Mr. Speaker, I move—

Once again it feels as though it was only yesterday that the Government stood accused of its entire approach to the question of the drug abuse being characterized by reluctance and indecision. The repudiation of that unfounded charge and the exposure of the motives by which it was inspired, has already become history recorded in the annals of this House, and I do not wish to go back to it now.

In contrast with that charge we have before the House today a measure which, from the very outset, has been described by the popular Press as “the toughest antidrug laws in the Western world", and I do not blame them for describing it in those terms. The pendulum has apparently swung from the one extreme to the other. Be that as it may, we are truly in earnest about stamping out with might and main this diabolical underminer and destroyer of Western man and his morals here in our country.

Hon. members are aware that the abuse of drugs has been receiving the attention of the Government for a long time, and have by this time also had ample opportunity to study the report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Abuse of Drugs, to which I shall refer throughout as the committee. It is true that it was not possible for that committee to determine the extent of the problem with certainty. However, may I remind hon. members that the committee found that in our country the problem is to a large extent still concealed like an iceberg and should be viewed in a serious light. You will also recall, Sir, that the committee found that this problem was already casting its evil shadow and that it could follow the same diabolical pattern as it did in other countries, if the necessary measures were not taken in good time.

Now, what have we found? We have found the following: Firstly, that statistics, which I shall quote later on, have proved that this evil is rapidly gaining ground in South Africa; secondly, that the illegal traffic is apparently well organized and flourishing; that it often transpires that persons who are temporarily visiting the country and are therefore not South African citizens, are the masterminds behind such a network; thirdly that the newly created market, especially since the closing of the Suez Canal, is ingeniously being exploited by unscrupulous people, and that many a young South African has fallen a victim to this exploitation; fourthly, that circumstantial evidence is pointing strongly in the direction of certain nightclubs, which are considered to be the dens of this vice; and, fifthly, that in South Africa, too, the number of persons who have fallen victim to this abuse has been increasing at an alarming rate.

For that reason the Government has decided to take strong action, and for that reason this Bill makes provision not only for minimum penalties in respect of certain offenders, but also imprisonment, without the option of a fine, up to a maximum of 25 years in some cases. This Bill provides for the confiscation of vehicles used for conveying these drugs, the confiscation of immovable property and even for the seizure of money which has been deposited in the bank to the credit of such a person, whilst provision is also being made for the licence of any nightclub or other place of entertainment to be withdrawn and such premises to be closed down after conviction.

South Africa as a young, dynamic and developing country, with its great potential, hut also with its tremendous challenges at the present juncture, cannot afford to lay hundreds of its most useful young citizens on the altar of this useless idol. We have too great a need for the energies, the idealism and the enterprise of our youth, for the manpower they represent.

The permissive society, which in numerous other countries of the world has already become so ingrained that Governments stand powerless before it, will not he tolerated in South Africa.

We still believe in moral standards and moral codes in this country, and even if other countries were to yield before this pressure, before the fine-sounding name of individual freedom, we are still not prepared to raise permissiveness to a virtue in South Africa.

We still believe that there is a law, that order should be maintained and that supreme freedom still lies within the law. Furthermore, we still believe in discipline —that one word for which virtually the entire world has a crying need today, the word which in itself holds the solution to numerous family, social and political problems.

In this country we shall not stand for law and order being undermined, even if we have to maintain it by force. This Government has already proved that through its actions over the past decade.

It is for that reason that I am submitting this legislation to this House today, in the knowledge that the public outside, irrespective of language or religion, will stand by us in combating this evil.

I want to take this opportunity to express my sincere thanks to the Grobler Committee, which inquired into this matter so quickly and effectively, for a thorough report, in which this evil was exposed. They also heard evidence which suggests that if we do not take rapid and firm action, the matter will get out of control, as is already the case in some countries. For that reason I want to express my thanks to the committee for its very effective work, which it carried out with such efficiency.

†Events since then have proved this committee to be right. Evidence of drug abuse which is not necessarily synonymous with drug dependency is piling up and there can be no question that the time for action has arrived. There is evidence that the abuse of dependence-producing drugs—the newly evolved and internationally accepted phrase for the abuse of what has up to now been accepted as the abuse of habit-forming drugs—is becoming acceptable to an ever-increasing section of the vounger generation. Drug trafficking is indeed becoming a most lucrative business in which capsules are offered and sold at R3 to R4 apiece. Foreign adventurers pledged to a life of easy money and easy spending are determinedly trying to establish a market on South African soil. One of them was fairly recently found attempting to dispose of 830 LSD tablets and 132 mescaline capsules whilst another sojourner managed to bring in 2 000 LSD tablets and was awaiting a further supply of 10 000 tablets.

The South African consumption of pills has reached alarming proportions, amounting to 200 million per month. Supermarket pharmacies find the pill market so profitable that one particular pharmacy ordered no fewer than 500 000 amphetamine tablets in strip packaging and that at a time when amphetamines had become the world’s most abused drug. Over 103 000 amphetamine capsules were confiscated in the Republic during 1970 by the Police. Indeed drug abuse has become so common that one pharmacist found it possible to pay his electrician’s bill with a supply of purple hearts. Apart from that, it is becoming clearer day by day that thousands of tablets are sold daily on the illegal market. Even the really hard stuff, like morphine and heroin, seems to find its destructive way into the hands of our youth.

And then, Sir, one has not even mentioned the world’s most commonly abused drug. I am naturally referring to the dagga plant which, unfortunately, is with us in very strong supply. Prosecutions for the illegal possession and sale of dagga are literally running into the thirty thousands annually and the quantities involved have reached most alarming proportions. There are unfortunately still people who are inclined to write off dagga or marihuana, as it is also known, as a harmless plant. There are, however, prominent medical men who firmly believe that it is habit-forming or dependence-producing and that it can lead to serious personality disturbances and behaviour which very often is the trigger which triggers off violence. Although there appears to be considerable variation in the potency and effects of dagga it certainly is not a thing to be played with especially as it is generally accepted as the precursor to harder stuff. It has been found that the processes involved in selective preception, the recall of preceding thoughts and capacity for systematic thinking are particularly sensitive to even low doses of dagga. To treat dagga as a bedfellow is to court disaster.

Probably the cheapest drug on the black markets of the world, dagga has nevertheless become a highly commercialized substance which, judging by the pains taken to bring it to the markets of the world, must indeed be a very profitable commodity. Its destruction by law enforcement forces has time and again Jed, in our own country, to brutal murder. Our existing penal provisions have proved inadequate to cope with the drug menace which is flooding Western civilization and although we might consider ourselves fortunate that it has not yet properly manifested itself amongst us in its most severe epidemic form, we certainly cannot afford delay in dealing with this monster. I submit, Sir, that a sufficiently strong case, which will be further substantiated as we proceed to deal with the Bill now before the House, has been made out for immediate and drastic action.

However, before I proceed to deal with the Bill I would like to place on record my appreciation to the official Opposition for its co-operation in bringing this Bill before this House on such short notice. I made available a copy of the Bill to members on the other side at the earliest possible opportunity and I know that they were hard-pressed to make this debate possible at this stage. I can assure them that I sincerely appreciate their co-operation in a matter of such great national importance.

Now, Sir, I do not intend to dwell on the definition clause of the Bill, except to inform hon. members that the drugs now described as prohibited dependence-producing drugs, dangerous dependence-producing drugs and potentially dangerous dependence-producing drugs were all, with the exception of a few, included in the Fifth and Sixth Schedules of the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act, 1928. The Schedule to the Bill has been prepared by the Drug Control Board established under the Drugs Control Act, 1965. In passing, it may also be mentioned that “dependence-producing drugs” is the phrase internationally accepted presently as a substitute for the well-known but ill-describing phrase of “habit-forming drugs" which has been in operation up to now.

Although the provisions of this Bill do not affect the rights of medical men such as medical practitioners, dentists, etc., acting in their respective professional capacities, I would like to say that the various bodies and societies concerned with the practice of medicine and the manufacture and sale of medicine have been consulted and that I have received no objections to the Bill now before the House. On the contrary everyone concerned seemed to agree that action, even drastic action, is called for to curb the menace of drug abuse. Hon. members will undoubtedly have observed that the sting of this Bill is contained in clauses 2, 3, 6, 8 (1) (c) and (d) and 13. Clauses 2 and 3 virtually place a total prohibition on all dealings in prohibited, dangerous and potentially dangerous dependence-producing drugs coupled with drastic penalties for its evasion. The clauses are self-explanatory and I am sure that none of us will find any difficulty in understanding them. The penalties provided for therein, especially in clauses 2 and 6 however, call for comment.

I do not think that the tragic effects of drug abuse which so easily lead to drug dependence are unknown to hon. members. We all know that drug-dependency is a living death to the drug dependent who experiences all the tortures imaginable when deprived of his supply of drugs and whose craving keeps on making higher demands for stronger and yet stronger doses of the stuff which is eventually to kill him in the most horrible manner conceivable. The drug pedlar or pusher on the other hand does not concern himself with the miseries of his client. He is intent on filling his pockets as fast and as often as he can, no matter what hardships his trade inflicts on his clients, their families and the community in general. He is no better than a cold-blooded poisoner who kills his victim slowly, effectively and in a most miserable fashion. Governments faced with this diabolical attack on and subversion of the lives and souls of their peoples are at their wit's end and many have gone so far as to treat these miserable exploiters of human failings for what they are, namely murderers of the human race. Some have taken such drastic measures as the imposition of capital punishment whilst others have resorted to other measures such as minimum prison sentences and confiscation of property. Penalties imposed by our own courts vary considerably and fines imposed have certainly proved to have no salutary effect. The foreign and local drug trades consider the South African penal provisions a very small price to pay for the profits involved and in the meantime the future of our country goes down the drain because we do not effectively deal with the unscrupulous.

I am aware that the penalties prescribed in the clauses under consideration might appear to be harsh but let me say at the outset that they are intended to be severe. No person, however, need fear those penalties if he would but resist the temptation to fill his pockets at the expense of the misery of others. The provision for minimum penalties, I make bold to say, is the best illustration of what any person might expect should he yield to the temptation to enrich himself on the drug supply line. We should, I submit, Sir, leave no room for doubt that there is no place for drug pushers or pedlars in a decent society. That is exactly what we are doing by the penalties prescribed in clauses 2 and 6 and I sincerely trust that everyone in our society will take proper note of those provisions for we will certainly deal mercilessly with anyone who, in spite of the emphatic warning contained therein, still considers it a worthwhile risk to evade those provisions. Our determination to curb this evil has, however, not upset our sense of fairness and I would like to assure hon. members here and now that convictions incurred under existing laws will not count for the purposes of the imposition of those sentences prescribed in the case of a second or subsequent conviction.

We do realize that many dependence-producing drugs are indispensable in the treatment of disease and we naturally have no intention of preventing their use for such purposes. We accordingly make provision in clause 4 that medical practitioners, dentists, veterinarians, pharmacists, etc., shall retain the rights conferred upon them by law to deal in or with such drugs, in their respective professional capacities. It is, however, a good question whether a measure like this should not regulate the whole matter of drug control completely, especially as the committee has found that all is not well even in the so-called legitimate drug trade. Pharmacists and other men concerned with the application of drugs in the fight against disease sometimes also appear to be prone to the weaknesses of laymen as far as the drug trade is concerned and cases have occurred where they have ignored the rules by which they are bound. I also venture to say that one could justifiably expect the medical profession and the pharmaceutical trade to make a fair contribution towards the proper control of dependence-producing drugs as it would be entirely futile for us to regulate the use of this commodity properly if the bodies concerned were not to be subjected to control themselves. However that may be, we have agreed that the use and distribution of dependence-producing drugs by the medical profession the pharmaceutical trade and the nursing services of the country will be regulated by or under the laws governing those professions or businesses and that my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Health, will deal with that aspect of the matter in so far as it is necessary during the course of this Session. Suffice it to say that we are not affecting the rights of the gentlemen referred to in this Bill in so far as they have acquired those rights by or under any law. If they go beyond those rights, this Bill will also be applicable to them in exactly the same and normal way.

I naturally do not intend discussing every clause or this Bill during the debate on the Second Reading as that can be done satisfactorily during the Committee Stage.

I do not think that hon. members will find it difficult to understand the provisions of clause 6. Naturally that clause should be read with the presumption created by clause 10(b).

I have during the recent past found it necessary to direct a clear and unmistakable word of warning to the owners, etc., of certain places of entertainment, especially the so-called night clubs. I have told them that the finger of suspicion strongly points in their direction. The committee has in fact found that since the blockade of the Suez Canal this type of amusement place has flourished especially in our coastal areas. No one wants to be a spoilsport and I certainly grant our young people all the decent entertainment they could possibly wish to have, but when night clubs become, as certain of them have, mere dens of vice where the souls and lives of our young people are sacrificed on the altar of drug abuse, their hour has struck and they will certainly receive no mercy from us.

One is naturally so perturbed about the evil that takes place in many of these so- called places of entertainment that one is inclined to the view that no measure could be too strict for them. When young children of the ages of seven and nine have in Durban become hardened dagga-smokers and many a young life is completely ruined by what is offered and sold as entertainment, one wonders whether you should not summarily dose down these places which have become a menace to society. Nevertheless one has to retain one’s sense of justice and I submit, Sir, that the burden of proof which we seek to impose on the owners of places of entertainment by clause 10 (6) in no way does them an injustice. In truth and in fact I am satisfied that the owner of the decent place of entertainment who exercises reasonable diligence in the conduct of his business has nothing to fear of either clause 6 or clause 10 (6). I consider it, however, appropriate at this stage to sound a further note of warning that if needs be we will certainly further tighten up the control over the places in question.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am but too aware that legislation of the nature of that contained in clause 13 could hardly ever be described as popular and is generally resorted to only in times of serious national crisis, when in fact the security of the State is at stake. I do not for one moment suggest that a clear and unmistakable connection has so far been established between drug abuse and the security of the State or even that drug abuse as we experience it in this country is in any way connected with the one or other political motive. But I venture to say, Sir, that drug abuse in epidemic form could just as effectively endanger the safety of the State whether it is politically inspired or not. A nation addicted to this pastime is a nation in peril and is as surely as the night follows the day courting disaster should it fail to take every step in its power to avert or suppress this menace which could be worse than the bonds of slavery.

It speaks for itself, Sir, that if we could wipe out the source of illegal supply, we would have a fair chance of successfully combating the spread of drug abuse. Drug pedlars and pushers generally do not lack in ingenuity when it comes to concealing the various ramifications of their trade. They are known to resort to the most drastic measures to suppress information about their lucrative trade and will apparently not hesitate to eliminate anyone who might endanger their chances of escaping the long arm of the law. The result is that information about their activities is hard in forthcoming and in the meantime the trafficking in drugs goes on unabated. When then our very national existence is endangered by an evil which is often as elusive as the wind which cannot be gathered in one’s hand, I submit, Sir, we are justified in taking measures which are commensurate with those available to us when the security of the State is at stake. If we fail to do so when it is necessary we might very well before long be fighting for our very existence.

The provisions of clause 13 may be drastic, but I submit, very necessary if we want to eradicate this evil, as we should expeditiously and successfully. The inconvenience of the few is but a small price to pay for the security of our children from an evil which could so tragically, miserably and unnecessarily wreck their lives for ever. I say emphatically. Sir, that everyone disposing of information which could expose the illicit dealing in dependence-producing drugs and which could be of assistance in averting this scourge from our youngsters is in duty bound towards his neighbour and to the community at large to disclose that information. He could escape the provisions of clause 13 by doing just that. If the whole public will rise up in revolt against the destruction of the precious lives of our youth by drug abuse, we will soon be master of this menace.

*Mr. Speaker, fortunately this Bill does not only seek to inflict punishment. As hon. members can see, the major part of the Bill, i.e. from clause 16 to clause 65, is aimed at the rehabilitation of those unfortunate persons who have fallen prey to dependence-pro during drugs or even those who have fallen victim to alcohol.

There may be a few members who may well ask now why we have consolidated into one measure the rehabilitation of alcoholics as well as that of persons who have become dependent on dependence-producing drugs. Of course, alcohol is just another dependence-producing substance, and dependence upon alcohol is not very far removed from dependence upon dependence-producing drugs. Admittedly, dependence upon alcohol does not set in as quickly as is found in the case of dependence-producing drugs, but the fact remains that in both cases we are dealing with a form of dependence which requires rehabilitation measures.

As hon. members have probably noted. Chapters II and III of the Bill are, by and large, a re-enactment of the Retreats and Rehabilitation Centres Act, 1953. Most of you are familiar with the provisions and the application of that Act, and therefore I am not going to dwell on the provisions of the relevant chapters for any length of time.

As far as the envisaged National Advisory Board on Rehabilitation Matters is concerned, I want to content myself with saying that we envisage the constitution of a board of experts from all the disciplines that will be concerned in the rehabilitation of dependents. To the members of the National Alcoholism Advisory Board, which is now going out of existence, I want to express on this occasion my sincere thanks for appreciated services rendered. In fact, that board was instrumental in the appointment of the committee of inquiry, whose work preceded this Bill.

I should like to reassure hon. members that we do not envisage simply lumping together alcoholics and dependents upon dependence-producing drugs in one rehabilitation centre. As you will notice, Sir, clause 22 makes provision for the classification of rehabilitation centres, and we shall avail ourselves of that classification for the purposes of drawing a distinction in the respective centres.

The registration of certain rehabilitation centres and hostels is new, but to my mind it is indispensable if we want to ensure that dependents are properly cared for and treated. Of course, it is not the intention to close down existing institutions in a summary manner, as hon. members may infer from the provisions of clauses 21 (9) and 24 (6).

In this legislation we have tried to get away from the spirit of punishment which the Retreats and Rehabilitation Centres Act, 1963, is still exuding, and have tried to shift the emphasis to the treatment and training of inmates. As we are still dealing in the new set-up with the freedom of the individual, we have granted rather wide powers to the Director of Rehabilitation Services, who is to be appointed, and even to the envisaged National Advisory Board on Rehabilitation Matters and the Minister in order to ensure the discharge of an inmate. I believe and trust that with this new approach we are embarking upon a new era in the rehabilitation of dependents and that the envisaged Act will succeed in removing the stigma which attached to a rehabilitation centre or retreat in the past.

By and large the procedure for the committal of dependents to rehabilitation centres remains unaffected, except that we are now eliminating the grievance which so many dependents expressed in the past, i.e. that their domestic affairs were scrutinized in public, as far as the inquiry was concerned, as provided in clauses 29 and 30. The voluntary admission of dependents to rehabilitation centres or registered rehabilitation centres, is also being facilitated now and, it is hoped, will to a greater extent he regarded in the light of a patient being admitted to an institution.

Furthermore, it is important to point out that from now on it will be possible for inmates of rehabilitation centres and registered rehabilitation centres to expedite their discharge from such centres by cooperating wholeheartedly as far as their treatment is concerned, as they need not necessarily be detained at such a centre for a specific period. In our opinion the Bill affords dependents all the necessary encouragement to surmount their problems and hasten their return to society,

As for the rest, I think that the provisions of Chapter III can be discussed more profitably at the Committee Stage,

Hon. members will also notice that we are retaining the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act as regards the cessation of trials in which dependents upon dependence-producing substances are involved.

Clause 63. in terms of which the Retreats and Rehabilitation Centres Act, 1963, is being repealed, may possibly present hon. members with some problems, as we are retaining the provisions of that Act in so far as they relate to the Coloured people. The reason for that is that the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council has legislative power in regard to community welfare, and prefers to effect by itself the necessary adjustments to Act No. 86 of 1963 in due course, in so far as they relate to the Coloured people.

Mr. Speaker, I have dealt rather exhaustively with those provisions of the Bill which are new and which are of a drastic nature. Through this measure we have, so I believe, proved that the lives of our people and especially the lives of our young people are to us sufficiently important to take strong action and even to tackle what is unpopular though necessary in order to save what would otherwise be lost. We appreciate only too well that legislation alone is not sufficient to avert this onslaught on our national life, and that other means will have to be found for squashing the danger which the abuse of these drugs hold for our people. We believe that public opinion is one of the most effective means which we can employ in this struggle, and we shall definitely do our best to mobilize public opinion against this monster in our midst. Consequently I want to make here an appeal lo our people to do everything in their power to stamp out the abuse of dependence-producing drugs in our country. This can be done if we want to do so and if we want to cast from us the cloak of the permissive society of our time. It is our children who will have to pay the price if we fail them in this task, and it is our duty and our privilege to prove to them that we still care and care so much that, if necessary, we shall not shrink from grappling with this monster with bare hands. For their sake we may not now stand by weak kneed and see how our most precious possessions are before our very eves alienated from us and plunged into the consuming fire and grey abysses of the world of drugs.

Nobody with the well-being of our youth at heart or who has had any experience, however indirect, with those who have become enslaved to drug abuse would for one moment deny the necessity for legislation to deal with this evil particularly in South Africa. Certainly a party with the record of this Opposition in respect of drawing public attention to this evil, through the dedicated work of certain of its members in his House and certain public representatives in other walks of life, will not hesitate for a moment to approve the principle of this Bill at Second Reading. It is something which is particularly appropriate in a country such as South Africa which, I believe, is one of the biggest producers of dagga in the world, but also has the record of being responsible for destroying 90 per cent of that drug that is destroyed by Governments anywhere in the world at the present time.

There are various methods by which this evil can be approached. There is no doubt whatsoever that this Bill provides a new approach to an old problem, which is becoming a new problem because of the permissiveness which exists in the world at the present time. We, on this side of the House, approve the principle and approve wholeheartedly some of the aspects of this Bill and they will get our unqualified support. Some aspects we hope to improve, as we do not regard the machinery as perfect as it might be. There are some proposals we find it difficult to go along with, which we shall condemn in the Committee Stage. From a general point of view, I may say that I had hoped that more use would have been made of some of the findings of the Grobler Commission. I may say that it is also a disappointment that all or more of their recommendations are not being implemented by this legislation.

It is a pity, too, that we have had to reach this debate so hastily after the appearance of the Bill. Flimsies were made available on Sunday, but, of course, there was only a limited number of them. They have not been available to the public and the necessary public debate and comments will not be available to us. The Bill itself has only been available since this morning in its final published form. We are therefore grateful that the hon. the Minister has agreed that this debate be adjourned lo give us an opportunity to study his speech and the final provisions of the Bill. I accordingly move—

That the debate be now adjourned.

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment, standing in my name on the Order Paper.

This clause deals with regulations. The object of my amendment is to make it possible that the Joint Committee which is being established in terms of clause 3, and which is representative of the Administration and the staff associations will be consulted before regulations are proceeded with by the hon. the Minister. The principal Act of 1960 which is being repealed by this Bill does not make provision for the regulations to be promulgated in terms of that Act to receive the consideration of the Joint Committee on Pension Matters. However, there is a difference between Act No. 38 of I960, and the Bill that is now before us in view of the fact that the regulations that are to be provided for in terms of this Bill are far greater in their scope than they were in the previous Act. Consequently, we on this side of the House feel that the hon. the Deputy Minister should accept this amendment, thereby making it possible for this Joint Committee to he consulted before these regulations are finally assented to. This clause merely provides for consultation by the Minister with the Railway Board. The Railway Board consists of people representing the Railways Administration, but this does not mean that the staff as such will have an opportunity of considering the very wide provisions that are provided for in terms of these regulations. My further amendments to other portions of this clause are really consequential and also affect the amendment of the regulations. In each instance it is only the Railway Board that is to be consulted.

Subsection (6) of this clause stipulates that these regulations will not come into effect and have effect until such lime as they have been tabled in the Senate and the House of Assembly. This means that Parliament will have the opportunity of considering these regulations. Although we welcome the opportunity to do so, it does seem strange that although Parliament itself has the opportunity of studying these regulations before they finally come into effect, the actual Joint Committee on Pension Matters, half of whose members represent the start, should not also have the right to do so. In his reply to the Second Reading debate the hon. the Deputy Minister said that in most cases matters affecting the regulations and requests for amendments to regulations come from the Joint Committee and that he therefore does not see any need for the Joint Committee also to be consulted in regard to these regulations before they reach their final form. That may be, but there must be occasions from time to time when the Railway Board itself or the Administration wishes to proceed with some matter which affects the staff considerably in terms of the regulations. We would like to see embodied in this legislation such an amendment, whereby it will be necessary for the Minister not only to consult the Railway Board, but also the Joint Committee on Pension Matters so that the voice of the staff is fully heard and that they will be consulted about regulations which they themselves might not have requested but could have come from the Railway Board or from the Administration. I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will see his way clear to accept this amendment which we believe will not in any way hinder him in bringing forward regulations which will have the consent and approval of both the Administration and the staff.

Mr. Chairman, in pursuance of my Second Reading speech. I should like to tell the hon. member for Umbilo that the procedure followed at present is that all proposals to amend regulations and conditions relating to pension benefits, are dealt with by the Joint Committee on Pension Matters which consists of an equal number of representatives of the staff and management. After the consideration of such proposals, recommendations of the Joint Committee are submitted by the General Manager, together with his comments to the Minister of Transport for his approval. Recommendations are then dealt with by the Minister in consultation with the Railway Board. The Minister, therefore, never consults the Joint Committee directly on pension matters. I can assure the hon. member that it is not the intention to depart from this procedure in future. In the light of this procedure, I am afraid I am not able to accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Umbilo.

Mr. Chairman, a lot has been said … [Interjections.] If those hon. gentlemen would just shut up they might hear something that will be of some benefit to them. In this debate a lot has been said about the production and the sale of meat. In at least one respect, namely that of the export of meat, it seems that there have been a number of misunderstandings. I suggest that there is at least one reason why these misunderstandings have occurred. It is that there has not been sufficient liaison between our effort here and our effort abroad. In the light of this I want to express the satisfaction of this side of the House at the decision to increase the number of agricultural counsellors who are attached to our overseas embassies. Provision is of course being made for this in the Estimate before us. We already have well-established facilities for agricultural liaison at our embassies in Washington, Paris and London. It is common cause that the work which has been done by our counsellors stationed there has been very valuable indeed. If one examines the cost of this work it is comparatively modest, and I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether the time is not perhaps overdue for a reassessment of our needs in the field of international contact and agricultural intelligence with a view to expanding this work as much as possible. I suggest that such a reassessment and the expansion of our agricultural services abroad have become essential.

Firstly I should like to ask the Committee to examine what has already been done in this field. In all but the three diplomatic missions where we have representation by agricultural counsellors, a limited amount of agricultural intelligence is gathered and processed for transmission to the department here. The handling of this is normally done by comparatively junior people, or perhaps semi-senior staff. The very specialized nature of this work precludes most of them from tackling it in more than a superficial way. Then we have the direct contact which does occur between our national agricultural organizations and their counterparts in other countries. This contact also provides us with very valuable information in many instances, but it can never replace or compare with on-the-spot-work and the study of the local situation by trained, full-time experts. Finally, we have our three agricultural counsellors in Washington, London and Paris, as I have already said. I see that provision is made for another agricultural counsellor to be appointed in the future. I believe that the appointment is to be made in Argentina. That will be a most valuable contribution to our overseas efforts.

If one simply examines the type of work which is being done by our counsellor in Washington in one single year—I refer here to 1968-’69—it will be seen that among other things, he did the following: he paid 35 visits to research centres, universities and experimental stations in the United States; he attended no fewer than 21 conferences, meetings and symposia; he reported upon 71 agricultural investigations; he forwarded 60 reports and news letters to the department in South Africa and he gave assistance to 26 South African visitors to the United States who were obviously interested in agriculture and agricultural technical services. Furthermore, he assisted 23 South African students who were attending agricultural courses in the United States, and he provided assistance in various forms to five Americans who were about to visit the Republic. He also sent 71 samples of seed and plant material from America to the Republic, Now, Sir, all of this amounts to a formidable amount of work. The primary duties of an agricultural counsellor, for instance in the case of the man in Washington—it also applies to the other counsellors—is to furnish the department here with all information about agricultural developments in the areas for which he is responsible, and to act as liaison officer between the agricultural organizations of the land in which he is serving and the department in South Africa.

Briefly, the task of scrutinizing agricultural developments in foreign countries can be broken down into several categories. In the first place, there is the task of keeping abreast of local development in farming techniques and marketing. Secondly, there is the studying of scientific developments in agriculture, which in itself embraces a fairly immense field. In the third place, there is the question of feeding back to the department important intelligence on agricultural economics, particularly as it might affect the Republic in the international scene. All three of these facts of his work are highly important, but I should like to dwell on the third of these, and ask the Committee to consider it. There is, for instance, a strong feeling among some who have studied the international wool situation that more could have been done at an earlier stage to analyse what the trends have been in production and sales, and that timeous warning of these trends and their likely consequences might well have benefited the South African wool producers, who find themselves today in a very hostile atmosphere.

I want to go further than that. Until now, we have had representation, as I have said, in Washington, where our agricultural counsellor, has primarily been responsible for covering the United States; in Paris, where our counsellor has been responsible for covering agricultural intelligence in France, Italy, West Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxemburg, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, Austria and Greece; and in London, where our man is responsible for the United Kingdom, Ireland and the Scandinavian countries, I assume that, when we appoint a counsellor in Argentina, his work will not be confined to that country alone but it will also be extended to other countries. I want to suggest that, particularly in the case of our counsellors in Washington and Paris, we have not been ambitious enough in our efforts, and we have tended to impose far too much responsibility on these single men. Taking America, the tremendous amount of research being done into agriculture, the variety of climates that obtain there and the constantly improving fanning techniques that we see being evolved cannot possibly be covered by a single representative of this department. Here we should surely be concentrating far more effort than we are doing. Likewise, the radical changes that have been brought about in the Common Market countries in agriculture are highly important to us in many ways. [Time expired.]

Before I call upon the next member, I have to point out that while I was making the necessary entry in the Chairman’s notebook, the hon. member for Kensington used the phrase “shut up”. “Shut up” is unparliamentary and must be withdrawn.

I withdraw, Sir.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Kensington made a very important and positive contribution to the debate. I know that the Deputy Minister of Agriculture will react to that. He will therefore not take it amiss of me if I immediately make use of the ten minutes at my disposal to bring another branch of the agricultural industry to the Minister’s attention, i.e. that of tobacco farming.

The parliamentary tobacco group of this party, a group of which I am the chairman and which is represented by various constituencies in which tobacco is produced— for example Brits, Rustenburg, Marico, Waterberg, Potgietersrus, Nelspruit, Wakkerstroom, Parys, Oudtshoorn, Uniondale, Malmesbury, Paarl and Stellenbosch—convened and gave serious attention to the problems of the tobacco industry. I am very glad to be able to say that the hon. Minister gave our representations a very sympathetic hearing. The tobacco farmers are faced with many problems, one of the most important of which is increasing production costs.

Hear, hear!

Mr. Chairman, there are people who hear, but do not understand. Another problem concerns whether conditions, over which the farmers have no control. Then there is still the farmer's concern about the export market as a result of the competition they encounter there. And there are also other problems. As I have said, the farmers are having a difficult time of it, and that is why our tobacco group convened to bring the matter to the serious attention of the Minister. We asked the Government to have a realistic policy for the tobacco industry, as has indeed been the case over the years.

In the first place we ask for an economic price for the tobacco leaf; we are asking for a higher tobacco price this year. I shall come back to this at a later stage. Secondly, the tobacco industry is asking for a judicious excise duty. We are afraid that this tax is eventually going to reach saturation point, and that this could help to curb the growth of the tobacco industry. Furthermore we ask for the protection of the local market. We feel that a large sector of this market, about 10 per cent of it, is already taken up by tobacco that is imported from other states. Then we also ask for the development and consolidation of the export market. And we ask for proper attention to be given to the fact that the farmers must not suffer too many export losses. We also ask the Minister to give particular attention to the consequences for the tobacco farmer of Britain’s possible entry into the European Common Market, because we think that as a result the tobacco farmer could lose 70 per cent of his market. Lastly we ask the Government to continue to keep a weather eye open as far as research for the benefit of the tobacco industry is concerned,

I have briefly presented the House with the requirements which, in our opinion, are necessary to place the tobacco industry on a sound footing. We feel a little uneasy about the tobacco industry in general. We see in a local magazine circulating in Rustenburg, Die Magaliesberger. that farmers are supposedly up in revolt against co-operative societies. But I cannot believe that the farmers would revolt against their own service organization. I know the tobacco farmers, they would never revolt against the service organization that they themselves created in the tobacco farmer’s hour of need. In fact, the rise of the tobacco farmer is inextricably bound up with the rise of the co-operative movement in South Africa. What the tobacco farmer does individually on his farm, he also does collectively in his service organization. These organizations have done tremendous and wonderful work with a view to placing the tobacco industry on a sound footing. I cannot, therefore, believe that there is a spirit among the tobacco farmers that is reflected in revolt against their co-operative societies; I simply cannot believe that. The tobacco farmers are friendly farmers; they are loyal people, in evidence of which they have been sending me to Parliament for 28 years in a very loyal way. The tobacco farmers have sacrificed a great deal for the industry. Not only have they extended their service organizations in a co-operative spirit, but they have also devoted themselves to furnishing a good quality tobacco leaf, a tobacco leaf with the smallest nicotine content in the world. In fact, I am convinced that it will not be long before we shall manufacture a typically South African cigarette that will be altogether safe. [Interjections.] When that day comes, I hope that those hon. members, who are now interrupting me, will join Charles Lamb in saying: “For thy sake, tobacco. I will do anything but die.” I hope that that will be the spirit.

But the tobacco farmer not only devoted himself to high quality; he also ensured quantity: quantity with quality. There was a time when we devoted ourselves to the production of a tobacco leaf for which there was no actual demand abroad. For blending purposes we had to import tobacco from Rhodesia-Then the manufacturers came along and appealed to the farmers to change over from the old type of tobacco to the new type, the so-called Orinoco type It is this change-over that largely contributed to the development of a wonderful export market. There was a time when the farmer was virtually doomed to extinction, when chronic surplusses relentlessly stared him in the face. That is when, with great financial sacrifice, he changed over to the correct type so that today we, as patriotic tobacco farmers, can also earn foreign exchange in overseas countries, thereby making a contribution to our balance of payments.

The farmers have consequently done a great deal towards placing the industry in a sound footing. Just think of the climatological set-backs they were faced with. Think of the excessive rains this year and then again of the lengthy droughts of a while ago, when dams were empty. Think of the biting cold and then again of the searing heat. In addition, think of the destructive hailstorms, and hon. members will see that we are dealing with a tremendous risk factor. But despite this the farmers did not panic, they pushed their hands deep into their pockets and came along with an insurance scheme for the elimination of that risk factor.

Curly leaf.

The hon. the Deputy Minister refers to curly leaf. This indicates that the hon. the Deputy Minister is sympathetic towards the tobacco farmer. He is indeed a smoker, a powerful smoker. I saw, when he was dealing with the locust plague, how the smoke of a typically South African cigarette had a calming and sympathetic effect on his feelings. That is why he does not only think of locusts, but also of the curly leaf that played havoc with tobacco production this year, and totally destroyed a large proportion of the crop. It is in this spirit that the tobacco group convened, and it is in this spirit that we approach the Government, not to reproach the Government but in a sense to pay tribute to the Government. This is a spirit that was reflected at the meeting that a few of our members of the House of Assembly held. I want to summarize this here.

As far as marketing is concerned, the tobacco farmer was consistently taken care of, and it can be stated with pride that submissions for price adjustments have always been accepted by the Government. The industry has always made requests for price increases with a great sense of responsibility, and appreciates the Governments’ sympathetic approach. Everything the tobacco farmer has asked for in the line of price increases, through the marketing council and the tobacco control board, the Government has accepted. It is a sympathetic Government that takes such action.

What of the insurance scheme?

The farmers surely do this insurance themselves; the Government surely does not do it. In spite of price adjustments during the past 15 years, in which last year’s adjustment (1970) was a particularly valuable one, averaging 3 cents per pound for oven dried, 2½ cents for light air dried and burley, and I cent for pipe and snuff, production problems resulted in the fact that the producer’s average yield did not benefit much by it. I want to tell the Minister that the producer’s problem here was that, on the average, he could not furnish the good quality and grade distribution in order to get the necessary benefit from the price increase. However, we appreciate it and just want to ask the hon. the Minister to be sympathetically disposed this year and to grant higher prices. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Brits delivered a plea here for the tobacco farmers. I want to congratulate him on that plea and tell him that this side of the House identifies itself with it. We hope the Minister will be sympathetically disposed towards it.

Sir, I also want to thank the Minister here today and express my appreciation to him for approaching the problem of the Berlin farmers so sympathetically and for the fact that he is going to raise that problem with the Meat Board.

Sir, I now have to do something which is not quite as pleasant, and that is to respond to the attack made upon me by the Minister the other day, when he saw fit to attack me for having said at Fraserburg that this Government cost the farmers of South Africa R25 million as a result of the fact that a meat contract with France and the European Common Market had been lost. Sir, I want to say that I was wrong at Fraserburg. I was wrong in saying that it had cost the farmers R25 million; it did not cost the farmers R25 million; it cost them R27 million. Sir, I did not invent this figure myself. I have a report in front of me here from Die Burger of 9th January, 1971, which reads as follows (translation)—

Then the report goes on to say that the European Common Market needs 2½ million carcasses a year at an average price of 40 cents. The Minister then went further and said that I should not spread this story in the rural areas. Sir, I did not spread the story in the rural areas only; I related it here in this House during the Budget debate, as you will see in Hansard, column 4568. While I was raising the matter here, the Deputy Minister sat motionless. After I had raised the matter the hon. the Minister responded to it and told us: “But where are the abattoirs to come from?" He then went on: “Where are the 5 million lambs to come from?” I replied to him on that and I shall return to it again. The Deputy Minister then came along here with a new story. He told us that it was impossible ever to export meat to France, and he referred to a circular of the South African Agricultural Union in which it is said that ‘‘mutton exports are nonsensical talk”. He told us here that, because we had bluetongue in South Africa, we would never be able to export mutton.

Live sheep.

Sir, we do not want to export live sheep. We want to export carcasses. We do not want to export sheep that died of bluetongue either. After all, we do have veterinary surgeons in South Africa. This is not an insurmountable problem, but the Deputy Minister comes along here with the story that we lost the contract as a result of bluetongue and that we cannot export live sheep. The Deputy Minister then put forward another argument and said that a duty of 20 per cent was payable and that this could amount to as much as 17,5 cents a pound. Sir, there must be something wrong with the hon. the Deputy Minister’s arithmetic, because 20 per cent on 40 cents is only about 7 cents and the freight is 5 cents, which adds up to a total of 11 cents. Then you can still get 29 cents a pound, and the average price in South Africa last year was only round about 23 cents. But now the hon. the Minister comes along here with such stories as these. Sir, even if this were the case, if France and the European Common Market need this meat, and if we have the meat to export, then surely there can be negotiations. That import levy is only there to protect their own farmers, but if there is a shortage of meat, then those farmers do not need protection, and then, surely, negotiations can be opened. But this Government has done absolutely nothing about it. This only goes to show how much they care about the farmer of South Africa.

I now come to the Minister’s question, “Where are the abattoirs to come from?” But, Sir, he must see to it that the abattoirs are there. His Hansard bristles with references to the shortage of abattoirs in South Africa. He tells us that it is a long-term problem and that he cannot persuade the municipalities to erect abattoirs. But, Sir, he is the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing; he has to take care of marketing. He has been Minister for the past 11 or 12 years. I do not know for how long, but I know that he has been Minister 12 years too long. Then the hon. the Minister comes along with the argument: “Where are the 5 million sheep to come from?” Sir, it is not 5 million; it is only 2½ million. Sir, this shows how out of touch this Government is with the country. Let the hon. the Minister go to the Karoo today. Those people are losing R53 million at this moment as far as their wool prices are concerned, and they are left with sheep they cannot market. Sir, can you imagine a position in South Africa where the farmer loses 25 per cent of his income from wool, and then does not market his sheep because there are no abattoir facilities; he cannot obtain a permit? There is a demand here in South Africa and there is the possibility of an export market, but nothing is being done in this regard. The Minister tells us that we do not have abattoirs in the country. But, Sir, he should have seen to that.

We have 35 million sheep in the country. We market only 8 million lambs a year. That is to say, we market 23 per cent of a season’s lambs. If your land can carry 35 million sheep, you can market 20 million or 35 million lambs a year. But, because the Minister has not done his duty, he now comes along and asks me where the lambs are to come from. Sir, does the Minister not know the position in which the wool farmer of South Africa finds himself? One would have thought that they would have conducted a survey to find out what future the wool industry has and that they would have taken the lead and said: ‘‘Look, if we cannot produce wool, we must produce mutton and we must create markets.” But the Minister comes along with these nonsensical arguments that we lost the meat contract as a result of bluetongue, and that an import levy of 20 per cent is payable, and that type of nonsense.

You want the wethers to lamb as well.

If you market your lambs, you will not keep wethers. That hon. member is a miner; what does he know about sheep farming? Sir, the hon. the Minister spoke about the meat scheme here. Hansard bristles with faults which he himself finds in that meat scheme. He says his department can work out a much cheaper and better scheme. He has all the officials at his disposal; he has computers at his disposal; and he himself says that he can work out a much better and more flexible scheme. But he says the South African Agricultural Union and the Meat Board want this scheme, and therefore he is not prepared to do anything. Sir, the hon. the Minister is the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, after all. If he wants to have nothing to do with marketing, what is his job then? Forty thousand sheep go to Johannesburg every week. We have to load them on a Wednesday. On a Monday morning 40 000 sheep arrive and then they must stand over until such time as they are slaughtered one day. There is no permit system here. For every day that a sheep stands over, it loses 1,5 per cent of its weight. If the average sheep weighs 40 lbs. and if 6 million sheep are slaughtered on the controlled market, then, if every sheep loses only 3 lbs. in weight, i.e. if it has to stand over there for five or seven days, the consumer and the farmer of South Africa lose 18 million pounds in weight each year as a result of the negligence of this Minister. The farmer of South Africa loses R3,7 million a year. And then the hon. the Minister comes along and tells us that he can work out a better scheme, but does not want to, because the Meat Board is opposed to it.

Are you against the South African Agricultural Union?

We bad the same position in regard to the financing of farmers. We tell file hon. the Minister what the problems are and we plead with him. We tell the hon. the Minister that the farmers owe R1 340 million, but then the Minister comes along here and tells us of beach cottages and of Cadillacs that the farmers are driving, and all that type of nonsense. We cannot get the hon. the Minister to realize the seriousness of the matter, because 18 per cent of the farmers of South Africa owe nothing, and why cannot they have beach cottages? [Time expired.]

I think that if I were in the Opposition I would by this time have stopped criticizing agriculture. A large sector of the South African electorate are farmers, and for the past 23 years, in one election after another, the electorate, of which a large section are farmers, as I have said, have not been sending them as a Government to Parliament. I already want to tell the hon. Opposition, even at this stage, that one of these days there is to be a by-election in Waterberg, which is a purely farming constituency, and I can tell them, even at this stage, that our majority in Waterberg is going to be drastically increased. [Interjections] This is partly as a result of this Government's good agricultural policy and also as a result of the good way in which our two competent Ministers have handled agricultural matters in South Africa.

In the agricultural debate here in the past few days there have been discussions about various farming products, such as tobacco and wine. My good colleague, the hon. member for Malmesbury, sang the praises of wine here, and he said, inter alia, that the wine farmers say that if there is to be a choice between women and wine, they would choose the wine, “time and again”. I want to say that our fanners, on whose behalf I am chiefly going to speak today, the fresh milk farmers, the Frisian cattle farmers, say differently. We say that as far as we are concerned the two loveliest things in the world are beautiful women and beautiful, shiny, fat black and white Frisian cattle.

I shall now come back to the hon. the Deputy Minister, and I want to tell him that today I want to convey my constituency’s thanks to him. I have chiefly two categories of farmers in my constituency. The first are the maize farmers. This year our maize farmers were particularly blessed as far as the elements of nature are concerned, and as a result of that my constituency will furnish a record maize crop this year. The Government and the Deputy Minister have increased the maize price considerably. That, together with the favourable conditions of nature, will con tribute towards my maize farmers being exceptionally prosperous this year.

The second group of farmers in my constituency are the fresh milk producers, and in this respect my speech this afternoon is considerably more pleasant than my speech last year in the same debate. We can refer back to column 2839 of last year’s Hansard and you will find that in that debate I lodged a plea with the hon. the Minister to give consideration to the establishment of milk quota systems for fresh milk producers on the Witwatersrand. Today I want to thank the hon. the Minister very much for the fact that he and his department did do so. Together with the recently increased milk price of 3 cents per gallon, this largely contributed towards placing fresh milk production on as sound a footing, as ever before. This now brings me to the criticism which the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District expressed last week in respect of the fresh milk industry. He said, inter alia, that the 3 cent increase in the milk price would not contribute towards improving the milk farmer’s position, because meal was to be increased by 20 cents per bag. It is a pity that the hon. member is not present, but I hope that he will go and read my speech, because this afternoon I want to teach him a lesson.

My knowledge of the economy and practice in the fresh milk industry teach me that when milk production meal is increased by 20 cents per bag, it increases one’s production costs for fresh milk by ½ cent per gallon. It costs 27½ cents to produce a gallon of fresh milk. With another ½ cent it now costs 28 cents. The average Frisian cow produces 3 gallons of milk per day. A 3 cent increase on 3 gallons of milk per day is 9 cents more which the farmer obtains on what one cow produces. The increased meal price of ½ cent per gallon now gives one 1 ½ cents on a cow producing 3 gallons, i.e. it leaves a net profit on the fresh milk production, after the increase of the milk price and the increase in the meal price, of cents more for the farmer per day on a cow producing 3 gallons. Therefore, where the profit on a cow producing 3 gallons was 15 cents before the increase in the meal and milk prices, it is now 22½ cents. This means in practice that the average milk farmer, who milks 100 cows, will show a profit of about R675, while before the increase in the milk and meal prices it would have been R450 per month for 100 cows. This consequently shows that the 3 cent increase on a gallon of milk is a good improvement for the farmer.

I come back to the quota system which the hon. the Minister and his department introduced. The quota system, for which we are grateful, is based on the production of a farmer's fresh milk from 1st March to 30th September, with a 15 per cent tolerance for the surplus in the super-months from October to February. This method promotes a constant production of fresh milk throughout the year. This is something we did not have previously. Advertising efforts on the part of the Milk Board contributed to the consumption of fresh milk on the Witwatersrand alone increasing by 11 per cent. For the sake of interest I may just mention that the production on the Witwatersrand today is about 800 000 litres per day; in Pretoria and environs it is 185 000 litres per day; in Bloemfontein it is 55 000 litres per day; in the Cape Peninsula it is 380 000 litres per day and in the Western Transvaal control area it is 48 000 litres per day. This shows us that the fresh milk production in South Africa has developed into a gigantic farming industry; so much so that if this is calculated on a financial basis, the control area of the Witwatersrand alone earns for the farmer a fine annual amount of R23 million by way of fresh milk production. In the Witwatersrand, Pretoria, Cape Town, Bloemfontein and Western Transvaal control areas the farmer’s income from fresh milk is R45 million a year.

What are the farmer’s costs?

I shall give the hon. member an answer in a moment. For the entire Republic the farmers’ income from fresh milk is R83 million per year. I should now like to reply to that hon. member. A practical, accurate analysis by some of the best milk farmers in my constituency has shown that it costs from 27½ to 28 cents to produce a gallon of milk. The price is now 35½ cents. Farmers having bulk containers, in other words, bulk tanks, receive 36 cents per gallon. The hon. member can therefore see that it is a very good and constant profit for which our milk farmers are farming today.

I think that if there is any single group of farmers worthy of the appreciation of this House and the public at large, it is our fresh milk producers in the Republic of South Africa. These people not only provide us with a necessary food, but in the process of doing so they are people who work seven days a week and 12 months of the year. They work day and night. Winter or summer, hot or cold, they stand with their shoulder to the wheel to provide our people in the Republic with fresh milk, which is so necessary. I therefore want to conclude by saying thank you very much to the hon. the Minister and his department for what they have done recently for the fresh milk farmers of the Republic of South Africa. We appreciate this most sincerely.

Mr. Chairman, in terms of resolution adopted by the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders on the 13th June, 1967, I have to announce that the Deputy Minister of Agriculture is taking charge of the Agriculture Votes under consideration for the remainder of today’s sitting.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to follow up on what the hon. member for Heidelberg said, because he thanked the hon. the Minister for what he did for the milk farmers. I rather want to criticize the Minister for what he did not do for the meat farmers.

Agricultural leaders have recently got into the habit of criticizing meat farmers, particularly at agricultural shows, on farmers’ days and in the various discussion groups among farmers. On such occasions we hear that the farmers ought to apply soil conservation practices, that they should stop pitting the soil and that they should farm in a manner that befits the farmer. We hear criticism from them to the effect that the farmers must carry out the recommendations of the department, but the recommendations are, at times, so contradictory that the poor farmer does not know what to do. Very recently it was the fashion for farmers to sell their sheep in the sheep-grazing regions and keep cattle in order to restore the grasslands. Then we heard that the farmers should employ lighter grazing and construct more camps so that the grasslands and the grazing could be restored. Then rotative systems of grazing were the fashion, and various other systems were also recommended, for example the one flock-two camp systems, the one flock-three camp system, five-camp systems and even a one flock-eighteen camp system, which farmers were to apply in certain areas. We read very frequently in the agricultural Press, and this was approved by the Department, that non-selective grazing systems should be applied, where heavy grazing was applied in certain camps on a short-term basis. Now it is recommended that the livestock be reduced, this being ostensibly the big solution to all the farmer’s grazing problems. In Australia one sees that this very method alone is employed, and that they pay scant attention to the numerous grazing systems recommended among farmers here in South Africa. There are good reasons why those systems are thus recommended. It was found that in the dormant period in winter the reserve elements in the plant roots are increased. If the grazing is then cropped short, those reserve elements in the roots are destroyed and frequently the grass and the plants die. In order to maintain and rehabilitate that veld, the present philosophy is that grazing should be as light as possible and that during the growth period the sheep should be spread over the entire farm and all available veld. This now comes back to the natural system which the farmers applied in the past in any case, i.e. the system of continual grazing which the Department specifically hit out against so strongly in the past.

The farmers find these recommendations confusing because they are so contradictory. What the farmers need today is purposeful guidance from the Department. They want the extension officers and experimental farms to concur as far as recommendations are concerned. We constantly hear from agricultural leaders that farmers are 20 years behind research, but I should like to say that in South Africa today the farmers are close on the heels of researchers. The farmers want to know what they must do after they have reduced their livestock according to this livestock reduction scheme. They want to know how they must promote the restoration of their grazing. They also want to know how they must resow that grazing and what vegetation must be planted. We are, in truth, aware of the fact that a few researchers here and there have done research in connection with the re-establishment of better perennial types of grass, for example Themeda iriandra and blue buffalo grass. But the farmers would like to know how nature’s slow restoration process can be aided. They want to know what fertilization they must apply to improve their production from veld grazing, and they want to know where they can obtain seed sources in veld where these have vanished as a result of years of overgrazing. They want to know how to promote and plant the Kochias imported from Australia.

What we need in our research is for our experimental farms to send teams of researchers into the veld to investigate these problems, and not solitary individuals. In practice we find that individuals are frequently transferred. With the transfer of such an official the research projects, along those specific lines, peters out. I know of numerous research projects that have been stopped half-way without any results having been obtained. I know of research projects that were planned for five-year periods, but which were stopped after two or three years because that individual researcher was transferred. We need soil experts. We need botanists, ecologists, grazing researchers and stockbreeding experts in many of these grazing projects. We would like to see the Government deciding upon the necessary priorities in their research and then appointing teams to investigate those problems.

We see how, up to June 1970, there were only 2 511 participants in the veld reclamation scheme. We see that only I 178 farmers wrote in for the livestock withdrawal scheme up to and including 30th June, 1970, and that on 30th June, 1971 there will be only 589 farmers. We hear the accuzation that farmers are slow to take part in these schemes, but the reason is that farmers cannot afford to take part. They are fighting with their backs to the wall. They have tremendous agricultural debts. We hear that, all in all, farmers have R 1 300 million in agricultural debt.

No, according to the Minister a large portion of that is on beach cottages and motor boats.

In the past those farmers could farm economically: they could keep their heads above water. But since this Government came into power those same farms have become uneconomical as a result of the economic conditions created. There are hundreds of farmers who have had to seek work and make a living elsewhere. In the Northern Cape the farmers are working in the asbestos and diamond mines just to keep their heads above water. The farmers would like to know how to make a living. Those are the recommendations they would like from this hon. Minister. We see how production costs are still increasing, but during the past 15 years the mutton prices have remained the same, I began farming 15 years ago. Then we received 20 cents to 25 cents per pound for mutton, and we still receive that today. In sheer desperation the farmers have gradually found their own solutions. In their desperation they have pushed up their production, even against the recommendations of the Department of Agriculture. In the past the Department of Agriculture recommended that the sheep farmers should have a lambing season once a year, and that all the sheep should have their Iambs simultaneously so that farm management could be facilitated. In desperation the farmers eventually resorted to two lambing seasons per year. They increased their percentage of lambs and selected the fast-growing lambs. In so doing they kept their heads above water.

As a result of this increase in production the farmers found themselves, at the same time, without the necessary markets for their production. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, as far as research, and the other matters to which the hon. member referred, are concerned, I have no axe to grind with him. But with respect to the many questions he asked which the farmers would like replies to, I just want to tell him that, as a farmer in this House, he is not speaking straight from the heart, because we farmers are not really so stupid that we do not know most of the answers to those questions. However, I am not going to follow up on what he said any further.

When I took part in this debate last year I spoke about financial planning. The Minister then said that this was the gist of our problem. When one were now to look at and analyse the debt relationship of farmers a little more closely, one would soon discover that the uneconomic land prices arc, in fact, substantially involved. It is not only the big degree of capital that demands uneconomic land prices, it is also the cut-throat interest which goes hand in glove with that, and which aggravates the position to a certain extent. The uneconomic land prices also make it altogether impossible for a young farmer, who does not inherit a farm, to begin farming. If it was a business set-up one could perhaps rent a place for R50 and make a start, but in agriculture this is not possible.

Now I wonder whether we can do something about these uneconomic land prices. It is generally accepted that we cannot do anything about that, but I do think that substantially we can do something about the matter. If there is one body in the country that can properly determine the economic value of land, as a result of its economic and financial ties for many years with agriculture, then it is the Land Bank. If we examine the Land Bank’s financial statements and see its infrequent losses, we can conclude that these people are, in fact, very realistic in their approach to land and in the determination of mortgage bonds on land. When the Land Bank makes its valuations, this is kept secret. We conceal the fact, keeping it under our hats, as it were, so that no-one shall know about it. Even the hon. members of the House of Assembly, who to a certain extent must vote for the maintenance of the Land Bank by means of funds, do not have the data at their disposal. The reason for that is that we would place the Land Bank evaluators in an unfavourable light in the area where they live. Another reason is that people can differ about the valuation. Then they could begin arguing about it, and eventually they become dissatisfied. If, for example, we have the valuation of the farm Appelfontein in district X, what determines that it is worth R70, and if this were to be made public we would immediately compel other farms in the vicinity to adopt themselves to that. Those that are better, would receive a higher valuation, and those that are poorer, a lower one. Then the general economic value of the farms in that district would very soon become known. I want to advocate here today that we should no longer conceal our Land Bank valuations, as in the past, but that we should make them known. People will differ about that, but it is not at all necessary to embarrass our valuators, because we can proceed from the standpoint that we are requesting certain information from them. They can give it to us, but the determination of the price would, after all, remain the responsibility of the Land Bank. I should like to advocate that such a system be developed in full, and that a man who wants to buy a farm—and here I am thinking particularly of young farmers who want to make a start—should also be able, at a certain fee, to obtain a Land Bank valuation for the farm he wants to buy. If the Land Bank tells him that the farm is worth R100, he must not go and pay R200 or R150 for the farm, and then come along and say, at a later stage, that he has got himself into trouble. If we make that data available to agriculture, the Land Bank would surely, with all its experience, be able to give guidance in that sphere. The Land Bank could then set an example worth following, and hon. members will agree with me that this would prevent many disasters in agriculture. If a man has the valuation of that land, and he still does not want to pay any heed, it is lime he bought himself a mirror and had a look in it. Then he would see a man who is going to have a very difficult time of it, if he does not want to listen to what the Land Bank tells him. So much for the valuation of the Land Bank.

We also keep the valuations of the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure secret. Frequently when an Agricultural Credit loan is rejected, because the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure’s valuation does not accord with what the individual asks for, one is actually in a quandry about how to handle those people. I think, surely, that our farmers are no longer children in that they cannot understand when a person says: “Look here, Jack, you are paying too much for the land—what you are giving there is an impossible sum. If you are going to pay that, you will never make ends meet. You will get into trouble later on.” I want to advocate that we should no longer lock away the good aspects inherent in the experience of those two bodies, which could give so much guidance here, and that we should make the facts known-Thereby we would very soon have, throughout the entire country, an economic pattern of agricultural land prices, which could only be of benefit to our agriculture and to our farmers.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just sat down, was dealing with a matter which comes down basically to a question of willing buyer and willing seller. I am quite sure that the hon. the Deputy Minister, when he answers the debate, will simply have to come back to that standpoint. The fact that the Land Bank and the Department of Agricultural Credit make certain valuations of land does not mater at all when a man is prepared to pay. Today it is a fact that there are many people coming into agriculture, people who have retired, who have been successful in business, who are prepared to buy land as an investment and who are prepared to sink immense amounts of money in agriculture, buildings, stock and that kind of thing as an investment for their children. There are many people who have bought land, particularly in the Midlands of Natal, who will never receive back in their lifetime the capital investment that they have made.

But that is wrong!

No, I do not agree that it is wrong. These people have created units which will be efficiently and economically productive, where a person buying land on a shoestring can never manage to produce either to the same extent or with the same efficiency. I am quite certain the hon. the Deputy Minister agrees with me that this is a matter of willing buyer and willing seller. If you have a farm that you offer for sale, you put a price on it which you believe it is worth. If somebody thinks it is worth that price, he will buy it. There is no other system on which land can change hands in this country, without a total economic control and price control over every single article in South Africa.

The hon. member for Heidelberg spoke about the milk situation. I am afraid that the experience of my people in the Fresh Milk Producers’ Union in Natal does not agree with the hon. member’s view. He is satisfied that the 3 cents a gallon is enough. He says that people are making not a substantial profit but a fair profit on the capital invested, the turnover and this kind of thing in their enterprises. But the milk farmers in Natal are still not satisfied, nor are the distributors satisfied with the price which has been accorded them by the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question? Is the hon. member in favour of the consumer’s having to pay even more for milk than he has to pay now?

It comes back to the old question: What is the Government prepared to do in relation to the farmer?

No, answer the question.

I am coming to it. In countries overseas, particularly in Great Britain, the milk farmer is subsidized to a tremendous extent in order to be able to produce the milk and feed the population. The price is subsidized to the consumer.

Does the consumer have to pay more here?

I have said that in countries overseas the price to the consumer is subsidized in order to bring it down. If people are seriously concerned about the economics of the milk farmer then we have got to base our actions on the facts as they are. The study groups which operate throughout the length and breadth of Natal feed the economic facts and figures to the Fresh Milk Producers’ Union. What they say is that at today's prices they are barely coming out on their investment.

Was it on economic facts that the United Party reduced the price of milk in 1948 by twopence per gallon?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister is sporting with this House; he does not have the remotest idea what he is talking about. All he does the whole day is to sit there in his seat and make inane interjections whilst he knows nothing about the subject.

What is inane about it? They did reduce it, didn’t they?

One would deduce from what he says that this Government has never since 1948 reduced the price of milk, and that is nonsense.

But I should like to return to a point I was making to the hon. the Minister on a previous occasion in connection with compensation being paid for T.B.-tested cattle. We are here concerned with something which is of tremendous importance to the health of the people. The trouble, however, is that when a herd is T.B.-tested and there are reactors, the herd has to be destroyed. The Mooi River Farmers’ Association, one of the largest and most efficient farmers’ associations in the country, asks that the amount of compensation being paid for dairy cattle that have to be destroyed be increased. It is nothing today to pay R200, and even more, for a good high-producing Friesland dairy cow. And yet today we are being limited to a maximum compensation of 60 per cent of R150. My information is that this is the limit to which the department will go in paying compensation. It can therefore be understood that people who stand to lose seven or ten cows out of their herd …

Compensation has already been raised from R90 to R120 from last month.

I am very pleased to hear that. However, we have to judge this matter in the light of the cost of dairy cows. The Deputy Minister will agree that the cost of good dairy cows is going higher and higher. If the department is going to encourage T.B. testing then it shall in all probability have to increase the amount of compensation even more. As I have said, this is something of vital importance to the health of our people.

I now want to return once more to the question of soil conservation and the problem we have in Natal with Black spots— Bantu-owned farms in the middle of White areas. I want to say that the cause of soil conservation in South Africa has suffered a tremendous set-back as a result of the failure of the Government. I am at a loss which department is to blame—whether it is the hon. the Minister's department or that of the Minister of Bantu Administration. In any event, nothing is being done today to control soil erosion in those Black spots. Some years ago the situation got so had that at the instance of five district committees, soil conservation district committees in my area, I made an approach to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and offered him the assistance of those five district committees in the Ixopo area in an attempt to oversee soil conservation, restocking and that type of thing in those Bantu-owned areas.

Is the position better now?

No. In fact, nothing has been done. The Deputy Minister was Mr. Vosloo at the time. He is now Administrator of the Cape Province. As a result, who knows anything about it? Who said anything about it? Who has done anything about it? I say it once more that in my area there are people who are dedicated to soil conservation, people who live soil conservation; they are conserving their farms to the last detail but with every single rainfall or flood you see the soil of South Africa being washed off land which is ultimately going to come back to the hands of White farmers, because these Black spots are due to be cleared up. The Government bought a farm ten years ago, a farm to which they were going to move the Bantu occupiers of this land so that it could come back to the White farmers. However, for ten years nothing has been done and in the meantime the soil of South Africa is going down the drain every time it rains. I fail to understand why this department cannot put its hand or those areas. This is land in the middle of White farming areas, and everybody knows it is going to revert to White hands at some time or other. So why do we pass the buck and not take the action that is necessary? Here I have a picture illustrating how silt and erosion are strangling the Tugela Basin. In two rains the head waters of the Spioenkop Dam, the basis of the whole development of the Tugela Basin, collected a deposit of some seven foot of silt. It formed a causeway which ran across the Tugela River. I cannot therefore believe that we can go on the way we are by ignoring this problem. I want to ask the hon. the Minister that we should put our hands out to these areas and at least take action in these areas which are destined to come back to the hands of White farmers.

It happens now and then that I have to speak after the hon. member for Mooi River in debates. Today I have no major point of difference with him, except to say that in this case he should discuss his representations about soil conservation with the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration. Here he is dealing with the wrong Department.

As far as agriculture in South Africa is concerned, there is one fact that we must face up to, i.e. that South Africa is not preeminently an agricultural country. As a result of technological development and our increased productivity per unit, we have the Present problem of being saddled with surpluses in our country. In view of the circumstances in South Africa, I think that it is necessary for us to continue stimulating research in connection with increased productivity. If we look at the total surface area of our country, we find that here we have 8,4 morgen per head, by comparison with 6,8 in the rest of the world. Only one morgen of this 8,4 is cultivable in comparison with 1,9 in the rest of the world. We are already cultivating 0,7 morgen per head, while only 0,4 morgen per head is being cultivated in the rest of the world. This leaves us with a reserve of only 0,3 morgen, as against the 1,5 for the rest of the world. The Department of Agricultural Technical Services played an exceptional role in increasing our productivity. The problem we are faced with here today is not the potential of the farmer to increase his productivity, but the economic problem of agriculture, a problem that developed as a result of the fact that agriculture is no longer just a way of life; it has become a business. In this connection we categorically reject the standpoint of Volkshandel, as stated in its issue of February of this year to the effect that farmers that are experiencing difficulties should be absorbed into the labour market. That does not solve the problem. In looking at the agro-economic side of the matter, we must also look at the people who man the farms, at who the people are who are on the farms. If we do this we come to the disturbing conclusion that notwithstanding mechanization—a field in which we fail because we do not standardize—we have the position that in 1946 we had one White person for every 8,2 non-Whites on our farms, in 1951 we had one White person for every 9,37 non-Whites; in 1960 one White person for every 13,46 non-Whites and in 1967 one White person for every 15,70 non-Whites. Sir, it would not help us in South Africa to adopt mechanization in the field of agriculture if we have not interlaced this with a definite standardization programme. The mechanization process and the standardization process must be inculcated in the agriculturalist’s thinking. In my opinion this is tremendously important.

Sir, let me just say in passing: Since we are advocating sustained research for increasing our production per unit, and since, in the process, we are advocating Stricter mechanization and standardization, I believe that we should ask the retiring Secretary for Agricultural Technical Services, since he is not a man who will be in favour of sitting back, to investigate for us the question of how we can also use television in South Africa as an extension medium with respect to agriculture. I think that if we are in time we can stake our claims to also reserve our share of television for agriculture.

Sir, I want to cross over to another matter. Notwithstanding our climatological problems, etc., we see by projection to the year 2000 in South Africa, that we will always be saddled with a surplus as far as certain crop-farming products are concerned. If consumption remains as it is, and if production and consumption increase proportionately, we shall still be saddled with a surplus of 20,4 million bags of maize in the year 2000. As far as bread grain is concerned, we shall have a shortage; as far as peanuts are concerned, we shall have a surplus of 15,4 million tons. Sir, in a moment I shall also refer to other figures, since hon. members of the Opposition became excited about the exporting of meat, but I want to state here that whatever surpluses we may have, we must rid ourselves of the idea of exporting an agricultural product in its unprocessed form. Sir, we can have much better bargaining powers if we export our agricultural products from South Africa in a processed form.

I should now like to say a few words about meat and dairy products. I want to say at once that I am no authority. But hon. members on that side have now continually accused the hon. the Minister of being the cause of our having no export market for meat. But do you know what the position will be in the year 2000, if we again bear in mind that consumption and production will increase steadily, as evidenced by the trend thus far. In the year 2000 we shall have a shortage of 377 million lbs. of beef and veal. As far as mutton and venison are concerned, there will be a shortage of 174,3 million lbs.; as far as pork is concerned, we ought to break even, according to calculations. There will be a butter shortage of 14.9 million lbs. and a cheese shortage of 34,9 million pounds. Sir, with respect to any agricultural product, there is one concept that is paramount, as far as we are concerned, and that is that our local market remains the best market. If our local inhabitants no longer want to use the agricultural products that we offer them, it is our duty to process that product and to present it in such a processed form that the local consumer will, in fact, make use of it

The hon. member for Christiana made quite a few constructive suggestions, and I do not want to cross swords with the hon. member at all, because essentially I agree with the hon. member when he advocates, for example, that we should rather convert our agricultural products into a processed form instead of exporting them in their natural state. The hon. member also referred to the question of mechanization and how mechanization did not specifically cause a decrease in the number of people in the service of agriculture. In fact, the hon. member pointed out that specifically with the advent of mechanization over the years, there has been an increase in the number of non-Whites in the industry. Hence, as far as that is concerned, I do not want to argue with the hon. member at all.

It is now necessary for us just to take a look at what has happened in this agricultural debate since we began with it last week. The United Party came along with a number of suggestions which we submitted to the hon. the Minister. We put it to the hon. the Minister that agricultural financing is one of the foremost factors restricting our agricultural industry today. We urged the Minister with regard to the fact that agricultural financing is one of the bottlenecks in the difficult position our agricultural industry finds itself in. We pointed out to the hon. the Minister that interest rates are continuing to increase. In the past day or two we again heard that the commercial banks have decided that their interest rates on overdrafts will increase by a further ½ per cent. We very clearly asked the Government if their future view was also that our South African Land Bank should play a much greater role, taking over the farmers' long term financing in particular. We also urged that a very clear indication should be given of where the duties and functions of the Land Bank and the Department of Agricultural Credit began and ended respectively. I regret that at this stage we have not been able to get the final picture from the Government and that we have not been able to see the ideal they are working on to establish stability in our industry.

We have, for example, had suggestions to the effect that the livestock reduction scheme should be applied on a much wider scale, and that better subsidies be given to the farmers, not only with a view to reclaiming our veld, but also to furnish help to those parts of the country, particularly the grazing areas, that have had such a difficult time as a result of the droughts and the low prices. We hoped that the Minister would tell us whether it was not possible to apply this on a much wider scale. But what did we get from the hon. the Minister of Agriculture? No answer telling us that he would submit the matter to his Department for investigation, but a summary rejection, similar to their summary rejection when we told them a number of years ago that they should subsidize interest rates for the fanner and when we told them a number of years ago that they should have the livestock reduction scheme applied to better advantage; and then changes came along.

But now even greater changes have to take place because of the fact that wool and mohair prices are so low. But there is no reply from the Minister. No, those people can just see how they can get along. What is happening today, Mr. Chairman? Because the livestock reduction scheme is so inadequate, most of the farmers, whose financial position is not all that good, have to be working all the time with a view to supplementing their incomes. I want to ask whether, five years after implementing this scheme, we shall get those people back on to the land. I am afraid that they will not return to the land. The United Party sees a changed and improved livestock reduction scheme not only as a step towards rehabilitating the farmer, but also as a step towards keeping our economy going on the platteland.

In this debate the marketing problems of the farmer were pointed out to the Government, particularly in connection with the marketing of meat. The Government merely looked for excuses. We were told that the farmers themselves, and the South African Agricultural Union, preferred the present meat schemes. That is surely not the whole truth of the matter. The hon. the Minister has considerable powers in terms of the Marketing Act. He can originate his own schemes if he wants to. If the hon. the Minister wants to accept this livestock scheme as such, does he want to tell me that there are no bottlenecks at present, and if it is acknowledged that there are bottlenecks, what is the Government’s plan for resolving them? It will simply not be worth the trouble to argue, as the hon. the Minister of Agriculture argued here, that he bears no responsibility in this connection. It is his task, in this respect, to give the correct guidance to the country.

It was also said in this debate that we must seek an export market. What was the hon. the Deputy Minister’s excuse in that connection? His excuse was that the facilities in South Africa did not comply with what people wanted abroad. The hon. member for Walmer told him very clearly that there was, in fact, proof that the overseas importers were prepared to accept out meat as it is.

Were you here when I replied to that hon. member?

Of course I was. What more was there to the hon. the Minister’s reply?

I shall reply again.

That is why I say that the Government does not take the opportunity to give an answer for the problems the farmer is faced with. No satisfaction was given in this debate with respect to the main allegation we made about there being no stability in our agricultural industry today. We alleged that there is a lack of confidence in our industry, and we requested the Government to take steps to restore that confidence. It is such an easy matter to underestimate the true value of our agricultural industry as far as our economy is concerned.

Recently an example again came to the fore regarding the possibility that at a place like East London, for example, the wool market would be closed down. The very fact that that market is going to be closed down, will mean a considerable decrease in the revenue of the city of East London, because there are dozens of people, Whites as well as non-Whites, receiving salaries from the wool industry. Here is an example of the fact that if things are going well with our agricultural industry, They are also going well for the rest of South Africa, Instead of displaying, as far as we are concerned, a desire to solve the problems in the agricultural industry, we obtain excuses from the Government and arguments that have little bearing on the matter. There is an attitude of let us sit back and hope that climatic conditions alone will change the agricultural industry in South Africa. The hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing advanced the argument that a large proportion of the farmers’ debt related to possessions such as boats, beach cottages, etc., and he said that the agricultural industry is not always responsible for the large amounts of debt of the farmers. Let me tell the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, in his absence, that it does not befit him to evade his responsibility as Minister of Agriculture in this way. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I think that we must now get matters into their true perspective. Here the United Party has sat throughout this agricultural debate, and all of us with a bit of common sense have waited to see if they would come to light with anything that has any substance, because we are all interested. I said this the other day, and increasingly I am coming to the unswerving conviction that that party is a party of ad hoc arguments. Just listen to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. I tried to write down everything he said. He was supposed to round off the debate and give the “finishing touches” to the big-scale attack. I stopped writing, because there were sallies here and there, but nothing that was unbroken and constructive. I really did not learn anything from what the hon. member said. However, I do not want to waste my time with hon. members opposite.

As far as this side of the House’s agricultural policy is concerned, and the handling and implementing of that policy, there are three salient characteristics. The first is that this Government has not made our agriculture subservient to the unprecedented industrial explosion that has taken place here in our country in the past decade or decade-and-a-half. This industrial explosion left a vacuum, and this industrial vacuum would have sucked in our farmers. Many of our farmers were bit by one phenomenon and one inevitable result of this industrial explosion that took place, i.e. the terrible erosion of capital to which they were subject. Land prices appreciated to alarming proportions. World prices fluctuated and our farmers, who were guided by this Government from one era to another, were faced with a tremendous capital-intensive mechanization programme. Our farmers were also faced with an increase in labour and production costs. Everything was eroded and had an eroding influence on the capital potential and the capital structure of the farmer and of the agricultural industry. In spite of this the National Party met this hiatus or vacuum, which developed, with great stabilizing effect, and brilliantly succeeded in filling that gap. We can rightfully say that, under the National Government, agriculture was not made subservient to this tremendous industrial development that took place in the past decade or decade-and-a-half,

That side of the House left us, in 1948, with a farming system as one-sided as one could get. They must not speak about what we are doing. If this side of the House were to record the Opposition’s sins, they would fill volumes, the accounts would rain down on them, the summonses would swamp them and the sentences passed on them would be damning. Let me just go back in history for a moment. When the United Party was in power we ate compound meat. There was no other meat. That side of the House has not yet got rid of its compound complex, because if one were to push some of the members on that side of the House onto the political market, one would obtain compound prices for them. None other than their Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Strauss, said: “Let us hope and pray for times to change.” I should like to quote from Hansard of 2nd June, 1947, column 6265. There Mr. Strauss said—

Let us hope and pray! They are still hoping and praying today. But what blessing is there for such a party that hopes and prays but does not believe in its prayers? As I have said, at the time they were in power we had to hope and pray and eat compound meat. Our maize lay in the rain and rotted. There were not enough bags. Farmers were prohibited from exporting their citrus, etc. The account that can be furnished against them is a formidable one. It can never be paid. We have written it off and begun with a new statement of accounts. This Government broke away from the one-sided farming system that they incorporated into our agricultural industry, because this Government has adopted certain stabilizing measures in our agriculture.

What measures?

I shall mention them. Firstly, no government in the midst of tremendous problems has entrenched the small farmer in the agricultural industry as this Government has done. This entrenchment of our small farmer in our agricultural industry, this permanent settlement, this disinclination on the part of our Government to get rid of the small farmer, was in itself a stabilizing act. We must never underestimate the role that the small farmer plays in the stabilizing of price structures in our country. We must not underestimate the small farmer’s contribution to the improvement of cultivation techniques in our agriculture. In the third place, we must not underestimate the small farmer’s stabilizing effect on socio-economic conditions in our platteland. The entrenchment of the small farmer in the agricultural industry by this Government, is not only an important agricultural act, it is an important national act. This policy of the Government in protecting the small farmer, to retain him and to secure him against unfair competition is an act that we on this side of the House praise as being one of the acts of which this Government and this party can be proud.

One of the problems in agriculture is the problem of financing. In this connection I want to agree with the hon. member for Newton Park and other hon. members who referred to it. The hon. member for Newton Park is not the first one to think along these lines. We on this side of the House have been thinking and talking about it for a long time. But we do not act hastily while we are thinking; we first think, then we hold consultations and then we act. As I have said, one of our big problems is the problem of financing. The difficulty with our present-day financing programme is, in the first place, that the small farmer, the beginner, the young man cannot compete in a market with such an appreciating land price structure. In the second place, the period in which a farmer must pay back his debts is too short. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman. I should like to inform the hon. member for Swellendam and the hon. member for Worcester, who have certain problems with adverse conditions in their constituencies, particularly in the fruit-producing areas of Montagu and the other areas which the hon. member for Worcester and I visited together, in reply to their questions as to what assistance could be offered, that we as the hon. member is aware, instituted an investigation into whether the assistance which is being rendered to the areas in the Sundays River Valley could not also be rendered to these areas. It could be done with the proviso that we first make certain of the water position in these areas. The hon. members are aware of the fact that the Department of Water Affairs is giving its intensive attention to these problems and that it is making attempts to come to their assistance. If we are going to render financial assistance on the same basis as is being done in the Sundays River, we want to make certain that it will be possible to meet the water requirements of the future and that the farmers concerned do not paint injudiciously only to he saddled in the long run with another water problem.

†The hon. member for Kensington said that we must keep abreast in the agricultural field with overseas developments, etc. We all agree with him. There must be liaison and contact with foreign countries. Then, however, he made a mistake when he said that we are making use of junior staff.

That is not what I said.

I want to point out to the hon. member that Dr. J. P. Botha, a man with world-wide experience, is our agricultural counsellor in London at the moment, Then the hon. member only referred to Agricultural Technical Services. I wonder whether the hon. member had a look at the report of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing. There we have a Mr. Saulus, who is also a counsellor of this department in London. In Paris we have Dr. J. G. Boyazoglu, an exceptional man, who is capable of speaking six languages fluently. He is assisted by Mr. A. B. C. Nel of the Department of Economics and Marketing.

I was talking about places where we do not have permanent counsellors.

The hon. member referred to the junior staff we have; he gave the impression that they were inexperienced. In Washington we have Dr. Van Drimmelen, who is also a very capable man. He is assisted by Mr. P. J. Meyer. For the information of that hon. member, we have already appointed as our adviser in the Argentine, Mr. J. C. Retief, who is also a very capable man. Then one can look in the report to see all the different conferences we attended in other countries. It is interesting to see what the two departments of agriculture have done in the past year alone in order to keep contact with foreign countries, let alone African countries. Then the hon. member can have a look at the assistance we are giving to certain African countries. We are, for example, rendering veterinary services to Northern Africa. All this is being done, but then there is another thing you must not forget. There are 18 control boards in this country. Leading members from these boards make regular visits overseas and send specialists of their staff to go overseas and make contact with those countries. When they come back they advise our farmers, and furthermore maintain good relations with the different overseas countries. However, I am not differing from that hon. member. It is essential that we should pay attention to these facts. I only mentioned this in order to point out these few matters.

*The hon. member for Brits made a speech on the tobacco farmers. I agree with him. He is in earnest when he says that the tobacco farmer in this country should be treated well. In regard to the present tobacco price, there is already a recommendation before the Marketing Council which will be submitted to the Minister. I just want to point out one little matter to the hon. member. I think he is aware of the fact that if we are going to introduce a considerable price increase for tobacco, for the best grade, there will be regions in our country which will not be able to produce that type of tobacco, while other parts, more to the east, particularly parts of the Eastern Transvaal, will be able to. This is going to result in a greater production in these areas, which is going to have a detrimental effect on the more westerly tobacco-producing areas. I think the hon. member is fully aware of this problem.

The hon. member for King William’s Town gives me the impression of being a third-rate rowdy who will make very little impression at a decent farmers’ association meeting. I could see that the hon. member was wresting matters out of context, and was once again trying to make politics out of agriculture today. The hon. member said that we had 35 million sheep in this country and that we ought to be able to slaughter 35 million sheep per year. In other words, he wants to consume every last ram, karakul and every other type of sheep in this country every year. Surely that is not the way in which one approaches these problems. I have stated emphatically to the hon. member that we realize that there is a bottleneck in regard to the marketing and the slaughter of our stock at the moment. But it is after all impossible to create facilities to meet the needs which exist in a period of pressure, only to stand unused when the supply is no longer there. To establish abattoirs to slaughter 5 000 sheep in a week only to find that in three months’ time only 2 000 are received, is surely Dot realistic. These matters must be tackled judiciously. In the previous day’s debate we gave enough attention to these matters.

The hon. member for Heidelberg asked me one important question. If things are going so badly for agriculture in our country, I want to join with the hon. member for Heidelberg in asking hon. members opposite: “Please, do us this one favour and nominate a United Party candidate in the Waterberg by-election”. If they could do that, they would be honest and sincere in their arguments. If they were to nominate a candidate for Waterberg, I could tell them now that they would not have a snowball’s chance. The hon. member for Heidelberg is a milk farmer and a grain farmer. Today he spoke the language of the milk farmer and said thank you for the increase of 3 cents per gallon. The hon. member put a question to the hon. member for Moot River. He did not reply to it. He referred to other countries which were paying subsidies. He referred to what happened in New Zealand and England where there was a subsidy. To give the farmer a good price, he said, increase the price and then subsidize the consumer. This year we are subsidizing butter by more than R5 million. But with the next Budget debate they will vent their spleen again, for then we will have to pay more taxes. Hon. members must try to be consistent and reasonable. Why should they be dissatisfied now if I and the hon. member for Heidelberg, as milk farmers, are only too pleased to have received a 3 cent increase on milk?

In any case, the hon. member for Benoni had me completely baffled. He serves on the Ghaap Mountain Grazing Study Group. I think the hon. member was forced by his party to participate in a debate today which he did not feel like participating in. He knows that our country is divided into ecological regions. One cannot apply a grazing system throughout an entire area. That is why we have the grazing study groups which keep Agricultural Technical Services informed. We act according to their advice. Why does he now want to say that we are reproaching the farmers and saying that they are mining—you know all these negative arguments. He says we are just confusing the fanners. The hon. member himself farms in the vicinity of Kimberley, and he ought to know.

There is another matter in regard to which the hon. member made a mistake. He said the farmers were treading on the heels of Agricultural Technical Services. Those were his exact words. They are asking for information and extension services. The hon. member saw how our establishment of officials has expanded. We are already asking for more than R40 million in our Budget for Agricultural Technical Services in order to make extension services and research available. But there is one thing the hon. member forgets—the farmer who is efficient, who has really made farming his occupation, has discovered a long time ago how his farm should be grazed, which camp he should withdraw and which not. He does not sit waiting for the Department to come and tell him “Man, you must now withdraw this camp”. He is himself an efficient farmer. That is why I say that he was not speaking out of innermost conviction today. The hon. member for Mossel Bay asked a very important question. However, I just want to say to the hon. member for Benoni that he must not make the mistake of saying that the prices did not increase at all. After all, the hon. member himself knows that over the past 12 years, excluding the present year, the price of beef increased by 68,2 per cent, and by well over 70 per cent if this year is included in the calculation. Mutton increased by 26,7 per cent. That is what the farmer gets out. Surely the hon. member knows that. After all, the hon. member for Fauresmith mentioned the figures.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay referred to the valuations of the Land Bank and the Department of Agricultural Credit. The fact of the matter is that we are all looking for a solution to the problem of the land prices which have increased so tremendously. However, when the hon. member says that the valuation for land in the Mossel Bay district is R100 or R120 per morgen, I disagree with him. In reality valuations can differ from one farm to another. For example, a dwelling worth R30 000 on a farm cannot be valued at more than RI5 000 for agricultural purposes. On the next farm you find a cowshed which has been laid out practically. This is then included in the evaluation of that land. Other factors which are taken into account are the camp system, differences in the soil, etc. Arable land for example can change within a mile from turf to loam soil. In other words, valuation factors vary from one farm to another. In other words, valuation factors differ from one farm to another. The Land Bank cannot therefore lay down a general norm. The same applies to the Department of Agricultural Credit. This is the problem in regard to valuation committees. In addition to that there is still the valuation they put on the man in the saddle. Should a man apply for a valuation and the committee finds that he is still young and energetic, the valuation may be slightly more favourable than in the case of a farmer who is already advanced in age. However, the hon. member and I can discuss this further in private.

The hon. member for Mooi River had me completely baffled. He asked us to increase further the price the farmer must receive from the State coffers for a cow which has to be destroyed because she is suffering from tuberculosis: he was asking that the compensation a farmer must receive from the coffers of this bad Government for a cow which it has to destroy, should be higher. Last month we received representations from organized agriculture, from practical farmers—not United Party people, but decent people!—to the effect that the compensation should be increased from R90 to R120, We agreed to that, although it could cost the State millions of rands. But we did this because we want to eliminate tuberculosis among our herds of livestock. I then pointed out to the hon. member for Mooi River, by way of interjection, that the compensation had been increased to R120. But what did he do? He said that it was not enough. He has the right to say this, but he is doing so without even saying thank you for what we have already done. All we get from them, is criticism.

The hon. member for Christiana referred to increased productivity and furnished interesting figures in this connection. These are the lines along which we must think in agriculture.

Here in the dying moments of the debate the hon. member for Newton Park rose to his feet and again made a political issue out of agriculture. He said that the Government was doing nothing to make the export of our meat possible. Amongst other things he referred to what the hon. member for Walmer had said in this connection. I have already said that the hon. member for Walmer and the hon. member for Colesberg brought requests to me in this connection. I regarded it as an opportunity to determine whether our meat could be exported to England at a profit, in spite of the figures which the Meat Board and the department furnished to me to the effect that the total loss on one pound of meat would be in the region of 8 cents, as a result of increased freightage and other problems. We offered to take 500 sheep by truck to an approved abattoir in Windhoek, just in order to determine whether there was in fact such a possibility. The hon. member referred to Mr. Wight of England. The hon. member for Walmer said that it was only the offal section of the abattoirs which did not comply with international requirements. I denied this and pointed out that there were various aspects of the Port Elizabeth abattoirs which had to be set in order. Mr. Wight telegraphed—

Here we have one of the problems therefore—the chilling is not what it should be. Then a Mr. Silcock of Colesberg approached Mr. Wight telephonically for permission to export sheep carcasses through the abattoirs in Port Elizabeth. The British Embassy then inquired whether the deficiences which existed at that abattoir had been remedied. Our reply by diplomatic note was "No”. Then we received the following note from Mr. Wight—

Their veterinarians say that the abattoirs do not comply with those requirements. Now the hon. member has again broached this matter here. I simply cannot get it into their heads. It is our country's name which is at stake. Countries know that we will not send them citrus from an orchard in which there is canker. They know that because our inspectors have never lied to them. Must we now destroy this good name which we have built up by asking our veterinarians to keep quiet about the fact that our abattoirs do not yet comply with the requirements stipulated by England? Must we do this so that they can find out afterwards that we have misled them? That type of Government we are not.

The hon. member for Newton Park said that they had made a proposal to make the stock-withdrawal scheme more attractive. Hon. members ought to be aware that we cannot make this scheme succeed in one year. We have already furnished figures in this connection. There are already 3 386 participants in this scheme, while 11,6 million morgen are involved. The number of stock withdrawn already amounts to 0,4 million. We are already saddled with a marketing and slaughtering problem. Surely this problem must be allowed to work itself out gradually. Not all the farmers go in for this scheme at one and the same time. In any case, money for it does not fall out of a clear sky. We must also go hat in hand and beg for the money. After all, we cannot pay out R100 million in one year in terms of a stock-withdrawal scheme. In any case, what do we eat next year? But the hon. member said that we are not making this scheme attractive enough for the farmers, while the hon. member for Benoni referred to the scheme in a derogatory manner. I have already said that the agricultural unions have asked for R2 for the first 600. We acceded to that.

That was a few years ago.

After that they asked for R3 without restrictions. A farmer could then withdraw 100 000 sheep and get R105 000 from the Government for nothing. We agreed to all these things. But surely we do not want a withdrawal scheme the object of which is to make people rich. That is what the hon. member is proposing. He said that we had disagreed with all their arguments and bad flouted their suggestions. But from time to time we negotiate with the wool farmers and with the agricultural unions in all the districts and provinces. We are looking for a solution. We are allowing ourselves to be guided by these people, people who are practitioners in the industry. The hon. member must not create the impression that we are unsympathetic in regard to this matter.

In addition the hon. member said that we on this side had contributed nothing positive to this debate, but what did hon. members on the opposite side contribute? Last year we had a drought. Hon. members opposite spoke about it for three days running. But now their complaints have dried up as far as the drought is concerned, and now, although they know that there is a bottleneck as far as slaughtering is concerned, they come along and allow the discussion of slaughtering facilities to predominate in this debate. And then we get negative speeches such as the one made by the hon. member for Simonstown, who wanted to score a few points in regard to a farm which we gave out, and had subsequently to remedy the matter. It is a feather in the cap of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture that he rectified this mistake, but the hon. member came along and made a great fuss about it in this House. Sir, these are the kind of points they come along and discuss here in an agricultural debate. They make no positive contributions.

May I pul a Question? You said that the farm was transferred in error to Mr. Strauss. If it was an error, why was the error not rectified?

The hon. member himself knows that when the matter was brought to the attention of the Minister, he said that an official cannot allocate a farm to himself, and that the farm had to be re-transferred.

But you said that the policy was that Government officials could receive farms.

That was the case under the old Crown Lands Act of the year …

Under United Party Government.

I do not know whether the United Party was governing at that time. I know that it was long ago.

In the time of the rinderpest.

Sir, I cannot see why the hon. member is making such a noise. There will always be mistakes. After all, any good hound must have his fleas. There will of course be mistakes along the way. The hon. member tried to play politics here. He was making a big mistake if he thought that he could disparage the Minister among the farmers. It was not the Minister of Agriculture who referred to the farmers’ Cadillacs. Who referred to the farmers’ Cadillacs? It was the hon. member for Newton Park. He was the person who inserted the words “and Cadillacs” while the Minister was speaking; it is recorded in Hansard. Sir, if members on that side want to play politics with this matter, then I shall tell the farmers in the country that the member for Newton Park, while the hon. the Minister was speaking about certain facilities the farmers were acquiring, insinuated that the farmers drove about in Cadillacs because he called out: “and Cadillacs”.

Sir, the hon. member for Carletonville discussed the small farmers and the protection of the small farmers here. He spoke the language which members on this side of the House always speak. I want to congratulate the hon. member for Carletonville on his standpoint. When the hon. member for Carletonville said that we must protect the small farmer, a chorus of voices went up from the opposite side: “How can you protect the small farmer under this policy of the Government?” Sir, it took three days and half a night in this House just to dispose of the Committee Stage of the Egg Production Control Bill. We have made enough references to that already, but I again want to say thank you to the Opposition for having opposed that measure, because there they showed their true colours. Sir, under our agricultural policy we will govern this country for many years to come.

Mr. Chairman, perhaps to facilitate discussions, I just want to furnish this House with certain information.

†I want to refer in the first place to the question of the cadet movement. Last year I made a statement on the new organization of the cadet movement and thereafter I was approached by a number of members on both sides of the House in connection with this question. They asked me whether I did not see my way clear to be more accommodating as far as cadet units are concerned. The formula agreed on for the establishment of cadet detachments was arrived at in conjunction with the education authorities as cadet training will in future form part of the youth preparedness programme to be introduced into the secondary school syllabus. The formula agreed on was as follows: High schools with more than 200 students will be entitled to a detachment of 103 members and a band of 25 members. Schools with between 100 and 199 students will be entitled to a detachment of 53 members and a band of 15 members. Schools with fewer than a 100 students will be considered for a band and a detachment only on the recommendation of the education authority concerned. During the discussions held prior to the 1st January, 1971, it was realized that the smaller schools such as those with fewer than 100 students, who at that stage had detachments, would under this formula no longer he entitled to a detachment. The possibility of authorizing the continuation of smaller detachments was discussed but no final decision in this regard was taken. It was, however decided that the possibility of establishing drill platoons would receive further attention by the Department of Defence. Since the introduction of the new organization, the Department of Defence has been inundated with requests for authority to continue cadet activities at the smaller schools. As previously agreed, this matter was investigated, and in order to satisfy the smaller schools a new formula has been agreed to by all concerned, including the educational authorities. This new formula makes provision at secondary schools for the establishment of a band of 16 members at schools with fewer than 41 students; a drill platoon of 25 members and a band of 16 members at schools with 41 to 66 students; a detachment of 53 members and a band of 16 members at schools with 67 to 126 students; and a detachment of 103 members and a band of 25 members at schools with 127 or more students. The above formula will apply only to schools which were entitled to a detachment prior to the 1st January, 1971. The application of this formula does not constitute an authority for the establishment of a detachment at schools where no detachment previously existed. I hope. Sir, that this will satisfy hon. members who made complaints and tried to change the position.

*I should like to make a brief announcement now about the chief of the Defence Force. Under normal circumstances, because of the expiry of his term of office, the Commandant-General of the Defence Force would have retired early in the new year, in fact, before Parliament would have reassembled. As is its custom, the Government considered the matter in good time and in view of the fact that there were certain matters in the Defence Force which Gen. Hiemstra had initiated and which still had to receive attention under his guidance, and also because of the fact that he was still enjoying good health, it decided that he would occupy the post of Commandant-General for another year. I have discussed the matter with him and he has accepted the proposal. Sir, I should like to express my appreciation to Gen. Hiemstra for the great services he has rendered to the South African Defence Force up to now. He has been a support and a pillar of strength to me; he was tremendously valuable to me at a time when I as new Minister was still very raw in this portfolio. I want to thank him sincerely for the very fine spirit which has been prevailing in the Defence Force under his leadership. I am pleased we are able to make further use of his services. After his retirement next year, we hope to make use of him in the armaments setup of our country if he retains the health he is enjoying today.

Furthermore, in order to prevent speculation, I want to say that the Government also decided to announce at this stage already that when Gen. Hiemstra retires next year, after the additional year, he will be succeeded as Commandant-General by Vice-Admiral Biermann. By means of this announcement I hope we shall put an end to all speculation inside and outside the Defence Force. I do not think it is a good thing that there should be any speculation about this post.

With your permission, Sir, I briefly want to deal with a third matter. During the past weeks and months we have continually been experiencing a problem in regard to the blowing up of reports and rumours which have implicated South Africa and at times some of South Africa’s friends in the Western world, about so-called purchases of arms. It becomes a very delicate matter if we must continually crush certain information from this reliable source and from that informed source, as it makes sensational news throughout the world that South Africa is allegedly making new purchases at this point and at that point. I have deemed it necessary to take this very opportunity to make a short statement on our arms position. I am doing it because, in the first place, I should like to say that South Africa does not regard war as a means of solving problems. South Africa believes that war is not the ideal way of mastering or solving problems. Therefore we have no warlike urge motivating us. In the second place, we regard the building up of our Defence Force merely as a means of maintaining our own independence and sovereignty and of taking up our place in the free world if a confrontation were to occur. In the third place, I should like to emphasize that any amounts we spend in connection with defence are spent mainly with a view to modernizing and replacing, and not to any large extent with a view to expanding and enlarging on any extensive scale. For that reason I want to furnish this House with certain information.

The Republic of South Africa was forced to build up a task force as soon as possible in order to avert the threats which resulted from occurrences known to us all This, of course, implied that in such a task force, consideration of the particular circumstances, would be adequately equipped with the necessary armaments. In the light of the arms boycotts, however. South Africa was committed to strive purposefully after self-sufficiency in this respect. For that reason the Armaments Board was established by special legislation in 1964, and in 1968 the Armaments Development and Production Corporation of South Africa, Limited, known as Armcor, was established in order to accelerate the implementation of the programme. I have reason to believe that those still agitating against the sale of arms to South Africa, are thoroughly aware of the capacity South Africa has built up and consequently their actions cannot be interpreted in any other way but a deliberate misleading of possible uninformed people and the sowing of confusion in order to play off friends against each other. For that reason I want to state very clearly and in all modesty today that South Africa has attained such a measure of self-sufficiency that it needs no arms from abroad for ensuring its internal security. On the contrary, it is with a sense of gratitude that I can announce that South Africa has already developed such a capacity that South Africa itself can to a very large extent manufacture the armaments required for ensuring its external security. I should like to draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that the consistent application of the policy of rationalization and standardization in the process of ensuring self-sufficiency for South Africa, is already producing evidence that we are competitive in many cases as regards prices on the world market. At the same time, it is interesting to note that approximately 80 per cent of the amount paid out in respect of the manufacture of armaments goes to the approximately 1 000 contractors and sub-contractors in South Africa. For obvious reasons it is not advisable for full details to be divulged about everything manufactured in South Africa. On the other hand, its extent is of such a nature that it would in any event take a considerable time to come anywhere near covering the field completely, which I cannot do now. In the circumstances, I want to discuss certain categories and certain specific items in brief in order to give hon. members just an indication of how far South Africa has progressed on the road towards self-sufficiency.

In the first place, in regard to the manufacture of explosives and propelling agents for military purposes, I have already announced in this House on a previous occasion that Armcor concluded an agreement with African Explosives and Chemical Industries with a view to placing strategic matters under the direct control of the State. Thanks to the co-operation being received from the company concerned, it is foreseen that the transfer of the activities to Natchem, the relevant subsidiary which Armcor established for this purpose, will be satisfactorily completed within the foreseeable future. In this regard South Africa is in any event so self-sufficient that it may give consideration to exports as well.

The progress in the field of the manufacture of ammunition may be described as extremely satisfactory. At the moment approximately 100 different types of ammunition are being manufactured according to strict military specifications. These represent the largest part of all conventional ammunition. As regards heavy calibre ammunition, the Republic is self-sufficient and in respect of infantry ammunition, the country is either self-sufficient already or the production stage has already been reached. A start has already been made with the production of quick-firing ammunition in order to meet local needs as well as possible exports.

In the fourth place, most of our aircraft ammunition, bombs and rockets are already being manufactured or are in various stages of development. In the fifth place, as regards naval ammunition, the Republic will be self-sufficient within the foreseeable future as well. In the sixth, place, South Africa is already independent in respect of pyrotechnical supplies.

Furthermore, as regards arms, an automatic service rifle and a sub-machine gun, as well as mortars, inter alia, are already being manufactured locally and in addition the manufacture of a complete 90 mm. cannon has been commenced. After very thorough consideration, it has been decided to issue in future the R.1 adapted single-shot action 7,62 mm. rifle which is manufactured locally, for the use of commandos in substitution for the old ,303. This will undoubtedly be a big step forward in arming our commandos.

With the manufacture of the armoured car in South Africa, facilities have been created which enable the manufacture of practically any armoured vehicle. In addition mobile equipment such as stoves, field kitchens, shower facilities, etc., are being manufactured locally. As far as is known, the South African field kitchen is the best in the world.

Furthermore, a very important breakthrough has undoubtedly been made with the establishment of the Atlas Aircraft Corporation. It gives me pleasure to be able to announce that after the take-over of Atlas’s shareholding by Armcor, Atlas’s teething problems are now something of the past. The production programme is progressing according to plan and is improving. Atlas has built up such a capacity now, that serious thought is being given to the manufacture of more advanced aircraft. In addition, Atlas has already built up the capacity to service the more sophisticated aircraft.

Although certain electronic equipment is still being imported, the local electronics industry, as a result of the progress made in respect of standardization and the rationalization of manufacturing potential, has already developed to such an extent that it can meet the requirements of the Defence Force to an ever-increasing extent. Equipment in respect of which the latest technology is being applied, is already being developed and manufactured in South Africa. The cost of this equipment compares favourably with that of imported equipment and is even lower in some cases. The local manufacture of integrated electric circuits is at present enjoying high priority not only because it is the most important component in electronic equipment of advanced technology, but also because it combines a wide variety of component functions through one unique process to make the problem of a near diversity of components more manageable in that way. Electronic equipment can be divided mainly into three groups, viz. radio communication, radar and line Communication. As regards radio communication, the industry has already developed an independent capacity and types of equipment such as aircraft radios, man-pack radios, mine-detectors and other classified equipment are already being designed and manufactured locally. Because of the well established telephone industry, the country is already self-sufficient in the field of line communications.

Good progress is also being made with various classified projects. It is expected that a start will soon be made with the local manufacture of certain of these arms. I trust hon. members will have the opportunity of viewing the Cactus arms system during the Republic festival celebrations in Cape Town. As hon. members will recall, I announced on a previous occasion that the arms system used for tracing and shooting down low-lying aircraft in all weather conditions had been developed in co-operation with a friendly country. At present other countries are also interested in this, and tests carried out last week were highly successful, also in a country which has taken a fresh interest in this arms system.

In the light of the general boycotts in respect of rifles and ammunition, serious attention has also been given to commercial needs because Armcor and its subsidiaries in fact have the necessary facilities. As hon. members will realize, it was in the national interest that especially the more popular calibres be standardized in the process. At present two calibres of hunting rifles, viz. the Musgrave 7,62 mm. and the Musgrave ,243 inch, as well as the Musgrave 7,62 mm. target-shooting rifle, are being manufactured for the trade by the relevant subsidiary company of Armcor. In this regard I just want to inform the hon. member for North Rand with reference to his question to which I did not want to reply the other day because I would have anticipated this statement, that there is no agent in the ordinary sense of the word. In terms of section 3 of the Armaments Development and Production Act, one of the objects of Armcor is to manufacture, or have manufactured, firearms and ammunition for supply to members of the public. However, sales to the public take place through all registered arms and ammunition dealers, while the distribution to the dealers concerned takes place through a small subsidiary of Armcor, namely Nimrod Promotions. This subsidiary has no profit motive. This is my reply to the hon. member. I want to make bold to say that South Africa may rightly be proud of these products. Hon. members have probably read in the newspapers of the achievements of the target-shooting rifles. Investigations are at present being conducted with a view to manufacturing shotguns, a ,22 rifle and pistols. Commercial ammunition of the highest quality, including ,243 inch, ,308, ,30-06, ,38, ,303, ,22 shotgun cartridges, is already being manufactured and is freely available in trade. Inquiries from abroad in respect of the rifles and ammunition concerned, indicate that an export market can in fact be built up for these rifles and ammunition, and we are trying to utilize it.

At the same time I should like to announce that the principle of subsidizing shooting clubs with regard to the purchase of ammunition, has been accepted with a view to promoting marksmanship. This will, of course, apply to women’s shooting clubs as well. At present attention is still being given to the aspect of controlling such ammunition and negotiations on the highest level are already in progress. As soon as these negotiations have been completed, this will be implemented.

The planning of a new modern arms factory at Bloemfontein has been completed and in all probability its erection will be commenced as early as in the course of next month. An experiment in terms of which young men doing compulsory military service are offered after the completion of their basic training, the opportunity of completing the test of their training in the munition factories controlled by Armcor, seems to be extremely successful. The development of a skilled corps in this way could make a large contribution towards preparedness.

By means of the preceding information, I think I have given an indication of South Africa’s progress on the road towards self-sufficiency. I would certainly be failing in my duty if I did not pay tribute on this occasion to our own scientists and engineers for the special contributions made by them. They have given undeniable proof of the brain power South Africa has at its disposal. At the same time, I cannot neglect making special mention of the particular contribution made by all our industries. I should also like to express my gratitude to the chairman and members of the Armaments Board and Armcor for their co-operation.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask for the privilege of the half-hour? I would like to start with the announcement of the hon. the Minister of the extension of the service of the Commandant-General for a further year and take the opportunity of expressing appreciation to Gen. Hiemstra for the friendly way in which it has been possible to co-operate with him and work together in many fields. We do not always agree, but this stands to reason. It would be a strange world in which everyone agreed. I would also like to place on record that the Commandant-General has always been courteous and helpful and that he has recognized the Opposition in many of the activities in which the South African Defence Force is engaged.

At the same time I would like to express my appreciation to the hon. the Minister and to other officers of the Service for the way in which they have taken the Opposition into their confidence at times and for the way in which we have been enabled to visit defence installations and to see some of the things that are going on. I am therefore sure that we will be able to work as we have worked before in the year that lies ahead with the present Commandant-General.

On behalf of this side of the House I would like to add our very sincere congratulations to his successor, Admiral Biermann, who will follow him a year later. We wish him the very best of luck. He is a man of whom South Africa can be proud —one of her sailors who has served his country well—and a person who has proved himself capable of responsibility in the high office which he already holds and in the difficult tasks he has handled. I am sure that all who are interested in our security will welcome his appointment.

The announcement by the hon. the Minister of Defence in regard to cadets, will help to clarify some uncertainty. I would have been interested to hear from him what response he Is getting to volunteering for the limited cadet detachments; whether in fact there are sufficient volunteers to fill them or whether it is a question of “I want 25 volunteers—you, you and you”. I hope that the hon. the Minister will find that he is in fact getting sufficient volunteers as distinct from the interest of the schools and officers in their cadet corps.

Then there is the question of armaments which the hon. the Minister raised. We welcome the statement which he has made. Much of it is, of course, old information merely put into perspective. Many of the aspects which the hon. the Minister mentioned tonight, are matters which have previously been announced. But to hear the whole picture in a composite form and to realize the progress we are making in self-sufficiency in our own arms production, is a matter of pride to South Africa and a matter for deep gratitude, for all those who are interested in our security and safety. Some of the advances which we heard about for the first time tonight, are very welcome. To those who have been responsible; the scientists, the engineers and the planners, we on this side of the House would like to add our congratulations.

I should like to take the opportunity, too, seeing that the hon. the Minister has referred to it, of also referring to the agitators who agitate against the supply of arms to South Africa. I want to deal with one group in particular, a South African organization which has appealed to the countries of the world not to supply us with arms. I refer, of course, to the public appeal by Nusas. I would like to put it on record that I have nothing but the greatest contempt for South Africans who are prepared to appeal to the public and to the friends of South Africa to assist our enemies in that way. We have nothing but total condemnation for this attitude, which we regard as despicable. In the same way we are totally opposed to the support, financial or otherwise, for the so-called "freedom fighters”, the terrorists who are involved in subversion and aggression against, either South Africa, or countries who are our friends. Here we have no difference of opinion with the Government and I think it is as well that this should be on record.

I do not want to repeat discussions and arguments which we have heard before in regard to the question of defence. As will be obvious from what I have already said, and from what I will say later, we have agreed objectives. We are, in some fields, able to work together in considerable harmony.

Therefore, I want to deal, firstly, with two facets of our security which are perhaps not often enough discussed in public and which, I believe, are essential to an appreciation of the overall security problem. The first of these, I admit immediately, is not germane to this debate on the Defence Vote. But nevertheless, I believe it is fundamental to any consideration of security and any strategic planning, either long term or short term. Therefore I record it as one of the basic factors and leave it there without developing the argument. That is the importance which we place, as a factor in our security, on the total loyalty of all the peoples of all races in South Africa towards South Africa as a country and as a state. We believe this is basic to our own safety in the years to come. We also believe that the lessons of Rhodesia, Angola and Mozambique have shown the importance and what a difference loyalty or disloyalty of a local population can make to the security of a country. This is a matter of fundamental political difference between the Government and ourselves. We believe in one common loyalty to one State by all the people of South Africa and we believe they must be under one authority. The Government believes in separate loyalties to separate states. But that is not the position today. Today we are one state and I believe we are fortunate in that we still enjoy the overall loyalty of the mass of the peoples of our country, non-White and White. However, if one thinks of what would happen if we cease to enjoy that loyalty, if that loyalty becomes divided, then it must give our military planners nightmares every time they think about it. This is a matter which must always be kept in mind whenever we think of the safety, and particularly the long term safety, of South Africa. We must keep in mind the importance of the part which the civil administration plays in what ultimately becomes a defence and a security matter.

The second aspect on which there may be disagreement between us, is in regard to the threats which face us. I want to say immediately that the Opposition recognizes the fact that there are real threats and real dangers facing South Africa. It will become apparent in a moment that this in fact guides our thinking and our approach in regard to many aspects of defence. We believe that there is no room for complacency and that we must face the situation realistically and factually. We must be aware of the strategic situation in the Indian Ocean, with the vacuum which may be created, and we must be aware of the influence of the Simonstown Agreement on South Africa’s position in the Western world. I will not elaborate on this, as the hon. member for Simonstown will do so later on. We must also think in terms of the strategic importance of the West Coast and in regard to this matter I ask the Minister whether he has anything to say about the possible development, from a strategic point of view, of Saldanha as a naval base and as the centre of protection for the West Coast. I would also like to ask him to tell us about his plans and the progress which has been made in regard to Salisbury Island and the future development of Richard’s Bay as part of our own East Coast planning.

Anyone who looks at the situation and who bears in mind the situation to our north, will realize that there are real threats. This is where I want to appeal to Government members in particular not to overplay their hand. If you shout “wolf! wolf!” too often, one of two things may happen: Either people do not believe you or you encourage your enemies and you make them think that you are worried about them. Sometimes I wonder whether we are not tending to create a war psychosis in South Africa. This is harmful to our own people because it gives rise to concern amongst our own people. I do not believe that this will strengthen our position at all. Therefore, let us rather face the dangers realistically but let us not do too much stable rattling. Let us say that there are threats and dangers; let us work together in combating them, but let us not overplay or overemphasize them to the cost of the morale and the progress of South Africa as a whole. Because of this

Surely we must focus the attention on it.

Yes, you must focus attention on it, but you must focus it within reason. You must not blow it up out of all proportions. You must not create a war psychosis, and that is what I am warning about. You must create instead an appreciation of danger and a determination to combat it and plan for it with all the force at your command. Therefore I feel that the time has come to revive a plea which we have made in the past, but which we have not pursued of recent years —that is to ask again for a joint committee of members of both sides of the House, where many aspects which we cannot discuss here in open debate could be discussed in private,

Oh no, man!

“Oh no, man” is always the answer. “We are not prepared to share responsibility.” But we feel that there are aspects of these problems which require more than a man to man, individual private discussion, either between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition or the hon. the Minister of Defence and a representative of this side. That does not bring in a team, which I would like to see, from both sides of the House, a team with sufficient knowledge, sharing not responsibility but knowledge, so that from the Opposition side we will have an even greater appreciation and a greater knowledge on which to base our own thinking in many matters. I will give an example of it. Before doing so, however, I want to reemphasize the fact that we on this side of the House are not trying to minimize the threat. We look, for instance, at the additional expenditure which was asked for this year, namely R316 million on Revenue Account. The defence buildings under Public Works and shares in the Armaments Development Board bring the total up to R321 million. South African total Defence expenditure gives a figure of 2,7 per cent, or on Revenue Account only 2,6 per cent of the gross national product. If we compare it with other countries of the world, it is not excessive. I do not want to waste my time in reading statistics, but will give one or two comparable figures. In Australia the figure is 2,8 per cent—a little higher —in Belgium 3,1 per cent, in Canada 4,7 per cent, in France 5,5 per cent, in the U.K. 6 per cent, in the U.S.A. 9 per cent and even in West Germany 3,7 per cent. So, we do not believe that we are overspending on defence; but we are not satisfied that that money is being spent to the best possible purpose. We have criticisms, that is why I say that a committee such as that for which we plead, would be far better than expressing our criticism either across the floor of the House or trying to deal with them privately. Let us face it, we are never really going to get satisfaction by raising privately matters of controversy. I say again that we are not satisfied that we are spending what is being voted to the best purpose. I say it for two reasons.

Last year we referred to the criticism of the Controller and Auditor-General in regard to the control of stores and the protection of goods. The hon. the Minister gave assurances here in the House which we accepted, but again in the next report we had similar criticisms. We will have them next year and the year afterwards. It is not a satisfactory position, where we are spending some R105 million this year on the purchase of equipment, to know that the Controller and Auditor-General is not satisfied with the stores control and. in many cases, with the protection which is given to the equipment.

Perhaps of even bigger concern is the question of human material. We have said here before that we believe that much or part of the time, particularly towards the end of the period of service of national servicemen, has not been fully occupied. We have said that until they could be fully occupied, until there were sufficient instructors, we believed that the period of training should he reduced to six months. I want to say this evening that we believe that the situation is changing, and that in the light of the shortage of staff in the Permanent Force, and the fact that Citizen Force national servicemen are being employed on such a wide scale to fill Permanent Force jobs, it will be impossible in practice to reduce that period of service; it would also be unfair to have some who are required to do the full period and others who are not required to do so.

Sir, there is also the question—this again is a matter that one cannot discuss in this House—of the extent of the threat against us. Therefore I want to make a twin call, and firstly upon the youth of South Africa, despite the fact that we are still not satisfied that the time and the potential of the trainees are being properly utilized, to accept the situation and to play their part. Secondly I make an equally earnest and serious call upon the hon. the Minister to see that the training is improved, to see that their time is better utilized and to see that those boys do not come out frustrated and unhappy, spreading gloom and despondency amongst others who are waiting to go in for training. Sir, both these things are necessary. We realize that there have been improvements and we realize that there will still be some unsatisfactory situations, and therefore, in the interests of the country, we call upon the Minister to institute an urgent inquiry, because there are many things in the national service programme with which we are not satisfied. We are not satisfied, amongst other things, with some of the promotions which have been made in the Permanent Force and which have given the impression, rightly or wrongly, that there are certain people who have a direct line, not to the Minister, but to higher authorities. I want to warn very seriously against allowing a deterioration in the spirit of non-political appointments which have built up in our Defence Force.

You should be very careful when you talk about political appointments.

Sir, I do not know why the hon. the Minister is so touchy. I am warning against the danger of creating a situation where these things are said, because that is the last thing that we can afford. Sir, I am not going to mention names, but there is common talk. I am not talking only about appointments at the top of the tree; I am talking of lower ranks as well.

Every year you come to this House with bits of gossip.

Sir, these are not bits of gossip. Every person who has any knowledge of the Defence Force knows that this is commonly and widely discussed, and therefore it is our duty to bring this matter to the attention of the hon. the Minister and to ask him to see to it that there are no grounds for such talk.

Give examples.

Mr. Chairman, hon. members want me to give examples. They want me to mention the names of people in this debate. I am not prepared to do so. If the Minister does not know about this, then he is out of touch with his own Permanent Force, but I am sure that the Minister is not so much out of touch that he does not know that the situation is serious. If he does know, then I hope that he will deal with it to avoid any possibility of a backlash.

Sir, I want to deal with one or two other matters [Interjections.] … I dealt with this matter of promotion because discipline suffers when there is any hint or flavour, not necessarily of political appointments, but of favouritism, when you hear a person referred to as “the blue-eyed boy”, or as “the man with a jet-propelled future”. Sir, whether these statements are justified or not, they harm morale and harm discipline.

I want to deal with certain specific issues which have arisen since the beginning of the session, and the first is the question of conscientious objectors. In the light of discussions which were apparently taking place and in the light of the statements issued to the effect that negotiations were taking place with the leaders of a certain sect, we on this side of the House stated our views, which I do not need to deal with extensively here again, except to say that we believe that no man should escape responsibility for service but that where it is clear that a person holds religious beliefs so strongly that he is prepared to go to gaol for them, he should be given the opportunity to serve double the period required of other persons, but that he should be allowed to serve that period in civilian employment. Subsequently, people purporting to speak for one sect rejected our proposal because we believed that there should still be military control over those persons. We feel that we should not make ourselves look ridiculous by trying to impose something upon people and making martyrs of them in the process. The worst thing that we can do is to make martyrs of people, because martyrs attain an importance which is far greater than they justify. I would rather see that these people are given an opportunity, in order to test their sincerity, to do two years’ civil work, instead of locking them up and making them State burdens.

Mr. Chairman, I also want to put on record our attitudes towards the new uniforms. The new uniforms are now a fail accompli. They were decided upon by the Supreme Command. There are certain aspects that we do not like. We do not like the elimination of the distinctive arms of the three branches of the service—the Navy, Army and Air Force. There are certain other aspects that we do not like either, but. Sir, this is not an issue that we can debate. I simply want to put on record that it is now up to the uniforms themselves to prove their acceptability. We have stated our view; we are unhappy about certain aspects, and only practice will show now whether those uniforms win approval or not.

The next item that I want to deal with is the question of accidents in the Defence Force. I was rather shocked to find that in the last 2¼ years, up to April, 1971, there had been 2 653 vehicles accidents in the Defence Force, involving loss of life, injury and hospitalization.

Were they all on public roads?

No, there were 1 726 on public roads and 927 on South African Defence Force property. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that here we could make a contribution to road safety in South Africa as a whole. One of our M.P.C.s in Natal, Mr. Henry Ritz, made the suggestion, and I feel that it enjoys merit and should be considered, that we should establish with the co-operation of the relevant civilian organizations and driving teacher’s associations, proper driving schools with skid-pans where it is possible at the major camps. Proper tuition should be given, because if you think that virtually every young man passes through a camp, what a difference to road safety it could make if there were inculcated into those young men at that impressive stage proper training and a proper sense of road responsibility. Then I believe we would not have the sort of accident figures which are indicated here.

Another thorny question which I know the Minister is going to bristle over is the question of language usage. I know he has issued a statement on the use of language, but certain units approach the question of bilingualism or of unilingualism in a way which does not always appeal to me, I refer, for instance, to a circular I have here from one regiment. The language of the unit is Afrikaans and it says—

That is after saying that Afrikaans is the one language of the unit. But in this circular, not counting typing errors, there are 16 grammatical errors in Afrikaans. That is not my judgment but the judgment of somebody far better qualified than I am. Even in the addressing of the envelope there are three errors. This is not the way either to win respect for a language, or to misuse a language. If all trainees are expected to know both languages, at least a circular sent out in Afrikaans should not be full of grammatical errors of this type. Again I say—I know I will get the argument all over—that in fact, if you know the defence Force, you will know that in many areas and in many camps there is in fact virtually unilingual training today. I appeal to the hon. the Minister. This will interest the hon. member for Vereeniging, because this circular comes from his area. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to have another look at this. I accept his bona fides and I accept the policy he has outlined, but I do not believe that it is being carried out as it should be carried out. [Time expired.]

Before dealing with a few points mentioned by the hon. member for Durban Point, I should, firstly, like to add my congratulations on the announcement made by the hon. the Minister of Defence that our present Commandant-General will remain in service for another year and, secondly, I want to congratulate his successor, Vice-Admiral Biermann as well. In these two gentlemen I think we have a splendid example of the standard of the members of the Supreme Command of our Defence Force. They are men who set an example not only to the Defence Force, but to the entire population. We are proud to have men of this calibre in our Defence Force.

This immediately brings me to the point I want to discuss with the hon. member for Durban Point, the hon. member who touched upon quite a number of matters on which we can see eye to eye, but who could not leave aside his traditional habit of getting in a few underhand digs.

Do you want us all to be “yes-men”?

No. I think the hon. member is more developed than that; he can understand what I mean. We can differ like adults, but I take the strongest exception to the way in which the hon. member criticized the Supreme Command here this afternoon.

Argue like an adult, Hennie.

I am arguing like an adult, and I shall ask that hon. member who has just spoken, to remain out of the picture. This is not the level of debate in which he usually participates. The allegation made by the hon. member for Durban Point to the effect that there is a straight line to positions of authority for certain persons only, is one which, I almost want to say, I reject with loathing. I do not think it becomes the hon. member to make such a remark. The hon. member spoke about the morale in the Defence Force and of our entire population, and then sets such a bad example. What was the hon. member trying to achieve by making that type of remark? [Interjections.] The point is the way in which the hon. member put it, this suggestion he made in the highest council chamber in the country, so that everyone outside should hear it, i.e. that the United Party suspects that there are so-called direct lines of promotion for certain people in the Defence Force. This was not the only contentious statement made by the hon. member for Durban Point here this afternoon.

Must we thank the Minister again?

Order!

If that hon. member would confine himself only to fish, he would do well. For the umpteenth time, the hon. member for Durban Point pleaded here for a joint committee on defence matters. I cannot understand why the hon. member persists with this request after the hon. the Minister has dealt with this argument for him so many times. I think this is the third or fourth time now.

Circumstances change.

The responsibility of governing a country rests with the Government, and every decision the Minister and the Government take, may be criticized by the Opposition. But the hon. member said this afternoon that under the circumstances he unfortunately could not discuss certain matters here this afternoon. But this is not true. He has every opportunity to do so. On the contrary, the hon. member and some of his colleagues discussed with certain newspapers outside some of the points which he said they dared not discuss here for security reasons.

Give examples.

I shall give examples of that. But let me finalize the point concerning a joint committee. The hon. member for Durban Point, least of all, can complain of the hon. the Minister or the Supreme Command of the Defence Force not taking him into their confidence.

But I said so.

The hon. member for Durban Point is informed about all confidential matters concerning the Defence Force, but decisions which have to be taken are a different matter. Somebody must bear the responsibility for decisions, and he may well abandon this idea of a joint committee.

When are you going to give the examples?

I want to tell the hon. member for Simonstown that if he would rather confine himself to fish, things might go well for him one day. The hon. member for Durban Point spoke about the uniforms of the Defence Force and said they did not like—I assume he was speaking on behalf of his whole party—certain aspects of the uniforms. Then he proceeded to say that unfortunately he was not able to debate the matter here.

I did not say that.

Yes, the hon. member did say he was unable to debate the matter here. [Interjection.] Or that he did not want to debate it here. Very well, perhaps that is slightly different, but I want to settle the matter with the hon. member now. After the new uniforms had been exhibited, the hon. member suggested here in private that he did not like everything about them, but he did not have the courage to say out loud what he went to tell certain newspapers afterwards. On 7th March, a banner headline appeared in the Sunday Tribune: “Warning on Nazi Outfits”, and the following words were quoted: “Tragic if the bitterness of 30 years ago is revived”. [Interjection,]

Order!

Are those my words?

Order! Did the hon. members hear what I said?

It went on to say—

The same sort of thing happened in a local newspaper, the Cape Times, in which a detestable article appeared in the same vein, written by a man who said that he, too, had been an ordinary private in the Defence Force at one time. But what I found illuminating in that very long outburst against the new uniforms, was that the identity of the spokesman behind this article soon became clear.

He did not mention his name.

Yes, his name was in fact mentioned. It was concealed to some extent, but has been revealed now. I quote the following—

Here we have it again, Mr. Chairman. I want to tell the hon. member at once that although he is trying to get away from it, this House is the place for conducting a debate on a matter like this. If the hon. member had risen this afternoon to tell me that he did not like the new uniform because of the cut and for other reasons, we could have debated the matter. I would have welcomed such a step by him. Perhaps other experts, who know more about the uniforms than I do or he does, would have discussed the uniforms. My point is that the hon. member in fact started his action in his province, in Natal, where as yet the language differences have not been eliminated quite satisfactorily. He referred to Nazi uniforms there with the very intention of carrying a corrupting spirit into the Defence Force. He did this for no other reason. I take it amiss of the hon. member that he avails himself of opportunities outside this Parliament to convey impressions of that nature and to create a feeling of antagonism towards the Defence Force. The words which the hon. member used in regard to uniforms, bring grist to the mill of the people he referred to who have conscientious objections to military service. [Time expired.]

Before I come back to the hon. member for Stellenbosch, I would like to add my congratulations to Gen. Hiemstra on his year of extended service and also to Admiral Biermann on his impending promotion. I would also like to associate myself with the appreciation expressed by the hon. the Minister to commerce, industry and the Armaments Board for the way in which they have helped to make South Africa self-sufficient.

Coming back to the hon. member for Stellenbosch, may I say that I think he is far too sensitive towards criticism. If there were ever an example why we should have a permanent Select Committee on Defence matters in Parliament, it was the attitude and speech of that member this afternoon. He accused this side of the House of making certain statements about so-called secret Defence matters. Although he was challenged to quote examples, we are still waiting to hear them and we hope he will get another ten minutes to give those examples.

Most certainly.

He spent a lot of his time on the question of uniforms and if I have time I will also come back to that.

However, I want to enlarge once again on the plea of my colleague, the hon. member for Durban Point, on the question of this joint Select Committe. I think it is common cause that we on this side of the House are as concerned as hon. members on that side are about the security and the defence of this country of ours. But we do not have enough information. We are very much in the dark, and when I say “we" I include hon. members on the other side, because I know that they also feel the same way. Year after year we are asked to approve of very large sums of money for the defence of our country. It seems to me that whenever we vote these large amounts of money it is assumed that we take it that all is well. This is not so.

Not so long ago we had the honour of being taken to Saldanha Bay where we were given a brief résumé of the threats South Africa has to face from Gen. Van Riet. It was most informative and interesting and as far as the raising of the curtain is concerned, I think it did a tremendous amount of good to inform all the members present of what we are up against. This standing select committee we are pleading for is the sort of committee that will be fully informed about our problems, what the money is asked for, how it is spent and on what. As we see it, it would be a standing committee which will be able to call on senior officers to give evidence before it and will be one with a twofold purpose, as I see it. It will keep members of this House and of that committee better informed about the problems facing the Defence Force and the security of this country. Secondly, it will tend to keep the Defence Department on its toes, something which we really must be sure of in the difficult times we live in. The department will have to give reasonable explanations of its activities and also reasonable explanations of the necessity for what they are asking for in the way of funds and equipment. They will also have the opportunity of explaining to that committee the necessity for their manpower and equipment demands. I feel that the heads of the Defence Department should be only too pleased to explain to members of that committee in detail what takes place within the department. They have nothing to hide. It is only when one has all the facts before one that one can offer any constructive criticism as far as the policies of the Defence Department are concerned. Where do we get our information about the Department of Defence today? Often, as the hon. member for Portchefstroom rightly pointed out, from “skinderstories". We have to rely on newspaper reports. Will it not be very much better if there were such a committee which has before it a complete appreciation of the situation at a given moment? With that appreciation it can then make up its mind whether the demands and the money we are asked to vote is justified.

When we discussed this matter before, one of the hon. the Minister’s reasons against such a committee was the question of secrecy. We all realize that many things are secret. We must, however, make no mistake about it that people outside, especially our enemies, know a lot more about what is going on in this department than many of the members of this House, It is their job to find out and they do know. I think this question of secrecy is very much overdone. I should like to plead with the hon. the Minister of Defence to reconsider this matter. Surely, there are many reliable hon. members on both sides of this House who could be trusted and who could make a very valuable contribution to the Defence policy of this country if they are in possession of all the facts. It is nothing out of the ordinary. We have, at the moment, in Parliament a number of such committees. I think they are all doing extremely good work. I am referring to the Select Committee on Railways, the Select Committee on Public Accounts, the Select Committee on Pensions and others. These Committees are all doing extremely good work. They deal with matters in a much shorter time and in a much more efficient way than it can be done across the floor of this House.

I should like to come back to the question of the chronic shortage of manpower in the Permanent Force, a shortage which we have had for many years. As far as one can see, this shortage will continue for many more years. It is the cause, and I am sure the hon. the Minister will agree with me, of most of the difficulties that we experience in the Department of Defence at the present time. The difficulties we have experienced in the training scheme, I think, are directly attributable to the fact that we do not have a sufficient number of experienced personnel to train our people.

I should like to come to the question of organization as it exists at the moment. I feel that this manpower shortage to which I have referred, is also directly responsible for the very top heavy structure that we have in our Defence Department. I am referring to the large number of high ranking officers in our Defence Force. I do not want to create the impression that I do not want these people to be rewarded for the services they render. At the moment we have in the Defence Force one full genera), eight lieutenant-generals, 15 major-generals and 81 brigadiers, a total of 105 high ranking officers. It is true that the Defence Force is a very big organization as far as the Citizen Force and the Commando Force are concerned. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it was not necessary for the hon. member for North Rand to rise here this evening and make his speech. He could merely have tabled last Sunday’s Sunday Times. The entire speech he made here, had appeared in that newspaper. He could merely have made a cutting of the speech he has now made here and submitted it to this House for us to read. The hon. member who has just sat down, thought fit to allow an interview, linked to this name and dealing with the same matter he raised here this evening, to appear in the Sunday Times of 2nd May. The hon. member for Durban Point said: “There are people who have a direct line.” The heading to the interview which the Sunday Times conducted with the hon. member for North Rand reads as follows: “Top-heavy Defence Force faces criticism by U.P.” Then the following appears in smaller type: “Too many generals, not enough corporals”. Now the hon. member for North Rand objects to the number of persons holding the rank of lieutenant-general and major-general in the Defence Force. Surely we must now view the insinuation made by these two hon. members in conjunction with each other. They are stirring up suspicion against the persons occupying the commanding ranks in the South African Defence Force. I now want to accuse the hon. member for Durban Point of not having the courage to substantiate the gossip he spreads here. He merely makes an insinuation without in any way attempting to specify where he thinks it belongs. The accusation made here that “there are people who have a direct line”, has been hanging over every member of the South African Defence Force from the moment the hon. member made it.

I said it is said of some people that they have a direct line,

Mr. Chairman, I wrote down the words of the hon. member for Durban Point while he was speaking. We do not know who first made the insinuation, but the hon. member repeated it here in this House. He has cast suspicion on every member of the Defence Force, from the Commandant-General to the lowest rank, because he did not substantiate his accusations. He did not say which person he was accusing and which ranks were involved here. He simply spread a bit of gossip here which casts suspicion on every single officer of the South African Defence Force. I want to ask him whether this is fair and whether this is the way in which it should be done. In the same context the hon. member for North Rand made the accusation that we have too many generals in the South African Defence Force. The following words are contained in this article—

I wonder whether the hon. member would be so kind as to tell us under what Minister he was promoted to the rank of brigadier. What Minister was in charge when he was promoted to the rank of brigadier? It would be interesting to know that and he should please tell us. Here he is presented as someone who was sacked. It looks bad, doubly bad, if someone who, by his own description, was sacked—I do not want to go into it any further—refers to colleagues in the South African Defence Force and then links it to the suspicion talk of the hon. member for Durban Point. It is most offensive and extremely unfair to do something like this. The hon. member made another statement, i.e, that there are people outside this House who know much more about Defence Force matters than hon. members inside this House, That allegation of his is a ridiculous one and he cannot prove it. Therefore he does not know what he is talking about. But the hon. member has this complaint and links it to the Select Committee which they want. I want to make the statement that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has free access to all levels of the Government. I have examples of this. He has access to the hon. the Prime Minister and to the hon. the Minister of Defence, When the hon. the Leader of the Opposition considers there is something in the Defence Force which deserves his attention, he can obtain the relevant information from the hon. the Minister of Defence. If he does not convey it to the hon. member for Durban Point and the hon. member for North Rand it is not my fault. I cannot help it that their Leader does not trust them. Therefore it is not my fault that they cannot obtain that information.

Must he inform the people?

There are many examples of highly confidential information which the hon. the Minister of Defence made available to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Durban Point knows this. If his Leader does not want to share that knowledge with him this side of the House cannot help it. For that reason we cannot approve of a Select Committee being appointed which must provide him with information which he can obtain from his Leader.

In the few minutes at my disposal I want to refer to another point made by the hon. member for Durban Point. He said we were creating a war psychosis in South Africa. He said: “We over-emphasize, we are shouting ‘Wolf! Wolf! and we are blowing it up out of all proportion.” He went on to say: “We are creating a war psychosis in South Africa”. On the contrary is the problem in South Africa not that our people are living in a spirit of peace and quiet to such an extent that they do not always recognize the threat? Our people are living in a time of prosperity and materialism. Their materialism is of such a nature that they do not always recognize the threat to South Africa. When hon. members on this side of this House attempt to inform the public of South Africa in a very careful and discreet way of the threat to South Africa and the threat to more than just South Africa, we are accused of creating a war psychosis in the country and of overemphasizing matters.

In February he still agreed.

Yes they agree When it suits them. However, when he wants to make a debating point here, he levels the accusation that our side of this House wants to create a war psychosis. I want to say that the South African Defence Force is responsible for the order and stability not only of South Africa, not only of the areas within the borders of our own country, but also for order and stability south of the equator in Africa, I shall tell hon. members why I am saying this. We have three neighbouring states. Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland, which do not find it necessary at all to spend a cent on defence, because we have the South African Defence Force that we do and because their security also lies in the hands of the South African Defence Force. We find it interesting that states to the north of us, for example Zambia, do not find it necessary to erect any defence installations directed against anything which may come from the South African Defence Force, because they know there is no military threat to them. In the years to come the stability and security of various other countries to the north of US will depend on the extent to which the South African Defence Force succeeds in maintaining the order and stability, not only of our coastline, but of the entire southern half of Africa. Their future is also going to depend very closely on the security which the South African Defence Force is able to create.

When we talk in this vein, we are accused of having a war psychosis—but if we look at the pattern developing further north in Africa, where the Chinese Communists are penetrating on an unprecedented scale, and where it was recently said that thousands of Chinese women are also entering certain African states, the indications are that a colonization process is taking place, inspired by the Chinese Communists and aimed against certain African states. When those African states start losing their use to that Chinese Communists, the Chinese are going to turn against them as well and will continue the process which is already rearing its head. Once those circumstances prevail, the stability which can be achieved by placing the security of South Africa beyond all doubt, will be in the interests of the Black states of Africa as well, so that they may rely heavily on us for the sake of their own security and continued existence.

Since the earliest years the task of the South African Defence Force has been indicated as being the creation of the measure of stability we are expected to ensure. I understand that another hon. member is going to speak about the Simonstown Agreement later on. The correspondence which has taken place in regard to the Simonstown Agreement has more than anything else placed beyond any doubt the value attached to the stabilizing factor of the South African Defence Force in this area. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to waste my time by reacting to the speech of that hon. gentleman. He cannot even read a newspaper properly. Had he read the article in the Sunday Times properly, he would have seen that I had nothing to do with it. As regards his reference to me being sacked by the Defence Force, I want to tell him and his colleagues now that it is the best thing the Nationalist Party has ever done to me. I am not going to be put off by him when I want to criticize what I regard as a top-heavy establishment of the Defence Force.

To come back to the subject with which I was dealing. I know that comparisons are odious, but I would like to point out that in the Defence Force at the outbreak of war, we had a Chief of the General staff, a major-general, assisted by plus minus 5 or 6 brigadiers. I cannot quite recall the correct number. I would further like to say that at the height of the last war, when South Africa had over 200 000 men under arms, we had nothing similar to what we have today. We had one lieutenant-general with plus minus 8 major-generals. The South African Air Force, which was over 60 000 strong at the time of war. when we had 40 squadrons in the field, with a training organization, a maintenance organization and a coastal Air Force, the whole of the Air Force was commanded by a major-general. If that is not sufficient to show that we are top-heavy at the moment, I do not know what other evidence I can bring.

But the seriousness of the manpower position in the Defence Force today is not so much due to the top-heavy structure. It lies in the vacancies there are for the men who have to do the actual work. I am referring to people with the rank of majors, captains, and lower down. The information given to me not so long ago was that there is at the moment a shortage of 338 majors.

Mr. Chairman, when business was suspended I was speaking about the very heavy top structure of the Defence Force. I made a comparison between the number of high-ranking officers in the Defence Force at the moment and what we had in the Defence Force during the war when a large number of men were under arms. I made the point that the many senior generals and brigadiers that we have today in the Army had become a bit of a joke. I wish to repeat that these officers are doing very valuable work. Other means, however, must be found to compensate them for that work other than mere advancement in rank.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself. [Interjections.]

Order! Now the hon. member for Potchefstroom can see for himself to what his interjection gives rise.

The most serious aspect of the position in the Defence Force today is that the very people who count, those that have to do the work, are in short supply. According to the figures which the hon. the Minister gave me not so long ago, there is a shortage of 338 majors and a shortage of 299 lieutenants and captains. And what is very serious is that there is a shortage of 538 staff sergeants, 1 628 sergeants and 1 296 corporals, the people who form the very core of any military organization. No defence department can operate without these people. They form the very core, the very basis of the organization.

It is no good having a Groote Schuur Hospital with 10 Chris Barnards and teams of other specialists when there are no staff lower down to do the work, the technicians, nursing services and so forth. That is exactly what the position is in the Defence Force today. We have complained about this year after year but the position has not improved. We get the same figures year after year. I should like to point out that it is not only a case of a shortage of units. These people must be experts. They are technicians, instructors and maintenance personnel. These people have to handle very sophisticated equipment and have to look after very sophisticated equipment.

We are spending large amounts on defence. What guarantee is there that the equipment that we buy at very high costs is properly cared for? What guarantee is there that if need be this equipment will be properly used? We on this side of the House are not the only people who are worried about the position. We need only look at the report of the Controller and Auditor-General which comes out yearly. That report contains the same old story year after year, the story of shortage, inefficiency and lack of proper care and maintenance.

The question of new uniforms has been mentioned. The new styles are what one might call “with-it” styles. As the hon. member for Durban Point said, they have to prove themselves in time. It is a great pity indeed that the three arms of the service are going to have the same colours. I was personally very intimately connected with the Air Force’s original change to a blue uniform, and we must make no mistake about the fact that this was a shot in the arm for the Air Force. The morale of the Force was extremely high at that time. I am not one of those who maintain that the present uniform is perfect. In those days we did not have the choice of materials that we have today, but I do feel that it is a great pity that the Air Force will not retain its blue, and that the Army and Navy will not retain their own colours. I feel that a navy man in a uniform of Kalahari sand will be as out of place as a battleship in the desert. It just will pot go. I do not think that the Navy will like this change one bit.

I think that it is a pity, too, that the Commandant-General will have a special uniform. In the past we have had Comnandant-Generals who have been Army men and Air Force men. It has been a matter of pride for the services concerned to see one of their number at the head of the Defence Force. It is a great pity that that distinction should now be taken away.

Mr. Chairman, other hon. members will reply to that hon. member, but as far as the alleged top-heavy structure of the Defence Force is concerned, the basic question one has to ask oneself is still the following: Does the person who has been appointed to a particular post perform a useful purpose with a view to the country’s defences and, if so, is that post justified? The hon. the Minister replied to this question Last year, and the hon. member will probaly also receive an answer to this question this evening.

In passing, I should like to ask the hon. member for Durban Point the following question in regard to the language issue, an issue he raises in this House every year: Should this House ask the hon. the Minister tonight that every person in the Defence Force, including the Permanent Force, who cannot write or speak one of the official languages, be dismissed from the Defence Force?

Of course not.

Very well. In that case the hon. member must stop raising the language question here year after year, because the point he has made may just as easily be used against him, particularly when he refers to grammatical and other errors in a document that has been drawn up. I want to make an appeal to the hon. member that he should rather not raise the language issue in this debate every year, because all he does is to hurt people’s feelings, something which is going to come back at him.

You know I am right. It is becoming unilingual.

Sir. I will leave the hon. member at that. It was announced by the hon. the Minister tonight that the commandos were going to be equipped with the R.I rifle. This means that the ,303 rifle, or the No. 4 Mark II and other models of the same make as we know them, are now finally to be replaced. When I heard that announcement being made, I could not help thinking with some sadness that we would now be taking leave of the ,303 rifle. The ,303 rifle was probably one of the most reliable weapons the South African Defence Force has ever known. This rifle, particularly if one had handled it, developed over the years the features of a good wife and a good pipe. One used to handle this rifle with affection and respect. Within a few years this rifle will no longer be in use. Personally, I am sorry that this is going to be the case. I will probably keep my ,303 rifle to show it to my grandchildren as a piece of Africana one day.

However, this development was accompanied by excellent progress. I am talking now about the 7,62 mm. rifle, of which mention was also made by the Minister tonight. The 7,62 mm. rifle has been issued to certain members of the Defence Force for the purpose of target-shooting. This rifle is also called the RSA rifle. I should like to ask all the members of the Defence Force and the public to refer to this rifle as the RSA rifle in future and not as the Musgrave rifle. I know the people who manufacture this rifle very well. They number among the most able gunsmiths, but the RSA rifle should become our prize product in future. This RSA rifle has proved itself under very strong competition. I should like to tell the Minister and this House that this RSA rifle has proved itself to such an extent that it won the championship this year at the International championship tournament held at the Bellville rifle range in which more than 600 marksmen competed under quite strong competition from overseas rifles, the names of which for ethical reasons I do not want to mention, but the RSA rifle competed against at least four of the best foreign rifles. To my mind this was a major achievement for the rifle to be able to stand up to this competition. I also want to tell the hon. the Minister that six of the ten members of the Springbok team, who participated in the international competition at Bellville this year, were equipped with the RSA rifle.

Sir, another matter which has a bearing on this and which is also indicative of excellent progress, is the fact that the Shooting Union received a subsidy of R16 000 last year while they received R46 750 this year. We are particularly grateful for this. This money is being utilized for the promotion of target-shooting among all these in South Africa who may be interested in it. This is an exceptional concession on the part of the hon. the Minister. But, Sir, I want to mention something eke which is of importance in this connection. In the course of the past 18 months the officers of the Defence Force responsible for matters of this nature constructed a rifle range at Bellville which is only the second metric rifle range in South Africa—the other metric rifle range was constructed at Louis Trichardt, but it is a small commando rifle range while I am talking now of the international type of rifle ranges—and which is also the rifle range of its kind in the world; it is the largest metric rifle range of its kind in the world; it is a rifle range which provides for 81 targets to be used up to a distance of 900 metres and it is even bigger than the Bisley rifle range in England which is known throughout the world.

The firing mound alone of this rifle range is 640 metres long. This rifle range was built during the past year and it is the first metric rifle range in the world on which an international competition was held during the past month. For this I should like to express my appreciation to the hon. the Minister and all the Defence Force members who were concerned with this matter, because they made it possible for the members of the Defence Force and all other people interested in target-shooting to be able to utilize those facilities.

Sir, in regard to the question of target-shooting. I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister one other matter with the request that he reconsiders this, i.e. regulation (3) (c) of the regulations dealing with members affiliated to commandos, as announced in the Government Gazette of 28th February, 1969. In terms of this provision all commando members who are members of the commando reserves may become affiliated members. This regulation was introduced under section 24 of Act 85 of 1967; the relevant sections of the Act are not with retrospective affect and it is impossible for people to be placed on the reserve voluntarily. I am asking the hon. the Minister to consider again whether this shortcoming could not be rectified so that people who have not reached the age of 50 and who may not be placed on the reserve, may also be allowed to become affiliated members of the commandos.

Sir_ another matter which I am particularly interested in and in respect of which I would like to comment, is the Civil Defence College at George. Some of our best young women were admitted to this college 128 of them this year—and I want to comment on the particularly fine spirit displayed by the staff of this Civil Defence College. All of them are members of the Permanent Force. They are people who inspire one with their personal outlook on life and their own approach to the task which is being fulfilled at this Civil Defence College.

Sir, I should like to mention one particular matter, and I think it will be a good thing if our national service units will take notice of this. I am prepared to say that possible only 10 per cent of our national service units are at present able to conduct a retreat ceremony better than these young women at the Civil Defence College did. The hon. the Minister and the Commandant-General and other senior officers were present at the opening ceremony of the College on 10th April. The retreat ceremony—and that after two months’ training—was possibly one of the best ceremonies ever conducted on a parade ground in South Africa. Sir, other hon. members will elaborate on this matter, particularly in regard to the training these young women are receiving there. They will also point out that what is being emphasized is civil defence and the preservation of their own personalities and identity as young women and young ladies.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to comment on a third matter, i.e. the new uniforms which some of the hon. members opposite find so unacceptable. The hon. member for Durban Central actually seems to be ill at ease about the new uniforms. Sir, what is the other side of the case? There is no need for the hon. member and other hon. members to feel unhappy about this matter, because there are 34 000 wool farmers in South Africa who are happy about this.

Hear, hear!

The hon. member for Walmer is proud of the fact that the wool farmers of South Africa could make the primary contribution towards these fine uniforms of our Defence Force.

Nobody argued about that.

Those 34 000 wool farmers in South Africa as well as all of us in this House are glad that we have a uniform in our Defence Force today which is really distinctive of the Defence Force of the Republic of South Africa. I do not think we could have said the same with quite the same amount of conviction of the uniforms we have had up till now. South Africa is among the first few countries in the Western world to have introduced one distinctive uniform for all the various services of the Defence Force. To my mind this is a particularly fine achievement. Sir, I do not want to elaborate on the feelings of the members of the Defence Force hon. members on that side of the House feel so strongly about. I can appreciate the attitude of the hon. member for North Rand. I know the members of the Air Force are very fond of their blue uniforms and that is why the hon. member mentioned something in that regard tonight. But, Sir, that simply does not hold water any more, because the High Command and the members of the Defence Force together with the hon. the Minister who were concerned with this matter, were unanimous on that, and that includes the members of the Air Force. And the hon. member for North Rand had better acquiesce in that. [Time expired.]

And you swallowed that hook, line and sinker.

Mr. Chairman …

Oh!

Sir, I am glad my previous contribution in this House is remembered so well. The hon. member for Potchefstroom could not help, in the first instance, to touch upon his favourite subject, i.e. the language question. However, I will excuse the hon. member, knowing him as we all do. Unfortunately I cannot share in his enthusiasm about the ,303 riflle, for the simple reason that I have had no experience of it in the Defence Force. We used the ,762.

But you still use a “catty” to shoot with.

Order! I warn hon. members not to make so many interjections. The hon. member may proceed.

Sir, I nevertheless find it regrettable that, in a debate of this nature which one would have liked to conduct at a very high level, hon. members opposite found it necessary to send in some of their tomato-throwers tonight.

On a point of order, Sir, is the hon. member allowed to refer to hon. members as “tomato-throwers”?

Order! I think the hon. member must withdraw that allegation,

I withdraw it. Sir, as we all know, the Department of Defence is probably one of our most important departments. This is the case in every country. Not only does it provide the entire basis of security within the country and ensure our confidence in the future, but it also provides in a very important need in the training of our youth. The department has to take our young men through the critical transition stage between the stage of being schoolboys and the stage of being young men, and for that reason the training it provides is so extremely important. In this connection I want to congratulate particularly the instructors’ corps and other staff members dealing with training. We are aware of the major efforts they are making under very difficult circumstances, since they, too, are suffering from a staff shortage.

However, there are certain shortcomings in the training itself, I believe that since we are keeping people for training for a period of nine months, the time is being utilized profitably in the majority of cases, but there are certain shortcomings I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister in a friendly way. These shortcomings are by no means catastrophic in nature, but this is nevertheless the kind of matter where I believe time can be utilized more profitably and where opportunities may possibly be utilized more profitably too. In this regard the Minister may possibly be aware of certain of these matters, but I should like to bring them to his attention again, because this point is rather a sore point among trainees in particular.

In respect of training which lasts for nine months it is, as we all know, essential for trainees to obtain as much personal knowledge and proficiency as possible in regard to all the weapons of a modern defence force. As a matter of fact, I am speaking tonight about the infantry only, of which I have more personal knowledge and experience than of any other branch of the Defence Force. As we know, there are various weapons, Other than his personal weapons, which are essential for the infantry to be able to use effectively in the field and according to the information at my disposal and even my experience there is a shortage of certain weapons for training purposes. There are certain weapons in respect of which trainees are definitely not receiving adequate training in order to develop any proficiency in the use of those weapons. I cannot tell hon. members what those weapons are. The Minister may possibly know of those weapons. Otherwise I shall inform him privately of the experience I, and I am sure, many other trainees as well, have had in this regard. One argument that is used in respect of some of these weapons, is the fact that they are obsolete and for that reason they are not used for training purposes but up till the present no alternative weapons have been provided in which trainees can receive training with the result that there is a deficiency in that particular aspect of the knowledge of the infantry. We also find that certain new weapons are introduced in respect of which the training provided is not as comprehensive as one would have liked to see.

In other circumstances again inadequate equipment is available for training purposes and in this respect I should like to mention one example, because I think one may reasonably furnish this example. This concerns the flame-thrower. We all know this weapon; it is not a secret weapon. But I want to tell you, Sir, what our experience was as far as our own training was concerned.

Sir, you can imagine what it is like when two or three companies have been assembled to watch an exhibition of this flame-thrower and to see how it works. For this purpose the wreck of an old motor car was used, which was to be set alight, and three instructors were standing ready, each with a flame-thrower mounted on his back. At the command, “Fire!” all one heard, was a few clicking noises but nothing happened. Some of the officers then came running forward, snatched the flamethrowers from the backs of the instructors, started turning some screws and got busy on them. The flame-throwers were replaced on the backs of the instructors, one heard clicking noises again and nothing happened.

From the point of view of the trainees who were watching this spectacle this was, to say the least, quite a disappointing performance. As a matter of fact, it under mines their training. As one of the instructors quite rightly said, the only one of these flame-throwers that was working, was handed over to the S.A.B.S. for testing. I think we ought to see to it that things such as these do not happen and that this kind of thing is eliminated.

In the second instance, I should like to deal with the problem of the Citizen Force units. These are units consisting of men who have completed their nine months’ training and who have to report again for the uninterrupted period of training. I believe they are not being kept informed speedily and efficiently enough of new developments and new weapons which have been introduced since they have had their nine months’ training. New weapons and new techniques are being introduced all the time. I know that there is a great deal of training for that. This I do not doubt for one moment, but I also know that the majority of them do not receive any training in the new weapons and new techniques. This should actually be done to a much greater extent. I also know that many of the weapons I am referring to are weapons which apply rather to conventional warfare than to guerilla warfare, but I think that, according to the experience gained in Vietnam, where one has both conventional and guerilla warfare, we cannot leave conventional weapons out of the picture altogether.

There is a further problem we have in our Citizen Force units, which concerns the morale we try to keep high in those units. I do not say the morale is low, but we find trainees there who are there only because the law tells them to be there. Unfortunately there are too many of these people. When you want to go out on manoeuvres or when you want to organize something in the regiment, you find that these people, particularly when there are so many of them, constitute an undermining element of the morale of the troops and you hardly get anything done with them.

Many of these people say they do not feel like playing “Boy Scouts’’. This is the impression many of them gain from what we are doing there when we are occupying ourselves with serious matters, i.e. the impression that we are playing “Boy Scouts". I want to suggest that we give more attention to make the exercises more realistic. I am not speaking now of large-scale military exercises such as those we have seen in the Northern Transvaal and in the Eastern Transvaal, but even in cases where a regiment wants to undertake manoeuvres of its own accord in which only the regiment or even only a company participates. I have discussed this matter with the Minister, but I feel so strongly about this matter that I want to bring this to his attention once more. [Time expired.]

I think it is time I replied to a few matters first, so that hon. members could perhaps raise new points.

The hon. member for Durban Point referred to agitators in regard to arms. He mentioned the name Nusas here, which is going out of its way to cause South Africa embarrassment in our dealings with overseas organizations and friends of ours by pleading that arms should not be delivered to us. I am glad the hon. member did this and that he supports me on that score, but I should like to go further tonight and say this. There is a young gentleman who is in charge of Nusas in this country and who is occupying himself, I think, with matters which he would do better to leave alone and devote his attention to his studies. He is also meddling with Defence Force matters and I want to avail myself of this opportunity tonight to tell him that he must take care he does not burn his fingers. I am referring to Mr. Curtis. I think it is time he was told that he must take care he does not burn his fingers. I do not want to go into this matter any further, but if it becomes necessary, I shall.

The hon. member then referred to the question of the control of stores. I gave a full reply to that last year. The Defence Force is a large organization. Mistakes must, from the nature of the case, creep in. After all it cannot happen that a mistake is never made in such a large organization. What are the facts? Of the 352 inspection reports for the year 1969-’70 only two were unfavourable, and the amount involved here was R187 000 That is 0,000093 per cent of the total budget.

What percentage of the stores were examined?

I said that out of 352 reports only two were unfavourable. Do you know, Sir, that we keep two million stores items? Last year I furnished an explanation of how we were in the process of converting to a better form of control, how we were introducing the N.A.T.O. system, and how we hoped, within a year or eighteen months, to have full control under the N.A.T.O. system. This is a complete innovation in the Defence Force which never existed before. There has never before in the history of South Africa been the control and the supervision, both as far as stores and finances are concerned, that there is today.

Let me just give the hon. member an idea. Ten thousand medical stores items have already been fed into the computer. For the Army 113 200 have been fed in, leaving a remainder of 37 000; for the Air Force 140 000 has been fed in, leaving a remainder of 27 000 and for the Army 55 000 were fed in. In the Quartermaster General Division 10 400 have been fed in, leaving only a remainder of explosives items, approximately 600 accounts and a number of other items which are regarded as inactive. In other words, we are engaged in a new process, i.e. computerization. Under the N.A.T.O. system we are achieving greater control than we have ever had before. Now hon. members seize upon one or two minor unfavourable reports brought out by our inspectors, which had of necessity to be reported by the Controller and Auditor-General. However, I also know that in an organization such as this there has to be deficiencies in certain respects, for example when field exercises are carried out, sometimes far away from the bases. In such an organization there is also a continual fluctuation of people and stores. The deficiencies are for the most part attributable to faulty bookkeeping. They are not attributable to theft or large-scale wastage. Last year I furnished a full reply to the hon. member on this score. Why does he now want to create the impression that the proper control is not there?

The new report is just as unfavourable.

No, it is not just as unfavourable. I also know what I am talking about. With the factual knowledge that I have, I am satisfied that there is better control than there has ever been before. Whatever the Controller and Auditor-General may say about it, I say that I am satisfied that there is better control than ever before.

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister?

The hon. member may put a question to me when he is speaking.

Why may he not put a question? [Interjections.]

Surely we cannot argue like this. Surely the hon. member will be given another chance to speak. I shall reply to him then.

I should like to return to the hon. member for North Rand. The hon. member for North Rand made a very strong point here about the “top-heavy structure” and “the great number of vacancies”. He then referred to a reply I had given him to a question. I did in fact give him the number of vacancies, but why did the hon. member not read further? If the hon. member had read a little further, he would have seen that I had also said in my reply—

Last year you gave me the same reply.

My reply is that they are being trained. Surely they cannot be trained in 24 hours.

That was a year ago.

They cannot be trained even in a year’s time.

The backlog is never made up.

“ … and 2 625 civilians are being temporarily employed in existing vacancies.” That the hon. member did not mention. He placed emphasis only on the vacancies which existed.

But your reply was precisely the same last year. The backlog is still there.

Your story was also precisely the same last year. The fact of the matter is that we are taking steps to fill the vacancies. We also have the people we are training. In addition it is a fact that during the past few years there have been favourable signs of a new interest in the Defence Force. Many—hundreds—members of the Defence Force who resigned earlier, are returning. With our improved salaries and the better housing and other facilities we are providing there is a positive tendency for people to return to the Defence Force.

Those are things we pleaded for.

But we did them. The hon. member has compared the Defence Force with the Defence Force before the war, but the Defence Force before the war was an integral part of the British Armed Forces.

Oh, nonsense!

But of course, it was. There were many staff and administrative services which that Defence Force did not do itself, and which were done by the British Armed Forces.

That was not the case.

Of course, yes. If he denies it, the hon. member did not know what was going on in his own Defence Force. [Interjections.] Now hon. members on the opposite side want to kick up a row. When one provides them with answers, they howl like wolves. Can the hon. member compare the Air Force before the war with the present Air Force?

I drew a comparison with the time when we were fighting a war.

The hon. member cannot draw any comparison of the size and the impact of the Air Force before the war with the one today.

I was talking about during the war.

We have a far larger Air Force …

No, that is not true.

But of course. That is consequently my reply to the hon. member.

Order! The hon. member for North Rand will be given an opportunity to make a speech.

The hon. member made a fool of himself and now he is nervous. I want to go on. Before this structure was established there was a Defence Secretarial. That Defence Secretariat had a number of senior posts. That Secretariat was abolished and some of those posts were integrated with the Defence Force. What is more, they were militarized. The hon. member for North Rand advocated this militarization. Now that we have militarized more posts, he is complaining about the top structure. The hon. member must not talk nonsense here. A Brigadier does not make such a fool of himself. I gave the hon. member a full reply last year. If he would look at Hansard … [Interjections.] Please, hon. members on the opposite side must, just for one night, he courteous. I did not interrupt them. In Hansard, volume 30, column 2927 of 31st August, 1970, I said to the hon. member that this top structure took into account the entire Defence Force, namely the Permanent Force, the Citizen Force and the Commandos. This was done after proper inspections. Those inspections were not carried out by myself or by anyone in the Defence Force, but by people who were placed at our disposal by the Public Service Commission. After that inspection has been carried out, the full report is submitted to me and I make a decision in that connection, after I have gone through it with them. For the first time in the history of South Africa the Defence Force of South Africa has been properly inspected. It was the first proper inspection since 1912 which led to these results. I am not saying that this is attributable to my good qualities. It is attributable to the good management we have at the head of the Defence Force. I do not want to take the credit for it. I want to advocate this evening that hon. members on that side of the House should take into account a little the competent officers who lead this Defence Force and who are most certainly capable of forming a better judgment than the hon. member for North Rand.

But I told the hon. member last year that in this top structure of the Defence Force we must take into account 226 Citizen Force units. I told him that we must also take into account 218 Commando units, with 34 training units and 27 maintenance units. These are figures I furnished the hon. member with. I want to ask the hon. member what he thinks he is achieving by creating the impression among the people outside that a lot of people have been appointed here for whom there is no work, or who are unnecessary? What does the hon. member think he is achieving other than to sow mistrust of the top structure of the Defence Force?

Oh, nonsense.

But of course. But let us now look into this matter for a while. Does the hon. member have anything against a lieutenant-general being in charge of the Air Force? He cannot tell me he is, because the Air Force has never before been as large as it is now. The Air Force now has sophisticated aircraft, air force depots, large workshops and different bases which are scattered throughout the country. Does the hon. member have any objection to a lieutenant-general being appointed as head of the control section, i.e. the Comptroller? This resulted in a transfer of a great deal of the Secretariat’s work. The person who happens to be serving in that post is today the best authority in the country in the field of programme estimating and military estimates. He is a man who has been specially trained for his task. Does the hon. member have any objection to the person who is in charge of the control over Defence Force finances being a lieutenant-general? Does the hon. member have any objection to the head of the Navy occupying the rank he occupies? Before the war there was no navy.

Now the hon. member for North Rand is comparing our present Defence Force with the Defence Force before the war. I am mentioning only a few examples. I could mention a whole series of such examples. Defence Force administration itself resided to a great extent in the Secretariat. For that purpose there was a full Secretariat of the department, with a Deputy Secretary and a number of Under Secretaries to do the work. A part of that work has now been integrated with the Defence Force. Does the hon. member have any objection to those posts, militarized as they arc, remaining posts of equal standing? You see, the hon. member must just give these matters a little thought and he will see that he cannot make such statements as those he made here. I want to tell the hon. member that I think he saddled the wrong horse. I do not think that if he gives this matter some quiet thought, he will take it any further. I think he will agree with me that he is playing a dangerous game. He is playing a dangerous game if he creates the impression among the people that there are posts in the Defence Force which are not justified. Our Defence Force is larger and more efficient. I am not saying this on my own authority, but I am saying this on the authority of officers who served before the war, during the war and who are stilt serving at the moment. We have far more stores and equipment which have to be controlled. We have far more administrative matters which have to be controlled. We have a far greater number of people who have to be controlled. Our bases have been improved. The number of buildings under our control has increased considerably. In other words, there is no comparison to be drawn between the two Forces as the hon. member would like to do.

I should like to say a few words to the hon. member for Potchefstroom. I want to tell him that the 303 rifle must not be regarded as something which is going to be written off. As the hon. member himself knows, the idea is to convert this rifle into the ,243. The ,303 cartridge is also being converted to this use. In other words, it will always be in service, but in an improved form. I can understand that many people feel sad about this, but it is a new dispensation and we must accept it as such.

The hon. member also referred to the civil defence college, and I want to thank him for doing so. However, I just want to avail myself of this opportunity tonight to rectify one matter. I want to ask the Press to stop writing about “women soldiers”. There has been a reaction to that by people outside. The object is not to train women soldiers at that college. The object is to train women leaders for civil defence services. Part of their training comprises self-defence and the handling of certain weapons, but they are not in the ordinary sense of the word women soldiers. I want to make an appeal to the Press to help me and to stop making references to women soldiers. They are arousing an aversion among the parents.

This was said by Rapport.

I do not care what newspaper wrote that; I am making an appeal to the entire Press.

He is probably talking about Zonk.

Then the hon. member spoke about the affiliated members. We can have this matter investigated because there is apparently a group which does not fit in under the regulations. We shall have the matter investigated.

Now I return to the hon. member for Durban Point and the hon. member for North Rand. The hon. members for Stellenbosch and Middelburg have already replied in part to their accusations in regard to the question of the uniforms. I do not understand hon. members on the opposite side at all. Years ago, when one of my predecessors introduced the present uniform, they called him “a tailor”. Today they are fighting for the ‘‘tailor’s uniform”! The fact of the matter is that a spontaneous feeling arose in the Defence Force that our present uniforms were too heavy, that they were not crease-resistant enough, and that they were not always neat. If one had been working all day in that uniform, it did not look as neat as it should have done. The Supreme Command came to me and said that they should like to have the right to have a proper investigation instituted into a new uniform for the Defence Force. I obtained approval from the Cabinet for the principle of that matter, and then I told them that they could, subject to a few conditions, carry on. The first condition was that the new uniform should be of pure wool. That was accepted. The second condition we imposed, was that they should obtain expert advice, for I cannot design uniforms nor can the hon. member for Durban Point. Nor do I think that we two are in fact the two most ideal persons one could select as models! We then went to the Wool Board, the body established by the wool farmers. On the advice of the Wool Board the aid of specific persons was called in. We did not call in their aid, the Wool Board did. Now does the hon. member want me to tell the Wool Board that they are talking nonsense; that I, the Minister, and Vause Raw, will tell them what they must do?

He does not even sleep in pyjamas!

In the third place we said that because there are joint services, such as the Chief of Defence Staff Division, or the Chief of Defence Force Administration, because there are joint services, to which all three Defence Force arms contribute, it is difficult to have a separate uniform for every Defence Force arm. But I had a long discussion with the Supreme Command and said that it was my desire that the various Defence Force arms, although they have basically the same uniforms and cut, should still have distinguishing uniforms. That was done. There is already a large measure of satisfaction throughout the Defence Force, which will remain that way provided we do not go and stir up dissatisfaction now. In the Navy there was a degree of reluctance.

Quite understandably.

It was qquite understandable. That is why certain concessions were made to the Navy. The Navy agreed to the evening wear and the cut.

Under no pressure?

Under no pressure. But, Sir, I cannot allow captains, majors and petty officers to prescribe to the Supreme Command what the uniforms should look like. Then this Defence Force will turn into what the armed forces of some other Western countries are becoming. There must be authority somewhere. I hope the hon. member will refrain from attacking me on that. Somewhere there must be authority. Now, a concession has been made to the Navy, i.e. that as far as their winter uniform is concerned, they will retain the same colour. But let us now leave this matter in the hands of the Supreme Command to solve it in conjunction with the Defence Force arms, and let us not, as politicians, interfere in this matter. It is those people who have to wear the uniforms. As long as we are satisfied that certain basic requirements have been met, after a thorough investigation has been made. Surely it is not the right thing to do to drag the matter of Defence Force uniforms across the floor of this House. With what purpose would we do that? With what purpose did the hon. member for Durban Point come along with this Nazi story? Let me tell him this evening that I can understand that he has reason to feel an antipathy to a Nazi uniform.

That’s right.

Very well. But let me tell the hon. member: There are uniforms which are being worn in South Africa to which I also feel an antipathy.

Why don’t you drop them both then?

That is why we dropped them both and called upon an impartial body to design a truly South African uniform. That is what we did.

It did not.

If a cap has a peak to it, that does not mean to say that it is necessarily a Nazi uniform. The hon. member probably wants one which is as flat as a pancake. He must not be ridiculous.

Then the hon. member raised the question of road accidents. In the Defence Force the least little bump is reported as an accident. That is a rule we have. During the past year there were 408 such cases of accidents which cost less than R10. In other words, anything which goes wrong, is registered as an accident. In the second place, we are introducing a road safety policy. We are by means of special selection and expert advice taking the necessary steps to bring about an improvement in driving ability as well. But we drive many, many miles; these are young people, and we cannot expect these young people to drive with the same responsibility as the hon. member for Durban Point would.

Then the hon. member raised the question of language. He was of course careful enough to say that he knew what the language policy was. I have said in this House already that I advocate a policy of bilingualism in the Defence Force. What is more, I adhere to a policy of no party-political considerations in the appointment or promotion of officers. I adhere to that, and I say it again this evening. That hon. member said an ugly thing here tonight. He spoke of people who had a direct line. Then he was quick enough to say that it was not a direct line to the Minister. Now I want to tell that hon. member how this is done. No appointment of a permanent nature in the Defence Force is made without a proper selection board. No promotions take place for which selection committees have not been constituted. With the two-yearly promotions which are submitted to me for ratification, most of the members of the Supreme Command are present most of the time. This includes Afrikaans and English-speaking persons. They must, with every recommendation they made to me, say why people are being passed over, what the reasons are for doing it, and which people are being passed over. They must motivate this. In all the time I have been Minister, I intervened in one case where a person was recommended for promotion to brigadier, and did not become one. In that case I gave preference to an English-speaking person.

So what?

The hon. member has said “so what’’. I am surprised to hear you saying “so what”. Why do you raise these matters then?

I did not say “so what”. I did not say a word.

I am not talking about that hon. member; I am talking about the hon. ignorant member at the back there.

Promotions take place according to merit. But I want to avail myself of this opportunity this evening to say that age is not a decisive factor in promotions. I want to say that ability, conduct and the conduct of officers’ wives are also decisive factors. Their family life is a decisive factor. Let this be known now. There are quite a few considerations which count. Justice will be done to older officers, but they must not expect to be given preference on the basis of the fact that they are old. In the Defence Force the most competent man will be promoted, whether he is Afrikaans or English speaking.

Then we come to the aspect of bilingualism. We stand for bilingualism. Hon. members know what the practice in the Defence Force is. One month English is used, and the following month Afrikaans. This applies to the entire Department. There are Afrikaans units, English-speaking units and bilingual units. Every man has the right to be spoken to in his language. Now I want to tell that hon. member something, particularly with reference to what the hon. member for Potchefstroom asked him: Does that hon. member want me to apply this policy so strictly that any person who cannot speak and write the other language fluently should not be promoted?

Of course not.

Is the hon. member in favour of that?

Of course not. There must be mutual respect for both languages.

I want to tell the hon. member that if that is what he advocates, I am prepared to accept it.

There must be mutual respect for both languages.

I am prepared to accept that. Then he must not come and complain. [Interjections.] I shall tell the hon. member why. Because that is the way it should be. However, there are certain people in this country who imagine that only their language is of importance.

That is quite right.

There are certain people who say that Afrikaans must not be spoken in their presence. I say that as from tonight, and I am making it the policy here tonight, one of the considerations for promotion in future will be absolute bilingualism.

As far as both languages are concerned.

That will be one of the main points which will count in future, and the hon. member must not complain if I apply this in future, because he raised the matter.

Will it be a requirement to be able to speak both languages?

The hon. member has now got what he was looking for. I say that as from tonight, as long as I am Minister, there shall be absolute bilingualism in the Defence Force …

What do you call “bilingualism”?

… and if a man is not bilingual, it will count against him as far as promotion is concerned.

What do you call “bilingualism”?

The hon. member knew very well what he meant by “bilingualism" when he was speaking this afternoon.

We shall test you on the basis of What you have just said.

The hon. member is welcome to do so.

The hon. member raised the question of the Johovah’s Witnesses, and I think it is important that I reply to that. I want to begin at once by saying that the question of conscientious objection in South Africa has been brought to my attention during recent weeks by individuals and by organizations, and in certain circles what almost amounted to a campaign was waged in this regard. I also conducted a correspondence with certain bodies. Conscientious objection is not something which is confined to South Africa only. Recently there was an international conference in Vienna, where long consultations were held on the question of the refusal to do active service. It was decided that more was at stake than the mere refusal to do active service, or a refusal to serve, but that the whole object was to undermine military organizations. The object behind it was the crippling of Western military organizations, and it was being fomented by bodies and organizations that had ulterior motives in this regard.

They want to become martyrs.

No, it is not just that. There is much more behind it. I am referring to the general organization behind this sort of attitude throughout the world. Sir, such an attempt, should it succeed, can only have the effect of eroding the will of a people to defend itself. It can only play into the hands of those who are supporting the communist threat throughout the world. Let us make no mistake about that, because I feel convinced that these people individually, or as an organized group, will not meet with any success in the countries behind the iron curtain. They are concentrating on countries in the West, Accordingly, I went out of my way to apply my mind to this matter very thoroughly. Firstly, we made a study of the position of the Jehovah’s Witnesses in other countries. I may say that up to now we have experienced difficulties only with them in South Africa. It will not remain so, however. Other conscientious objectors in South Africa are prepared to serve in non-combatant capacities. We employ them as clerks, storemen, fire-fighters, medical orderlies, stretcher-bearers, chefs and waiters, according to section 67 of the Defence Act.

After studying the position in France, the Netherlands, Spain, Australia, Portugal, Austria, Sweden and Switzerland, I have come to the conclusion that our way of non-combatant service is the best method. There is no better solution. But I went further; I also approached three professors in theology at Stellenbosch on this matter, as well as all the chaplains of all the church denominations in the Defence Force. I consulted the N.G. Kerk, the Gereformeerde Kerk, the Hervormde Kerk. the Apostoliese Geloofsending, the free churches, the Church of the Province and the Roman Catholic Church, I consulted all the chaplains in the Defence Force, and they unanimously advised me not to exempt Jehovah’s Witnesses from training in non-combatant services. That was their unanimous advice. As a matter of fact, they reject the attitude of the Jehovah’s Witnesses on biblical grounds and I want to say emphatically tonight that the Act will be applied as in the past. People who are not prepared to comply with the Act will have to pay the consequences. I am most determined in this regard.

*Sir, I shall tell you why. If we begin to concede to the demands of these people, then there will be more Jehovah's Witnesses walking around in South Africa than we could ever imagine. It will be a ruse behind which every person who does not want to do compulsory military service will hide.

They will then use it as a ruse for two years.

I am not going to allow it. We shall use the strictest methods to take steps against these people. I want to tell the hon. member again that it is not only the Jehovah's Witnesses; he must open his eyes to what is going on in the Western world. There is more behind it. These people are mere instruments—perhaps innocently and perhaps wilfully. But there is a campaign being waged throughout the Western world to try to exempt people from military service.

But nobody proposed exemption.

The hon. member for Durban Point said that we should allow Jehovah’s Witnesses to serve in non-military hospitals.

Make the period twice as long.

Sir, listen to what the leaders of the Jehovah’s Witnesses themselves have to say—

“Any alternatives.” Sir, why should we, now build in view of our limited manpower, up an entire organization to examine the conscience of each of these people first? The other religious bodies all support us; they are satisfied with concessions we are making, and I want to tell the hon. member that I shall not make any further concessions; he must accept that as final tonight. [Interjections.] I am not acting on my own here as if I did not take other peoples’ opinions into account. I told the hon. member that I had consulted three professors of theology and all the chaplains in the Defence Force. Shall I flout their advice and follow the advice of the hon. member for Durban Point and the Jehovah’s Witnesses?

You keep talking about “exemption”. Nobody proposed exemption.

I am not talking about exemption. I am saying that we are offering them alternative service in a non-combatant capacity. I want to inform the hon. member that nowhere in the world is there a solution to the problem of these people.

Is what Pro Veritatis says untrue then?

Sir, I am not dealing with what Pro Veritatis said now; I am now dealing with this matter in a pro-Defence Force manner.

Sir, the hon. member for Florida raised the question of the training of national servicemen here. I think that at this stage I must just inform the hon. member that since last year we have ourselves, as Defence Force, after we had acquired a little experience in this connection, ordered a thorough study of the entire question of compulsory service. The psychology division of the Defence Force and various other bodies were consulted. I think we are going to get a better system of selection. The plan is to amend the constitution of the selection boards, under the chairmanship of Permanent Force officers, so that every potential national serviceman can be interviewed to ensure that the right niche is found for him in the first place. This is the experience we have gained. We have always said that as we apply this system so we learn. In the second place we held conferences with all commanding officers in the country last year. We held a conference in Pretoria where senior officers met, and on that occasion we looked into certain deficiencies. We shall in future try if possible to call up Citizen Force units every second year for exercises in unit context instead of every three years, but legislation will be required for that and I shall give my attention to this during the recess after we have investigated it.

That is half-way to what we asked for last year.

No, the hon. member never asked that it should be every second year.

He wants it every six months.

The hon. member asked for a shorter period of compulsory military training. He did not ask for this to be done every second year; he asked for something quite different, i.e. shorter compulsory military training.

Look at my Hansard.

The hon. member said he asked for that. I am not one of those people who, if a good idea is suggested to him, says that one must reject it. I shall make use of all good ideas. Last year I told the hon. member that I would welcome good advice, that he should not merely criticize.

But I did, and then you attacked me.

No. I said to the hon. member last year that one could not shorten the period of compulsory military service.

That I accept now.

Very well then, then he was wrong,

But what about the four years?

Order! The hon. member for Durban Point will be given an opportunity in a moment to address the Committee.

Sir, I also want to tell the hon. member for Florida that we will not only try to call up the Citizen Force in unit context more repeatedly, but that we shall also try to give these people more practical field exercises. We have already begun with that.

With realism?

Yes, with realism. It has become much more realistic since the hon member left. It improves every year.

Because he has left.

Hon. members must not think for one moment that we are not giving attention to these matters, but these things cannot all be done at once. I admitted candidly here that there was a shortage of instructors. There is a shortage of manpower throughout the country, and we shall gradually have to supplement that shortage of instructors. In the second place we shall now have to give permanent appointments to young national servicemen who were trained as officers at the Army Gymnasium, when they enter the Citizen Force. In that way we will then supplement the shortage of officers. We will not merely give them temporary commissions. These are all plans one can devise to cause the system of compulsory military service to function more smoothly. Sir, I think that with this I have replied to most of the points,

With a few words I just want to refer to the hon. member for Florida who, before the hon. the Minister's speech, click-click-clicked here and also did not come to light with anything. [Interjections.] The hon. member must at least practice what he preaches. He preached to us about the fact that we were lowering the level of the debate, and immediately he then “raised" the debate to a level where he had to withdraw a remark about hon. members on this side of the House. That is now what they mean by raising the level of the debate.

But I want to come back to something more pleasant and more elevated For those of us who had the privilege of attending the opening of the Civil Defence College at George, there was indeed a very pleasant surprise. Many of us did not actually know what to expect there, because our only experience of ladies trained in a paramilitary or full military capacity, dated back to the Second World War, but that was wartime service and certainly not comparable with the peacetime training our girls are now receiving. Sir, these girls of ours, who are undergoing their present-day training, are being trained in peacetime for crisis contingencies, and it was therefore difficult to visualize how the Defence Force viewed its task with respect to the girls, and how the girls react to this specific type of training. It is a fact that the ordinary South African is not yet so Defence Force-conscious as we would like, and it is understandable that a great deal of scepticism existed about the idea of military training for our girls. I therefore want to accept the fact that many of us who arrived there, approached the visit in a spirit of critical expectation, but also with an open heart. Sir, what a pleasant experience to see those girls I In the first place we found there a group of girls representing, in fact, that cream of our nation, a group of girls who are born leaders and who are willing to voluntarily place their leadership qualities at the disposal of their father-land and its people, a group of girls who, with a clear eye and a rosy cheek, confidently go to meet the future and its Challenges. At George we found a group of girls who, straight and proud, and with military precision, dedicatedly tackled the task they must carry out, a group of girls who gave a display of military drill on the parade ground that would put many male Defence Force units to shame, but who, immediately afterwards, could pour a cup of coffee with true feminine gestures and grace; girls who, after coming from military parade, could chatter and rejoice in a truly feminine way in their excitement and pleasure when some of their companions were decorated with stripes. I am mentioning these things, in the realization that I sound lyrical about what we witnessed at the college, but I hasten to remark that I was in no way moved to this by the physical attractiveness of this lovely group of girls, although at my age it would be quite a natural and fundamental emotion. But I would much rather believe that my admiration of these girls, and of what happened at the college, is based on the spiritual and sublime content of what they learn there. The commanding officer and his personnel succeed in bringing the leadership qualities of the girls to full realization without, however, the girls losing their basic feminine characteristics in the process. As far as I am concerned, the most important characteristic of the girls being trained here, is that they are being trained there within a military context without relinquishing their true femininity in the process. What I have now stated, testifies to the fact that in their emphasis of the various aspects and facets of the course, the personnel succeed in retaining balance and perspective and in cultivating this in the pupils. Basically their femininity is retained and emphasized, though in the process they are made proficient in spheres that essentially belong to the male sex. Even the uniform that the girls wear, carries a stamp of trimness and femininity. Although, from the nature of the case, it must be a military uniform, the designer has nevertheless succeeded in making a trim, feminine uniform that is not stiffly and starchly military; indeed a uniform that can proudly be worn by these girls. These girls, who are being trained at George, are indisputably going to play an extremely important future role in times of crisis or in times of national or local portent. They are pre-eminently being trained and equipped for that. But we also realize that this training scheme is in its experimental stage, and I believe that it has already proved itself to contain the characteristics of a successful scheme. On this fact, and the daring in tackling this formidable task and carrying it through as successfully as has already been the case, I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister, the Commandant-General and the Defence Force very warmly, because it took courage to establish this institution. But I think that courage was well placed. Even at this stage it is very clear that more of these colleges will have to be established. 130 girls form a fine core-group, but there are far too few of them to meet the needs. Future possibilities should therefore he reflected upon even now, and when this happens I believe that my constituency will stand out as one of the points recommending itself for the establishment of such a college.

With reference to the training of the girls, I should like to make a few suggestions that could profitably be reflected upon. In the first place I want to ask that in the selection of these girls, their leadership characteristics should, from the nature of the case, prove decisive, but I want to ask that the girls should also be selected, when those qualifications have already been taken into account, on a regional basis so that they can more or less be spread over the entire Republic. In the second place, I feel that after the girls have left the college. They should be allowed, on certain prescribed occasions, to wear that beautiful uniform of theirs. These girls uniforms must, in fact, be raised to a status symbol. Thirdly. I want to ask that in order to invest these girls with a measure of authority, consideration ought to be given, on completion of the course, to awarding them some or other authoritative identity. I would not like to use the word “rank”, but I think that reflection could profitably be given to some or other form of authoritative identity whereby these girls could then show that they have been properly trained for a specialized task.

I should just like to say to the hon. the Minister of Defence that if he were to be less arrogant and less provocative and a little less sarcastic when answering criticism from this side of the House, he would add a great deal to the dignity of this Parliament and he would do a lot more good for the Defence Force. The hon. the Minister tried to put words into my mouth that I never used. I never said that there was senior officers, generals, walking around with not enough work to do. What I did say was that the many generals have made the rank of “General” very cheap and that it is a bit of a joke in the Defence Force today, and I repeat that charge. I also said that these gentlemen must be rewarded for their services, but that other means must be found for that, not merely pushing up the rank.

The hon. the Minister accused me of comparing the South African Air Force of today with the Air Force of before the war. The only reference I made to any of the Defence Forces before the war was when I mentioned that at the outbreak of war the whole of the U.D.F. was commanded by a Major-General and that he had under him five or six Brigadiers. I immediately went on to the size of the Defence Force during the war. I want to go into details as far as that is concerned now.

At the height of the war South Africa had over 200 000 men under arms on active service and the U.D.F. in those days was commanded by one Lieutenant-General with approximately eight Major-Generals. The South African Air Force, a force consisting of over 60 000 men at the height of the war, was commanded by a major-general. During the war the South African Air Force had 40 operational squadrons in the field in North Africa and in Italy. The Air Force consisted furthermore of a training organization of approximately 9 000 men. It had a maintenance organization in South Africa of 12 000 men. There was a Coastal Air Force of approximately 3 000 men. Could you possibly compare that with the South African Air Force today? I want to repeat that, at that time, the South African Air Force was commanded by a single major-general with four or five brigadiers. What is the position today. We have one lieutenant-general, two major-generals. 13 brigadiers and, in addition to that, there are 8 major-generals and 36 brigadiers in common services many of whom are Air Force officers. If that is not top-heavy. I do not know what is.

The hon. the Minister also made a song and dance about the abolition of the Secretariat. One of the reasons why the Secretariat was abolished was one of economy. Now the hon. the Minister tells us that those posts were also converted into military posts. That is absolute nonsense. The establishment as it exists today must he accepted as a balanced establishment. Only the Supreme Command can judge that. My charge again is that the Defence Force cannot possibly be efficient and carry out its duties efficiently when those vital people, the lower ranks, are in such short supply, especially as they must be specialists.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has now spoken of “arrogance" and so forth, but the hon. member is not the only man in this House who is allowed to slate his point of view. Let me tell him that he must not regard decency on my part as weakness, I have always treated the hon. member very decently, but if he is looking for a quarrel, he can have it. Let us now put the hon. member’s arguments to the test. The hon. member said he had not referred to the position before the War at any length. I had referred to it. I had said it could not be compared.

But I did not refer to it.

The hon. member did refer to it. In the first place I said that there had not been a navy before the War; today there is. The hon. member must please listen to me now. A section of this posts structure therefore relates to the Navy, which did not exist before the War.

I was only speaking of the Air Force.

Very well. In the second place a section of this top structure relates to the Air Force, which was not as large before the war as it is today. In the third place this top structure relates to administration, which was for the most part done by the British Defence Force, even during the War.

Not in South Africa.

No, not in South Africa. For that they had the secretariat. Now the hon. member says one of the reasons why the secretariat was abolished was the matter of economy. Did not the hon. member also plead for the abolition of the secretariat?

Not for the posts to be changed. That would not help the economy.

But if a chief accountant was needed in the secretariat, he is needed in the Defence Force as well. Does the hon. member think we can manage without chief accountants?

We did your economy then?

Just listen to that wisdom! A chief accountant is abolished together with the secretariat, and he is not appointed in the Defence Force, while he is in fact needed there! This is the way the United Party governed when they were in power.

We did win the war.

Cannot I make the hon. member understand that all the posts in connection with the topstructure were not arbitrarily created? Does the hon. member understand that these posts were created after a very thorough investigation had been conducted and after motivation for the creation of certain posts and been submitted to me? Take, for example, the large section dealing with codification. Surely the hon. member knows what I am talking about now.

Are the numbers larger than those we had during the War?

But of course. After all, we have many more items to control now than ever before. Does the hon. member know, for example, that we have stores to the value of more than R2 000 million?

That may be, but we had more during the War.

I told the hon. member a moment ago that the British Defence Force helped with the administration to a large extent.

But that is not true.

I have it on the authority of officers who served in the Defence Force during the War. I take more notice of them than of the hon. member, because they are my advisers and I have no reason to doubt their word. Every one of these posts is the result of a proper inspection. [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon. member for Carletonville say that the hon. member is a traitor?

I said it seemed to me as if the hon. member had been born for treachery.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Mr. Chairman.

The point I am trying to bring home to the hon. member for North Rand is that he is engaged in a very dangerous thing. If the top structure is too heavy, it means there are posts that should not be there. This is the only inference one can draw. Now the hon. member must tell me which posts in that top structure I should abolish. Let me now give the hon. member the present state of affairs. The Permanent Force consists of 19 000 members; the Citizen Forces of 83 000; the Commandos of 60 000; and the cadets of 56 000—a total of 218 000.

On active service?

These people are always active. [Interjections.] Do hon. members now want me to go and wage a war with these people to justify the posts? The hon. member must not become absurd. He must not become senile. These 218 000 people have to be administered, apart from the equipment and the Air Force bases all over the country. Must I now spell them all out to the hon. member so that our enemies may know them? Must I tell the hon. member how our Navy compares with the one before and even during the War? It was only after the War that the Navy developed on a large scale.

We do not dispute that.

But then it is a different Defence Force. I am told that the stores accounts of the Air Force have grown from 200 000 items a few years ago to 500 000 items. Now I should like to put a question to the hon. member: There is a lieutenant-general at the head of the Air Force, with a major-general as chief of staff; does this man not belong there?

I did not…

I am saying there is a lieutenant-general at the head of the Air Force and a major-general as chief of staff and I am asking the hon. member whether this man does not belong there.

I compared it with the Air Force during the War years, when we were actually at war.

At the head of the Army there is a lieutenant-general with a chief of staff who is a major-general. Should this man not be there? Should the head of the Navy not have a chief of staff? Here we have an ex-officer, but he does not know what he is talking about. The hon. member is not being true to his past when he acts in this way. The hon. member tries to create the impression that we are creating jobs on a large scale, while it is the result of thoroughly investigated inspection reports. I want to tell the hon. member something more, but the hon. member does not want to listen now. He reminds me of the judge who put earphones over his ears when he had to pass the death sentence. The hon. member does not want to know the facts. He merely wants to spread a story in the country. There is just one more thing I want to tell the hon. member for North Rand, and then I shall have done with him. He is making himself look ridiculous in the eyes of the highest officers of the Defence Force; they are laughing at him.

Mr. Chairman, I am standing up here tonight …

As an expert.

Mr. Chairman. I want to admit that I do not have as much in me as that hon. member has in him.

Order!

I mean experience and scientific knowledge. I bow to that hon. member’s superiority.

Mr. Chairman, when we have to do with defence matters, we should adopt a calm attitude. That is what I want to do tonight. As far as defence is concerned, we must give credit to those to whom credit is due. I want to do something unusual tonight. I want to say that on my part I congratulate the hon. member for Durban Point on his appointment as honorary colonel of Nusas. I think he will in future be known here as the appointed honorary colonel of Nusas. He and Nusas have found something in common in that they criticize our new Defence Force uniforms in the same terms. I congratulate him on that.

I thought you had more in you than that. I used to have respect for you.

I am glad that I have the opportunity tonight to tell the hon. member for Durban Point that we who have been sitting in this House for a long time look very closely at people on that side of the House. We have our little quarrels and our little differences. But I want to tell the hon. member for Durban Point that we do not fail to notice him. We do not look past him. We see more deeply than that hon. member thinks we do. I am telling that hon. member in plain language tonight that he is one of the most dangerous men in South Africa, that he is playing a double game. I am saying this and I am sincere in what I am saying.

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

Which words, Mr. Chairman?

That the hon. member is playing a double game.

Mr. Chairman, with all respect, Kaunda has been called a double-talker here; why cannot I call that hon. member a double-talker?

Order! No, that may not be said. The hon. member must withdraw those words.

I withdraw them.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I object to your ruling. I do not think the hon. member is out of order in saying that I ask for the ruling of the Chair on that.

Order! The hon. member is casting a reflection on the Chair now.

Mr. Chairman, may I address you on a point of order?

No. The hon. member for Carletonville may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I shall not forget how, when I spoke of “Rooitaal” in this House with typical Boer humour, that hon. member tried to make political capital out of it and it was echoed in every jingo newspaper in Natal. I am telling the hon. member in all friendliness tonight that he is playing a double game within his party.

I want to put a few questions to the hon. member quite calmly this evening. With the centre of gravity being shifted, as I see it, to the Indian Ocean, to the East, our East Coast, or eastern flank, has become much more vulnerable. Therefore I want to ask the hon. the Minister what the position is in regard to the defence of our eastern flank. What is the position in regard to our radar and the defence of our seaports? To substantiate and to provide a basis for these questions I want to refer to a short speech I made here on 21st February, 1957. I quote from volume 93, column 1553:

This was at the time when world conditions seemed rather strange to us. Then one of the hon. members opposite asked: “What is that situation?” To which I replied:

Who said that? Winston. Churchill?

No, Cas Greyling. The questions that I put to the hon. the Minister here, I want to base on the same thing that I asked for in 1958. I made a speech in 1958 and I want to elaborate on that speech. I said there had been a change in the East during the previous few years and I spoke of the increasing significance of the East. I also said that, in the first place, the West as a miltiary power and as a colonial power was disappearing from the East. Now I want to tell the hon. member for Turffontein that I said that when he was still a babe in arms. I said that this weakening process had started in the Far East and that the same process was taking place in the Near East as well. Then I also referred to the phenomenon that Russia was standing in Africa at that moment. After having referred to the Bandung conference of 1956 and India’s endeavour to develop, with the aid of Russia, into a country with powerful heavy industries. I said:

My question follows on this. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Carletonville has referred to dangers that existed in 1958, only three years after the Simonstown Agreement had been negotiated by this Government. I propose to speak this evening about the Simonstown Agreement. I believe the time is ripe—it may even be over-ripe —for re-negotiation about the Simonstown Agreement. There are obvious reasons for it. The first is the Russians in the Indian Ocean, the second the economic interests of the Chinese on the African Continent and, also I think, the slow but sure realization among the people of the United Kingdom and possibly also of the United States that their own interests in the southern hemisphere are in jeopardy. Now, Mr. Chairman, you may ask me why I think the agreement should be revised. I say it should be revised because I believe it was entered into by a Government which was anxious to demonstrate its sovereign independence and negotiated by a Minister of Defence at the time who was prepared to obtain an agreement at almost any price for the purposes of internal political capital. Because of these facts, the agreement was hastily drawn up. It lacks clarity and it is open to different interpretations by successive Governments, more particularly successive British Governments, very often to their own advantage. I say without any fear of contradiction that the sooner the existing uncertainties arising from the Simonstown Agreement are eliminated, the better it will be for relationships between South Africa and the United Kingdom.

How advantageous has this agreement been to us here in South Africa? It is not my intention to discuss the question of the supply of arms under that agreement, save to say that the United Party has maintained over the years that in its view there is both a moral and a legal obligation to supply arms under that agreement. What is more important is the spirit underlying that agreement, which is just as important as its legal terms. I also do not wish to discuss that part of the agreement which relates to the need for international discussions on regional defence. My reason for that is of course that this section of the agreement has almost become obsolete because of changed circumstances on the African Continent. I would rather examine tonight those two agreements within the Simonstown Agreement, which give written effect to what was really a working relationship between the United Kingdom and South Africa over the years. Before doing so, I think, it is perhaps appropriate to say that the Simonstown Agreement of 1955 was not the first agreement between the United Kingdom and South Africa regarding the naval base at Simonstown. In 1921 Gen. Smuts, who was a much maligned statesman, entered into an agreement with Mr. Winston Churchill whereby South Africa took over the responsibility for the land defences of the Cape Peninsula including the Simonstown dockyard. The Imperial Garrison was withdrawn from the Cape Peninsula, and the British, in the words of Gen. Hertzog, had the right to use Simonstown, “a right of perpetual user”.

Now let us deal with the 1955 agreement. I think it is common cause between the Minister and I that there is one single commitment, namely to ensure the safety by the joint operation of their respective maritime forces of the sea routes around South Africa, because to quote “of their importance to the wellbeing of South Africa and the United Kingdom in peace and their common security in the event of aggression”. I wonder how many hon. members in this House know that under this particular section of the agreement there was set up a naval command structure, whereby the then Royal Naval Commander-in-Chief was to be someone like a supremo in wartime, commander of the South African forces as well as the British forces, and the chief planner in peace-time. His flag was to fly outside Simonstown, in fact elsewhere in the Peninsula. South Africa had to provide staff accommodation for him, his headquarters, equipment and communications, homes for his staff, quarters for his men, plus agreed storage and office accommodation at Simonstown and elsewhere, all of this at the South African taxpayers’ expense. In fact a substantial number of British naval staff remained in South Africa until 1967. As the Minister knows, in that year Service level talks took place in South Africa which resulted in a purely token British naval liaison force in South Africa at the present time, and, as was stated after those Service level talks. South Africa agreed to take larger responsibilities for the defence of the sea routes around our shores. The Minister at that time said that he was satisfied with the Service level talks and he announced that mutually acceptable arrangements had been made regarding the use of the base facilities of Simonstown in wartime. Presumably he was talking about a war in which both South Africa and the United Kingdom were engaged on the same side.

Now I want to turn to Part 3 of the agreement, Mr. Chairman, that is to say, the actual transfer of the naval base and its future use. I am sure that there are a number of Members of Parliament here tonight who do not know the terms of this agreement so far as the future use of the Simonstown base is concerned. First of all, as regards its future use, the Royal Navy has the use of Simonstown in peacetime and in addition she has the use of Simonstown in wartime, and any ships serving with the Royal Navy also have the use of Simonstown and her allies likewise have the use of Simonstown. I am now referring to any war in which the United Kingdom is involved. Where South Africa and the United Kingdom are co-belligerents, the allocation of space facilities at Simonstown is to be arranged by mutual consultation. As the Minister knows, this matter was dealt with at the Service level talks, and according to him satisfactory arrangements were made about the allocation of space between the United Kingdom and South Africa in a war in which they wert both involved. Furthermore, South Africa is obliged to maintain and to expand Simonstown; that is laid down in clause 6 of the agreement. But when the United Kingdom is at war and South Africa is neutral, the South African Navy under the Agreement has to leave Simonstown to go to facilities which she has to provide for herself elsewhere in the Republic. Admittedly this agreement is difficult to understand, but this is the interpretation that I place on it. The agreement says further that as the South African Navy is to expand. South Africa should provide for facilities for herself to ensure—

This is in any war in which South Africa is neutral. The same applies to the wireless and telegraphy installations which South Africa took over from the British Admiralty.

Sir, what is the effect of Part 3 of the agreement? It means that British Administration and control were moved from Simonstown; secondly it means that Britain’s return to Simonstown under certain circumstances were envisaged, that South Africa should then vacate the base, and, lastly, South Africa has to maintain Simonstown and if she were neutral to provide alternative facilities for her own use elsewhere. Both this part of the agreement regarding the naval base and the part dealing with ensuring the safety of the sea routes will remain in force until mutually determined otherwise. A Minister of the last Labour Government, Mr. Stewart, said in 1968—

Sir, this is what I am asking the hon. the Minister tonight. I believe that the time is ripe, that it has never been riper since the signing of that agreement, for South Africa to take the initiative and to re-negotiate the Simonstown Agreement on terms more favourable to South Africa. I believe that revision is essential, and I also believe that a new agreement of larger scope than the present agreement could be negotiated, perhaps to include some of the Nato countries and also perhaps Australia and New Zealand and some of our South American friends, all of whom have a vital interest in the protection of the sea routes around the coasts of Southern Africa and have joint regional interests in the Indian and the South Atlantic Oceans.

*Finally, Sir, I come to a last but very important point. Throughout the years the public of South Africa has shown hospitality to naval men from visiting warships. South Africa has built up a very good name in that regard. As the Minister rightly said, our own Navy has expanded enormously since the war. Our own ships go to our coastal towns, to our ports. I am asking tonight whether it is too much to ask our fellow-South Africans to show them the same hospitality, friendliness and appreciation for their work as we have shown foreigners in the past.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Simonstown spoke about the Simonstown Agreement and gave an historic review of it. He also lodged a plea for new negotiations in connection with that naval base to be conducted. I think the hon. member has a good point, because if one takes the development of Russian and Chinese influence in the Indian Ocean into consideration, it could hardly be expected of South Africa to manage the whole of the southern Indian Ocean from Simonstown. We want to congratulate the hon. the Minister and the Department on the arrival, one of these days, of the first submarine in Simonstown. The other two are arriving at a later stage. These are actually too ftw for the defence of the entire southern Indian Ocean. There are rumours that the Chinese are equipping a naval base on the coast of Tanzania. There are other rumours—fairly substantial rumours—that the Russians have already obtained naval rights at Mauritius. If this is true, and the Chinese and Russians were to develop there, one can see what a danger this would present to ships around the Cape and through the Mozambique channel when there is a communist naval base on either side of them. The hon. member for Simonstown recognizes the threat of the Russian and Chinese communist activities around Africa. I am glad that he does do so. One of his other colleagues does not.

Earlier this year, when we were dealing with a private motion here, and I pointed to the necessity for co-operation between States in Africa, specifically because of Russian and Chinese communist activities in Africa, the hon. member for Von Brandis reproached me and said that I was trying to see a communist behind every bush. According to him the communist endeavour in Africa has been altogether unsuccessful, and has presented no danger. His words were—

The hon. member proceeded further to diminish the communist endeavour in Africa. He said—

Is it true or not?

I would very much like to join the hon member for Von Brandis, and apparently also the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, in believing that there is no threat to us from communist forces from Africa. I should, in fact, like to believe this. Then we would be able to continue very peacefully with our lives in South Africa, in the knowledge that we are not threatened. Then we would be able to withdraw our boys from the Zambezi area. Because what would they be doing there? They would indeed be redundant. Then we would be able to reduce, by more than three-quarters, the R316 million that now appears in the Defence Estimates. What would we be needing weapons for? But then we would also be doing exactly what the communists want and would like us to do. We could do the communists in Africa no greater favour than by diminishing their endeavours. We could give them no better help then by telling the people in Africa that the communists do not present a threat to them. In that case the communists would, silently and unobserved, be able to continue with their subversion, and be able to pursue their undermining activities until they have everyone in their power. We know, after all. that the communists are not in a hurry. We know that they are satisfied as long as they can progress slowly, because time remains on their side. If the hon. member for Von Brandis is accusing me of looking for a communist behind every bush, let me tell him that the communists no longer hide behind bushes. The traditional picture of a Bolsjevist with a black hat, a long beard and a bomb in his pocket, is an antiquated one. Today’s communist will be found in an altogether different place; one would not know him. He may perhaps be an elegant ballet dancer or the host at a cocktail party.

A book called “The Political Parties and Africa”, which was recently published by the Africa Institute of the U.S.S.R. Academy of Science, came into the hands of the Moscow correspondent of the Daily Telegraph. It gave a very illuminating exposition, and was specifically written for the purpose of giving instruction to the indoctrinators of Africa. In this connection the Daily Telegraph states the following, inter alia, in a leading article on 15th March—

The Daily Telegraph concludes its article by stating—

If the Daily Telegraph of London speaks in these terms, I cannot see what the hon. member for Von Brandis has in mind by trying to debate communist influence in Africa, It would certainly be wrong to overemphasize the achievements of the communists and the concomitant dangers. One must nevertheless be realistic and not be blinded by ignorance. There are, after all, many facts that indisputably prove that the communist threat in Africa is, indeed, a substantial reality. The spectacular progress that Russia has made in the diplomatic sphere in Africa proves this. Twenty-five years ago Russia was only represented in one country in Africa by one diplomatic representative. Now there are 39 diplomatic representatives in 39 Africa states. It is a generally recognized fact that the terrorists. who are becoming a threat in Africa, work with Russian and Chinese communist weapons and that they are trained by communists. It is known that there are at least 40 training camps for terrorists in Tanzania and Zambia. It is known that Chinese communists have gained a foothold in Africa with their undertaking to build the Tanzam Railway. 15000 so-called technicians are streaming in to do that work. They are not only workers; they are also indoctrinators. They are such a threat that the president of the Gold Coast referred to them the other day as a danger to Africa. It is known that both these Frelimo terrorists, supported by Moscow, as well as the Coremo terrorists, supported by China, are directing their activities towards wrecking the Cabora-Bassa project. In this connection the Intelligence Digest of April this year writes as follows—

[Time expired.]

Mr.Chairman, the hon. member who has just sat down seems to have communism on the brain. At every possible opportunity in this House he gives us a lecture on the danger of communism, I will say this to the hon. member, that he has graduated from the “swart gevaar” tactics to the communist stage. This is an improvement. I would like to remind the hon. member of the fact that while the army may be the first line of defence against communism, the greatest bastion against communism is our own civil population. This Government so often seems to ignore this very fact. The army will be useless against communism and terrorism unless they have the civil population behind them. Evidence so far seems to be that the Government has done very little in this regard. The more hon. members on the other side speak in this debate, the more I become convinced that they know little, if anything, about defence. Here, too, one must forgive them, because when they had the chance of getting some experience about defence, they did not take it. I would like to deal with the hon. the Minister in particular tonight.

We have come to know the hon. the Minister quite well. One of the impressions he leaves with this side of the House, and certainly with me, is that he is a man who, in the modern parlance, soon loses his cool in dealing with a matter so vital as defence. I suggest South Africa deserves something better from the Minister of Defence. We deserve a degree of calmness and common sense, which has so far been lacking from him in many aspects of this debate. I was shocked with an earlier statement he made, namely that language will be the criterion for promotion in the Defence Force.

He never said that.

Yes, he did. No longer will promotion be on a basis of merit, but on the basis of bilingualism. This is what the hon. the Minister said tonight, and this is his policy. In other words, in the strongest language I can use …

You know that you are not telling the truth.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw, Mr. Chairman.

It does not matter what interjections hon. members on the other side make; they have no experience of this matter. When they had the opportunity of getting that experience, they did not take it. I would like to say to the hon. the Minister—and South Africa should know—that when it comes to the security of the country which is governed by the strength of our Defence Force, the hon. the Minister is going to promote people who are fully bilingual rather than on merit.

So what will happen in the case of a man who has all the talents, and all the abilities to hold office in the Defence Force? He will be measured not according to that ability, not according to that talent, but rather according to whether or not he is fully bilingual. I should like to say that it is about time the Department of Defence, of all departments in South Africa, moved away from this fetish of language, which has only been brought about by an accident of history in any case. What would happen in South Africa if we had a Napoleon or a Wellington? He would probably stay a corporal if he could not speak one of the two official languages. I believe that South Africa should know that according to this Minister the criterion for promotion in the Defence Force will not be ability or merit; it will be a question of bilingualism.

He did not say so.

It is no good hon. members getting excited and saying that he did not say so. He did say so. I should like these hon. members to know that when it comes to defending myself and my family, I do not give a damn what language a man speaks, as long as he defends me properly.

Order!

Mr. Chairman, I feel strongly about this. I shall now come to the level where we can try to achieve something in this debate. The hon. member for Durban Point made a plea once again for a joint select committee on Defence, but what happened? So far we have heard nothing from the hon. the Minister in this regard. Surely, the time has come, if the Government really has defence at heart, for them to remove this question from the political arena. What better way to do it than to have a joint select committee? We have a Select Committee on Railways, but we do not have one on Defence, An hon. member on that side of the House said that the Minister of Defence could still talk to the Leader of the Opposition or the hon. member for Durban Point about these matters, but that is not the point at all. [Interjections.]: Sir, if the hon. the Chief Whip is so concerned about our appeal for a joint select committee on Defence, let met remind him that if such a committee were appointed, it would show the strength of the Government and not its weakness. When the Government refuses to appoint such a committee, the only conclusion I personally can come to, is that they prefer to play politics with this issue year after year. Can the hon. the Minister in all honesty tell me that when he handles this debate we on the Opposition side are free to get up and say exactly what we think about the Department of Defence? Would the hon. the Minister appreciate it if I were for instance to get up and give him the information I have about the lack of training, the type of training, the allocation of troops, the situation of the troops and their strength? Would he or would any hon. member on this side of the House appreciate it if I were get up and speak of the lack of weapons in certain quarters? Would that be appreciated? Of course it would not. As a responsible Opposition we would not be doing our job if we aired across the floor of this House some of the things we know about the Defence Force.

In being critical in this regard, we are not saying that these problems are easy of solution. That is the last thing we suggest. What we are suggesting to the hon. the Minister of Defence is: How can he expect anything useful to come from this debate when we are not given the information? The information we receive is what he chooses to give us across the floor of the House. It is the information we get from our constituents and from our sons; but how can we check and debate this information? We cannot do so because very often it would be damaging to the security of South Africa. I maintain that the hon. the Minister of Defence and the Government owe it to South Africa to appoint such a committee. They do not owe it just to the Opposition, because they themselves will be the Opposition one of these days. The Opposiotion in this case does not count; neither does the Government. The welfare and the security of South Africa counts, If the hon. the Minister is serious in his attempt to build up a good Defence Force—and I believe he will prove how serious he is if he ignores the political consequences—he will appoint such a joint select committee where we can discuss these things with him and tell him of the problems we find. How would the hon. the Minister of Defence like it if I were for instance to point out to him across the floor of this House the various loopholes in South Africa's security? He would not like it at all, and it would do South Africa no good if I were to do so. There are, however, many members on this side of the House who have very great reservations about certain aspects of our defence. We have certain reservations about our security. As I have mentioned, this includes matters such as the location of troops, their weapons. their strength and their morale. I could talk at length on the strength, particularly the morale of various units, but it would not be doing South Africa or the Department of Defence a service were I to do so in this House. This is why I say to the hon. Minister that this is not a matter to be lightly brushed aside. Ths is a matter in the interest of South Africa, and I know that the Minister has those interests at heart, hut he must appreciate that those interests cannot be coupled with political interests as well. The time has come, Sir, when we must give this matter consideration. We have now a Minister of Defence who is better than a previous Minister of Defence, whom we will not name. What happens when this Minister moves on to some other occupation and when he is no longer Minister of Defence? We may then get a Minister of Defence who will undo in two or three weeks all the work this Minister has done in two or three years. Nothing will be done about it. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I cannot let the hon. member get away with a statement he made here. I want to tell the hon. member, who is a young member of this House, that you can make many mistakes in this House, but one mistake you never make here, and that is to violate the truth. The hon. member comes along here and says blatantly and in front of everyone present here tonight that I said the tests for future promotions would be bilingualism alone. But that is not what I said. Now, what are the facts? The hon. member for Durban Point discussed the question of proper language equality with me, I then told the hon. member that I stood for a policy of bilingualism. I assured the hon member that I tried to see to it that that officials policy was applied. Then I put a question to the hon. member for Durban Point. I asked him whether he wanted me to apply this policy strictly. If I am to apply it strictly, certain people are going to suffer. The younger people in the Defence Force are all bilingual, but there are older people in the Defence Force who are not as bilingual as they should be. Then I said that if I were attacked on the question of language policy, I would henceforth make it one of the important considerations for promotion. I went further and said …

You said, “As from tonight”.

Order!

Yes. It is in accordance with the laws of this country. Does the hon. member know that it is in accordance with the South Africa Act? Then I went further and said that there were other considerations that counted. There was a man’s family life, for instance, and the conduct of his wife, apart from his competence. That was also one of the considerations. When you promoted an officer, there were, of course, different aspects that had to be taken into consideration. The position is not what the hon. member tried to make out, namely that I lose sight of all considerations of merit or competence. The hon. member is a fairly young member, but people who have been guilty of this kind of conduct in this Parliament have often disappeared. They disappeared sooner than they thought they would. I am no prophet, but I want to tell the hon. member that he is the type who will soon disappear from this Parliament, I want to deal with the matter quickly now. I said—

The hon. member comes along here and openly violates the truth. I think he ought to be ashamed of himself. I quote further—

Is the hon. member not ashamed of himself, or is he incapable of being ashamed? I do not think he is capable of being ashamed of himself, I quote further—

Of course not.

Is the hon. member in favour of that?

Of course not. There must be mutual respect for both languages.

I want to tell the hon. member that if that is what he advocates, I am prepared to accept it.

I am reading from the Hansard report now. It has not been revised. I read further—

I am prepared to accept that. Then he must not come and complain. I shall tell the hon. member why. Because that is the way it should be. However, there are certain people in this country who imagine that only their language is of importance.

That is quite right.

There are certain people who say that Afrikaans must not be spoken in their presence. I say that as from tonight, and I am making it the policy here tonight, one of the considerations for promotion in future will be absolute bilingualism.

The member is in a scandalous way putting words into my mouth which I never used. Now I want to tell the hon. member that this is just the way we know him. Because this is the way we know him, he is one of the people of whom very little notice is taken in this House.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has dealt with the hon. member for Port Natal according to his deserts. In the few minutes that are left I just want to turn to another matter. The Simonstown Agreement has been discussed tonight, as well as our Navy and its function in the Indian Ocean. It is therefore an appropriate occasion tonight to refer to the fact that, for the first time in the history of our country since 1910, a naval officer, a sailor, is to be appointed head of the Defence Force as Commandant-General. It will be a historic day when a sailor, a naval officer, becomes the Commandant-General of our country. This was announced in the same month in which our first submarine is to arrive from France, as well as as in the same month in which our Republic is beginning to take its rightful place in the Southern Hemisphere among Navies which have submarines. Incidentally, it is a fact that our submarine fleet of three does not compare at all unfavourably with those of other states in the Southern Hemisphere. Since our Admiral is entering upon a new era, we on this side of the House would like to wish him every success with the expansion of this important branch of our Navy in the years to come. I may also tell the future Commandant-General that the Afrikaner has become increasingly conscious of and interested in the sea. The young Afrikaner is ready to come forward today. If, in future, this submarine squadron is increased to 12 or more, as it should be, the young Afrikaner men will make themselves available for this task in larger numbers. It is in the interests of the readiness and the expansion of our Navy that this submarine squadron of ours should perhaps be enlarged to a squadron of 12 within the next decade, possibly including a few of the heavier type, but mainly consisting of the lighter pursuit class which is now on order and will shortly be delivered to us for effective coastal defence and maritime protection.

The United Party was only concerned about generals and the structure of the Supreme Command tonight.