farming on a factory basis. This applies to other commodities as well, but we as a Government cannot be blamed for the fact that things have developed in this way. We know the attitude of mind and the economic struggle of those farmers who have for many years been exposed to the raging dust-storms of a disastrous drought. But we also know that the policy this Government is following is correct and effective and that the Government has its finger on the pulse of the farmer and its ear to the ground. We know that the Government is constantly adapting itself to every phase of our agricultural development, that it renders the necessary assistance, carries out research and provides technical instruction and, in times of prosperity, offers assistance according to the merits of the circumstances prevailing at that time. We are also aware of the tenacity and the adaptability of the South African farmer, which we land, and we are aware of their ability to endure and to persevere. Let me put it this way and let me emphasize this, because it is very important, and that is that as long as the Government of the day is in a position to render assistance according to needs and requirements, also as regards instruction and research, the farmer in South Africa will do well and that the United Party will remain in the Opposition benches and that the Government will remain on this side of the House for many more years to promote the interests of agriculture and South Africa even further.

The hon. member who has just sat down spoke about the Government having its finger on the pulse of the farmer. One wonders, when one compares the position of the South African farmer with the farmers even in a little country like Rhodesia to the north of us, whether it is really the pulse or the throat it has its finger on.

Hon. members will remember that last night during the course of the debate the hon. member for East London (City) and I appealed to the hon. the Minister to investigate the damage done to the pineapple plantation in the disaster area with a view to affording extraordinary assistance to those farmers who have suffered. I can inform the Minister that I have telegraphed the chairman of the Pineapple Growers’ Association asking for an urgent appraisal of the damage, and as soon as this information is available I will pass it on to the Minister and his Department in order to assist them in their assessment of the damage done. In the meantime I would appeal to the Minister to make every efforts to expedite the extraordinary subsidy already agreed to for pineapple farmers, the subsidy which was originally agreed to because of the devaluation of currency on the European markets and which was subsequently extended for another year because of the severe drought conditions in the production area. I understand that the necessary information required from the manufacturers in order to finalize the allocations has been slow in coming forth. It is my sincere hope that every effort will be made to expedite this matter and that the manufacturers will co-operate in supplying the information to the Department at the earliest possible opportunity, because now that the floods have come after the drought I believe that this will be of some immediate help to those farmers who have suffered.

While on the subject of pineapples, I should like the Department to send a deputation overseas, to the U.S.A. and to Hawaii to study all the aspects of the pineapple industry. Many of our producers have themselves been there but without the full co-operation of the Government, the industry cannot be developed to its fullest extent. There is, for instance, the question of the profitable use of by-products in the industry. The recent drought has proved conclusively that pineapple fodder in the form of silage made from prunings and old plants is an excellent roughage. Furthermore, every year hundreds of tons of undersized and sun-burnt pineapples are thrown away and tons of peels and factory waste are dumped.

In Hawaii every part of a pineapple is being used. The entire economy of that island depends on the pineapple and on tourism. Factory waste and the undersized and sunburnt fruit are compressed to expel the juice and, depending on its quality, it is either turned into a nourishing fruit drink or is fermented and distilled into alcohol used for medical purposes. The residue of this is then made into pellets for stock feeding. Pellets can also be made of the prunings and old plants if the moisture is expelled. What better feed can one have for a fodder bank than fodder in the form of pellets. They take up a minimum of space and keep excellently.

It is, therefore essential that a complete study of all these aspects of the pineapple industry be made not only in the interest of the pineapple industry itself but also in the interest of all agriculture in South Africa and the economy of South Africa. These by-products, especially the fruit cordial and the alcohol produced, could be very useful to our economy in other fields. If we could overcome the closed shop of our liquor producers we could perhaps produce a very good liquor out of pineapples. As a matter of fact, I have made experiments myself. But perhaps we have too much of that already. So if we could distill alcohol and use it for medicinal purposes if necessary, for export to other countries and use the compressed waste for pellets, we would be going a long way. The industry can provide the Department with a good deal of information on these aspects, but it is of the greatest importance that a full study be made into the full use of the by-products of the pineapple industry in order thereby to bring this industry up to its maximum capacity.

During this debate, two things have been proved chapter and verse time and again. Firstly, that agriculture under the policy of this Government is on a sound basis and, secondly, that the farmer is acquitting himself of his task with honour every day. The hon. member who has just resumed his seat, referred briefly to Rhodesia and. by implication, compared conditions in that country with those in South Africa. Does the hon. member not know that the production of tobacco, which is the most important commodity in Rhodesia, dropped by more than half a few years ago?

Owing to sanctions, yes.

Whereas farmers left this country to go to Rhodesia in the past we find to-day that the movement is in the opposite direction. But I shall leave the matter at that.

I want to confine myself to a problem which dairy farmers in the whole of the Witwatersrand complex have to cops with to-day. I want to refer particularly to fresh milk producers around the Witwatersrand, farmers who are concentrating on the production of fresh milk. Their production remains constant throughout the year because they are full-time dairy farmers. In other words, it is these people who have to see the industry through the difficult winter months, when there is a scarcity of milk.

The consumption of fresh milk on the Witwatersrand increases and decreases by 10 per cent in the course of the year. As against that, the production of fresh milk increases and decreases by 26 per cent in the course of the year. The production of milk usually increases when the consumption drops—mainly in December when hostels on the Witwatersrand are closed and many people leave for the coast on holiday. Then the consumption of milk drops and causes a surplus of plus-minus 32 per cent in December. The production of fresh milk follows a fixed pattern. From the middle of October to the end of January, when the grazing is juicy and nourishing, milk is plentiful; from February to May, when the grazing is poor, we find that milk production reaches its lowest level; during June/August, when the mealie farmers allow their cattle into the mealie lands after they have been harvested, we find an increase in production. It is therefore the farmer who produces milk on a full-time basis, who has to keep production constant throughout the year.

The farmer who produces milk on a part time basis, is the one who, from October to January when the grazing is juicy, causes large surpluses, while the farmer who undertakes mainly grain-farming and allows his cattle into the mealie lands after they have been harvested, causes the surplus production to increase even further. I therefore ask the hon. the Minister to ascertain whether it would not be possible for him to introduce some restriction or other as regards the production of milk. Perhaps he could introduce a quota system. Surely, this is not so revolutionary, because we had it years ago. It was subsequently abolished for reasons I do not want to deal with now. I do not want to prejudice the farmer who concentrates on the production of milk on a full-time basis either. It would also be in the interests of those farmers, the grassveld farmers, the part-time dairy farmers, if a quota system were to be introduced.

In this connection I want to quote the following figures. The farmers who cause the large surpluses, are on the whole not farming near the Witwatersrand. Therefore they have to pay up to 5 cents per gallon in respect of transport costs. During December they receive only 14 cents for one gallon of surplus milk. That, minus the transport costs, leaves them with 9½ cents. Milk on the farm contains between 3.5 and 4 per cent butter-fat. If the farmer were, therefore, to separate that milk, it would give him an income of 12 cents per gallon. Whereas he has to pay 55 cents in respect of transport costs for 11 gallons of milk at present, he will have to pay 5 cents for the conveyance of the cream if he were to separate the milk. If he were to separate 110 gallons of milk, he would still have 100 gallons of separated milk left which is worth at least 3 cents per gallon and which could be used on his farm for calves, pigs, poultry, and so forth. This milk is worth between 3 and 5 cents per gallon. If a fanner were to send 110 gallons of surplus milk to the market at 14.5 cents, his income would be R15.95. He has to pay R5.50 for transport, which leaves him with a net income of R10.45.

As against that, if he were to separate the 110 gallons of milk, he should get 55 lbs. of butter-fat which, at 41 cents per lb., would give him an income of R18.4. Add to that the R3, which is the value of 110 gallons of separated milk, and his income would be R21.4. If he were to separate this milk he would receive R9.9 per day more, i.e. R270 per month —which is quite a substantial amount. According to this way of calculating the farmer receives 17.76 cents per gallon in respect of surplus milk in the form of cream, as against a meagre 9.5 cents for surplus milk in December. In June, 1969, the price of surplus milk was 19 cents per gallon, which meant that the farmer received 14 cents per gallon after he had paid his transport costs.

I therefore ask that the Minister should consider this matter, taking into account the problems on both sides. I presume that the Milk Board and the Dairy Board may be afraid of times when milk is in short supply, but it is that very farmer who does not produce milk on a full-time basis who is not in a position to cope with a shortage of milk, but the dairy farmer, who farms intensively, is, in fact, in a position to cope with that situation, but then he has to receive a constant price for his product right through the year.

The hon. member discussed the economics of the milk industry. The points he has made, are points which we on this side of the House have already made previously. Therefore, we understand his problem; he has a point where he asks for an investigation.

This brings me to the point I should like to discuss with the hon. the Deputy Minister. Before doing that, however, I should just like to conclude the arguments I was making yesterday about the control of termites. In reply to me the Deputy Minister expressed a point of view, which is the point of view of the Department I think, that the increase in the incidence of termites is due to the fact that we have under certain circumstances upset the balance of nature, i.e. we have produced circumstances which are favourable for the increase of this plague. From discussions I have had with the Department on previous occasions, it is believed that provided we restore our veld by proper veld management to its previous state, we would be in a position to control the termites. The natural enemies of termites would then increase, thereby controlling its spread by natural forces. The plague, however, is now so widespread and it would take years and years for us to introduce those practices that could lead to a natural control of these termites. Consequently, it is absolutely essential that we now investigate this problem on a national scale and to tackle it with artificial chemical methods of control. I have seen cases where the veld has not been denuded and yet is being completely destroyed by termites. As a matter of fact, I have seen it on my own farm with a specially preserved piece of vlei veld that was almost in its natural condition. This has been completely destroyed by termites. Unless something is done to control this, we are going to lose thousands and thousands of morgen of grazing land. The Deputy Minister should discuss this problem with his Department because I do not believe they appreciate the full extent of this plague and the extent of the damage it is doing.

Now I should like to revert to the problems of the milk industry. A debate was held in this House about two years ago and my hon. colleague, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District), then raised the question of imitation fluid milk on the South African market. He referred the Minister to statements which were appearing in the U.S. Press to the effect that there was in fact an imitation milk powder on the market in the United States. He asked the hon. the Minister whether he would investigate the position and what steps he was prepared to take to ensure that this particular products was not marketed in South Africa. It is with considerable concern that we find that we have in fact an artificial milk powder freely available in our shops in South Africa. I have a sample of this milk powder here. It is called Borden Creamora, an instant non-dairy creamer. To all intents and purposes this product can be used as a substitute for milk. This powder can be mixed with water and preserved in a refrigerator and used in the same way that the normal household uses its milk. I should like to know whether the hon. the Deputy Minister will investigate this matter because I do not believe that this is a situation which should be allowed to develop. In the first instance, we already have difficulty with our balance of payments. This is surely not an article we should allow importers to obtain and aggravate our balance of payment situation. What is even worse is that we in this country are already confronted with the problem of surplus milk. The hon. member for Heidelberg referred to this problem. Periodically we have this surplus of milk and we are confronted with the situation that skimmed milk has to be disposed of in our big cities because we do not have the machinery to turn it into powder and to dispose of it in a less wasteful manner. I should therefore be glad to know what the hon. the Deputy Minister thinks can be done about this problem. Having read the ingredients that constitute this milk powder, I find that the worst is that there does not seem to be any protein whatsoever in it. If people therefore use it instead of milk, they will lose the valuable protein content of milk. It will naturally not be as beneficial to the members of a family.

This brings me to a further point I want to discuss with the hon. the Deputy Minister, namely the question of using our surplus agricultural products. I know the hon. the Minister has on several occasions said in this House that for the agricultural sector to be in the position to feed the population of South Africa, we always have to budget for a surplus production. In other words, we would soon run into trouble if we merely produced enough for the immediate needs of the people. We therefore always have to estimate for a surplus of production. That in fact happens. One of the industries in which this happens probably more often than in any other industry, is the milk industry which has great differences of production during different seasons of the year. We sometimes find ourselves with a shortage so that we have to import dairy products and then suddenly we find ourselves with a considerable surplus and we do not know what to do with this surplus. This also happens in other cases. In the case of our citrus industry we very often find ourselves with surpluses and that we cannot find an export market for these surpluses. It happens in the case of our deciduous fruit that on many occasions we are confronted with a surplus.

This brings me to the other important point I want to raise. I believe that the time has arrived in South Africa when we must again very carefully look at the desirability of introducing school-feeding schemes. The history of school feeding in South Africa is a long one. In the 1930s the Government had subsidized school-feeding schemes. These were extended in the 1940s. Then in the 1950s the Government decided, and I think very ill-advisedly, to do away with the school-feeding schemes. I am fully aware of the problems associated with running well-organized school-feeding schemes. I believe that when in 1953 these schemes were finally abandoned, it was due to the chaotic situation that arose in the distribution of food to the school-feeding schemes. I believe that to-day the arrangements made are so well organized by the school-feeding organizations in all the big cities in South Africa that if the Government were prepared to look into the matter they would find a ready-made organization to deal in a proper manner with the distribution of many of the surplus agricultural products that so often come to the fore in South Africa. Talking about school feeding, I believe that there are three very good reasons why this matter deserves very special attention. The main reason, I would say. is the humanitarian reason. It seems incredible to me that a country with as sophisticated an economy as we have in this country, can allow a situation where periodically we have to dump and destroy surplus agricultural products while at the same time there is a large percentage of our population that is under-nourished. I believe this is a situation that nobody in South Africa can possibly tolerate. A second good reason why I believe this matter deserves thorough investigation is that it is going to save us millions of rands in medical expenses. I do not want to bore the House with quotations, but I have here reams of information which I can quote to show that we are spending millions of rand to combat tuberculosis and kwashiorkor, which are nutritional diseases. These are diseases that could be controlled if the people had made available to them the foodstuffs that are very often going waste in South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, if I may enter this debate at this late stage I want to say that I have listened attentively to all the arguments which were raised, particularly those of the opposite side of the House. I have come to the conclusion now that as far as agriculture is concerned the United Party is just as vulnerable as it was in the years of Koos Strauss, when we had to starve for one half of the week. I am saying this for two reasons. In the first instance it is very clear that the United Party, in its make-up, has no understanding of agriculture, that they are not agriculturalists and that they really cannot converse on an equal footing in this regard. They have no understanding of the matter. The second reason is that it is very clear to me that they do not try to approach any problem here in a positive way but that they are obsessed solely with the idea of trying to solve every bottleneck with criticism and yet more criticism. I think the United Party is underestimating the mentality and the intelligence of the agriculturalist in this country. Nowhere is this better illustrated than in the Transvaal. The rural areas of the Transvaal are those areas which represent every facet of organized agriculture and agriculture in the Transvaal. But there is not one single representative of the United Party, because the rural areas of the Transvaal found out a long time ago that the United Party could make no saving contribution on its behalf. For that reason the United Party has been completely eliminated in the rural areas of the Transvaal, where it is exclusively agricultural interests which count. If there is one fear in the rural areas of the Transvaal it is that a United Party Government should ever come into power again. In my constituency of Ermelo I had a typical and practical example of this. When the Hertzog group appeared on the scene, my voters decided that there was only one thing they could do, and that was to stand behind the National Party, not out of fear that the Hertzog group would attain its goal but out of fear that the possibility existed that the United Party would attain its goal. This has now led to a rediculous position in the Transvaal. The Transvaal has major and expansive agricultural interests. There is the Western Transvaal with its mealies, the Northern Transvaal with its cattle farmers, the wool farmers of the Eastern Transvaal, and the Low veld with its citrus farmers. What is happening now is that the interests of the Transvaal in the sphere of agriculture are being served in this House by the hon. member for Kensington. The interests of agriculture in the Transvaal are being dictated to and will continue to be dictated to by the Sunday Times and the Rand Daily Mail. I do not think the Transvaal will ever tolerate this. If there is anything which testifies to bankruptcy in the policy of the United Party, it is this fact. Let me remind the United Party that is clear to every objective observer in this House that this Government is determined in its attempt to cope with these problems and bottlenecks. I now want to refer to a statement which was made two days ago in the Transvaal by the Chairman of the Transvaal Agricultural Union and which I find to be significant. This is what he said: “There are good prospects for every hard working and purposeful farmer in the Transvaal”. That is what the chairman of the Transvaal Agricultural Union had to say two days ago. He is a man who holds no political position, but who in an objective way referred us to the prospects which existed in this country for the farmer.

I now want to touch upon a matter which is of special importance, particularly for our wool and sheep farmers in the Eastern Transvaal. For many years now it has been customary—this goes back almost a century—for the sheep farmers to trek from the high veld to the lowveld during the winter months. They drive their stock from Ermelo, Carolina, Piet Retief and other regions down to the lowveld to the Komati Valley, to the lowveld of Piet Retief, and also to Swaziland. This gives these wool farmers the best results because it has been proved that it is uneconomic to winter large flocks on the highveld. In regard to the drive to Swaziland and the interests our people have there, I want to repeat that this is a custom which goes back many years. It dates back to the days of President Paul Kruger, when Swaziland was almost regarded as part of the Transvaal. At the time there were no formalities or borders, and our people acquired that land by way of inheritance. Subsequently they were even under the impression that they would be able to retain that land, by virtue of the fact that the protectorates would perhaps be incorporated one day into the Republic of South Africa. In recent times this pattern has changed. Swaziland is now an independent neighbouring state, a foreign state with other standards, other norms and other people. This has created problems for our people their in this sense that there is a contravention there, their grazing is being destroyed and there is very little they can do about it. What they can in fact do is complain, but access to that grazing is becoming even more difficult. As a result of these difficult circumstances, our people are now faced with the problem that they may possibly have to resort to selling those properties at a very low and uneconomic price because they will have no more potential. They will be forced to sell at prices which are uneconomic and which compare unfavourably with prices in the Republic. As I have said, it creates grave problems for these people, and I suspect that they will in due course address representations in this regard, for otherwise the possibility may perhaps exist that ruin will be staring them in the face. Their representations to the Government will probably be in connection to the possible release of other State-owned land. A large group of our sheep farmers are being affected in this way, and I am therefore addressing a friendly request to the Government to give attention, in its wisdom to this difficult situation as well. In addition I want to ask that consideration be given to some or other form of alleviation for these people.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Ermelo criticized the way in which the Opposition has been conducting the debate and the attitude of the Opposition to agriculture in general. I want to state emphatically that we have done our duty by the farmers in South Africa during this debate, because we have highlighted, and I believe very accurately, the problems that are in fact facing the agricultural industry. Let us face it, Sir. They are many and they are varied. The hon. member himself acknowledged this to be the position. He spoke about “knelpunte in die landbou”.

Let us take just one problem which has not been solved during the stewardship of this Government, namely the problem of soil erosion. I want to ask the hon. member: Has any progress whatsoever been made during the last 22 years to bring the problem of soil erosion under control? Has the position not become worse and worse? To-day we are threatened by a very serious state of affairs. When we on this side of the House raised these matters, we do so seriously, because we see a situation developing in certain areas which can almost be called a crisis situation. I believe that we are doing our duty when we draw these matters to the attention of the Government.

I should like to return to the question I raised earlier in connection with school-feeding schemes. I mentioned three reasons why I believe that it is essential for these schemes to be re-introduced in the Republic. The one was for humanitarian reasons, the other was to save vast expense in connection with medical treatment of diseases like T.B. and Kwashiorkor and the third point was that we are spending a tremendous amount on the education of lesser privileged people in South Africa. I make the point, and I make it very strongly. that if children attend schools when they have not been properly fed, the money that is being spent on their education is in fact being wasted. because it is a well-known fact that unless a child has had a proper meal, he is not receptive to the lessons being taught in school. I raised the further point that school-feeding was one Of the ways in which surplus produce could be used. I know that the problem of how to deal with surplus produce is a matter which causes the hon. the Minister grave concern. This is one way, and indeed one of the best ways, in which we can tackle the question of surplus agricultural produce in the Republic. I believe that it is time a good look was taken at this problem by the Departments of Health, Social Welfare, Agriculture and Planning, and that they should institute as soon as they can some organization that can bring into being a well-co-ordinated school feeding scheme in South Africa.

In conclusion, Sir, I just want to say a word or two about the Land Bank. I believe that in raising this question of the Land Bank the Opposition in fact did a service to the farmers of South Africa. Many things have been said about it; many things have appeared in the Press, but in the long run the stand that the Opposition took in this matter was in the best interest of agriculture in South Africa.

They have woken up at last.

In conclusion, Sir, I have the report here of the commission of inquiry into an alleged Land Bank loan to Mr. A. T. Kolver or to a company in which he was interested. The hon. member for Newton Park has been referred to on several occasions during this particular debate, and I think some unfair remarks were made in respect of the attitude of this hon. member. Sir, I just want to read out one paragraph from the findings of this commission to make it quite clear what we feel about this matter. On page 4 under the heading “Findings” the report says—

But this is the point that I want to emphasize—

I think hon. members must take note of that finding of the commission because, after all, that statement was made after an exhaustive inquiry.

I am sorry the hon. member for Walmer has again dragged in the Land Bank here at the end of the debate. It is not my task to deal with Land Bank matters in a debate in which finances are not under discussion. The entire intention with the publicity which was given to this question of Land Bank loans was not to help the farmer but to sow suspicion during the election; to cause unrest to take root among the farmers; to bring the farmers under the impression that certain people were being benefitted here. This suspicion was sown by saying certain things and then letting them hang in the air. Fortunately the farmer know to-day what the facts of the situation are. This Land Bank incident did not in any way influence us to change our policy as far as financing in agriculture is concerned.

But let me rather return to the positive things the hon. member said here. As far as the harvester termite is concerned, I can inform him that we will give our attention to the matter again because the extent of the problem is great; there I must agree with the hon. member, but I also think that we will find that total withdrawal is a better countermeasure than chemical methods but I am not going to say that we should not institute further investigations.

The hon. member referred to the use of surplus agricultural production and the utilization thereof in school-feeding systems. The hon. member, in this connection, also referred to tuberculosis and mentioned citrus and other fruit. When there is surplus citrus which cannot be exported it is then diverted to juice extraction factories. When there is a surplus of apples, it is converted into juice. But this only happens sporadically, at certain times of the year. If one were to introduce a feeding scheme for non-Whites and if one wanted to combat tuberculosis, then the children would have to be given dairy products, and the question arises as to how you could transport the milk to those areas on an economic basis. It would then have to be transported in the form of cheese. At the moment we are importing cheese. Machinery could be established to find a channel through which to divert any surplus, but this would only happen for two or three months in the year, and then this service would cease. [Interjection.] Sir, that hon. member has only just woken up. I am not opposed to this scheme; I just want to point out the hitches and bottlenecks which will arise in the implementation of such a scheme. But it is also for the relevant control board, the Milk Board, to come forward with such a scheme if it finds that it has a surplus. Perhaps the State will have to give assistance. All these things will have to be considered.

The other matter the hon. member mentioned was the question of synthetic milk powder. The Milk Board, as far as I know, has granted permission for small quantities of this powder to be brought in, but personally I am not in favour of it. We have on a previous occasion already discussed syn thetic meat, etc., and I am pleased the hon. member brought this matter to our attention so that we can see to it that the consumer public is not misled.

The hon. member for Heidelberg referred to the problems in the distribution of milk, and requested that if possible a milk quota should be introduced. The control board in question is looking after these matters. In the past, and for various reasons it was found that a milk quota was not successful. The producers subsequently asked whether they could not abandon that scheme because the new producers found it difficult to contribute their share in the industry.. We are saddled with the problem of regions which, as a result of good rains, suddenly have a very high milk production, but it is difficult to predict what may happen in future. If one were to restrict it and one were to have conditions as we have now experienced in March and April, then one would suddenly have a shortage again. The solution here is that the Milk Board should adjust the price in such a way that the man is discouraged from producing a surplus. The hon. member spoke of conveyance costs of 5 cents per gallon of milk. If the hon. member pays 5 cents per gallon from Heidelberg to Johannesburg then I do not think that his milk is being conveyed in bulk on a co-operative basis, because from my experience I know that milk can be conveyed in bulk on a co-operative basis at 2.9 cents per gallon for 45 miles. The Milk Board will have to give attention to these matters.

The hon. member for Albany raised a matter which we have often discussed together, i.e. the position of a group of farmers who have my sympathy the pineapple farmers. The final small payment which the farmers must receive is being delayed by one canning concern which has not yet submitted its figures. We are waiting for the figures in order to finalize the matter. As regards the hon. member’s request for additional assistance, I can tell him that we shall approach this matter with sympathy, particularly as a result of the tremendous damage which the farmers have suffered as a result of the disaster which struck them yesterday.

Then, too, the hon. member referred to the processing of the by-products of pineapples in the form of alcohol, and he requested that research in this regard should be undertaken. If he were to glance at the report of the Department he would see what attention we are already giving to the various experimental farms in his region. I do not think that there is much more to be done as far as research into alcohol is concerned, because there is a protection for certain industries. It is, for example, not necessary to undertake research in regard to the distilling of brandy from clingstone peaches in the Lydenburg area, for we already have that knowledge and those facts at our disposal. But we must admit that if we were to say that alcohol could be manufactured from mealies, of which we have a surplus, then we would be creating a problem for the existing industry which makes its alcohol from the vine. These are all matters which must be thoroughly investigated before any decision in this regard can be taken.

The hon. member for Nelspruit quite rightly requested that we should revise the Cooperative Society Act. We are all eager to do so as a result of the Steenkamp Report. We were envisaging this last year. If everything goes according to plan, we will pilot an amendment Bill through Parliament during the next session. I am pleased that the hon. member. whose standpoint is the same as mine, said that we should say to the co-operative societies: “Pay the tax; compete on an equal footing on condition that, just as in the case of the farmer, the costs of new works will be deductible from your taxable income.”

The hon. member for Newton Park again quoted what Mr. Chris Cilliers said in regard to 68,000 farmers who were operating at a profit and 12,000 who were operating at a loss. He said that things were in fact not going as well with the farmers as we on this side wanted to make out. Sir, we on this side said that we admitted that there were bottlenecks in the farming industry.

What are you going to do about it?

The hon. member stated that we had done nothing in regard to the increase in the costs of labour and the rates of interest, but surely he knows that these have been taken into account in determining the price of wheat and mealies.

Not the figure mentioned by the hon. member for Lichtenburg.

I shall come in a moment to the hon. member for Lichtenburg. I just want to say in passing that I give all the members on this side, and particularly new members whom I have not heard before in this House, full marks for their constructive contributions to the debate. If some of the new members who are sitting on this side, had been sitting on that side, then this debate would perhaps have taken a different course. The hon. member for Lichtenburg pointed out that on an average R74.000 a unit had been invested in agriculture. If the total cost were deducted, the net profit per unit was R7,233. The hon. member cannot refute those figures. With fewer farmers we have produced more. Why are they always emphasizing only negative aspects like increased rates of interest? I have admitted repeatedly that it is a problem, but we are trying to help. A subsidy of 1 per cent is now being granted. If the hon. member and Chris Cilliers say that 12,0 farmers operated at a loss and that things had gone so badly for the farmers, they must remember that this figure of R7,233 was that farmer’s net profit after deduction of his Living expenses. His rent, this water, his electrical power, etc., has largely been deducted.

And his food.

The cost of his food and his milk has already been deducted. It is very easy to say here that 12,000 farmers have operated at a loss. The farmer is not in the same position as a man in the business world who draws a salary. The farmer lives off his farm and perhaps he finds that he has a small loss as a result of a dry year, but the next year the position changes, and conditions improve.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 18.— “Defence”, R257,100,000, Loan Vote Q.— “Defence”, R7,500,000 and S.W.A. Vote No. 8.— “Civil Defence”, R47,000:

In the short time up to the suspension of business, I should like to make a few announcements to this House in connection with East London and the flood damage that occurred there. I just want to announce that the commanding officer of the Eastern Cape Command, Brig. Dutton, has departed for East London per super Frelon in order to make a reconnaissance and to have discussions with the local authorities. In the meantime two super Frelons are on their way to Port Elizabeth from Bloemfontein, and one Alouette from Durban.

In King William’s Town 300 blankets are lying ready for use by Coloureds whose residential area is being threatened by flood waters. In Bloemfontein many more blankets are lying available. The 300 blankets and 18 tents for non-Whites will be taken to East London by Brig. Dutton. Apart from that, another 170 tents for Whites are available in Port Elizabeth, if required. Approximately 120 members of the Defence Force in Grahamstown are standing by, if their services should be required. At this stage it would seem as though their services would not be absolutely necessary. Brig. Dutton is also taking with him radio equipment to effect communication with the isolated parts in and around East London. Beacon Bay, a township, has been cut off completely. The Nahoon River bridge cannot be used. After Brig. Dutton’s reconnaissance he will determine whether a military bridge should be erected. The alternative road has been washed away. Further progress will be announced later.

* Secondly, I want to deal with a matter which I indicated I would reply to in connection with a question put to me by the hon. member for Houghton in regard to handling the objectors to national service.

Under the ballot system, objection to military training on the ground of religious conviction was not uncommon, but since the introduction of national service it has assumed alarming proportions in particular during the past year. Not only has there been a significant increase in the number of objectors but also their resistance has hardened and appears to be co-ordinated.

Section 67 (3) of the Defence Act as amended in 1967, reas as follows—

This provision and its implications were fully canvassed by the Select Committee and debated in this House. Members were unanimous that this should be the maximum concession that could be granted. The dangerous international situation demands that every citizen performs his duty when it comes to preparedness for defence. Hon. members of the Opposition not only fully supported the provision, but the hon. member for North Rand even felt that the concession was undeserved and those concerned were being treated too liberally. The honour and duty to defend one’s country should not be made subservient to one’s religious convictions.

There are a number of religious denominations whose tenets forbid participation in war but it has been found possible to implement the Defence Act in such a manner that it does not offend their conscience. Full co-operation has been achieved with all denominations except the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Leaders of their church have had discussions with the Commandant-General with a view to finding a solution to the problem. These leaders stated that their objections are confined to allotment to combatant units and to training with arms.

It is the duty of the Department of Defence to give effect to the provisions of the Defence Act and in the implementation of section 67 (3) of the Act the following policy has been formulated, viz.—

1. (a) Conscientious objectors are allotted to non-combatant units.
2. (b) They are trained without weapons.

This policy decision observes both the letter and the spirit of the law and should have removed any reasonable objection to military service and training.

However, notwithstanding the statement made by their leaders, members of Jehovah’s Witnesses persist in their objection to military service. Not only do they object to military training, but also refuse point-blank to be identified with the Defence Force—refuse to wear clothing issued to them or obey any order or instruction given to them. I regret it but such an attitude cannot be tolerated, the more so in a military organization. Refusal to serve or obey orders leads to prosecution and consequent detention in detention barracks or prison.

Members of Jehovah’s Witnesses sentenced to detention are of necessity obliged to obey reasonable orders given them while detained, but even then some of them have adopted a recalcitrant and defiant attitude which has regrettably led to unnecessary hard-handed treatment by members of the detention barracks staff. Such irregular treatment has now been strictly forbidden.

Solitary confinement is imposed for breaches of detention barracks disciplinary rules and regulations. During such solitary confinement they are not permitted to have visitors and are precluded from having reading material. Instructions have, however, been issued that they should retain their Bibles.

So much for the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

*In the short time left, I also want to make a brief statement on the question of cadets in order to facilitate the discussion.

Since the establishment of the school cadet movement in terms of the Defence Act of 1912 the system has remained virtually unchanged up to the present time. Both from the side of the education authorities and from the side of the Defence Force a feeling has arisen during the past few years that the time given to cadet training could be better utilized in the interests of the youth. Particularly in view of general national service and the longer period of military training, the relative military value of cadet training has decreased in importance. Moreover, the education authorities hit on the idea to introduce a youth viability programme as part of the secondary school syllabus.

After protracted discussions between the Defence Force and the education authorities, recommendations were made to me for the reform of the cadet system so as to link it to the youth viability programme. Consequently it was decided to replace the existing cadet divisions with guards of honour as from January, 1971. The cadet bands will continue to exist. The existing uniforms will also be replaced by a new uniform of a more attractive cut, design and colour, with a beret instead of the present cap.

High schools with more than 200 boys, will be entitled to a guard of honour of 103 and a band of 25 boys. Schools with between 100 and 199 boys will be entitled to a guard of honour of 53, and a band of 15 boys. Schools with fewer than 100 boys will be considered for a band and guard of honour only on the recommendation of the education authority concerned.

These new cadet guards of honour will be regarded as prestige units of their schools, and the boys will have to compete with one another to be included in them. They will act as guards of honour on suitable school and public functions, and will perform flag-hoisting and retreat ceremonies. They will also continue to be trained in musketry with .22 rifles, as well as in map reading and elementary fieldcraft. The existing shooting competitions for trophies, medals and special badges, as well as the cadet band competitions, will also be continued. As soon as the youth viability programme has been introduced boys who have not been included in the guards of honour, as well as girls, will also be able to participate in shooting exercises.

Uniforms, instruments for the bands, .22 rifles and ammunition, as well as assistance with the training, will continue to be provided by the Defence Force, as in the past.

These changes will have the effect that the present cadet strength of 106,000 will be reduced to 51,000, at a saving of R180,000 per annum.

I shall give the hon. member for Durban (Point) a copy of these statements.

May I ask for the privilege of the half-hour? The hon. the Minister has made three important statements to which I would like to react. In regard to the first one, the floods in East London, we welcome the steps that have been taken and the prompt response by the Defence Force to the emergency which at the moment exists at East London. From our knowledge of the Forces, we know that the action they will take there will be valuable. Particularly the helicopters which will be provided and the radio communications should play a major part in rendering assistance in the stricken town. We also welcome the fact that tents and blankets have been made available. The hon. the Minister has mentioned a small number. I hope that if that is not sufficient, additional facilities can be provided, because judging by Press reports, the number mentioned by the Minister will not be sufficient to cater for those who are likely to be homeless. I can assure the hon. the Minister of the full support of this side of the House in the action which has been taken and we express our full confidence in the ability of the men who are being sent there to play their part.

In regard to cadets, the hon. the Minister has kindly offered to make his statement available. It is difficult to gauge the full implications. Viewed superficially, it seems to be basically a change of name, uniform, and a reduction in numbers. I should therefore like to study it and then perhaps the hon. the Minister at a later stage of the debate can give us more information in regard to the practical differences it will make in regard to the training of boys at school.

Then we come to the question of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, which is not an easy one. I would like to have clarity particularly on the statement the hon. the Minister made that the leaders of the Jehovah’s Witnesses have indicated their acceptance of the present position. There seems to be some conflict here in that the leaders, according to the hon. the Minister, accept that members of the sect may do service in a non-combatant capacity, whereas the members themselves refuse to do so. Now I have no sympathy whatsoever with a person who tries to evade his responsibility to his country. We on this side of the House supported the provisions in the Defence Act which ensure that no one could use religious convictions as an excuse in order to escape responsibility for service. But it seems that there must be something more than an attempt to evade service when a person is prepared to undergo up to seven or more sentences of 90 days’ detention, which everyone knows is not a pleasant form of occupation. There must be some reason why a young man, in one case I understand, will undergo detention for over 230 days. There must be something which makes him prepared to undergo the hardship which this imposes on him and which seems in conflict with the hon. the Minister’s statement in regard to the acceptance by the leaders of the present position. While we on this side of the House would not support, nor would we press for any steps to be taken which could open a back door, equally we believe that where there is obviously something which drives these people to almost unbelievable punishment of themselves on the grounds of their alleged beliefs, which is more than a mere intention to evade responsibility. Perhaps this is a matter which could be looked at again, not with a view to making any exemption from responsibility but with a view to making every young South African serve, but serve in a way that does not conflict with beliefs which he sincerely holds.

Whilst on this question, I should also like to raise the question of immigrants and ask the hon. the Minister to tell us to what extent the new provisions of the Act which make immigrants liable to military service unless they sign a certificate saying that they do not intend to become South African citizens, has in fact been applied in practice, and whether there have been any cases as yet of immigrants who have indicated that they do not intend to become South African citizens and have therefore evaded responsibility having had their permanent residence permits withdrawn. It would be interesting to hear what the position is in this regard, as we feel, like the Government felt when we first raised this matter, that those who are qualified to be South Africans, who are earning their bread and butter in South Africa, owe responsibility to South Africa to render military service.

Mr. Chairman, before proceeding with the matters I wish to raise I should like to take this first public opportunity of associating myself with the message sent by the hon. the Minister to the French Government and to the families of the Frenchmen who were killed in the tragic submarine accident. We on this side of the House associate ourselves with deep sincerity with the expression of sympathy sent on behalf of South Africa. We are glad that the hon. the Minister took that prompt action. I hope too that the hon. the Minister will take the first possible opportunity to issue a full statement outlining the facts of the situation, how the accident occurred and as much as he is able to tell us on that matter. We realize of course that it cannot be done while an inquiry is in progress.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to start this afternoon by dealing with the question of national service, the new national service scheme which was introduced by this House by amendments to the Defence Act. In previous sessions we have indicated our doubts as to some aspects of the method which is now being followed. We have moved in our defence planning from the volunteer system to the ballot system and now to the full conscription system. This system was adopted with the support of both sides of the House. We realize the strain which the enrollment of the total available youth of South Africa has placed on the Defence Force, on its facilities, its camps and on its instructor personnel. When we raised doubts and criticisms, we said we were pre pared to accept the hon. the Minister’s request to give him time. He has said that the snags are being ironed out and that the difficulties are being overcome. We acceded to what we regarded as a reasonable request to give the system a full opportunity to be tested in practice. However, now that the best part of another year has passed we believe that it has become quite clear that we were too optimistic in our original planning. In practice it has become clear that certain modifications should be made. The big problem with this system right from the start, as with the old training system which we used to have before the introduction of the national service scheme, was the lack of instructors. It was believed that by staggering call-ups and by training selected citizen force men who showed aptitude for leadership, we would be able to supplement the Permanent Force instructor corps with sufficient people to handle the total number of some 26,000 who would be called up under the national service scheme. Unfortunately, I believe that there we were over optimistic and that, in fact, the Citizen Force instructors have a limited value in that they are only able to instruct in the elementary stages of training. The real problem, which has been there all along, the problem of giving more advanced training, especially the training required to use the more sophisticated weapons which we have to-day, cannot be handled by Citizen Force trainees after a few months elementary training. There are still not sufficient Permanent Force instructors able to give that training. Although there are definite improvements in the utilization of the time of the servicemen, there is still a tremendous amount of time wasted. At the same time other disadvantages have arisen. When one studies the picture as it seems to be emerging, I fear that the disadvantages are starting to outweigh the advantages. We aimed at a force of 100,000 national servicemen on the strength of our forces over a period of ten years. As things are developing it is possible that we may achieve that on paper. We will have 100,000 names on nominal rolls. The question is whether those 100,000 names on paper are going to provide us with the trained force which is required to act as a deterrent against any folly of attack on South Africa. It is essential that the deterrent be a strong one. I believe that it is common cause on both sides of the House that South Africa’s Citizen Force is the key to our security. Our Citizen Force regiments are the backbone of any defences which we can build up in South Africa. It always has been and it always will be. We have full confidence, as I believe the Minister has, in the ability of our youth to defend our country if the need should arise. There is nothing wrong with them despite the long hair which sometimes gives us the jim-jams. Our youth in South Africa is basically sound. I believe that if they are tested, which I hope they will not be, they will not fail us. Therefore I believe it is our task to give to the young men who will be the backbone of the defence of South Africa the fullest possible opportunity in what I believe are the five essentials necessary to build up a strong and powerful defence force. The first is essentially leadership; the second is loyalty; the third is training; the fourth is equipment; and the fifth is morale. Without those five basic essentials we cannot expect to have a powerful and an effective Citizen Force.

Let us look for a moment at what is happening in practice under the new national service system. Firstly, I believe that we are isolating our leadership corps from the men. They do their nine months basic training. They are then drafted to regiments and they go to camp once every three years and have intermittent parades at the most once per month. The result is that our Citizen Force leadership corps is losing contact with the rank and file of their regiments. As a result, the regimental spirit which has been so important to the effectiveness of our famous units, is slowly breaking down. You cannot expect to maintain a spirit when you bring a third of your regiment together once every third year, and that is the only real close contact, apart from intermittent parades, which the men will have with the leadership of their regiment. Secondly, we are overstraining an already overstrained instructor corps. I do not want to quote details as the hon. the Minister is aware of them. There have been Press reports indicating how thinly the instructor corps is spread on the ground. Then I come thirdly to what is perhaps the most important factor. We are affecting the mental approach of young South Africa towards national service. All the young men to whom one speaks, almost without exception, say that despite the improvements and the changes the first three months are fully occupied, constructively and usefully, by basic training. The second three months depend on the unit and the camp and the availability of the instructors. However, very seldom and only in rare cases do you hear of young men who say that they feel that their last three months of training have been worthwhile. Secondly, you get a stronger reaction against the extension to 10 years in which they are expected to do their 26 day camps. By that time they are 28 years of age, they usually are married, they possess a flat, they have a family to support, they have hire-purchase commitments and they have risen in their civil occupation. By that time, when they are married and settled down, the 26 day camps which could have been a pleasure and enjoyment to them when they were young, become a burden. For that reason the mental reaction of young people towards national service is not being improved as we have hoped it would. We have pleaded with the youth to accept it as part of their contribution to South Africa but it is creating resentment instead. Here I happen to have one of the youth panels which is being run by a daily newspaper, namely the “Youth Forum” of the Star, which I think gives us a cross-section of their opinions. This one letter speaks about “The acceptance of national service as a necessary evil.” They complain that the service is too long and too time-wasting and often inefficient. These are the basic complaints which one hears. There are those who complain about the food and some of the “mama’s darlings” do not like to be chased around, but I have no sympathy for them. I have no sympathy for those who will not accept discipline and the rigours of military training.

However, this basic question of approach to training is one which I believe is important. The time has come where we have to face facts. We have to face the reality that we were perhaps over-optimistic. There are two angles to this, one of which the hon. member for North Rand will deal with. That will be a proposal complementary to that with which I want to deal, which is the national service aspect. In the past we have asked that the periods of service should be reconsidered. We now want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to consider implementing two changes which we feel are necessary. We feel that the nine months initial training for the Army should be reduced to six months until such time as there are sufficient instructors and sufficient facilities to make the full period justified and able to be fully utilized. We feel, and I state this as the official policy of this side of the House, that the period should be reduced to six months and that the three 26-day camps which at present are spread over 10 years should be retained, but should be held over a period of four years so that a young man who goes into the Army at the age of 18 will have completed his commitment by the age of 23 or 24. Not only will this remove the resentment against the long period and the break into home life and responsibility, but we also believe that it will restore the regimental spirit of our regiments. The regimental spirit will be restored, because the leadership corps of the regiments will be meeting its men at shorter intervals, namely intervals of approximately every year, with intermittent parades in-between. They will be able to maintain the feeling of operating as a cohesive force. We believe that in restoring the relationship between leadership and men, morale will be improved; the grudge approach towards training will be removed; and a more effective force will be built up than there will be in a force which has 100,000 men on paper who do not have the spirit which will make them a real fighting force.

In passing, I would like to add that I believe more should be done to create regimental headquarters for our Citizen Force regiments. It should not all be left to the local authorities and voluntary effort. I would like to appeal to local authorities, to city councils and town councils to play their part by making land available and to the hon. the Minister to give the assistance necessary to create proper regimental headquarters for all Citizen Force units. These proposals will of course mean a corresponding change in the commando periods of service. We also believe that thereafter these men could be kept on the strength of units. They could even retain their uniforms, if necessary, so that they would still be available for quick call-up and mobilization at short notice. As it is now, arms are withdrawn when they are not in the camp. They do not have the arms so that they are not available for instantaneous use. When they are called up in such a case, they still have to be called in, and they have to be equipped with their weaponry. The same thing would apply if they were kept on strength of their unit for the following six years, but they will not be required to spread their training and the continuous camps over that period. This we believe would make a big difference and bring about a big improvement in the whole system of national training.

Obviously the hon. the Minister will come back and say that this is going to place a big strain on the instructor resources. There will be no bigger strain than there is now, but it would eliminate the frustration of idleness over the periods when they cannot be utilized. Together with the proposal which will be made by my hon. colleague, I believe that we will not have a weaker, but a stronger force which will be able to face the dangers which are facing us.

I want to turn to two other matters, international issues on which I am afraid I have to take the hon. the Minister to task and disagree with him. The first is the question of the Simonstown Agreement and arms purchases. We on this side of the House have supported the hon. the Minister’s attitude that there should be a review of this agreement which will bring greater benefits to South Africa. This is common cause; it is a South African approach. With that we agree, but I do not agree with the methods which the hon. the Minister has used since the change of Government in the United Kingdom. Hardly had the doors of No. 10 downing Street closed on Mr. Heath …

On Mr. Wilson.

No, they closed on Mr. Heath when he moved in; Mr. Wilson I believe moved out of the back door! Hardly had the door closed than we were starting to make public approaches to a government which is committed to a more reasonable attitude towards South Africa—which is committed to a more realistic approach to these issues. The hon. the Minister chose a public occasion and the columns of the public press to indulge in what was nothing more or less than sabre rattling and the making of implied threats. Surely, this is not the way to deal with a delicate issue of this nature.

Now you are talking nonsense.

I can expect the hon. member for Brakpan to dive blindly and baldheaded into a delicate situation.

You are diving blindly into something you know nothing about.

Where you want to negotiate something in the interest of your country, I believe one should deal with this on the most diplomatic level possible. What has happened is that we have stirred up the reaction of the enemies of South Africa. We have given them a stick with which to beat us and we have stirred up a controversy which has strengthened the resistance against Britain’s changing her policy towards us. Instead, a diplomatic approach without fanfare of trumpets, without noise and hullabaloo, would have been a far more responsible approach and been far more likely to succeed. Now we have the countries of Black Africa and other nations up in arms against the supply of arms to South Africa. Surely we should have negotiated privately. [Interjections.] We believe it is our duty as an Opposition where we disagree with the method followed by the hon. the Minister, to say so. We will not be put off by interjections by hon. members on that side of the House. We agree with the objective, but we believe that the hon. the Minister has acted ham-handedly and that he has not acted in the best interests of our country; because no person likes to have implied threats made. There was no need to stir up antagonism against us. We hope that we will be successful in these negotiations, despite what we believe is the wrong approach to them, There are differences in the way you fight your political battles within your own country and the way you deal with international affairs. Whilst it may be all very well to use the public platforms and strong words when dealing with an internal political fight, I do not believe that this is the right approach when dealing with international issues. There is a second issue which I will not raise now, because I will not have time to complete it, but I hope later to be able to come back and deal with it.

In the few nimutes left to me, I should like to deal with one or two unconnected issues and to seek information from the hon. the Minister. The first is that last year a new security organization, the Bureau of State Security, was created, which led to a reduction in expenditure on the Defence Vote for military intelligence to R39,000. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I had just begun to feel pleased this afternoon, almost the way one feels about the countrywide rains which are falling, thinking that the hon. member for Durban (Point) had at last reached the stage where he could approach a Defence debate in a peaceful and responsible manner. But I am afraid my hopes were in vain, for here towards the end of his speech he was his old true self again. This afternoon the hon. member actually wanted to teach the hon. the Minister of Defence a lesson in diplomacy. Knowing the hon. member as I do. I think that is the last field he should venture into. If there is one matter which all South Africans can really feel unanimous about and grateful for, then it is the responsible and careful way in which this Government, and specifically the Minister of Defence, have handled this thorny matter of the Simonstown Agreement during the past few years, and also recently after the British general election. If it had been possible to make any complaints, these would definitely have come from the Government which is now in power in Britain. But I think there is understanding between that Government and this Government. We are thoroughly aware of our mutual problems. That is why we are acting like adults. That is why it is a source of disappointment to me that the hon. member should actually have made this undeserved attack on the Minister here towards the end of his speech.

The hon. member spoke about veiled threats which had been made. Where did he get that from? The hon. the Minister stated very recently in a debate here that South Africa was not begging for arms. She was not going to humiliate herself by begging for arms from all and sundry. South Africa is in a position to look after its own needs as far as its home defence in its local situation is concerned. But as to the sea route around the Cape, our view of the matter is that apart from the safety of our own country we are doing the entire Western world a service. The hon. the Minister made an appeal to Western leaders and statesmen to realize that South Africa is engaged in more than a task in its own interests and that it is here engaged in a task of world importance. But there was no veiled threat to the present British Government. On the contrary, I think that this matter was dealt with in a most proper way. If that hon. member does have a complaint to-day, it should be against the newspapers which support his side of the House, that are trying to arouse sensation in regard to these matters and are trying to create the impression that South Africa is now negotiating and crawling on its knees to beg for arms. Their entire representation of us was that we were beggars. There is a task for the hon. member. But it is a task which should be performed on his own home ground and one which he will not gladly undertake, because he would then be unpopular with that Press. I maintain that it was an undeserved attack the hon. member made this afternoon on the Minister and the Government. I think any responsible South African will take it amiss of him.

The hon. member discussed other matters, i.e. our national compulsory military service system. Although the hon. member differs with us in this regard, he did so in a level-headed and reasonable way. After having dealt with him now in regard to the initial part of his speech, I am now going to try to meet him in a reasonable way on this matter of national compulsory service. The history of national compulsory service covers a very short period of time. During the past decade the defence pattern of South Africa has changed from one of a small standing army on voluntary service to one of a ballot system. This was then followed by the compulsory service system which has only been in force for two years. In August it will have been two years we have been working on this system. The hon. member served with us in the Select Committee on that legislation. I do not think anybody could have had any illusions about the fact that this system, as well as its predecessor, which have developed over the past 10 years, have placed a tremendous pressure and burden on South African resources as far as manpower as well as its finances and other means are concerned in order to adjust itself to the defence task which lies ahead for us. In particular the introduction of a national compulsory service system has placed an exceptional task on our population as a whole. It is only logical that the success of this system will be unable to prove itself within a year or two. Time will have to elapse for it to prove its success, but apart from that, to enable us properly to achieve every envisaged objective of that national compulsory service system. The hon. member for Durban (Point) knows what the bottlenecks are. He mentioned them. But now I want to differ with him, since he at this stage, after two years, already wants to apply a test which I think is a little superficial. He wants us to take a retrogressive step, i.e. that we should decrease the basic training period for the citizen force from nine to six months and that we should decrease the total service period from ten to four years. If I remember correctly, the hon. member and other hon. members on his side of the House some time ago voted for an amendment to the Defence Act in which we in fact increased the basic training period for commandos, which form a full-fledged part of our Defence Force to-day, from two to three months. At that stage the hon. member and his side of the House voted in favour of it. In other words, they also realized the need for a longer period in the circumstances in which we are living. This would have enabled the commandos, who form a very important subdivision of our Defence Force, to receive more specialized training.

But the number of years has been decreased.

No, the number of years has not been decreased.

The total period has been decreased.

The hon. member is mistaken. The total period for the commandos has remained the same.

In the Defence Force there is the basic training period and opportunity for specialized training during that nine-month period. The hon. member for Durban (Point) advocated that this period should be decreased to six months. This proposal is not only in conflict with the present progress which we have made with the national compulsory service system, where it is still proving itself and the factors which must enable it to yield the best results are still developing, but it is also in conflict with the basic view of what national compulsory service is. I think the hon. member was, as far as this is concerned, caught between two views. On the one hand there is the view of great responsibility in respect of the safeguarding of our country, which I must assume hon. members on the opposite side have. I want to say that to their credit. On the other hand the hon. member has been caught up by the popular view outside that a lotus land can be created here. That is a view which that side of the House is for ever promulgating outside. There are of course people who say that the training period is too long, that the time is not being properly utilized, and many other charges. The mistake the hon. member for Durban (Point) is making is that he is playing into the hands of the people who have that lotus land philosophy. It is a philosophy which they are encouraging in other spheres as well. If we want to do our country a service, we must get away from this lotus land philosophy and we must get away from the idea that everything will in future be all moonshine and roses. We must specifically activate every young person and motivate him to play an extremely important role in the safeguarding of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Stellenbosch said that he really felt well while the hon. member for Durban (Point) was speaking here, but that after he had listened to the end of his speech, he was no longer feeling as well. I am very sorry about that, but I think the hon. member is too much of a touchy person. The hon. member should not be so sensitive to a little bit of criticism. The criticism we express here, is not expressed for the purpose of harming the country. The hon. member is far too sensitive about it. The hon. member for Stellenbosch said we wanted the training period to be shortened as we were advocates of a dolce vita country. That is not what we stand for. We are merely concerned about the effectiveness of this training. We are not satisfied that the training is as good as it ought to be, and consequently we are not being provided with the services and the security to which we are entitled. We are not advocates of a dolce vita country or a life of ease.

Before addressing my request to the hon. the Minister, I should like to confirm a few ideas as regards the training schemes we have at present. I do not think that there is any doubt that the training scheme has up to the present moment not achieved the success and effectiveness for which all of us hoped. In saying this, I should like to confirm once again that we on this side of the House gave the Government our full support and assistance in bringing about this scheme. We did so in good faith. I want to go further by saying that I am convinced that the hon. the Minister and his Department have up to this stage done their best in order to make that scheme a success. The fact that it has not yielded the benefits we expected, is to my mind attributable to circumstances beyond the control of the Department. As the hon. member for Durban (Point) said, the object of this scheme is to provide a large force of trained men who can be called up by the Supreme Command when this is necessary, They should be men whose names do not only appear on a list, but who are also well-trained. We feel that the reason why this system has not been a success so far, is the shortage of trained persons to train these people properly.

As has already been said, we are still experiencing the common complaint which we experienced under the old scheme. This is attributable to the same cause, i.e., that the first three months of the training period are spent well, the second period of three months not so well and that during the last three months of their training the young men are lying about and not receiving proper training. This is my first complaint. The second complaint which we are hearing in regard to this scheme, was also mentioned by the hon. member for Durban (Point). It appears that the men are feeling very strongly about the fact that in the Citizen Force their obligations extend over a period of ten years and in the commandos over a period of 16 years. These are two points which are very irksome, i.e that the time is not being used properly and that they are under an obligation to the Defence Force for such a long time. Unfortunately, whether or not we want to admit it, these facts are making the training schemes very unpopular, not only with the men themselves, but also with the public. I am saying this in spite of the charge relating to a dolce vita country which was made by the hon. member for Stellenbosch.

These schemes are also unpopular with employers throughout the country. Many of the men are being penalized because of the fact that they are under these obligations for such a long time. I think we should be very cautious in dealing with this matter. We must not make our Defence Force unpopular with the public or make it appear unpopular. At present we are reading a great deal in magazines and newspapers about what the position is in the U.S.A., and how unpopular their Defence Force is with their own people. There are many reasons for this, but one good reason is that the United States is engaged in a campaign which is unpopular with its own people. This unpopularity is causing the authorities in the United States considerable trouble at present, particularly in respect of discipline. We must do everything in our power to keep that possibility out of our own Defence Force. It is for that reason that we on this side of the House want to ask the hon. the Minister to give serious attention to the shortening of the training period for national servicemen, as set out by the hon. member for Durban (Point). I want to admit at once that if this scheme were introduced, it would not provide us with the security which we really need. For that reason I want to put forward a further proposal to the hon. the Minister, i.e. that the Minister should consider the establishment of a Permanent Force brigade group. I have in mind a brigade consisting of three battalions with its auxiliary troops, such as artillery, etc. I do not want to discuss those details here. This is not the place for it. This is something that can be done by the Supreme Command. They know what their requirements are. They know what threats there are, and they know what units they want. This group or formation must be a formation where every person is a specialist in his own field. That is what we need in a modem defence force to-day. The days when it was possible for us to go into the streets in order to catch a number of men, to put rifles into their hands and then to put them into the Defence Force, belong to the past. We must have experts and specialists. We require men who have been trained. These are no longer the days of bows and arrows. At present the equipment in itself is so complicated and requires so much maintenance and training of men in order that it may be used properly, that we must have specialists to make this formation effective.

Who says we do not have such people?

Those hon. members will just have to be a little patient. I cannot reply to all their questions. They are making interjections and asking questions now, but I have already said that I cannot work out the details of this formation. This is a task for the Supreme Command, which is in fact competent to do this. I believe that such a formation can be built up out of those persons who are receiving their six months’ training in the Citizen Force and then wish to make the Army their career. Now I know straight away that the Minister will say, “I cannot fill the vacancies in my Permanent Force at the moment. How will I manage that?” Sir, this is necessary and we shall simply have to make the conditions of service so attractive that we will get the men. In saying this I do not want to suggest for one moment that the Department has not done a great deal already to attract people. Over the past few years conditions of service have already been improved a great deal. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for North Rand who has just resumed his seat, accused the hon. member for Stellenbosch of being a touchy person and of being too sensitive to criticism. Sir, we are not sensitive to warranted criticism, but when the hon. member for Durban (Point) rises here and levels the accusation at the hon. the Minister that his statements on public platforms gave rise to the Western world revolting against us and the Black states of Africa intensifying their hostility to us, then we are definitely entitled to raise objections. What are the facts? It was not the statements made by the hon. the Minister of Defence which brought up once again the question of arms sales to South Africa by Britain. It was the British Press itself. You will recall, Sir, that during the British election this question of arms sales to South Africa was a major factor in British politics. To my mind it is extremely unfair and irresponsible of the hon. member for Durban (Point) to put the blame on the hon. the Minister of Defence for the uproar which broke out at international level.

I want to refer briefly to another statement that was made by the hon. member for North Rand. He proposed that we should review the whole policy in respect of national service, because the system was, so he claimed, in disfavour with the general public. We cannot allow ourselves to be led by public opinion when it comes to the organization of a defence force. The public opinion does not have access to all the facts which are applicable to this special situation. How can we, when we are building up a defence force which has to defend this country, allow ourselves to be led by public opinion? I shall come back later to certain other points that were mentioned by the hon. member.

Since the introduction of our national service system in 1968, nearly 90,000 people have been trained by the Defence Force. An examination of the available statistics revealed one very interesting and remarkable fact. I am referring here to the death rate as a result of accidents amongst national servicemen since the introduction of national service in 1968. This exceptionally interesting and remarkable fact was revealed: In 1968 nine Citizen Force national servicemen and one member of the commandos died. In 1969 four national servicemen died in the Citizen Force and one in the commandos. In 1970, up to the time of speaking, only two national servicemen have died in the Citizen Force and there have been no casualties in the commandos. Taken over the past three years, the total number of persons who died as a result of accidents, is 15 national servicemen in the Citizen Force and two in the commandos. To this figure should be added one member of the Navy. These figures include young men who lost their lives in vehicle accidents, shooting accidents, etc. In other words, these are cases where national service was the direct cause of their deaths. Accidents on roads and deaths of hitch hikers, etc., are not included in these figures. If we bear in mind that over the past three years we have trained almost 90,000 young men, these figures bear testimony to a dedication, on the part of the Defence Force, to safety measures which is almost incredible. At this stage, therefore, I want to pay tribute to the Defence Force instructors who, in spite of the handling of highly sophisticated arms and armaments, in respect of which the slightest error of judgment may have very serious consequences, have been able to keep this accident rate at this almost incredibly low level. It was interesting to note that in the days of the ballotee system, the average death rate as a result of accidents in the Defence Force was 6.5 per year. For the past three years it has been 5.6 per year. This shows, therefore, that there is even a tendency for this figure to drop. In the light of these figures we as parents may confidently and without any hesitation send our children to the Defence Force for national service.

My experience is not that the national service system is falling into disfavour with our public. In fact, my experience is that to an increasing extent greater understanding and sympathy are to be found for the system which we have been applying over the past three years. Sir, the speech made by the Minister in the no-confidence debate at the beginning of the year was a great speech, was not only topical, but also timeous and highly necessary. In that speech he referred to the total struggle in which we were involved against aggressive Communism, both of Russian and Chinese origin. He pointed out that it was imperative for the public of the Republic of South Africa to adopt a more positive attitude towards the Defence Force and the training of our young men. In this respect we as members of the House of Assembly have a very important task, whether we are members of this side or of that side of the House. It is our duty to shoulder this task of inculcating the Defence Force upon the public. We should adopt a much more positive attitude towards the Defence Force and the training system. Sir, I find it regrettable that at this early stage of the system, which shows every indication of its becoming a great success, the Opposition is asking for the training period to be reduced, and that the hon. member for North Rand suggested that this system was unpopular with the public. I want to give the fullest credit to those people who are inspiring our young men to such an extent that only a short while after the commencement of their training they are proud of the fact that they are soldiers in the service of South Africa. My own son is also undergoing his national service this year. Recently he received two stripes; he became a corporal; but I am convinced that even if they had made him a general, he would not have been prouder of the fact than he is of being a corporal in the Defence Force. Sir, the responsibility for training our young men rests primarily on the Defence Force, but, as I have already said, it is our task to bring home to our public the idea that our Defence Force has an important function to fulfil and that we, whenever representations are made to us, should rather look for reasons for not applying for exemption to be granted to national servicemen, than vice versa. These exemptions which are requested for young people are not conducive to the general discipline and the morale of the Defence Force. We ought to guard against approaching the Minister or the exemption board with insignificant reasons for exemptions to be granted.

Sir, there is just one request which I want to address to the hon. the Minister. Among the people at large the view is often expressed that the State should introduce some or other form of insurance which will cover young men who are receiving training and who lose their lives in that process. Could the hon. the Minister tell us whether the possibility of introducing such a scheme has already been investigated, and whether he would, in the public interest, give consideration to making a statement in regard to this matter? Then there is just a last question which I want to ask: I should very much like to know how much progress has been made in regard to the planning and erection of the new military hospital in Pretoria.

I do not want to say much in response to what was said by the hon. member for Cradock. I ardently agree with him when he says that we should not try to help people to evade their national service. It is a question of a difference of opinion when I say I feel that our training scheme is unpopular, whereas he feels that it is in fact popular. I feel that it is unpopular, but in spite of that I can give him the assurance that people are not even approaching me any more in order to ask me to help them to be granted exemption. I do not want to have anything to do with that.

Sir, my actual reason for rising is to elaborate a little on the proposal which I made here. I said that the re-requisite for a modem army, air force or navy was that every member of the forces had to be a specialist in his own subject. Not only should all members be specialists, but the necessary training should also be provided. I also want to tell to the hon. member for Cradock that our most successful citizen force units in the past were in fact those citizen force units which consisted of who had come forward on a voluntary basis and who were keen on being soldiers. One really gets most out of such people, and that is why it is so important that we should not place our army in an unfavourable light.

Sir, I said that the training was the most important requisite, and even when units are well trained, we still find that when they are moving to a seat of war, it still takes months before they are ready for going into the lines. During the last war we found that members of our Sixth Division, which consisted of officers and senior non-commissioned officers, men who had had previous war service in the desert, in the First Division, and in Abyssinia, still had to undergo full-time training in the desert for six months before they could be sent to the front lines in Italy. This shows how essential it is that the men should be trained properly. Therefore, I feel that this brigade group must be a group of men who have been trained properly, men who are conversant with their equipment and whose equipment are in an excellent condition.

Sir, we ask ourselves this question: What is the value of such a formation? The value of such a formation is that the Supreme Command can immediately make use of these people at places where danger threatens, if necessary. Furthermore, it forms a firm basis on which further expansion can take place. I am sorry that in this respect I once again have to quote as an example what happened during the last war. All of us are familiar with the Special Service Battalion which existed when the war broke out. When the war broke out, the Special Service Battalion had been in existence for six years. Thousands of young men received their training in that Special Service Battalion, and without them we could not have entered the last war; they formed the foundation of our successful army training during the last war. This shows how important it is for us to have a trained, firm foundation on which we can build. I know that the objection will be raised that it will cost more. Perhaps it will cost a little more; I do not know, for I do not have the facts to enable me to work this out.

What was the duration of the compulsory military service of members of the Special Service Battalion?

A full year, on a full-time basis. The cost will possibly be higher, but even if it were to cost more, I feel that we should accept those increased costs if it will bring about greater efficiency. At the moment we are, in any case, calling up nearly 30.0 men every year. We are now cutting their period of service by three months. This in itself will bring about a major saving of manpower. I imagine that this formation which I have in mind, ought to consist of between 4.0 and 5,000 men. Therefore, the question of manpower does not play a part here. As far as manpower is concerned, we will save a great deal. Sir, it is by no means my intention to create the impression here that I am not in favour of there having to be national service. We support the principle of national service. We must also have our citizen force units. They are the people who, in an emergency, should start with their training immediately so that they may be pushed into the field, and then we must, of course, have our commandos as well, which also serve their own purpose and which must also be developed.

As I have already said, all these things take time, and we cannot afford to waste time. By shortening this period, we shall also save on instructors. While I am referring to manpower, I want to say that I am thoroughly aware of the difficulties experienced by the Minister and his department as far as manpower is concerned. I know that in many cases they are experiencing a great deal of difficulty in getting past the Public Service Commission, and I wonder whether, in view of the fact that we now have an independent Post Office and an independent Railway Service, the time has not arrived for us to place our Defence Force on an independent footing. The Defence Force itself may then decide to make its conditions of service so attractive that we shall be able to attract those men whom we want in the Defence Force. The fact that we are subordinate to the Public Service Commission has landed us in the unfortunate position that we virtually have to appoint more generals than corporals.

Where is such an independent Defence Force going to get its finances from?

Sir, that is an unsound position. Rather than promoting people so that they may obtain higher remuneration, we should ensure that their remuneration is adequate. We are making ourselves a little ridiculous with the large number of generals we have at present.

Where would the finances for an independent department come from?

I think that when the administration of the Defence Force is the responsibility of the Defence Force and of the Defence Force alone, those difficulties can be eliminated.

Sir, I just want to say this to hon. members of the Opposition, especially to the hon. members for Durban (Point) and North Rand. It is easy to talk along with everybody and to say popular things here. Sir, is it not the most popular thing to-day to say that the training period of national servicemen should be reduced from nine to six months?

Is it not more important to keep up the morale of the Defence Force?

We are all aware, as the hon. the Minister also said, that certain problems exist, but why do hon. members now come here with the popular slogan that the training period should be reduced to six months? Do the merits of the case justify its being discussed across the floor of this House? All that hon. members on the other side are doing here to-day is to try to catch a few votes. But, Sir, I do not want to join in with the popular slogan of those two hon. members.

Is the morale of the Forces not important?

The morale of our Forces has never been as high as it is at present.

Have you been overseas?

I have not been overseas, but I have a son who has completed his national service and I know what the morale of those boys is. They are proud of being national servicemen and of being able to undergo military training. I want to give the hon. the Minister and the officers engaged in the training of the national servicemen of the republic of South Africa, the highest praise to-day. Sir, as a member of Parliament I have also received many complaints in connection with deficiencies in the training scheme, but after ascertaining for myself what was going on there and after making a proper investigation, I can speak here to-day as a parent who saw how his boy was being trained, and I may add that no officer knew that his father was a Member of Parliament. We have the highest respect and appreciation for what the officers are doing for our boys in connection with their training. They are not only making those boys of ours capable of defending themselves in the event of our country being attacked one day, but they are also turning those boys into some of the best sportsmen in the Republic of South Africa. The best instructors available build up those young men physically during the training period; they make our young men culture conscious and mentally prepared. All these things are essential to being a good soldier. [Interjection.] Sir, the hon. member for Transkei has never heard of mental preparedness.

It is not necessary for me to go to a camp in order to become mentally prepared.

I want to say that there are many parents in the Republic of South Africa who are not fulfilling their duty as parents, but these officers in the Department of Defence are turning our young boys into men of whom we can all be very proud. I want to tell the hon. member the following. The climax in the training of any boy is the day when the parents are invited to come and see what the Defence Force is doing with their son and what training he is receiving. For that reason I want to address the following plea to the hon. the Minister this afternoon. When one attends such a parents’ day, it is the climax in the life of that boy as well as in the life of the parent. The hon. member for North Rand, who was an officer himself, knows that if one sees one’s son taking part in those items, or one sees him marching past, one is filled with pride in knowing that those are the young men of South Africa who are being trained to defend our country one day if necessary. But now I should like to put a request to the Minister. There are many widows and pensioners who do not have the opportunity of going to the place where that parents’ day is being held and who yearn to go there in order to see their boys perform. Now I ask the Minister the following. Is it not possible, where there are such cases where the widowed mother or the pensioner or the parent who is not financially able to attend parents’ day, for arrangements to be made by the Treasury to give them a free railway ticket so that they can go and see what training their boys are receiving? They would very much like to attend. This is the request I want to put to the Minister in connection with this matter.

Then there is another matter, and here I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Durban (Point). We have the Citizen Force units and the commandos. In my constituency there are two Citizen Force units and one commando at present. Here I again want to pay the highest tribute to those officers who do this work voluntarily in their own time, but I want to plead with the Minister that these units should not get separate grounds, but that we should get one ground at Brakpan for the East Rand. I know the Department of Defence is conducting an investigation at the Van Dyk Mine, and I want to ask whether this investigation cannot be expedited so that those units can get their own ground, where they can co-operate. For example, the anti-aircraft unit is stationed at Brakpan. They have all the cannons, vehicles and equipment which they have to use, and if these people should have their own ground, a comradeship would be established which is very necessary to this service.

Then I want to mention another matter as well. I am very grateful to see that the Chamber of Mines has now decided that it is prepared to contribute to the remuneration of its employees while they are performing that compulsory military service. We are grateful for this, but I want to appeal to South African commerce and industry to-day that they should reach into their pockets to contribute their share to the salaries of these men while they are receiving their training. Commerce and industry should realize that these young people undergo their training in order to protect them and their businesses in future if any problems should ever arise in the Republic. And now I ask the hon. member for Transkei whether he will support me in such an appeal.

That is nothing new. [Interjections.]

I am asking him whether he will do so, to get up and support us in an appeal to commerce and industry to contribute to the salaries of those people, and not simply to take everything and give nothing in return.

I would like to point out to the hon. member for Brakpan that we need no instruction in patriotism on this side of the House. The reason why we have raised the question of national service is not that we seek popularity with the electorate, but that we believe that the system is not working well at the moment. We do not wish to abolish national service, but we suggest that under the present circumstances it should be reduced from nine to six months. Our reason for saying this is that at the moment we believe our Defence Force is not in a position to cope with the instruction of the national servicemen for the full period of nine months, with the result that there is harm done to their morale, to say nothing of the ineffectiveness of the system.

I should like to draw the Minister’s attention to the position of national servicemen in the Navy. He is naturally aware of the procedure whereby there is first a selection board screening and thereafter the names which have been screened are put into a computer. I am informed that something like 6,000 names go into the computer and about 1,200 names come out and those people are drafted to do their national service in the Navy. They come from the whole of the Republic. I tabled a question to-day, which unfortunately could not be answered, as to how many of these national servicemen in the Navy come from the various provinces of South Africa. The answer was that these figures are not readily available. I accept that it would be difficult to obtain those figures I can also understand why service in the Navy is popular, for obvious reasons. In the first place, there is the one year’s service, then there is the fact that the sea has an attraction for people coming from inland, and then there is the further possibility of their travelling overseas while serving in the Navy. I believe that our aim should be to provide well-trained men for use in a naval emergency. With this in mind I want to suggest to the Minister that preference should be given to young men from the coastal cities to do their national service in the Navy …

Why?

… and I qualify it by saying “those who wish to do their service in the Navy”. My reason is that probably they are people who have knowledge of the sea and an interest in marine affairs. I go further and say there is a second class of person who should be given preference in doing service in the Navy, and those are the young men from the inland areas who are members, for example, of yacht clubs, canoe clubs or motor-boat clubs, or sea-scouts, because there are detachments of sea-scouts in some of the inland parts of South Africa. In addition, in Johannesburg there is the Citizen Force Training Establishment. Now, I have been asked why and my reasons are these. First of all, the young men from the coastal cities have a knowledge and understanding of the sea which is not acquired overnight. Secondly, it is possible, and indeed probable, that they will live their future lives in the coastal areas of South Africa. The third point is that there are in fact Citizen Force training establishments at each of the four coastal cities for subsequent non-continuous training. There are such establishments in Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, East London and Durban, and there is of course also the establishment in Johannesburg, which is why I refer to the fact that in some cases it will be wise to have an intake of people doing their national service in the Navy from an inland city. Another reason, of course, is that they would be readily available in any emergency. Lastly, I think one can make out a case for saying that, having done their national service in the Navy, it is more than likely that, having grown up in the coastal areas, some of them might be induced to join the Naval Permanent Force.

I should like to mention another matter to the Minister, and that is the question of the permanently serving naval man. I maintain that the serving naval man is even more important than the weapons we are trying to get for ourselves. His morale and his happiness in his work influence his efficiency, and his immediate needs—and I speak now of intimate knowledge of the needs of the serving naval man—not necessarily in order of priority, are definitely these: There is the need for sporting amenities at Simonstown, the need for recreational and cultural amenities, and especially for those who are serving in the ships there is the need for modern accommodation for off-duty sea-going serving men. As the Minister will know, in most of our ships, those that are not modernized, we have cramped quarters and there is little privacy; and there is no club, as far as I know, in Simonstown with sleeping facilities for the serviceman who is off duty. There are no recreational facilities for him to enjoy in a club atmosphere and there is no privacy, which is very important to the man serving in a ship, in his off-duty hours. In this connection I would mention to the Minister that there is a crying need for immediate co-operation between the Navy and the Defence Force and the Municipality of Simonstown in planning the future requirements of the naval base at Simonstown. Long-term planning is required and there must be a clear division between the civic and the naval responsibilities in that municipal area. I believe the aim should be to establish a modern, well-equipped, self-sufficient naval base within the municipal confines of Simonstown.

The fourth point I should like to mention to the Minister is in regard to conditions of service which, as the hon. member for North Rand has said, are the same as those of the Civil Service and are laid down by the Public Service Commission. The time has come for a complete break, for the Navy at any rate, and probably for the rest of the Armed Forces, from the ambit of the Public Service Commission. I want to draw his attention also to a creazy situation which exists. I think our Navy is the only one in the world where a discharge can be bought on three months’ notice at the option of the serviceman and not of the service. In some navies overseas there is an annual quota laid down and provided that quota is not exceeded, discharges can be purchased from those navies. But in our case a discharge can be purchased on three months’ notice. As regards technical officers, let us look at the position. A technical officer is one of the highest trained men in our Naval Service. He goes for five years at the expense of the taxpayer to the university and after he has left the university the tendency has been, in recent years anyway, for him to go to private enterprise. He gives three months’ notice and private enterprise undertakes to repay his loans and he then goes into private enterprise. As to our other officers who have been trained at Saldanha, they can give three months’ notice at any time during their serving career and they can then resign. There is, of course, a distinction between the officer and the other ranks, but in the case of the other ranks they can purchase their discharge at any time on giving three months’ notice. If they are officers they can tender their resignation.

Are you suggesting that we apply stricter measures?

What I am suggesting is that to overcome this abuse there should be a minimum signing-on period, as is the case in some other navies in the rest of the world. I would suggest a period of seven years and thereafter the payment of a re-joining incentive bonus which would enable the naval man to purchase a motor-car or pay a deposit on his house; it will be an inducement to him to stay on in the service say for a further period of five years. Thereafter there should again be an incentive bonus. None of these are compatible with conditions under the Public Service Commission and that is another reason which reinforces my argument that there should be a break from the Public Service Commission. This is done overseas; it is the modern trend, and I recommend it to the Minister for his consideration. I believe it will result in a more contented naval service and there will be longer service by servicemen, greater stability and a more experienced Force.

Then of course the Minister will realize that I have saved the plum for the end, and that is the question of housing for the Navy. He knows that I have urged for years that there should be a crash programme of housing for the Navy. He has said on occasions, for example at Muizenberg just before the election, that he, during his period as Minister, had spent vast sums of money on a crash programme. But the houses that are required by the Navy are still not there. I should like to make this interim suggestion to the hon. the Minister, namely, that the rentals of the naval men living in civilian quarters and not in naval quarters, in other parts of the Southern Peninsula, should be subsidized by the Defence Force, or the Government.

I should like to conclude by mentioning to the hon. the Minister an unsatisfactory state of affairs as regards renovations and repairs to existing naval houses. Those renovations and repairs undertaken by the Department of Community Development, are not being well done. There are long delays. We receive constant complaints about it. My suggestion to the hon. the Minister is that those repairs and renovations should be taken over by the Navy works department.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who sat down a moment ago, mentioned a few matters which are near to his heart. There is no need for me to reply to them. They are more in the mature of individual cases.

However, there is one matter to which I want to come back. It is a matter which was mentioned earlier to-day by the hon. the Minister in his introductory remarks and is in respect of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and their attitude towards national service. I think it is necessary that a more comprehensive standpoint should be stated pursuant to the comments and the statement made by the hon. the Minister. It is disappointing to note that these Jehovah’s Witnesses are still not cooperating despite the fact that their leaders gave the Commandant-General the assurance that, if certain aspects of their point of view were met, they would co-operate. The followers of the Jehovah’s Witnesses absolutely refuse to have anything to do with our Defence Force and the national service resulting from it. These people cannot expect any sympathy if this is their attitude. The leaders must simply see to it that their followers observe the laws of Government, especially after the assurances they gave to the Commandant-General. The Government’s standpoint in this matter is correct. The Government has always made it clear that our Defence Force is a defence factor, and not an attacking force. We are not going to take part in a war of aggression, and we are not preparing ourselves for that either. Section 36 of the Confessio Belgica provides that the clerical authority must obey the secular authority, provided that it respects the Word of God. This principle is subscribed to by all the Christian Protestant churches in South Africa. No church is a protagonist of war, but in the defence of justice it is the church’s duty to obey the government. Unfortunately, the Jehovah’s Witnesses only accept obedience to their own clerical interpretation of authority, and sometimes government authority is secondary in their opinion if it is at variance with their interpretation. The hon. member for Witbank can give more and interesting details in this connection about how these people have their own particular views even on marital rights. Unfortunately I cannot elaborate on this any further in this debate. A very interesting study was prepared by Mr. Johan Claassen on this subject, inter alia, with reference to the book Oorlog en Christendom by Dr. J. van den Berg. In this study, in which he discusses the principles of the matter, he points out the following, and then elaborates on it. He says that Luther saw a solution to this problem in his dogma of two realms. There is the spiritual realm, and this realm is ruled “through the Word and without the sword”. Then there is the wordly realm, in which sovereignty is vested in the government, which received its instructions from God, i.e. to “foster the general peace and order”. According to Romans 13 God gave the government the sword to implement this instruction. He further defines it as follows (translation) —

After this he gives the quotation for his authority. The citizen of a country must, therefore, as a Christian, practice love towards his neighbour, but must also help to maintain justice and order in the world. Luther lays down two conditions for the right to wage war: In the first place, the subject may not wage war against the government; and, secondly, the war may not be a war of aggression, but must be in self-defence. Therefore, when a citizen is called up for a war of defence, he must obey the government.

Calvin also admits the inevitability of war. He describes people who refuse to bear arms as being “demented” (uitzinnig). He also recognizes the two realms as set out by Luther, and he confirms that the civil authority can only perform its task to “foster the general peace and order” properly if it is armed. He adds, “After all, the sword was given to the authority to be used against all murderers, by so doing to exercise God’s own judgments.” In addition, he puts it inter alia as follows (translation) —

Professor Bavinck, who wrote an authoritative work on this, adopts the same standpoint as Luther and Calvin in a brochure entitled “Het problem van de oorlog”, and he stresses: “But the ultimate object is peace, the everlasting peace of the Kingdom of God”.

I do not want to take up the Committee’s time any further by discussing this aspect of the matter, but I think that, a: part from this, there is ample evidence to prove that the Government is quite correct in its attitude in telling this group of people, known as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, very clearly that they simply have to submit to Government authority in all responsibility. If they do not want to accept Government authority, they must not expect any more sympathy than that which the Government is prepared to give, as explained in the statement made by the hon. the Minister to-day. I think that these people will act very wisely if they finally decide to submit to Government authority in this respect. Patience may be tried too far.

There is another aspect of the matter which I should like to mention. I want to refer to national service. It has also been raised by the other side to-day, apparently as the main topic they wanted to discuss in this debate. The hon. members on the other side placed a great deal of emphasis on the periods of training, the time which may possibly be wasted, and how the boys who are called up would prefer to serve for a shorter period because it was now unpopular to serve for nine months or a year. I do not concede that time might be wasted, but for the purposes of the debate I am just mentioning it. One wonders whether the hon. members on the other side have ever thought of other aspects of national service which are not in the public eye, as they put it, but which one could discuss under the heading “the mental preparedness of our young people”. I wonder whether the hon. members on the other side have ever considered that they should one day have this aspect discussed by a few speakers in a defence debate. Even if they do not differ with us, they could tell us how they see the task of our parents, our schools and our churches in respect of the mental preparedness of our young people in connection with the service they must render. Are we as parents doing our duty in educating our children in the Christian belief, and further educate them in such a way that they realize that there are higher things in life than the everyday bread and butter things? Are we educating our children in such a way that they will place themselves in the service of their country and their Government, for those higher things in life, and that they will realize that whether a boy has to do guard duty, which can be an extremely boring task during national service, or whether he thinks during the last three months of his national service that he is not kept busy enough, the other matters that are on a more spiritual level, are of more importance than mere drill and things related to that? Do we, as parents, motivate our children in this respect? Do we see to it that when they go to the bases for their training they are motivated young people who are directed towards the higher things of life? I think these are aspects to which the hon. members on that side could also give some attention. It is very easy to debate only the popular matters here, to say that we should have a little less of this and a little more of that, a little shorter time here and a little shorter time there, but this is not the way in which we must convince our people as far as national service is concerned.

Then there is a final matter which I want to mention in this connection, and that is whether we as parents and as educators of our children point out to them, before they go to their training bases, the particular total strategy of our country, the total danger and the total threat to our country? These things make this national service essential. Why do we not debate these aspects to some extent? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I will not follow the hon. member for Potchefstroom in his discussion of the relationship between religious beliefs and national duty. He has dealt with this matter and he has expressed views with which I do not wish to continue. I must make one point quite clear. In the discussion which has taken place so far from this side of the House in regard to the suggestion that the service period should be reduced from nine months to six months, we have tried to remove what appears to us, from our experience and from that of our own family members who have been doing service, to be a period of non-productive use during the last three months of the present nine months period. The first period of three months and the second period of three months are being used to the full and it is for that reason only, and not for some popular concept, that we feel that the last three months could well be dropped from the training programme as it exists at the moment. However, my time is limited and I have other matters which I want to discuss with the hon. the Minister.

The first one is to echo the sentiments which have been expressed in this House of the indebtedness of the country to those persons who serve as an officer in the units of the Defence Force in South Africa. I wonder how many people in South Africa realize, seeing that this year we have reached the 25th year since the end of hostilities in the last war, how many South Africans have served voluntarily in Active Citizen Force units for this full period of 25 years. I think there is quite a large number of these people who have served as officers and as warrant officers of various Citizen Force units. It would be invidious for me to mention names, but there were many who were with me 25 years ago who have served continuously. Seeing that we have reached this period, after 25 years, I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that it might be quite appropriate for “Commando” to publish a supplement which pays some tribute to or gives some indication of the men who have served voluntarily in various units of the Defence Force since the end of hostilities. They have given up their time and they have incurred personal expenditure to ensure the continuance of the Defence Force and the units with which they were associated so many years ago.

I want to support the proposal of the hon. member for North Rand about the creation of a permanent brigade group as part of our defence force as strongly as possible. If one thinks back to the commencement of hostilities in the last war, we must admit that we were indeed fortunate in South Africa that there were many months available for the training of the forces which were to be engaged in combat. The first action in which the South African Infantry was involved was 15 months after the declaration of the war in Europe in the El Wak battle on the 16th December, 1940. In each successive phase there was at least a six months training programme which took place. Training took place in East Africa, training took place in the desert and training took place to prepare the Sixth Division. In each instance, particularly at the commencement, one shudders to think what would have happened had there not been a nucleus of Permanent Force personnel who could act as instructors and who could supervise their initial training. If we are again to be involved in a conflict on the continent of Africa, that training period will not be available. It will require quick action. I believe that the brigade group which has been mentioned by the hon. member for North Rand, will not only provide a striking force for immediate use, but necessary personnel for training in the event of hostilities as well and certainly would ensure the maintenance of training personnel for the Citizen Force training scheme while it is in operation.

I want to refer to the other point which has been suggested. I am sure it is one which the hon. the Minister does appreciate. That is the difficulty which unit commanders are having at the present time to maintain a regimental spirit and esprit de corps with so many continuous training periods scattered over such a large number of years. I do believe that it is essential that we should, if possible, try to see whether we cannot go back to the scheme which has been suggested by the hon. member for Durban (Point), of organizing those camps within a four year period. I notice in the “Guide to national servicemen” and I speak as an ex-infantryman, a very correct statement that the infantry forms the nucleus of any nation’s army. If one goes further than that, one can say that for an infantry unit to be of any use at all, there must be a regimental spirit and a regimental esprit de corps.

Many people differ from you.

I could quote none better than the brochure of the hon. the Minister’s own department. I do feel, however, that unit commanders are having difficulty in developing an esprit de corps when they so seldom have their troops under their command.

In that connection, too, may I appeal to the hon. the Minister and through him to the department, that where the choice of service is given as far as possible in what arm of service a national serviceman wishes to serve, more attention should be given to enabling an individual to choose the regiment in which he would like to serve. There is again the question of father and son continuing in the same regiment. It all builds up a spirit within a regiment, which I believe could well be fostered. I do hope that that choice will be extended perhaps a little more than it is at the present time.

Finally, I am going to ask the Minister for the third time to do something for certain units in this country. I have asked him on two occasions before, but I have been encouraged to make the request again when I found that in the arrangement for the 1971 Republic Festival there are three regiments which will each be asked to parade as part of the festivities. They will be asked to parade in their own distinctive uniforms. Those are Highland uniforms. The regiments concerned, the Transvaal Scottish, the Cape Town Highlanders and the First City Regiment, are going to take part, as they have done on previous parades and will continue in the history of this country, I hope, to take part in parades in their regimental uniforms, which is a Highland uniform. But that uniform is bought by the men themselves or by their regimental associations. The hon. the Minister has been able to present a Budget which reduces by R14 million the amount of money that he requires for arms procurement as against last year.

It is a technical reduction. I told you that.

That is a reduction. He is even saving R180,000, as he told us this morning, on the cadets. But the time has come now when he can do it. I think it is time that some formula is worked out whereby the Highland units are subsidized in lieu of the other uniforms which they do not draw and utilize. I want to make an urgent appeal to the hon. the Minister. I think it would be a fitting step to take, especially on the eve of the celebration of the Republic festival next year. I would ask him accordingly to give his attention to it.

I do not intend replying to the debate at length now, because there are many members who still want to speak. I shall deal with the question raised by the hon. member for Durban (Point) of the national service system, which was at a later stage.

* I want to deal with this question in a clear and considered way and I think the hon. member will, after I have given him the information, perhaps change his opinion. However, I intend to deal with this matter at a later stage.

I now want to deal with the accusation the hon. member for Durban (Point) made about a statement I made in connection with Simonstown. I must say that I am rather astonished to hear from the hon. member that I was busy sword rattling at the British Government. I do not know where he gets his facts from. I have here the statement I made and to which the hon. member referred. I addressed a wings parade at Dunnottar and I dealt with the duty of the South African Air Force on that occasion. Towards the end of my speech I said the following, and I want the hon. member to tell me where I rattled a sword at the British Government. I said the following:

1. (1) Firstly we do not arm ourselves for any other purpose than to defend our freedom and to maintain our most important strategic position.
2. (2) Secondly we shall proceed, as far as humanly possible, through our Armaments Board, our Armaments Development Corporation and local industries to become as self-supporting as possible.
3. (3) We welcome know-how from other countries for the production of arms in our country, but then we, through our armaments organizations, must have a share in such development.
4. (4) As a result of arms embargoes from certain quarters it will not be practicable to change plans already accepted and proceeded with in many directions.

My fifth point is apparently the statement the hon. member for Durban (Point) refers to. It reads as follows:

1. (5) We attach value to the Simonstown Agreement, but as a result of our experience in the past we have come to the conclusion that the Simonstown Agreement can only be of practical value if it forms the basis of co-operation between self-respecting countries in the interests of the whole free world. To make that possible a revision of the agreement is necessary.

Now where is the sword rattling in this statement? As a matter of fact, the hon. member for Simonstown reacted the very same day or the next day to this statement and he said that he was in full accord with what I said.

I said that I was in favour of a revision of the agreement, which I am.

Yes, the hon. member was in full accord with what I said. What I want to ask the hon. member for Durban (Point) now, is where the sword rattling in my speech was. As a matter of fact, since I became Minister of Defence I think I might be blamed for many things, but I cannot be blamed for one thing, namely that I did not go out of my way to see the Simonstown Agreement work. In personal discussions with people from overseas, with representatives of the British Government and with members of the Opposition Party in Great Britain who visited South Africa I have always taken up a positive stand as far as Simonstown is concerned. The hon. member for Durban (Point) however, comes forward and accuses me of sword rattling while I have always wanted the Simonstown Agreement to work. But he goes further; he says that I have produced a reaction on the part of the African States.

The fact of the matter is that just after the British Conservative Party came into power a Press campaign was started in Great Britain and in other countries of the world in which they speculated on what we were going to spend on the production of armaments and the buying of arms from other countries, especially from Britain. Certain figures were mentioned. They went so far as to say that we were going to buy arms worth R300 million and R500 million from Great Britain. I had to react to this and what I said was the same as I said at a later stage during the no-confidence debate, where I said that South Africa had no special hunger for equipment, and that We were looking after ourselves as far as possible, but that we saw the Simonstown Agreement in quite a different light because we felt that we had a duty to perform, that Great Britain as a co-signatory to that agreement also had a duty to perform, and that in that sense we could make the Simonstown Agreement operate and work in the best interest of the free world as a whole for the protection of the sea route around the Cape.

Sir, where was the sword rattling? The hon. member knows very well that the moment the British Conservative Party came into power there was an immediate reaction on the part of certain African countries, inspired by Communism, because it is not in the interests of those powers that there should be greater cooperation between members of the free world with a view to protecting the sea route around the Cape.

And then the hon. member comes here with criticism.

No; that is why you should have kept quiet.

Why should we keep quiet?

The hon. member does not know what we are doing as far as diplomatic relations are concerned. I am not prepared to talk about that here to-day. I was reacting to Press reports which created the impression that we were suddenly going to buy arms worth millions from Great Britain. I had to react to it and I stated our policy clearly. I had no complaint from the British Government in regard to the statement. The first man who has complained, is the hon. member for Durban (Point). Sir, I am dealing with this because I want to make it clear that I went out of my way under the previous British Government and that I will go out of my way under the present British Government to make the Simonstown Agreement work as far as we are concerned. I have a positive approach in this matter, and I think it is unfair on the part of the hon. member to attack me in this way.

The hon. member for Green Point quite correctly paid tribute to the voluntary service rendered by members of the Citizen Force and of the commandos over long periods. I fully agree with him. I have on many occasions in the past thanked them for what they have done and for the part that they play in the Defence Force.

As far as uniforms are concerned, it is not such an easy matter and I think that I must disappoint the hon. member. You see, Sir, we have other duties to perform. In the first instance, we have other facilities to provide as well. The hon. member for Simonstown, for example, has quite rightly pleaded here year after year for the improvement of other facilities.

You would save on it.

Yes, I would save on the one item, but we have other priorities.

You would save on the uniforms.

Let me mention an example: We have a new battledress which we have not yet even been able to distribute properly among all units, because we have to introduce it over a number of years. It is absolutely essential that this new battledress should be made available to the Defence Force as a whole. We must introduce a new, improved uniform for our cadets, as I said this morning. In the third place, we have launched a research project in consultation with the Wool Board. The Wool Board has voted an amount of money and the Cabinet has made available an amount of money for this purpose, because there are objections on the part of our Permanent Force, our Citizen Force and the commandos that the present uniforms which they have to wear are too heavy for South African conditions; that they are not crease-resistant enough and that they are not always neat enough. In consultation with the Wool Board we therefore launched a research project, which has made a great deal of progress in designing better going-out dress and working dress for all the Forces, the Permanent Force, the Citizen Force and the commandos.

Is that the one the Queen’s dressmaker is designing?

The Wool Board has called in experts, and I am satisfied that the Wool Board would call in good experts. I do not think we should make a joke of this; I think it is a need on the part of the Defence Force that there should be a better uniform, and I laid down only one rule; I said that the Supreme Command must co-operate with the Wool Board in this connection. I shall take the matter to the Cabinet in due course, but I laid down this one rule: I said it must be of wool. We have made such progress that we shall most probably succeed in producing a medium wool garment which will give great satisfaction. We have not yet finalized it. There are still aspects which we shall have to go into, but because the new uniforms will result in increased expenditure, because we can only introduce them over a period of years, and because we also have to provide other facilities which must receive high priority, I cannot to-day give the hon. member the assurance for which he asked, however much I would like to do so. I have sympathy with these people; they have spoken to me personally about this, but it is not only one unit which is involved here. If we introduce this principle, to which units should we give priority? I do not have unlimited funds. We are trying to keep our defence expenditure at 2.6 per cent or 2.7 per cent of our gross national product.

May I ask a question? Will the hon. the Minister not consider a subsidy in lieu of the uniforms which are not drawn by those units because of the use of their Highlands uniform?

Up till now we have not been able to find a solution. I am prepared to tell the hon. member that I will again consider it and that I will take it to the Cabinet. Then the Cabinet must decide, but there are implications that we must consider very carefully.

*The hon. member for Simonstown spoke about the question of the buying-out of persons in the Navy. This is a matter which is receiving our attention at the moment. We will have to introduce stricter measures.

* I do not want to commit myself to-day because I think this is a matter that should be discussed with the Supreme Command to see what we can do to take more effective measures.

*Then the hon. member referred to the question of housing. The present position is more or less the following, and I am now speaking of the Defence Force as a whole: As far as married quarters are concerned, 202 units were completed at a cost of R2,400,000 during the past year; 513 units at an estimated cost of R5,400,000 are under construction; the present position is that there are already 3,385 such units, and for the next five years a further 3,831 units are envisaged for married persons. During the past year single quarters for 406 men were completed at a cost of R500,000; then quarters for 1,295 men at a cost of R2 million are under construction, and for the next five years further quarters for 10,000 men are envisaged.

* The hon. member apparently knows what we are doing at Simonstown in connection with the submarine base, what we are building there. I think we have started a very nice, interesting project there. I hope the hon. member has seen it already. If he has not seen it already he should go and see it.

I am there more often than you are.

I am not trying to be funny. Of course the hon. member must come there more often than I do, because it is his constituency. I am not trying to be funny now; I am just giving the hon. member information. But he will agree with me that it is a fine undertaking.

Certainly.

Say “thank you”.

As far as Simonstown itself is concerned, 16 units for married persons were completed in the past year; 87 units are under construction. The present position is 399 units, for the next five years 347 units are envisaged. Single quarters for 41 men are under construction, and for the next five years 492 are envisaged. We are therefore, making progress. However, there is one thing that hon. members must keep in mind: the Defence Force it self does not build houses. Together with other Departments we must get our share from what the State can provide, and naturally every department will try to get as much as possible for itself. We recently submitted a programme for the next 10 years to the Cabinet, and when I saw the programme, I myself was taken aback. We are trying to convince the Cabinet that we should be given priority, but other departments are trying to do the same thing. We are doing what we can to provide the Defence Force with the facilities as far as both housing units and other amenities are concerned. I can assure the hon. member that there is no unwillingness on my part or on the part of the Supreme Command to obtain the best for the Defence Force.

I want to thank the hon. member for Potchefstroom for the very interesting information which he furnished here in regard to the question of one’s duty towards the State in a defensive war, and I hope that those persons who, on religious grounds, have so far not been very favourably disposed, will change their attitude to some extent.

The hon. member for Cradock wanted to know what the position was in connection with the military hospital. Consultants have already been appointed. We are planning to have the funds within two or three years, and the hospital will then be erected at Lyttleton when we can build it. We have obtained the services of a very good firm of consultants to help us with this.

I think the insurance scheme to which the hon. member referred is a little unpractical. I shall give the hon. member some more information in that connection later on.

As far as the hon. member for Brakpan is concerned, I may just tell him that I do not think the Defence Force can undertake the task of providing transport to aged pensioners, because it would impose an enormous burden on us throughout the country. I doubt whether we shall be able to do this, however much we should like to help in this connection.

I repeat that I do not want to discuss the question of national service now. I shall deal with it later. The hon. members for Stellenbosch and Potchefstroom have already referred to it in part.

†Then the hon. member or Simonstown spoke about young men from coastal cities in the Navy. I cannot accept that, because it is the wrong principle. The whole country should take an interest in the Navy, the Air Force and the Army, and I think it is absolutely a wrong principle to lay that down. What is more, the present Admiral of the Navy is a man who was born in the Western Transvaal.

But he might have been a better admiral if he had been born at the coast.

Well, I do not know whether he would have been a better admiral; he is the best we have. I think at this stage I need not go further. I will reply later on to the hon. member on the question of national service and the background against which we should see national service as a whole.

I appreciate the responsible way in which the hon. the Minister reacted. His was a responsible reaction to what I believe was responsible criticism which I voiced in this debate on the question of his speech regarding armaments purchases and Simonstown. It is a pity that some of his followers did not follow his example instead of reacting in an almost hysterical way. They seem to have some sort of inferiority complex or something, because as soon as you dare to criticize the holy cow of government or a Minister, they become hysterical and accuse you of being unpatriotic, as if it is the end of the world. But the Minister accepted my criticism in the spirit in which it was meant and we are entitled to disagree on whether he in fact acted rightly or wrongly. We cannot agree with the attitude of the hon. members who regard any sort of criticism as being unpatriotic. But I want to deal with the Minister and not with the hysterical reaction of some of the hon. members opposite. The issue is that a new Government recently came to power in Britain. There was a reaction from certain states against the supply of arms by that new Government to South Africa, and my criticism is that at this time and in this atmosphere it would have been wiser not to issue a public statement which stated three things: the first being that people should not bluff themselves as we are getting plenty of material; we are not going to change our pattern of purchases but there are things we want; we are making a great deal ourselves. We are all glad about and we support that and the world knows it, but why was it emphasized at that moment? And then we say that the condition is that we must change the Simonstown agreement. So what happened was that every newspaper immediately came out with headlines saying that South Africa demands the revision of the Simonstown Agreement. That one sentence was taken and it became headline news and immediately the whole flame of anti-South Africanism was stirred up. That was our criticism—not what the Minister said, I criticized the wisdom of a public statement at that time, because the following day the British Foreign Office denied that there had been any official approach for the revision of the Simonstown agreement.

The hon. member for Simonstown agreed with me.

I agree with the principle of revising it, but I disagree with the wisdom of saying it at that time. Well, I do not want to quibble over this. I have stated my view and the Minister has stated his. But the Minister went further. He dealt with South Africa’s attitude in regard to aggression as opposed to defence, and I think this is the time to get one or two things clear in this regard. During March and April Government members made statements that when the independent Bantu states were established in South Africa, if there was a threat to South Africa our military forces would move in; not if they attacked us, but if there was a threat to South Africa. I immediately called upon the hon. the Minister to repudiate these statements because we agree 100 per cent with what the hon. the Minister quoted from his Dunottar speech here in regard to the non-aggressive intentions of South Africa. We have supported him publicly and repeatedly in this and I recently issued a statement attacking those who said that South Africa had any aggressive intention. So, there we have a common and an agreed approach between the Government and the Opposition. But Government members stated from public platforms that if the independent Bantu homelands posed a threat—not if they attacked us, but if they merely posed a threat to South Africa—we would move in with military force. I ask the hon. the Minister to repudiate it, and instead he said: “I do not think it will be necessary because we will all be opposed to Communism”. I have the statement here. I do not have the time to read the whole of it, but he did not specifically and clearly repudiate speakers like the then member for Klip River, who is now Commissioner-General to a future Bantustan, an ambassador to a future Bantustan, and who was one of those who said that South African forces would move in if there was a threat. He is now representing us as our ambassador in one of those Bantustans. The other one was the former member for Zululand. I asked the Minister to-day clearly and unequivocally to put this issue beyond doubt. We accept as the official Government policy a policy of non-aggression, and I ask the Minister to repudiate any suggestion that either the Bantu homelands are not going to be fully independent—because then Government policy is insincere—or if they are going to be fully independent and they should pose any threat, we would move in with military forces. Because this affects the credibility of the whole philosophy of independent states. Seeing that the Minister raised the matter, I think it is as well to go on record that the policy of South Africa, Government and Opposition, is one opposed to any aggressive action.

I was interrupted when asking a question about the Bureau of State Security. I see that military intelligence expenditure has gone up to R212,000 this year from R39,000 last year. Last year I criticized and expressed the view that military intelligence was upset about the change-over to the Bureau of State Security. The hon. the Minister denied it. He said it was all by agreement and everybody was quite happy. I want to ask him whether this does not indicate that military intelligence has now to some extent been reinstated and that in fact we were correct when we said that they had gone too far in the breakdown of the military branch of our intelligence services. Otherwise why have we got an increase of 500 per cent in the expenditure on military intelligence? Has B.O.S.S. now broken down, or what is the purpose of bringing this back under the control of Defence, which we accept and agree with? When we suggested it last year the Minister was quite scatching and said that we did not know what we were talking about.

Another matter which I want to raise, which I poked a finger at in the past is one on which I believe we must now have an answer. I raised the question of our radar screen on the northern boundaries of South Africa, a radar screen designed to give us protection from aircraft flying in overland. I believe that we are not doing enough to ensure that we have the qualified staff and that when we have the qualified staff to man that screen we are not giving them any incentive to remain in the Service. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Simonstown raised a point, which was also followed up by the hon. the Minister, in regard to Permanent Force staff purchasing their discharge, but since the hon. the Minister has just left the Chamber for a moment, I want to come to another point. This is to draw attention to the Seemanshandboek, Deel I, which appeared recently as the first publication in Afrikaans on nautical language, for application in our South African Navy. It is with appreciation that we take cognizance to-day of this progress which our Afrikaans language has made in the South African Navy, and in the absence of the hon. the Minister, I want to thank him for his personal interest in this aspect. I hope that the rate of progress of Afrikaans in the Navy will increase so rapidly that it will before long reach a 50-50 balance. This book, the Seemanshandboek, Deel I, is the work of a few officers. I do not know whether all of them hail from seafaring regions, but I should like to compliment them on this piece of work. They are Commander W. J. van der Merwe, Lt. H. M. Schoeman, Lt. S. C. Symington, Commander W. G. van der Merwe and Commander J. de Villiers. I want to pay them a compliment and also congratulate the Admiral for having donated a copy of this book to our Parliamentary Library for use by members here. Often, on board our warships, I have wondered what Afrikaans is in future going to do with the many fleet terms which have for generations been handed down to us only in the English language and have remained virtually forgotten in the Dutch language. Here it has at last come to the fore again, literally everything of importance concerning warships and also, which is interesting, concerning submarines and the terms used in that connection. Everything is offered here in a readable form, in scintillating Afrikaans, which again proves what a lively language Afrikaans is. This shows that the men who produced the work were not only technical language experts, but also Afrikaners with the salt of the sea in their veins who understand and can speak the language of the sea and its ships. A book such as this brings the Fleet, an important arm of the Defence Force, very close to our young men in the interior whom we should also like to see serving in the Navy. This kind of publication is one of the things which makes it attractive for our young Afrikaner men to look to the Navy as a career.

Now that the hon. the Minister has returned to the Chamber, I should like to pursue the point which was made by the hon. member for Simonstown in regard to Permanent Force staff purchasing their discharge. Actually, the hon. member spoke about the technical officers.

The other ranks as well.

I should like to discuss the lower ranks, the privates, in fact the workmen of the Army, the Air Force and the Navy. Some of these young men have been to see me; good, healthy, loyal young South African citizens who wear the uniform of our Defence Force with a very great deal of pride. The fact of the matter is that shortly after completing their school careers, many of these young men are still uncertain as to which direction to choose, and then they often, on the spur of the moment, choose the Defence Force as a career. They sign contracts for ten years and become apprentices, etc. After a year or two one of these young men finds, for various reasons, that he is not happy in his specific work, and that he feels, to use an English expression, that he is a square peg in a round hole. He feels that he cannot make any progress and that he is in fact making a failure of his career and of his life. Now, we know that the training of these men has been expensive for the Defence Force. Their manpower is indispensable to keep our aircraft in the air, our tanks operational and our ships at sea. The fact of the matter is that that young man is, for the abovementioned reasons, unhappy in his work. It is difficult for him to purchase his discharge owing to the large amount involved. The amount can run to R4,000 depending on the post he occupies. Now we have the unfortunate phenomenon— and many of these young men are quite honest about this—that such a young man then commits a crime. He is then arraigned before a court martial, found guilty and discharged. It is not doncut which we can condone or encourage. I have sympathy however, with these young men who come forward honestly with their problems. To a very large extent I support them, although I realize the problem of the Defence Force only too well. I therefore want to advocate to the hon. the Minister that a method be found to make an adjustment in respect of the young man who really feels that he is not suited to the specific post he occupies in the Defence Force by exchanging him with another State Department, so that his services can be productively utilized. To wage a campaign against a man whose heart is not in his work, is simply to lose that campaign. Some of these young fellows have told me that I can confidently put it to the hon. the Minister and the Supreme Command that although they are not wearing uniforms they will, through a national impulse and not for the payment, be at their posts at once when the country finds itself in danger and the hour of need is at hand. These young men went on to assure me, and I know them to be patriotic young men, whom we can rely on, that if they were able to have a little more freedom in this respect, it would be possible to create the necessary satisfaction. Consequently, there will also be far fewer resignations.

I should also like to say something about our Defence Force magazine, namely Commando. This magazine is already in its twenty-first year. Recently there was talk that its name might perhaps be changed. I saw, however, in one of the latest editions that public reaction was such that it appears that this name, namely Commando, has become very popular among the reading public. This magazine is one of the many things ex-Minister Frans Erasmus brought into existence during his period of office as Minister of Defence. It can to-day in fact be regarded as one of the triumphs of the channels of communication of our Defence Force with the public sector. Consequently I also want to address my representations to the hon. the Minister to the effect that the name Commando be retained for this fine Defence Force Magazine.

Mr. Chairman, one almost feels the situation to be unreal if one has to discuss military matters at this time of the day and on such a lovely day as this. If we were to cast our gaze further than the immediate vicinity of this building and think of drought-stricken parts of the country which have had generous rains, the peace and quiet in South Africa, the prosperity, calm and progressive spirit which is largely due to the party governing this country, one really feels as if one is dealing with the unreal when one has to discuss military matters. It is only when one considers conditions to the north of the Zambesi, and particularly when we do so in the knowledge that the thousands of miles which up to a few years ago could have presented an attacker with insoluble problems, problems such as impenetrable terrain and unfordable rivers, can no longer serve in these modern times in which we are living to-day in any way as an safe buffer or deterrent for an intending attacker. It is only when one realizes this that one comes to realize that on a day such as this it is not unreal to talk about defence, but is in fact very real. It is in particular when one considers the Russian military encroachment in Africa to which specific attention is now being drawn with the Egyptian-Israeli clash that one’s blood runs cold in one’s veins. Russian military operations in Africa reflect on the one hand their desire to obtain a better foothold in the Indian Ocean in particular while their activities in North Africa are mainly aimed at bringing the Mediterranean states under their sphere of influence to an increasing extent. The Russians began to give actual military aid to Africa round about 1958 when they and the Czechs gave approximately R2,140,000 for arms, consisting of light weapons, vehicles and equipment, to Guinea during the first five years after 1958. It has subsequently become apparent that their interest has increased. By March, 1967, the Russians had delivered equipment to the value of approximately R105 million to Algeria, and at present there are almost 1,000 Russian military specialists engaged in training programmes in that country, while more than 1,000 Algerians are undergoing military training in the Soviet Union. The Algerian air force already has more than 100 Russian fighter aircraft and 40 bombers. The arms the Russians delivered to Algeria up to October, 1968, include 140 jet fighters, 30 bombers and various freight aircraft, rockets and tanks. But it is only when one considers what the Russians are pouring into Egypt that one’s blood runs cold in one’s veins. After the Egyptian defeat by Israel they undertook to build up the Egyptian army free of charge. In 1965 the West Germans calculated that the Russians had at that stage already delivered armaments to the value of R360 million to Egypt and that a further provision of arms to the value of R180 million would be supplied to Egypt by Russia in 1965. Up to June, 1967, military equipment to the value of R1,300 million had been sent to Egypt. These weapons included 1,100 modern tanks, 350 Russian jets and bombers, 60 normal heavy bombers, 200 helicopters and 14 submarines. Since July, 1969, up to mid-September, 1969, Egypt has in addition received from Russia approximately 150 aircraft and 500 heavy tanks. Other countries in Africa as well, which one could almost enumerate alphabetically or according to the degrees of latitude, are receiving military aid from Russia. In 1967 for example she made R1,880,000 available solely for the improvement of a military landing field in northern Uganda so that larger military aircraft could land there. It is estimated that since 1955, when the first Russian arms agreement was ratified with Egypt, Russia has supplied arms to the value of R3,500 million to non-communistic developing countries. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Waterkloof has given us a very interesting dissertation on the amount of arms and money the Soviet Union is pumping into Egypt and Africa generally. I can assure him that we on this side of the House are fully aware of this position. I can assure him that we on this side of the House also become ice-cold when this matter is drawn to our attention.

That is why to-day I want to deal with a matter of potential international strategy. I do not wish other members to think that I am chasing up hares. What I want to deal with is a very serious matter indeed. It has strategic implications which at the moment may appear to be internal implications but in the course of time they may become very serious international implications for South Africa. The question I should like to ask the hon. the Minister very pertinently is this: Have the strategists of the Defence Force been fully consulted in regard to taking the policy of separate development to its logical conclusion as has so often been brought to our attention in this House? I know certain officers in the Permanent Force, the commando’s and the Active Citizen Force who have served in my part of the world which, as the Minister knows, lies adjacent to the potential borders of these proposed states, are extremely worried about what can happen under this policy of separate development. The arguments raised by the hon. member for Waterkloof in connection with the rest of Africa can well apply to such states within the borders of the Republic of South Africa in the future. It may well be argued by members that the protectorates have their independence and that they do not pose a threat at this stage. But at this stage we have in Lesotho and Swaziland an economic interdependence which makes them friendly disposed towards us. That also applies in the case of Botswana. As long as Rhodesia survives, this economic interdependence will remain.

Malawi is not economically dependent to the same extent.

As long as Rhodesia survives, this economic interdependence will remain and no threat will be posed. This experiment of separate development may give the reserves sovereign independence and the reserve which will probably gain it first under the present policy of the Government is the Transkei, In the case of the Transkei there is an open international boundary in the form of the sea. While the Transkei is part of South Africa, we can control the territorial waters with our Navy. We can stop foreign nations landing on that coast. We can prevent these things happening. But once independence has been obtained, we will have no right in those territorial waters. The hon. member for Waterkloof has very clearly pointed out what can be done by the Soviet Union and what they have done in Africa. A nation like this would become a member of the United Nations. It would not take them very long to be accepted as a member. One may find this vast mass of communist arms, communist finance and communist know-how being pumped in. It will possibly start with food supplies and be followed by the rest. I believe that this is a potential danger to South Africa. Even the Commissioner-General of the Transkei in addressing members of the Air Force, once said that this was the soft under-belly of South Africa and that they should get to know it well. I would appreciate it if the hon. the Minister would give a very full answer to this question and satisfy the House and the country that these matters have been very clearly thought out and very clearly worked out by the military strategists of our Defence Force to-day. As things stand at the moment, I believe that the Government lost more votes in the last election because of this question and this fear that is in the minds of all South Africans as a result of any other aspect of their policy.

You people told a lot of foolish stories (bobbejaanstories).

This is not a “bobbejaanstorie”. This is a very true story. There is no absurdity in this story. It is a question that those hon. members should ask themselves very seriously. They should look at their policies very seriously because what they are doing now is extending our internal boundaries and allowing a potential force within those boundaries which can destroy South Africa. I want to say that the public of South Africa will not be prepared to accept this situation very much longer.

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the hon. member for Albany that the United Party’s policy in respect of the reserves, as they call them in their “goat-fodder” pamplet, will strategically not make an iota of difference to our defence situation. Our coastline, which must be protected, will continue to be precisely the same length. Last but not least, when he referred to Lesotho, Swaziland and so on, he was, in my opinion, giving himself a decisive reply. I leave him further to the hon. the Minister.

It is a characteristic of these defence debates that we are not inclined to debate the establishment of a war machine, but rather to ensure that our Defence Force is one of the most important instruments for ensuring political and economic stability in this country. We see in our Defence Force that instrument with which peace can be guaranteed. This is also our message to the outside world. For this to succeed we must from time to time take a penetrating look at our strategy. The hon. the Minister gave us guidance in this connection, i.e. that we shall have to follow a total defence strategy. In my opinion it is important for us to determine what the elements are of such a strategy. In the first place we must have the best possible equipment, and in the second place the best possible trained citizens. It must be our endeavour to enable that citizen to carry out, in a just and competent way, all the private and public services of peace and war. Specifically because we can only draw our quality citizens from so small a number, we must take a penetrating look at that. We must consider how we can motivate our young boys. I am sure that in connection with this matter we cannot stop improving. Like the old Romans, could we not consider giving a young citizen the so-called “toga virilis” when he becomes old enough for service? They made a big ceremony of it. As soon as a young man reached the age of 16 years and could be called up for compulsory military service, the family got together with the public leaders and presented this young boy with a long toga. After that he was in a position to carry out one of the most important duties in the country, i.e. to help defend his country. I want to acknowledge immediately that we must not give our young boys, who are entering the Defence Force, the opportunity of getting swollen heads, but I think that we must bring home to them that most important of tasks, to which they are being called from that moment onwards. Then we must consider whether there is decisive and sufficient interaction between our academic institutions and our system of compulsory military service. What I mean by that is whether we are able, in the academic institutions, to motivate our young people sufficiently for them to be good soldiers, and whether our training is such that we can motivate our people to be good citizens when they are once more back in public life. I immediately want to add to this by saying that in the business world to-day we are particularly on the lookout for the young men who have completed their compulsory military service; they are disciplined, and we can depend on them; they are the select men, but what is the position at our schools and other academic institutions? Must we not ask ourselves whether we should not also motivate our young people there to be good soldiers in the true sense of the word? I am then also thinking of the broader field of motivation. Mention was made here of the regiments and commandos that lack funds. We are aware that some regiments obtain support from prosperous businessment. This enables them to run their own offices, and they also purchase their own uniforms. In relation to the concessions the hon. the Minister of Finance made in respect of donations to universities, I want to ask whether we cannot consider arranging for donations to commandos and regiments to be deducted from the taxable income. In this way our commandos and regiments could obtain considerable funds with which to administer themselves, and in this way they could obtain funds over and above what they receive by way of subsidies.

In conclusion there is a third requirement for a total defence strategy, and that is that we should have the best possible link-up with other elements representing this strategy. We want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the plan for the training of girls in civil defence services, a plan that has progressed so far that we shall shortly see it in practice. We understand that the hon. member for Wynberg will not be available as honourary colonel. There are also other elements, i.e. the entire private sector which must be motivated to offer the outside world, when necessary, a total defence strategy, acting as a bulward. We have already had Switzerland as an example in the previous World War. Why did Germany by-pass Switzerland? The reason was that the public sector, the military sector and all other sectors, stood together as a bulwark against any form of aggression. To my mind the question is whether we are able to offer such a strategy at this stage? If we are not able to offer such a strategy at this stage, we must take a penetrating look at that, because in this way we shall be able to deal with the threats that may result from the matters which the hon. member for Waterkloof mentioned. Then I want to emphasize that when we approach this matter we must maintain the fine balance between responsibility and preparedness. In wanting to be too prepared, and provoking public opinion, we could create a kind of neurosis. This would serve no purpose and this is our object either. On the other hand we cannot allow ourselves to be too much at ease either. To my mind it is absolutely necessary that we strive to maintain the fine balance between preparedness and responsibility.

Mr. Chairman, we heard to-day that we must be defence-orientated. Virtually all the Defence Forces in the world are becoming increasingly defence-orientated. What then is the actual purpose of a Defence Force other than to protect the country? We also want to do this. For that reason I am not afraid of the stories with which the hon. member for Albany was intimidating us here, i.e. that we shall have a new front on the east coast. Our Defence Force in this country will ensure that what has to be done in our country’s defence will be done, even though it be at sea. There has also been another change in world strategy with respect to warfare. Increasingly greater use is being made of unconventional methods. We find that guerilla fighters, sabotage and that kind of warfare is a very much more general phenomenon to-day than the old form where forces fight against each other. I still remember the present hon. Minister of Defence saying here a few years ago that the dividing line between war and peace in the world to-day was not always a clear one. We must, therefore, attune ourselves to an altogether new type of warfare. It is not only South Africa that has to face up to these matters and adopt a new approach; all the Great Powers are struggling with that. We see that the cold war is changing into a camouflaged war. Use is being made of the social dissatisfaction of the country’s population, of racial disturbances and of the nationalistic zeal of the people that is roused for the purpose of achieving particular objectives. We find that by doing these things a small nation can hold its own against a strong world power. By letting the emphasis fall on evading modern weapons and rendering them inefficient, the guerillas succeed, firstly, in staying alive and, secondly, in converting the defence into a weapon of attack. Mao Tse-Tung conquered China in four years with this method. Guevara conquered Cuba in this way. Sir, on the other hand the combating of guerillas is a very difficult task. In Vietnam we see how long it takes to get the better of these people, because they have the assistance of the indigenous population. Why then is it now so difficult to bring these people under control?

There are two important reasons I want to mention. The first is that these people are animated by a political goal in which they believe. The second is that the rest of the population gives moral and material support to the fighters. It is very important for us to remember these matters of principle. How must we now approach the problem here in Southern Africa? We must make a study of this type of warfare. We have inherited a unique commando system here in South Africa. We could very profitably use the commandos for that. I want to express the hope that this will be the future direction in which our commandos will develop.

What can we do to counteract this kind of warfare? If I go back to the statements I made a moment ago, i.e. that we firstly eliminate the political objective and, secondly, the support of the population, we could frequently solve the problem even before is has arisen. How must we now approach this matter? I submit that we must approach it ethnologically to a very large extent. What is ethnology? Prof. Coetsee describes it as follows (translation) —

What does this mean? It means that the culture of a people consists of its technical creations, its economic life and organizations, its social organizations, its legal system, its system of government, its religion, its education system, its language, its art and its military tradition. If we were to study all these sections we would see that ethnology can make a very important contribution to the control of guerrilla warfare. We see that the United States has now had to apply this in Vietnam. Dr. Theodore Vallance states:

This ethnological knowledge is therefore necessary if one wants to combat guerrillas. In this way one can penetrate to the endeavours and political tendencies of a people. But these matters require intensive study. Only ethnologically trained persons will be able to analyse these matters properly. That is why I want to make the statement that prevention is frequently better than cure. Sir, you will immediately say that it is not the duty of the Defence Force to make such studies. But in the Groenewould Report I read the following (translation) —

In my opinion the Groene would Commission saw this matter in the correct light, and I should like to endorse it. For these matters an ethnological background is very necessary. A commando, entering upon the struggle against guerrillas without a knowledge of ethnology, does not have a hope. It must have a knowledge of ethnic population groups, particularly here in South Africa or around our borders. It will have to have a knowledge of the geography of the country. It will have to have a knowledge of the economic development, the environment and the political groupings. This is a very important matter. If one has a thorough knowledge of the political groupings of races, one can frequently play the one off against the other without specifically having to make war. That is why I say that one would frequently be able to ward off military action by taking the correct ethnological action. That is why it is necessary to bring about the co-ordination of political, psychological, welfare and other actions before one perhaps decides on waging war against the guerrillas. If you can satisfy the aspirations of these people, you can do so by letting them see that they must not help the guerrillas. But also in the eventual war that may develop, a commander of the forces against the guerrillas will have very great need of this knowledge. That is why I am raising this matter to-day. I want our Defence Force to find people who are interested in these matters, and to give training in ethnology to all branches of the Defence Force. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member who has just sat down, had been on an intensive military course, he would have obtained all that information on his course. He would have found that our officers are very well trained. They do know all that he suggested they should learn.

We are here this afternoon to give the Minister permission to spend some R257 million from Revenue Account and some R7.5 million from Capital Account in order to run the Department of Defence. We also have heard of the very great dangers we face in this country. I do not think much has been left unsaid about the dangerous world in which we are living. As far as this country is concerned, it is true that we are a small country in numbers, but in the past we have always played our part in any conflict in which we have been called upon to take part. At this stage we are in this unhappy position that we have no real defence alliances. The Minister of Defence has to rely a lot upon diplomatic contacts through our Foreign Affairs Department to establish the correct climate so that we can obtain those highly sophisticated weapons that we require. While we can manufacture most of the weapons we require, there are certain types that have been developed over the years of which we just do not have the know-how in this country. The cost of doing research would be too high, so that we naturally have to rely upon those weapons coming from elsewhere.

We on this side of the House in expressing our attitude on Defence matters do so in the interests of the country, because we are part of this Parliament. We accept our responsibility as far as the defence of this country is concerned. We say that we have a right to criticize the Government. Within the founds of this particular Vote and suggested methods to the Government over the years by which we could probably have more intimate discussions on defence, by a defence Select Committee, but it has been turned down. At times when we have to touch upon subjects which are delicate, we do that with the knowledge that it is in the interest of the country and the people.

When we suggested that we cut down the training period, we did that not for the reason that we want to see our training schemes go haywire, but because we wanted to see a better trained force than we have at the present moment. The suggestion by the hon. member for North Rand for the establishment of a brigade group was in that direction. We will then have at least one highly trained unit in this country. One does not train a soldier in three months or six months; it takes a long, long time to train him. We can learn from the time it takes to train a submarine crew. To train them properly takes years. Therefore, in order to put a highly trained defence unit in the field takes a long time, up to two years. During the Second World War, notwithstanding the fact that we had trained troops, it took us between 18 months and two years to put the Six Armoured Division in the field. We therefore have an idea of what is really required. The suggestion made by us is one, I think, the Government should take note of. I think the hon. the Minister said he was only allowed to spend up to 3 per cent of our national income on defence.

Less than 3 per cent.

But at the same time we must study the dangerous situation the world is in to-day. It is up to the Government of the day to see that we do improve our relations with other countries, countries which believe in the defence of the Western form of democracy. We must form some sort of a defence alliance.

In the time at my disposal I would like to deal with more local matters. I would like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to consider a matter regarding Cape Town. In the old days we in Cape Town had to provide our own airfields. Hon. members may remember that to appeal to the hon. the Minister to consider the first airfield in Cape Town was at Brooklyn, now called Ysterplaat, where the Union Airways used to operate from. Afterwards an airport was established at Wingfield. This airport was subsequently taken over by the Government and defence at a very nominal sum. To-day it is not used as an airport any more, but as a storage depot by the South African Navy. The Navy also has workshops there and part of this airfield is also used for the housing for civil servants and members of Parliament. Our flying clubs then had to move to Youngsfield. Now the flying dubs have received notice that the army is taking over Youngsfield over completely and all private flying will cease. The army acquired this airfield for a very reasonable sum. So we find the City of Cape Town without a home for its local fliers, and without an airport for the city. These flying clubs which used Youngsfield have formed the foundation of our Air Force. Young fellows who take up flying through the flying clubs, and even farmers who come down and learn how to fly, are the nucleus of the pilots in our Air Force. Youngsfield is the only facility these people have in Cape Town. As a matter of fact, the instructors at our flying clubs have trained many of our pilots in the Defence Force today. Cape Town will shortly be faced with the position that it will have no airport which our local pilots can use. It has been suggestion that they move to Phisantekraal, some 24 miles from Cape Town. This airfield is completely unsuitable.

Why?

It is too far from Cape Town and there are no facilities. It is also within flying range of the D. F. Malan Airport. At the moment the Defence Force is not using the airfields at Wingfield and Youngsfield for flying purposes, and only make use of Ysterplaat as a training centre and also part of the D. F. Malan Airport. I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to return at least one of these airfields to the City of Cape Town. I am now thinking of Wingfield in particular which, at the moment is only used as a storeroom and as a workshop.

It cannot be done; it is too near D. F. Malan and Ysterplaat.

Youngsfield cannot be much further from D. F. Malan and Wingfield. In Johannesburg they have the position rat the Rand Airport is right next to Jan Smuts Airport. Grand Central Airport is also in the same vicinity. That is no excuse. I think the hon. the Minister must consider returning one of these airfields to the City so that the flying clubs can provide the training and also the facilities for its local pilots and for visitors. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, to-day I should like to say a few words about the mental preparedness of our Defence Force. The hon. member for Brakpan and the hon. member for Potchefstroom have already touched upon the subject. The hon. the Minister of Defence emphasized, on various occasions, that particular attention should be given to the mental preparedness of our Defence Force. We in South Africa are grateful for that. We are grateful that this aspect is also receiving the serious attention of our Defence Force authorities. I remember very well the first time the hon. the Minister spoke about that, shortly after he became Minister. Shortly after his retirement the previous member for Simonstown, the late Mr. L. C. Gay, objected fiercely in the Press and warned that the National Party was wanting to indoctrinate the Defence Force. As soon as there is talk in this House of mental preparedness, we find a touchiness in the Opposition. The word “indoctrination” has frequently been bandied about in this House. To the members of the United Party this word is like a red rag to a bull. This word is misused by them, frequently to create misleading impressions. Surely the word “indoctrinate” means the inculcation of a certain doctrine, and the emphasizing of certain tenets and dogmas. What is wrong with that? Throughout the education process we are teaching children dogmas and tenets. I indoctrinate my children with religion from an early age in order to educate them in the faith. I take it that every hon. member opposite also does the same. What is wrong with it? From an early age we indoctrinate our children to be dependent upon authority. I accept that the United Party does the same with its children. We indoctrinate our children from an early age to endorse the principles of the National Party. I have done so, in any case, and what is wrong with that?

A great deal, a very great deal.

I do not blame hon. members opposite if they do not indoctrinate their children with the principles of the United Party, since I know how difficult it is for them that the United Party does not have the same principles from day to day. This side of the House has carried out the political indoctrination process much more efficiently than hon. members on the other side of the House, because that is why we have already been in power for 22 years. As soon as the United Party hears the word “indoctrination” they always see it in the political context. When we speak of mental preparedness in the Defence Force, they also see this in a political context. I want to advocate that they get away from this standpoint. The United Party links all forms of indoctrination to politics. Hence, if they say that mental preparedness means indoctrination, it is only for political purposes. There is no danger of political indoctrination in our Defence Force. The hon. the Minister and every member on this side of the House would be the first people to disapprove of this. Let us please understand this clearly. In order to build up mental preparedness, there naturally has to be influencing of thought. The influence of our clergymen in the Defence Force, our chaplains, is extensive, and we praise them for their work. In this way valuable work is also being done, by cultural organizations and sports bodies, to give these young people a healthy attitude to life. After all, it is indeed the task of a Defence Force to cultivate in its people a love for their country, and to teach them the meaning of a free democracy. It is the task of our Defence Force to tell these young men why they must be prepared to lay down their lives for their country, to cultivate a love for the Defence Force and to teach them something about the dangers awaiting them, about the total war of the Communist and other foreign ideologies. The Defence Force must emphasize all possible dangers. That is mental preparedness. My son received his training in the army in 1965, and he returned from his training with the highest regard, almost a love, for the army. To-day when he is called up for temporary service, he is willing and instantly ready to go. That, and the evidence of other people about the loyalty of individuals to their old regiments, are proof that the training also succeeds in preparing our young people mentally. Our United Party friends must not be so sensitive when they hear the words “mental preparedness”. I want to request their support in helping us to indoctrinate our Defence Force morally, so that our men will know what they have to fight for one day.

Lastly, I want to thank the hon. the Minister and his Defence Force Chiefs for emphasizing this aspect of training.

It is not only Communist Russia that is infiltrating Africa in the military sphere; Communist China is also trying to do so. If one takes stock of their actions, it would appear as if they have divided Africa at the Equator, with Russia busying herself above the Equator, and Communist China in Central Africa. One wonders if it has anything to do with the climate, or whether it is merely because of territorial considerations. Communist China has already given military support to Tanzania, Ghana, Guinea, Congo Brazzaville and others. In the period 1955 to 1966 no less than 1,300 tons of military equipment was discharged by Communist China at Dares-Salaam alone. In Dares-Salaam there is a gigantic modern building displaying the name “Tanzam Railways” on its frontage. The world is told that this railway is being built with a view to making Zambia economically independent of a White Southern Africa. But it has already been proved over and over again that this railway line is not an economic proposition at all. The only other object in the building of the railway is, of course, a military one. This railway line will eventually link Dares-Salaam with the eastern point of the Caprivi, opposite the Zambesi. That, and also the terrorist activities in Central Africa, in Mozambique and Angola, are a clear indication. When I speak of terrorist activities, I mean sophisticated activities. They no longer leave their cigarette butts and banana peels where they have laid down land mines. Seen against this background, military matters are very real for South Africa to-day. It is my desire that our people should take more serious cognizance of the military aspect of South Africa’s existence. The country’s security is no longer a matter for the hon. the Minister and the Supreme Command alone; it is something that concerns every citizen. The nature of the military build-up in Africa requires that our Permanent Force, our Citizen Force and the Commandos should be brought to the highest possible degree of preparedness. These sections must grow closer and closer together, so that eventually they become inseparably interlinked. Circumstances demand the optimum utilization of training. In other words, it must not be shortened; neither must we only concentrate on a brigade group. In general there must be the maximum utilization of training, both by the instructors and the enlisted men. They must become masters in field-craft, in marksmanship and in modern conventional and unconventional warfare. We are going to need men who are morally and physically steeled, because the enemy is a formidable one—we must have no doubts about that.

On the principle of women and children last, it is appropriate that I come into the debate at this stage. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (West), while I was out of the House, made the remark that I should under no circumstances be made honorary colonel of a women’s organization. Well, perhaps he, as a member of the weaker sex himself, would like to be honorary colonel in my place.

I should like to refer to a question which the hon. member for Stellenbosch had on the Order Paper on the 11th August in connection with women’s organizations and army training for women generally. The Minister’s reply was that only one course had so far been organized, that this course would start on the 1st February next year and last for 10 months. The maximum intake of trainees would be 120. I hope the hon. the Minister is thinking of accommodating more that that in due course. He indicated that if more than 120 volunteered, there would have to be a selection. What I should like to know is, on what basis will this selection take place? Some of the requirements prescribed for admission are really quite astonishing. That they should be South African citizens is entirely understandable and also the fact that they have to have Std. 10. Then comes the extraordinary idea that they must not be older than 22 years and must never have been married. I cannot understand these extraordinary requirements but will deal with that matter a bit later on.

What is wrong with that?

I will tell you in a minute. Perhaps the most significant point of the reply of the Minister to this question was the last point in his reply. The question was asked whether any service obligation was going to be imposed upon these women once they had completed their course of training. The Minister said that no such obligation would be imposed upon them. However, they would be encouraged to join a civil defence organization on a voluntary basis. The idea of setting up some kind of unit attached to the Defence Force was still being investigated. My plea here today is that such a proposition should not only be investigated, but the Minister should make up his mind and get on with it. I hope the hon. the Minister does not think me audacious for saying these things but I did have some first-hand experience of civilian defence during the last war and of Women’s Auxiliary Services also. To my mind the Minister is rather confusing the issue in regard to the training of women in South Africa. Let me remind the Minister, and hon. members who may not be aware of it, that coastal command in South Africa had a tremendous number of women in auxiliary service. Even coastal batteries were manned by women and many matriculants operated the range finding and radar screens for coastal command. At Saldanha Bay they operated defences and the alarm system and had control of the minefields at the port’s entrance. All these services were operated by women. These are, of course, not any type of stupid little job that any girl can do. On the contrary, these are highly responsible technical jobs and yet this work was carried out by women with the greatest responsibility and efficiency. My point is that there is no comparison between this type of defence activity and civilian defence as such. The two things are not comparable, not even remotely. What the country needs is two types of organizations. First of all we need properly organized women’s auxiliary units attached to the Army, the Navy and the Air Force. The foundations for these should be laid now. We do not have to conscript the whole country and disturb everybody’s work and family life. The foundations can and should be laid now. There is a tremendous amount of keenness amongst our womenfolk for this. The second thing required is something entirely different, i.e. a civilian defence organization which, in terms of the Civil Defence Act, is already in the making. Essentially this consists of part-time people, even in war time, people who give up some of their time to do certain duties, e.g. fire fighting, first aid assistance, acting as civil guards in factories, and for electrical installations, etc. Very often they are asked to make surveys of the population in the event any part of the population has to be evacuated to another area as a result of enemy action. They did so in the United Kingdom during the war; I was involved in it as well. We had to assess what suitable accommodation was available in the country areas for people who had to be evacuated from bombed urban areas. Furthermore, these people could also stand by, as they did in the allied countries during the war, to assist army ack-ack or anti-aircraft units, act as runners and provide canteen facilities— there are all sorts of civil defence jobs which they could do. Any civil defence organization, however essential, must inevitably be composed of part-time workers who have their ordinary jobs to do apart from this type of service. The proposed women’s training course really makes no provision for anything in the way of a unit, and I think this is a very great pity indeed, because experience has proved only too well that women pull well together, in specific units, under conditions of stress and and also under conditions of agreed and accepted discipline. It gives them a great sense of pride and loyalty if periodical camps or refresher courses are held. The identity of the group is thereby maintained. They get to know each other as colleagues and often work very much better together in consequence. Then, of course, Sir, if you have these units a sense of responsibility and dedication is established, all of which proves invaluable if they have to go into action even as a second front, behind the lines, in periods of danger or of crisis. Sir, why on earth does the hon. the Minister choose to limit the age, at which these young women may enrol, to 22 years? Where, may I ask, if the Minister is thinking in terms of auxiliary units for the future, which we have got to have, is he going to get potential officer material? Sir, look at many of the other countries of the world which are gearing their defence forces to real activity; look what the Israelis do with their women in the Army. They have absolute first-class units. Not only do they run the farms, etc., when all the men are away, but they do all sorts of very useful military things as well. But, Sir, where is the potential officer material to come from if the Minister decides to impose some kind of defence obligation upon these girls who are trained? I want to say to the hon. the Minister—and I am not being audacious in any way in saying this—that he can take it from me that in period of crisis, when you are dealing with civilians as these women may well have to do or if you are dealing with para-military personnel, if there is a crisis and cities are bombed or something like that happens, it would be absolutely crazy to rely upon girls, however able they may be, of 22 years of age to give the necessary leadership and to show the necessary resourcefulness and stability in that type of crisis. Under the regulations these girls must be under 22 years of age and never married. What about the divorcees and widows and lots of other people who may want to join up? Why should they not make this decision for themselves? What has it got to do do with the Department anyway? I want to say that in many instances women in their late twenties, in their early thirties or early fourties are people who have had some basic training. They may be married and may be their husbands would be delighted if they went on some little course. I think the Minister would be much wiser to put a ceiling of, say 50 years on the age of enrollment and not a floor to the age limit for enrollment as he has done. [Time expired.]

If I understood the hon. member correctly she said that during the past war she, too, had experience in the direction she has just dealt with in her speech here. I am probably the last person in this House who would like to have a serious difference of opinion with the hon. member, but if that is in fact the case, I cannot understand her objection to the age limit of 22 years, because if I were to guess the hon. member’s age, she must have been a very young girl during the past war.

She has not yet come of age.

I am being quite serious. The hon. member still is relatively young and at her age during the past war she rendered good service. She probably was not much older than 18 years. Why then does she not have any confidence in girls of the same age? Girls of the same age are going to render these services for which a unit is to be erected at George, and they, too, will render service which will be as outstanding.

I did not say that they could not be of service.

That was the tenor of her objections. The hon. member had confidence in herself; why does she not have any confidence in the youth of to-day?

I said, “Why limit it to girls of 22 years?”

Sir, I do not want to fight with the hon. member; I want to speak nicely to her. I also understood her to say that the training programme actually contained very little that was in agreement with what one would have expected in a civil defence service. She used the term “civil defence”. That is what I understood her to say. When one examines this syllabus, if I may call it that, I think that is the very thing for which it is making provision, but I think that what the hon. member is pleading for, namely women’s units which are full-fledged units of the Defence Force, does not really fit into our present circumstances. In the case of our country emergency conditions led to the establishment of women’s units during the war, and they rendered very good service; that is true. I do not know what the attitude of the hon. the Minister will be in this regard, but I personally do not think that the hon. member’s request really fits into our defence set-up of to-day. Our Defence Force must be seen as a citizen army, and in that citizen army, for all purposes, as it is planned to-day, the place where the woman actually fits in is the civil defence service. In passing I just want to say that I agree wholeheartedly with the age limit of 22 years and the requirement that the women must be unmarried, because this unit which is to be established at George, will probably very soon attain the same prestige and status which, for example, our army gymnasium and our air force gymnasium have attained. Since I have every reason to hope that my own daughter will complete her training at George next year, I must really agree with the statement of the hon. member for Vryburg that although the hon. member for Wynberg was a highly valued member in this House, he trusted that she would not accept the post of honorary colonel of the unit. I, too, am rather pleased about it, because I do not think my daughter would like to serve under such a severe woman. Sir, I shall leave the matter at that for the moment.

I really want to come back to the idea of a brigade group which hon. members on the opposite side propagated this afternoon. It is all very well to propagate a brigade group, but unfortunately that is where the hon. members stop. It is a good thing to have such a specialized, trained group in one’s Defence Force. In our case it probably may be a good idea not to have the entire Defence Force trained purely for conventional warfare. Such a unit can definitely serve a very good purpose and can serve as a core, but we go back to the basic standpoint in respect of our Defence Force, namely that we are establishing a citizen army and that all our training is aimed at giving this army the best training in all its branches. Before one goes into details, it is perhaps necessary to have another look at Africa. I should like to mention certain details to supplement what has been mentioned here this afternoon in order to see an indication in that of the importance of a citizen army in South Africa instead of a purely specialized conventional task force, if it is on this that hon. members on the opposite side want to place greater emphasis as against a citizen army with its branches. Mr. Chairman, we are situated on a continent that is still immature, an immature continent on which only five countries were independent at the end of 1956, i.e. Ethiopia, Liberia, South Africa, Egypt and Libya. From 1956 to 1959, another five countries were declared independent. In one year, 1960, 17 countries obtained their independence and from 1961 to 1969 another 16, which gives us a total of 39 since 1956. But what is significant for the purposes of our debate, is that since 1952, there have been successful military coup d’etats in 31 of these countries and that secessions occurred in independent states. [Interjections.] We do not harbour the fear which hon. members on the other side are harbouring. The first took place in Egypt in 1952 and the last, last year in Dahome. Sir, what type of military aid is being given in, Africa by the communist bloc? I shall not I discuss the Western countries, because all military aid in Africa is not unhealthy aid. I shall leave the Western countries out of my discussion and confine myself only to communist aid. We find that in the past 20 years Russia and China have obtained footholds in 37 African countries in the diplomatic, economic, military and cultural fields. Russia is paying special attention to areas north of the Sahara. China is concentrating more on areas south of the Sahara. I do not want to go into the same details dealt with by the hon. member for Waterkloof, but what is, in fact, of importance to us and something of which we should take cognizance, is that Zanzibar is actually China s Cuba, and that by using Tanzania, China is creating a bridge head for itself in Africa, and associated with this, is the Tamzan railway line which has been mentioned here. Another important factor of which one must take cognizance, is that Zambia entered into an economic agreement with Tanzania in 1967, and arising out of this, communistic influence and especially the Chinese ideologies cannot be ignored by us.

Another important factor in the consideration of what type of threats we shall have to resist, is that Russia has the largest number of diplomats who have been trained in African languages, in languages which are spoken in Africa, and most of their diplomats in Africa deliver speeches in the language of the country in which they have settled.

This shows one to what lengths these people have already gone. I do not want to go into details concerning the way in which they are using the radio stations, but it is nevertheless interesting to note that the radio stations of China and Russia broadcast more hours per day to Africa than, for example, “The Voice of America”, the B.B.C. and even, to a much lesser extent, Radio South Africa.

Another important matter which has to be taken into account, is the fact that the military aid which is being granted for training in China and Russia, is chiefly focussed on terrorist training. In this connection I am referring especially to the well-known Komsomol School in Moscow, which concentrates on this type of training in particular. And in Moscow there is a special division of the secret service which deals exclusively with South Africa and which only concerns itself with South Africa. We have been informed that a copy of every publication in South Africa is also forwarded to that division of their secret service. Therefore, when one considers that this kind of military attention is being paid to Africa, one cannot avoid the conviction that our real threat will probably be unconventional, and if one adopts the attitude that it will be unconventional, we must concentrate on the citizen army idea with which we are concerning ourselves in South Africa, and for this reason, inter alia, it is necessary that our training should take place, as today, mostly in the areas on our borders, and that we shall particularly promote markmanship, and, in passing, I just want to say something about this. [Time expired.]

Perhaps I should complete the sentence for the hon. member. I think he was about to thank the Minister for the additional allowance towards the S.A. Shottists Association.

Quite right.

I associate myself with the thanks he was unable to express. May I follow up this habit of completing people’s sentences and complete the sentence which the hon. member for Wynberg was about to make when her time expired? She was dealing with the question of auxiliary training for women, and I would like to add my plea to the hon. the Minister to meet the application of the Voluntary Women’s Auxiliary Services centred at Somerset West. Here is a voluntary organization of women ranging from school-leaving age up to a more mature age practising the arts of civil defence. All that they ask is to be recognized by the Civil Defence Department and be allowed to have their own uniform which they can wear on special occasions. They are doing exactly what we are aiming at and fulfilling a need which we have. What we are trying to achieve at great expense, they are doing at their own cost and with their own efforts, and I hope the Minister can meet their requirements.

Now I can complete the third interrupted sentence, namely my own when I was last speaking. I was speaking about the personnel for our radar screen. I was saying that I was concerned that we are losing the personnel we have and that we are not drawing the personnel we need because there is no incentive for these people to serve in this field. I have heard reports that people trying to qualify as radar spotters are required to do the ordinary scrubbing of floors in a mess and parade-ground work, and they are not given the opportunity to practice the jobs for which they are trained. I should also like an assurance from the Minister that the radar scanners in some of our border areas are in working condition. I would like him to tell us how often they are serviced and when some of them were last maintained, whether in fact they could be operated at a moment’s notice. We do not want to be like the Egyptian radar screen which went for breakfast and allowed the airports to be destroyed while they were having breakfast. We cannot have a radar screen which is going to be manned only at the times when we think we might be attacked. I hope the Minister will give attention to this, because I believe it is an important aspect of our defence.

We have heard from the hon. member for Potchefstroom of the dangers of the communist build-up in Africa. We, of course, are fully aware of this. We agree with him as to the danger. That is one of the many reasons why we do not want to see more independent states created within our own boundaries, because then the very military dangers he has sketched so adequately this afternoon will become dangers here within the borders of our own country, and it will create another series of places from which this danger can infiltrate. There are two already; we accept that, but those dangers should point another lesson to the hon. member.

I now want to refer to certain administrative issues. One is the question of the control of stores. I do not want to quote or go into detail. The Minister knows that there has been severe criticism of our stores control. All of us know that valuable equipment is standing out in the sun and the rain, and year after year we are told that the matter is receiving attention, but year after year valuable equipment continues to rust and to deteriorate in the weather. We are spending millions of rands, and I believe that we must have something more than a mere promise that the matter is being attended to or is being considered.

I want to deal with the selection system which was touched on in regard to the Navy. We have amended the Act so as to enable the registering officer to change an original allocation, but I do appeal to the hon. the Minister to see that greater attention is given to the aptitudes and skills of persons so that they are allocated according to their skills. I do not want to give examples, but I could give the example of the son of a sailor who became an officer in the S.A. Navy, whose whole family background was a naval one and who himself was the junior commodore of a yachting club and who had almost since he could walk sailed yachts. Yet he was sent to a land unit when he applied to go to the Navy. He is a man perfectly fitted to join the Navy, and it was not that it was not known. He applied to the selection board and he had an interview, but nevertheless with his naval background he was not sent to the Navy, whereas others with no naval background were. The same applies in respect of people training to be doctors and engineers, and yet they are posted to units where their skills and training are of no value whatsoever.

I want to deal for a moment also with the question of discipline. We all accept the need for discipline. It is essential, but sometimes I fear that some officers do not know the difference between discipline and bullying. There is a difference between maintaining discipline through respect and a discipline achieved through fear by bullying. I do not want to mention particular camps or particular areas or persons. The O.C. of a camp certainly sets the tone. There are examples where I believe that discipline is not being enforced by building up respect but by trying to break down and create fear. When even the semblance of bullying comes in at the top it is picked up by junior ranks who do not know where to stop. You get it spreading right through the ranks and creating unpleasantness, disloyalty and antagonism against the service as a whole.

I want to deal as well with the question of censorship. The hon. the Minister knows that we opposed the provisions for censorship in the Defence Act. The hon. the Minister gave us an undertaking that he would apply these provisions with care and that they would not be wrongly used but only where our security is at stake. I want to quote to him one of his own newspapers. It is a newspaper of which he himself is a director. I am referring to Die Beeld of September, 1969, which criticizes the manner in which the powers of censorship of the Minister are used.

They were wrong in that case.

However, this was the point—

In that specific case they were wrong.

I do not know how they could have been wrong when permission and information were refused while rumours were going around and the Press was not permitted to publish the true facts until much later when it was impossible to keep them hidden any longer. When lives were at stake, people were ill and parents were concerned, the information was not made available. But if you talk to any pressman you will find that despite the introduction of a public relations officer, who maintains Press liaison, he is unable to release as much as I believe could be released to create the proper relationship between our forces and the public of South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to come back to the subject of national service. I am glad that I could gain the impression towards the end of the debate that there was a certain measure of apologizing on the part of the Opposition for the fact that they had asked for the shortening of the period of service.

You are wrong again.

I may be wrong, but that was the impression I gained. They started offering excuses for requesting that the period of service be shortened.

No, we were trying to explain so that even you could understand.

I told the hon. member for Durban (Point) that I was prepared to argue this matter with them non-politically. We can pit argument against argument. However, it aid strike me that this attitude can be taken further back. It is not a judgment which has been formed after the national service has been in operation for two years. Early this year a booklet appeared entitled “You want it, we have it”. That booklet contains the undertaking to shorten the period of national service. In other words, I want to maintain that I am correct in my attitude that this endeavour to request the shortening of the period of service is being made at the request of people who want to lead a life of ease.

Several speakers here gave a thorough description of the nature of the threat facing us. What bothers one in particular in this situation as far as the Western world is concerned, is that Western statesmen so often are not capable of making a proper evaluation of the strategic importance of South Africa. But when it comes to the defence forces of those countries, it is quite a different story. Just consider N.A.T.O., which very clearly intimated in its publications that the Cape sea route is of the utmost importance to the Western world. Consider other military bodies, which have not hesitated to acknowledge this fact time and again. In the light of such circumstances, while this is the political attitude of some of the Western countries, while we are facing this threat to-day, as it was described here, and while we are a small white population, South Africa has no option but to build up a citizen army. It is doing so by means of the national service system, that is to say, the Citizen Force and the Commandos, which supplement the nucleus of the Defence Force. It is also doing so in pursuance of the example set by various other countries in the world which find themselves in a position similar to ours. Israel, too, has a citizen army. Israel, too, is in the position of defending its national territory to the utmost. There are other countries as well. Consider Switzerland which escaped the worst afflictions of the last war by also relying on a citizen army. That is why I say a citizen army based on a national service system as we have here, is the true system for a country in the position of South Africa, so that it may be able to defend its security within its own national borders and may at least see to the sea route round the Cape, in respect of which it must do its share in its own interests as well as in the interest of the Western world. Since these statesmen, in contrast to their military observers in their countries, up to now have failed to appreciate the importance of the sea route of the Southern Hemisphere, they may see in the exertions of a citizen army a people who will not give up. In this way they will gradually come to realize this fact, too.

When we compare our own citizen army, which we are building up and which is in its initial stages, to those of the countries I have mentioned and others, any argument which could have been raised here to the effect that the period of service must be shortened under such a national service system, falls away. As far as the training period is concerned, South Africa’s is the shortest of those of comparable countries. Switzerland, Israel and other countries have far longer training periods and their national service extends over many years more. I think one of the reasons why they are spreading it over a longer period is the knowledge that the experience of the mature fighter of the citizen army is always necessary to his country, even if he is of a riper age. Hon. members argued here this afternoon that our system had the effect that a person was still liable to national service in the Citizen Force up to the age of 28 years, when he was married, and had other obligations. I want to make the statement that we must always have that very element in the Citizen Force and in the Commandos. No matter how essential and How efficient the young man may be, we cannot build a defence force with only the very youngest group. I believe that there must also be a shading towards the older age group, the men with more mature experience. There is nothing wrong with a man who may be married or who may have other obligations, for example, the obliging of holding down a job, having to give a few days of his life every year to the national service of his country.

Earlier this year I had the privilege of meeting two Swiss members of Parliament here. They were members of two different political parties and were here on visit. It was very interesting to me to learn that the one was a colonel and the other a major in the Swiss army. Apart from the fact that they are members of Parliament, they also have other professional occupations, but they spoke with enthusiasm and pleasure about their share in the Swiss army. If members of Parliament in a country such as Switzerland can make time for this at the age of 50 and 55 years, how can we complain about having to use people up to the age of 28 years in our particular circumstances?

But, furthermore, the idea of a citizen army based on national service does not simply mean that our men go to camp for a few months to drill. It means that men out of the nation are taken up into the Defence Force. It means persons who are Defence Force men the one moment and ordinary civilians the next moment. It means men who are better steeled and prepared for a life of service to their fatherland, in one respect through the Defence Force, but at the same time through other channels. It means people in whom a mental preparedness has been created and who will not allow themselves to be tossed about by any influence which may come. It means that those people are worth so much more to their country. It assists time and again in bringing our Defence Force to the people and the people to the Defence Force, so that the two do not live away from each other, as we have seen most clearly illustrated in recent times. South Africaisa country of extremes. When we were stricken by a disastrous drought it was the Defence Force that stepped in and showed South Africa that it was not removed from the people. Whether the disaster which befalls the country is a war disaster or a drought disaster, the Defence Force is there to help. When disaster struck in another form the day before yesterday, i.e. the floods at East London, it was, as we learned from the statements of the Minister this afternoon, once again the Defence Force that stepped in to show it was not removed or separated from the people, but that it stands with the people in any disaster. That is why I am convinced of the fact that we are committed to our system of national service. As far as the period of training is concerned, I believe that even if it has to be extended in order to yield better results, this may safely be done, but that we should not form a too hasty judgement on the matter, as was done on the side of the Opposition this afternoon.

Mr. Chairman, in the first place, I think I must express my appreciation to hon. members on both sides of this House for the high level they have maintained in this debate and for the fact that, even when criticism was exercised, it was done in such a way that we did not prejudice the Defence Force. I want to give hon. members the assurance that it means a tremendous amount to the morale of the Defence Force to know that it has a Parliament which backs it unanimously. The Defence Force is a sensitive organization in any country in the world. It has a special relationship with every family and every facet of the national life. Therefore it is a good thing that this measure of support and moral strength should be imparted to the Defence Force by the spirit of unity displayed in the highest assembly in the country. In addition, I think it is fitting that I express a word of appreciation on behalf of this House to the Supreme Command and all sections of the Defence Force for what has been done on various occasions in the past years in connection with emergency situations and rescue work. I think all three Defence Force sections had the opportunity over the past year to prove in a tangible way that they are not merely imaginary organizations or organizations in theory, but that they have important tasks to fulfil in peace-time as well. I think we all want to congratulate those concerned on their conduct on those occasions. In this connection, I am thinking of various occasions such as the Ceres disaster, the performance at Gough Island, the recent performance near the Cape coast and several other occasions as well. I hope the Commandant-General will convey the appreciation of all of us to all members of the Defence Force in this connection.

The hon. member for Wynberg was quite rightly interested in the proposed civil defence college at George. It is a modest beginning and we simply cannot grant admission on a large scale to all applicants now. I am restricted because of financial reasons and it is difficult to make provision for only 120 girls while there are many more applications. Before we made the latest announcement, we already had many more applications than we could make provision for. The girls who applied were of such a standard that we could not lower or relax the standard. I expect selection to be done by qualified persons who will investigate the background of the girls and their achievements at school as well as other principles which will be laid down. We want to make a success of this first attempt, because I personally am keen that it should be the start of a growing endeavour in South Africa.

However, the hon. member should differentiate between the girls who will be trained for purely civil defence services and the girls who will be trained there with a view to recruitment for service in the Defence Force. This was clearly illustrated in the reply which I gave the hon. member for Stellenbosch. I told him that the syllabus covered a wider field than merely civil defence. When we have recruited those girls and obtained their services for the Defence Force, it is not excluded that we may establish a women’s defence corps. However, we are starting off on a small scale because we want to make a good start and because we do not want to wreck the undertaking before we have started it. At present there is nothing to compel them to join civil defence organizations, but these are matters which can be dealt with in the course of time. We want to do nothing which may give people the impression that we are busy with a citizen force or defence force for women here. The tasks they will have to perform will be special ones.

What about the Somerset West group?

As far as the Somerset West organization is concerned, I can only say that we surely cannot deal officially with a multitude of organizations. There are three organizations with which we have official contact, i.e. the Red Cross, St. John’s Ambulance and the Noodhulpliga. I think any other organizations of such a nature should join these organizations so that we do not …

It is quite different.

No, it is not quite different. For example, it is not quite different to the Noodhulpliga. We cannot concern ourselves with a multitude of organizations, otherwise there will be confusion in the country. I want to appeal to people who want to display their initiative in this way, to link up with one of these three existing organizations in some way or another. We must have order.

†Secondly, the hon. member for Durban (Point) raised the matter, and he was supported therein by the hon. member for Albany, whether the Government’s policy of independent homelands should be carried to its full consequences in regard to the Defence Force. Then the hon. member for Durban (Point) referred to speeches made by different members of Parliament. He also referred to the fact that he requested me to make a statement, which I did, during the election.

But you evaded the issue.

No, I did not evade the issue. I cannot help it if the hon. member only reads the papers that suit him.

But here is your statement.

I will reply. I am going to reply from the notes I used on that occasion. I said the following—

Of course, I do not think there is any difference of principle between ourselves and the Opposition as to this matter. But that was my reply. I continue—

That is what I said, and I think it was a clear reply. I do not think I left anything unanswered.

Was that report published? So you repudiate those statements that were made.

I am stating what I said at that stage and I still stand by it. But now I want to pose a question to the hon. member with regard to his policy. The fact is that he and his leader take up the attitude that South Africa should be governed in a spirit that we have a nation of 20 million people. Is that correct?

A population.

No, a nation. Now I ask the hon. member to be candid and conclusive in his reply to me as well. He can take the opportunity on Monday. There is still time. Under a United Party policy of dealing with a nation of 20 million people will they also apply that principle as far as defence is concerned?

As you are doing now, yes.

Will the United Party institute military training for Bantu in the same Defence Force organization and afford officers ranks to them?

Now you are running away from the question. Do you still beat your wife?

I am not running away from the question the hon. member put to me. I stated as clearly as I could and accepted my responsibility that in accordance with the laid down policy of this side of the House, I must apply a defence policy to suit the circumstances. I am not trying to make party politics out of this. I am only putting our case. But I think we have the right to know if the United Party accept the principle of one nation of 20 million people, because if they do, they must consequently accept the principle that they will have to train them as members of our Defence Force. Thirdly they must accept the consequence that they will not only have to train them as members of our Defence Force, but that they will also have to give them officers’ and non-commissioned officers’ rank. I have said in certain circumstances we will see to it that contingency planning is carried out with independent neighbour states and that there will be a joint effort to fight Communism as far as possible. Having said this, I think I am also entitled to ask the hon. member for Durban (Point) to reply to me in regard to this matter.

That is easy.

It is not so easy as the hon. member may think. He must accept the consequences of his policy.

Will you do it with Coloureds and Indians under your policy?

We have already stated in public that we have instituted a Coloured Corps. We will develop this in the same way as before, but as far as Bantu are concerned we make a difference; we only use them in auxiliary services.

And the Indians?

As far as Indians are concerned I am prepared when the time comes to treat them in the same way as the Coloureds.

Will you commission them?

If eventually they reach that stage I will commission them, but I will not allow them to take that commission over ordinary white soldiers. That is quite clear. I want a clear reply on the part of the hon. member for Durban (Point), because the United Party carried on a campaign right through the general election in regard to this matter. During the election I replied to this matter, but I now think that the moment of truth has come for the United Party. They must tell us where they stand.

*The hon. member for Salt River spoke about the question of an airfield for civil aircraft. I told the hon. member that Wingfield was not available because it was situated between D. F. Malan Airport and the Air Force Station at Ysterplaat. It is absolutely ridiculous to expect us to make Wingfield available for that type of aircraft while this airfield is situated between and so close to others. It is dangerous, because jet aircraft fly in that vicinity.

You have the same in other cities.

The situation is not the same as here. The hon. member must accept this. I am not saying this because it is my opinion, but because this is the information I have received. He and I cannot decide about this. People with authority must decide about this.