Mr. Chairman, may I have the privilege of the half-hour?

In the Second Reading debate on this Bill I stated the policy of this side of the House in regard to defence matters—our basic attitude to defence as such. I also announced that we would accept the total amount which is being requested here and which is now before us. It is the duty of this House to consider the details of that expenditure and the details of the administration of the Department of Defence, to subject these to close scrutiny and to express our criticism on the matter. I hope that we are going to approach this matter in a calm state of mind and with a sense of responsibility. However, since certain things may be said during this debate, I feel obliged to start by raising a few other facts.

†I want to repeat what I have said during previous defence debates. I want to say that sometimes we experience a problem in regard to the hon. Minister in charge of this department. As Minister of Defence who is responsible for the administration of this department, we can talk to him, we see eye to eye and we have a common cause. As a politician, as the leader of his party in the Cape and in the political field, he exhibits traits which we cannot accept. On occasions he is guilty of what we consider to be wild excesses— as temperamental explosions, as going overboard on political issues.

There is no need to be personal.

I want to make clear, Mr. Chairman, that our view of this debate is the administration of defence matters by the department and not as a political issue. We are not here and we do not intend to be provoked into playing politics in regard to this question of defence. I would, however, be dishonest if I said that we do not have objection to some of the Minister’s political views and actions. However, that does not mean that under this Vote where we are dealing with the security of South Africa, we are going to drag into our discussion of this question of defence, matters which can be dealt with better in other spheres. I want to say, too, that in the administration of the Department of Defence, this Minister does a good job, a job which we can support because he is serving all the people of South Africa. So, whilst we disagree politically, whilst we may criticize the hon. the Minister as a politician, I want this afternoon to deal with the issue of our security in South Africa.

Before dealing with the Vote itself, I should like to deal with one or two other matters. Firstly, because of the publicity given to the whole matter, I want to state here in the clearest possible terms that the United Party is totally and unequivocably committed to supporting the principle of religious freedom, in principle and in practice. I do not wish to take this matter any further because there is at present a Bill before a Select Committee of this House and that Select Committee will consider this matter. I want to say to those who have representations to make in this regard to make them to that Select Committee. That is the proper forum with the proper responsibility for dealing with representations in this regard.

Secondly, I want to make it clear that our attitude to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of South Africa is equally unequivocal and equally consistent. To the United Party, the State is South Africa. It is not this Government. It is not the Government elected to be in power. The State of South Africa is the corporate identity of every one of us, of all South Africans, of all citizens of this country. Certainly we want change in our domestic policy. When our right, however, to influence those changes by lawful means is threatened by force or violence, whether by fascist or communist-inspired violence or whether by totalitarianism, Black or White, we believe that it is the duty of every South African to defend the State as a State.

That duty is not qualified by personal or political option. The right to refuse to kill is another matter. The right to say: I believe it is wrong to kill, is a matter of conscience. The right, however, to serve the Forces which are responsible for the defence of South Africa is not to my mind a matter of personal choice or for academic debate. It is and has been the law of South Africa and has been accepted by all responsible South Africans over the years. I want to say in passing that we on this side of the House need no lectures on patriotism or loyalty. I do not want to reopen old wounds and I do not want to quote some of the sources from which those lectures have come. We need no lecture on patriotism and particularly no lectures from sources which would perhaps not like to weigh their own patriotism when South Africa was at war.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say at the same time that I have nothing but contempt for those who are prepared to let our sons fight, and perhaps die, defending the right of South Africans to express their opinions freely; defending the integrity and the freedom of our people. I have contempt for those who are prepared to let our sons ensure that freedom, that integrity, that right, so that their sons may hold academic debates on institutionalized violence and other theories. Do they think for one moment that if a communist-controlled force was to take over South Africa by violence, any one of us—their sons or my sons or they or I—would have the right or the freedom to debate academically our views and our opinions on matters which we may regard as meriting serious debate? Sir, in Russia can you discuss openly and publicly whether the State is this or that? When we are dealing with our right to be South Africans and to defend our status as South Africans and our freedom as South Africans, we believe that you can argue politically but that there can be no debate on the meaning of responsibility towards South Africa.

Sir, for 30 years defence has been an insurance policy to this country, something that you try to forget; you do not like thinking that you are going to die and therefore an insurance policy which is tied to your death is something which you push into the back of your mind. Thirteen years ago this took on a new dimension when South Africa left the Commonwealth, but defarce still remained the “if”, the “perhaps”, the “in case” Vote which we discussed here year after year. How suddenly, almost overnight, it is no longer “if” or “should”; it has become “now that”, and defence has achieved a new urgency and a new meaning to every South African, whatever his race and his colour may be. We hope, and I believe, that there is still time for our Defence Force to remain as a deterrent, chiefly as a deterrent, whilst by wise statesmanship and far-sighted civil government we may be able to avoid the day that it has to fulfil its role as a full-scale operational force. But in the meantime we still need a deterrent, and that deterrent is the issue on which we are voting today, the issue of R740 million to give to South Africa a deterrent against agression or assault.

Sir, I said that there had been unhappy chapters. I do not want to re-open those chapters, but I want to refer to an appeal made by one of our Citizen Force senior officers, General Webster, recently for a restoration of the imbalance in the Permanent Force. I want to say with total and unqualified conviction two things that I have waited a long time to be able to say. I want to say that I and this side of the House have total confidence in the top command of our Defence Forces today; we have total confidence in their sincerity, their integrity and their ability to head the S.A.D.F. as a whole—the Army, the Air Force and the Navy and the men who stand behind them.

But I want to say a second thing and say it with equal conviction, and that is that I am convinced that after some unhappy chapters, there is room at the top in our Defence Force for bilingual South Africans, whatever their home language may be, and I want to appeal not to any one section but to the young people of South Africa to consider the Defence Force as a career, a career which offers excellent prospects and the satisfaction of making a contribution to your country. I might mention in passing that those prospects include the prospect of a fairly junior officer’s being paid more than a member of Parliament.

Sir, this Defence Force, for which we are voting money here, has to face a situation created almost overnight. I believe that the changes in Mozambique, Angola and in Rhodesia need no elaboration from the security point of view; these changes and their challenges have been dealt with. What is less obvious is the effect and extent of Russian naval influence in the Indian Ocean and of Chinese military aspirations in Central and Southern Africa. These are realities which we have to face. The situation in which we find ourselves at this moment shows that we have been correct in our requests in the past for the establishment of a joint committee where we can discuss our reaction to these dangers, because I would like to ask the hon. the Minister some questions. I would like to ask him, for instance, how we measure the strength and operational effectiveness of our forces against the threat which faces us, but of course he cannot answer that except in general terms. I would like to discuss with him the type and operational effectiveness of our armaments, but if I asked that question he could only answer it in general terms. I would like to ask some vital questions on the mobility of our Defence Force; on the state of preparedness of some of our installations; on the extent to which they are manned; whether they are manned 24 hours a day or whether people go off for breakfast at the same time and leave installations unmanned. I would like to ask him when certain installations were last fired. These are questions which the hon. the Minister cannot answer across the floor of the House and detailed replies to which I would not ask for. It is not enough that the hon. the Minister should make certain information available to the Leader of the Opposition and myself at a time when we are facing real dangers, and I want to repeat my request to him that he should establish a small committee—call it what you like—where we can discuss this sort of thing. We do not want to share responsibility, but if we are to have a united front against our enemies, then it must be an informed front, and that information cannot go through one person; it must be conveyed to a group with responsibility to their party and to those whom they represent. I would like to discuss, for instance, the manpower requirements in our various military areas, but again the same limitation applies. I hope that the hon. the Minister will reconsider this question and let us work out some kind of body in which we can be properly informed about problems which have become vital and urgent at the present time.

Then, Mr. Chairman, I want to turn to the largest slice of the expenditure which we are now being asked to vote, a field which I am afraid has been badly neglected in the past, and that is the military and industrial complex. We warned, when the Armaments Board Bill and the Armaments Corporation Bill were introduced, of the dangers of Parkinson’s law, of the danger of escalation, and the hon. the Minister gave us strong assurances with regard to the control that would be exercised. But I am afraid that some of our fears, unfortunately, were correct and that the time has come to review this vast organization, almost an industrial empire which has been created. In order to do so you must envisage the set-up. You have the Defence Force which has certain requirements; you have an Armaments Board which is the purchasing organization; you have an Armaments Corporation which is the controlling body of an industrial manufacturing set-up; you have its subsidiaries; you have the National Institute for Defence Research and you have 1 000 to 1 200 sub-contractors feeding both the Armsboard, the Corporation and its subsidiaries. I am not suggesting any irregularity or corruption. I want to look at the structure and what it has grown to. We have now between the Armaments Board, the Armaments Corporation and its subsidiaries. ’79 directors’ posts with directors’ fees amounting to R67 000 per annum being paid. Now that in itself is not excessive compared to the money being spent but it has lead to a spider’s web of communication channels and a overlapping of functions, a duplication of function and control. If one compares this structure, the military industrial structure, with for example lscor or Escom one finds one controlling board with the operational, the manufacturing units being run as management units, but the control is centred in one board. Here, however, we have two boards at the top and a separate board for every separate subsidiary.

Let us look at how this complex operates. If the SADF want a sophisticated weapon, this becomes a requirement. The Institute for Defence Research is then called upon to do the research work, if that is required. That body is controlled by the CSIR, not by the Department of Defence and not by Armscor or Armsboard. It falls under the Budget of the hon. the Minister of Planning and it is a separate entity. Having dealt with the research aspect, the matter goes to the Armaments Board to establish a project, either to farm it out to contractors or to sub-contractors, or to the Armaments Corporation, and in some cases to both, contracts and manufacture. The Armaments Corporation then re-allocates that to one or more of its subsidiaries. Those subsidiaries re-allocate to sub-contractors. Now you have got to get from each of your points a channel of communication to each of these end-points. Your Defence Force wants to keep a finger on the pulse. It is after all the source of the requirement and it is the budgetary unit. It pays in the end. The Armaments Board, Armscor, and subsidiaries, have to maintain quality control. So all of these are criss-crossed and interleading and interwoven to get the production of one item. For each there is a board. But the budgeting body, the Defence Force which budgets, simply pays the bill. It has no control over any of the phases until the bill is presented. It is divorcing the budgetary function from the control. I see the hon. the Minister shakes his head. The Defence Force says: “We want X.” It does not control the manufacture; it does not control the costs; it does not control what happens, except in its advisory capacity, until it gets the final product and examines it for quality and pays the bill. But there is a break. There is separate budgeting, Defence Force budgeting, Armaments Board and then budgeting by each of the subsidiaries. It is inevitable; it cannot be otherwise, because if you broke any of those channels then you would weaken the necessary controls that have to be there.

Then you have the management function, where for each subsidiary, for each board, have a general manager, a deputy general manager, assistant general managers handling finance, administration, personnel, commercial activities or whatever it might be—each competing with each other within a structure, each with a status symbol, with a company car and with a company driver. I believe that there should be an investigation. I ask the hon. the Minister to consider appointing a Select Committee to investigate the structure, the cost implications of the structure as a whole, and to investigate whether there is not a much simpler, much more effective and much cheaper way of doing it, based on the concept of one single board of directors controlling separate manufacturing entities, rather than spreading it out to a multiplicity of boards, each either acting as boards with full authority, or else as puppets if they do not have that authority. If they have the authority, they are acting independently, linked only by the personalities who serve at different levels. If they do not, in fact, act independently, then they are a rubber-stamp and one does not need them. And so I believe that with corporate planning we could greatly cut down the expenditure, streamline the operation and save the taxpayer of South Africa a great deal of money.

There is another aspect but I do not have time to deal with it in detail. Around the reorganizations, the retirements, the premature retirements and the dismissals, reports and stories have collected which are hitting back at those who are still in the service of the military armament complex. There is talk of power groups, of premature retirements, people being put into high office because of former associations. These are rumours for which I have no evidence, no foundation, but which are now drifting back into the existing structure of the complex and which are having an adverse effect, as I see it, on morale.

I have been hearing these stories for two years, and although when I hear something from a disgruntled person, or somebody who has been the victim of reorganization, I treat it with reserve, some of these things are too persistent, some of the reports are too specific for one to simply say: Look, this is a lot of nonsense. I believe that the Minister should have the stories investigated so as to clear the air once and for all. I shall give him some examples. There is the story that a certain executive is conveyed daily from Benoni to Pretoria in a company car with a company driver. And people ask: Why should we work 12 hours overtime, slaving our hearts out when the boss is conveyed in an official car from Benoni to Pretoria and back every day of his life? There is a story of the removal of private assets, once again from Benoni to Pretoria at company cost. And people ask: Why then was X dismissed because he fixed up a landrover at a certain factory? But because the other person is the boss, he can have his installations and fittings moved to Pretoria at company cost. This creates an atmosphere which is doing harm to morale. There are stories of ex-partners and relatives. Perhaps every situation can be justified. But it would be good for the morale of everyone serving there today if some of these situations could be exposed, cleared up and be shown to be either true or untrue. If untrue they would loose their influence, and if true they could then be dealt with. There is, in particular, the question about the qualifications of some of the directors. Let me give one example. I do not know this man; I know nothing about him. I am not going to mention his name. But one director, whose background is entirely agricultural as far as I have been told, holds five directorships. People ask me what industrial or management qualification he has and start embroidering the whole thing by stories of shooting parties and friendships, and so it escalates into a mountain. If we could know that the qualifications are this, that or the other, that there is a minimum of posts to get the maximum of efficiency, this sort of story would not grow up. It is not a question of wanting more control, but one of better control. When you have a spider’s web, a large complex interwoven with interaction and personalities, you are going to get questions. When you get questions, you get an undermining of morale.

I spoke about corporate planning and I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to what extent the strategic long-term planning of the Defence Force gets conveyed to the manufacturing unit. There is a certain factory, which, as the hon. the Minister knows, is working day and night at the moment resulting in long hours of overtime. Could that not have been avoided had production been stepped up long ago, when everything was still in the planning stage for the extension of the Citizen Force? This is part of what I call corporate planning, planning as an entity, so that there is close cohesion and coordination of each step.

Having emphasized that I have no evidence and no suggestion of corruption or irregularity and where we are dealing with hundreds of millions of rand as we are here, I feel that an inquiry by a Select Committee or an independent inquiry which could investigate efficiency, planning and the streamlining of the structure will be in the interest of the taxpayer who has to foot the bill. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, as far as the last part of the hon. member’s speech is concerned, I shall not comment on it since it is not my province. I do, however, wish to tell the hon. member that conditions in our country today are too serious for us to make political capital out of any part of his speech in this debate. With regard to the hon. the Minister, I wish to say that this side of the House, and I am convinced the vast majority of the people outside this House as well, has nothing but the greatest confidence in him as Minister of Defence and as a politician.

I only made a distinction between the two, that is all.

Yes, but we do not even make that distinction. We on this side of the House also want a politician who can hold his own and strike a blow when necessary, and the hon. the Minister of Defence can do this as a politician as well. The hon. member does not go as far, nor did I expect him to do so, as did some of the newspapers, such as the Sunday Times and The Star, by even demanding that the hon. the Minister of Defence should resign as Minister of Defence. I am convinced that this debate, as it will be conducted today and tomorrow, will be the answer to people who feel that way, people who make those representations, because this debate will demonstrate the confidence we and the country have in the hon. the Minister of Defence. Surely it is especially during the past six or seven years that South Africa has been made prepared in the military sphere, and who is the person who should hold pride of place in this regard? Surely it is the hon. the Minister of Defence. We are prepared in respect of the armaments of our land forces, in respect of our Air Force, which is small but modern and ready for action, as well as in respect of our Navy, which is effective. The other important factor, and this is lost sight of by the people who demand the resignation of the hon. the Minister, is that one can make inquiries of anyone in the Defence Force, from the most senior officer to the most junior private, and one will hear that they have every confidence in their Minister of Defence, irrespective of his politics and his home language. And that is a very important thing. It is the finest testimonial the hon. the Minister can expect under any circumstances, a testimonial he is given from his own people, the people over whom he has been set in authority by the hon. the Prime Minister.

In consequence of these serious circumstances in which we find ourselves today, especially too as a result of events outside our borders and beyond our control, this is certainly not the time for wild speeches by any leader in South Africa—whether in the political sphere in which we are moving, or from our other population groups. What is more, this is certainly not the time for a leader such as Mr. Sonny Leon to make a speech, as happened this past weekend, in which he said inter alia the following (translation)—

Nor is this the time for another non-White leader, Chief Buthelezi by name, to say the following—

He said that, and what followed on it, in an article in The Star of 8 May. Nor is this the time for young people in South Africa to start with an organization known as the Commission on War, which recently reared its head at the Nusas congress. A group of students were responsible for this. The university they are associated with is not of importance, but here in my hand I have a document which was circulated there as one of the congress documents and in which the objectives of this Commission on War are set out as follows—

In the rest of this document our students are called upon to campaign for this cause. They go on to say that this should not be done officially within the ranks of Nusas, because—

One need only have a further look at the publications, such as Varsity on the campus of the University of Cape Town and Wits Student on the campus of Wits University, which appeared during the course of August. There are hon. members opposite, to the right of the official Opposition, who will most definitely be able to tell us in this debate what their advice to their voters is on articles which appear in these student newspapers. Excerpts from them have already been quoted. I therefore do not want to take up any more time with that. When one takes cognizance of these things, one also bears in mind that Whites and non-Whites are today involved on our borders in the defence of our country. In our Defence Force and in our Police Force Blacks, Coloureds and Asians are serving along with the Whites, irrespective of home language. In the light of these events a serious appeal should in this debate be made from this House to all our people in South Africa, particularly in respect of civil defence. In the military sphere this can be provided for, but in respect of civil defence our people should realize that this is where our duty lies, i.e. those of us who cannot take part in military operations. But in regard to civil defence we should also tell our people, in the best spirit, that this is not only the task of Nationalists, but the task of all of us. Similarly, this is the task of the United Party members and even that of the Progressive Party members. In regard to civil defence I think we should also impress upon our people that an opportunity is also being created for our non-Whites, whereas some of them are involved in our Defence Force, to be involved in our civil defence services as well. Our civil situation is no longer what it was in previous wars. I want to mention an example to hon. members. In the First World War, 5% of the casualties were civilians and 95% were military men. In the Second World War the casualties were 45% civilians and 52% military men. In the Korean War the casualties were already 84% civilians as against only 16% military men. This is a total threat against all population groups in South Africa, and because this is the case, it is necessary for the total population of South Africa to take part in it. And as far as these fifth columnists are concerned, who are cropping up among the members of a certain section of our population in certain spots and hot-beds in some of our cities—for the places where this thing is rearing its head are nothing but political hot-beds—I want to make an appeal to everyone in this House to join forces in stamping out these political hotbeds. The sooner that is done, the better. If we are going to allow a fifth column to emerge in South Africa, whether among Whites or non-Whites, we are treading on dangerous ground. For that reason we should impress upon our people that they should do their share in our commando system, in our first-aid and Red Cross services and in our fire brigade services, where it is particularly necessary. The important reason why we should give attention to these things is to have at our disposal a large enough corps of leaders capable of taking the initiative in these fields. This is necessary since the chief objective of the enemy in any war, whether it is conventional or unconventional, is to destroy its enemy’s will to fight. That is the chief objective of the onslaught against us and we shall be faced with it in various forms. We must ensure that we have the necessary corps of leaders, also in the ranks of the civilian population, who will impress upon our people that they must hold on to the will to fight, because it is the enemy’s objective to destroy this will in us. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Potchefstroom seemed to be a little bit hurt in the beginning of his speech about the fact that the hon. member for Durban Point made a distinction between the hon. the Minister as the administrator of his post as Minister of Defence and the hon. the Minister as politician. I want to say to the hon. member for Potchefstroom that we on this side of the House have been the Opposition and the political opponents of that side of the House for many years. I would say that it would be most surprising if he found that we had ever praised a politician on that side of the House.

However, I am grateful to the hon. member for Potchefstroom for the fact that he made his points in this debate very calmly and responsibly. I believe, and I want to say with all the responsibility that I hold as a Member of Parliament, that it is not our duty to behave hysterically in this debate, that it is not our duty to make political points, but that it is our duty to find out what the problems are which are facing us and, having done that, to face the future calmly and collectedly. I do not believe that there is a single member of this House who is not acutely aware of the crisis times in which we are living. Our attitude towards our sovereignty and our territorial entity has been stated by the hon. member for Durban Point. In the transcript of a radio interview by the Chief of the Defence Force in the supplement of the June issue of Paratus one reads that it is a sine qua non in this context that we are sensitive to events and developments elsewhere in the world as well as within our own borders. He went on to say:

There are many other things I would like to quote from this magnificent exposition by the Chief of the Defence Force, One has only to read the newspapers to realize what the situation is beyond our borders. The following are some of the headlines that appeared in weekend papers: “Mosambiek ontplof”; “Regse groep wil nou skiet”; “Frelimo: ystere hand maak vuis”; and “Frelimo: 10 jaar se bloed maak vry”. What deeply concerns me is a report I have which appeared under the heading “Terroriste sal ons stede binneval”. It was written by a certain Mr. Johann Becker in this weekend’s Rapport and covers an interview with a certain Dr. Johannes Feddema. In part the article reads as follows—

If this report is correct, we have to recognize that we will not only have to be prepared to meet with further confrontation from outside but also have to prepare ourselves for the threat of urban terrorism which has created so much havoc in places like Northern Ireland. We would like to hear something from the hon. the Minister when he enters this debate as to how we are approaching this threat and as to whether this sort of report is responsible or not. It therefore stands to reason that we as the elected representatives of this Parliament will soberly debate and consider the problems that face us. I refer not only to problems that face us in the future but also which, as far as we on this side of the House can see, face us at the present time. We should endeavour to find solutions to the problems with which we are faced and we should also endeavour to seek and arrive at an agreed approach.

A plea has been made by the hon. member for Durban Point to the hon. the Minister for a joint defence council. This is not the first time that the hon. member has made this plea. We believe that the Government, the Opposition and certain members of commerce and industry should be represented on that council to advise on and assist in streamlining matters and to cut out the overlapping that was referred to by the hon. member for Durban Point. There is disturbing information that does filter through to us. However, we as responsible citizens of South Africa do not wish to bandy this information over the floor of this House; we do not wish to make political capital out of it. We firmly believe that the only way in which we can arrive at a joint approach is through such a joint defence council or a joint defence committee. I believe personally that it is essential that such a body be established. As representatives of the public in our constituencies we receive this sort of information and sometimes we are not able to reply effectively. Certainly we do not feel that it is in the national interest to bandy such information across the floor of this House.

I regret intensely that this debate is taking place before question No. 13, standing in the name of the hon. member for Cradock on the Question Paper, is answered tomorrow. We could then have discussed certain implications relating to the independence of the homelands in far greater depth. In fact, one of our members will during the course of this debate deal with this in fairly great detail. One could discuss such matters as whether joint defence treaties are being considered, whether we have undertaken to defend the homelands until their own defence forces are established, who is to train those defence forces and equip them, and whether or not we can afford to do all these things. If we have undertaken to assist in the defence of the Transkei and/or the Ciskei, then I believe there is a strong case for the establishment of more permanent bases in the Eastern Cape and Border areas. At the moment we have E.P. Command, Port Elizabeth, the Sixth South African Infantry Division and a technical unit in Grahamstown, and only token forces in East London. I believe that there is the need for more permanent defence bases in the Border areas. We have seen the excellent work they have done in peace-time during the crises that we experienced in the Eastern Cape. In this work they are to be highly commended for the assistance they were able to render to people who were cut off and affected by the floods in the Gamtoos and Fish River areas.

There is a chronic shortage of police in the Eastern Cape and Border areas. This was obvious from the reply to the question by the hon. member for Umlazi only last Friday. There is a chronic shortage of police in these areas and I believe that the Defence Force could assist us in this regard—and not only in the White areas but in the homelands as well—in keeping order and training persons in the initial stages of independence. They could also maintain order in areas to be consolidated where friction is noticeable at the present time. One feels that in the East London and King William’s Town area particularly there is a need for an extension of our Defence Force, our permanent establishment and our installations. Wherever these forces have been deployed, they have done a great deal of good. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the reply to the greater part of the speech by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, may rightly be left in the hands of the hon. the Minister. Consequently I shall not react to it, apart from merely saying that as far as the permanent advisory committee envisaged by that side of the House is concerned, the hon. the Minister has indicated very clearly in the past that when matters of a delicate nature and so on have come up, the hon. the Minister has in fact informed the hon. member for Durban Point and taken him into his confidence.

Mr. Chairman, the Budget with its greater emphasis on the purchase of armaments, also emphasizes the idea of the hon. the Minister and his Supreme Command to increase drastically and rapidly our physical preparedness in these times. Other facets which also give rise to this line of thought, are the increased salaries paid, indicating that we are in earnest about retaining the services of our men. In regard to material and other equipment, which form an important part of the Vote, it is emphasized that attention is being given to manoeuvres, artillery practice and so on. While I am referring to salaries and conditions of service, I believe that the conditions of service of our Defence Force staff would in fact be even more attractive if the pensions benefits were also to be given the necessary attention. In this regard we know that a distinction is drawn between the conditions of service as regards the pensions of the Defence Force men on the one hand and those of the Police and Prisons staff on the other. I should appreciate it if the hon. the Minister were to seriously consider reducing the number of years which a member of the Defence Force must serve before receiving additional pension benefits, as in the case of the officials of the Police and Prisons. But our preparedness should not only be measured by the proficiency of our Permanent Force; it should not only be measured by the proficiency of our infantry or by the ability of our pilots to hit their target and by the discipline of our submariners. Sir, we on this side of the House have discussed this matter and we are of the opinion that as far as our Defence Force is considered, as far as our military preparedness is concerned, the matter is well under control and the emphasis is on the right aspects and must win our approval. But, Sir, this preparedness should also be measured by the ability of the civil population to withstand onslaughts from within and from without. A Defence Force is only capable of defending, and can remain standing for only so long as our civilians have the will to continue to survive. Sir, a defence policy would be inadequate and this Budget would be futile if it were not also aimed at instilling preparedness in our civilians. As I shall indicate later, this Budget provides for that too. As indicated by the hon. member for Potchefstroom, in these times hostile elements are chiefly directed towards unnerving civilians. We have seen this happen nearer home, in Rhodesia, in Angola and in Mozambique. Through intimidation of the civilians, they want to bring about despair among those people, a despair which must in time penetrate to the Defence Force as well. That, too, Sir, is why it is so important to consider the role allotted to our commandos, namely to protect the home front in particular. Consequently it speaks volumes for the Budget that the funds are aimed at obtaining equalization between Citizen Force units and Commandos. But, Sir, it is also defence policy for civilians themselves to be prepared to play their part in times of crisis, in times of disaster and also in times of war. Sir, patriotism alone is not sufficient. The will is not sufficient in itself. One can have all the patriotism in the world and one can have the finest and the healthiest will to resist, but that still does not help one to put a bone in splints; it does not help one to fight a fire; it does not help one to evacuate people from an area where a bomb has fallen. Sir, in order to achieve this our civilians must have the necessary knowledge and they must be linked to a civil defence organization. If they have that knowledge, if they can have that link, it will give them self-confidence and then we would have greater realism in our will to resist and we should achieve what the hon. member for Potchefstroom has also indicated to you. We are aware that it is the policy to entrust civil defence to the third level of government i.e. local authorities. This is logical, because they are engaged in service to civilians every day. One only needs to look at any of their spheres of activity and you will find that they consist of service in the interests of the civilians. And what then, is expected of this special policy of civil defence entrusted to these people? It is expected of them to perform their ordinary civil services in abnormal times in top gear and as efficiently as possible. Sir, it is clear from the Budget, among other things, that a substantial amount is being set aside for the town councils, directly and indirectly, in order that they may perform that function; thus for example a substantial amount, R36 000, is being allocated to municipalities for tuition fees. The total estimate for headquarters is, in my opinion, directly and indirectly devoted to making our local authorities as prepared as possible. That amount is R192 000. That being so, Mr. Chairman, it is in my opinion also necessary, in order to have this self-confidence to which I have referred, for John Citizen to know that an emergency plan which will operate effectively has been drawn up by his local authority. Bearing in mind the important role of local authorities, we were worried and disturbed to hear that the situation here in the immediate vicinity of Cape Town was not what it should be. Thus, for example, a senior officer indicated to us barely a week or so ago that only five towns out of a total of 130 in the Western Cape had emergency plans to cope fully with any crisis. Less than half of the municipalities in metropolitan Cape Town have a sound emergency plan. This is a serious matter, Sir, and therefore my question to the hon. the Minister is whether he can give us more information about the situation in South Africa as a whole, and in South-West Africa. It is all very well for us to have an emergency plan, but people should be capable of applying it, and that is why my next question to the hon. the Minister is whether there is practical drill and whether practical drill is being further considered. It has been indicated in previous speeches, including that of the hon. member for Potchefstroom, that everyone should be involved, but I want to make the statement today that our women, specifically women’s organizations ought to have a greater degree of involvement. I want to go so far as to suggest that it would be appropriate for the planning chief of each local authority to draw up a register and that women’s organizations which were to serve on his subcommittees should be registered on it. Such women’s organizations could help by means of lectures and in addition by inculcating spiritual preparedness in young and old. Then, still on the subject of our women, I want to thank the hon. the Minister for the project at George. Those girls are the pride of South Africa. The capital expenditure in that respect is R368 000 per annum. That is what is being budgeted now. This means that more than R2 000 per girl is spent every year. This is not too high in comparison with other specialized training, such as at universities and other colleges, but we should acknowledge that those girls are equipped with an exceptional background. Now, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether there are firm arrangements for the integration of these girls into existing civil defence organizations or whether it will be possible to bring about still greater involvement on the part of these girls. [Time expired.]

Earlier on in the debate on the Prime Minister’s Vote, I remarked that there were two basic political problems with which South Africa was contending. As far as South Africa’s internal situation is concerned, it is the problem of power sharing, and as far as South Africa’s external relations are concerned, it has to do with its relations with the rest of Africa. These two problems, which, in the final analysis, are political problems, are very closely bound up with each other. We are aware, especially at present, of the fact that, within the next 10 to 15 years, we are going to have great clarity on South Africa’s relations with the rest of Africa. I make bold to say that a young generation of Whites is emerging in our country who are intensely involved in this whole problem of where South Africa stands in relation to the rest of Africa. They are also aware that they and their children will in future be involved in both the defence of South Africa and the advancement and development of our society. I can assure you, Sir, that raging bombast, boasting or misrepresentations make no impression on them. Their ears are attuned to the cool voice of reason. It is against this background that we must view our country’s defence. The defence of our country is going to play a critical role in the future, and I believe that in the future the defence of South Africa will to an increasing extent become the point of intersection against which the co-operation and satisfaction of all the population groups in South Africa will be tested. And this cooperation and satisfaction cannot be enforced or extorted from anyone. In the final analysis it depends on the identification of those population groups with our country, South Africa, and its problems. That is why it is particularly important for defence in South Africa to show two characteristics throughout. Firstly, in respect of the internal situation it is necessary that the defence of South Africa should never be handled in such a way by its leaders, or those persons who are responsible for it, that it will be seen as a political point of division in respect of the internal situation. We cannot afford to have the question of defence, and the manner in which defence is held up to us in South Africa, giving rise to division between White and White and between White and Black in South Africa. And for that reason—I am sorry, but I have to do this—I want to come to a remark made by the hon. the Minister of Defence during the debate on the Defence Bill when he said, with reference to the Progressive Party—

What does the little word “ban” mean? What does the ordinary young person think of the Progressive Party when he serves in our Defence Force and reads such language? The hon. member for Potchefstroom appealed to us not to make wild speeches. This met with a response from the hon. member for Albany, who said we should not become hysterical. What kind of language is this? What are the young people to think? But it goes further than that, for it also involves the relationship between Black and White in South Africa and the defence of our country. I should like to read out to you a paragraph from an article published in Oggendblad. Two or three days after the S.A. Council of Churches had adopted their resolution, a Black minister of the D.R. Church by the name of Tokatso Mofokeng wrote the following. I differ with him, but I just want to say that if his standpoint is shared by a large number of Black people in our country, then defence has become a very thorny issue and demands great responsibility of action. I quote—

I differ with this standpoint, but what I want to say here is that, although I disapprove of people crossing our borders in order to take part in terrorist activities, I must also display political realism and be aware of the emotions aroused when in South Africa itself defence is spoken about in an irresponsible manner, particularly by persons holding leading positions in our Defence Force. But there is a second characteristic, a characteristic which is just as important. This second characteristic relates to the fact that the impression should not be created that our Defence Force or its representatives or leaders are in any way instrumental in increasing the conflict and tension in South Africa’s relations with the rest of Africa. Outside South Africa, in Africa, the impression should not be created that defence, the way in which defence is handled in South Africa—also in respect of our relations with the rest of Africa—is contributing towards heightening tension or worsening conflict. In this regard I take great pleasure in reading to you what Mr. Willem de Klerk wrote in Rapport last weekend. It is not I who am saying this, but Mr. Willem de Klerk who wrote this in Rapport (translation)—

It no longer seems such a foregone conclusion to me, but nevertheless—

He went on to say—

I want to repeat that this is a critical question to young people. Young people look to people in leading positions and want to hear the truth; they want to hear reason. They do not want to hear boasting or threats. They want to hear what is going to happen and how we are going to act. Willem de Klerk went on to say the following—

The hon. the Minister of Defence referred to the visit the Leader of the Progressive Party and I had paid to the African states, and he spoke about African politics in these terms (translation)—

Surely that is true?

Even if it is true, the point at issue is still how one should act in South Africa in a statesmanlike manner and how one deals with our situation. The point is whether one builds up conflict or tries to bring the situation back to the bounds of reason in the same language the hon. the Prime Minister used when he dealt with his Vote. That is reasonable language, language one can listen to, not only here, not only young people or Nationalists, but any person in South Africa and also in Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman. I am amazed that the hon. member for Rondebosch can warn us here at this stage that we should not cause the South African Defence Force to be a factor causing tension in Africa. Really, how naïve can these people be? When has the hon. the Minister of Defence or the hon. the Prime Minister ever used the Defence Force as a factor to create tension in Africa. That it is a deterrent, is certain. The hon. member launched a personal attack on the Minister of Defence. He did not read the climate of this debate at all correctly. We are dealing with responsible matters here and discussing the defence of our country in a responsible way. He, however, finds it necessary to launch a personal attack on the hon. the Minister of Defence at this stage. I want to repeat that we still demand of the hon. members who visited the African states to tell us what they said there. This invitation has been addressed to them repeatedly in this House but as of now they still owe us a reply. I want to repeat that we should like them to tell us. When we act in a responsible way, we should also be prepared to report on that action in a responsible way.

I want to express my strongest disapproval and indignation of a supporter of their party, Archbishop Denis Hurely, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Durban, of whom the following was reported in yesterday’s Sunday Times—

Who is this man who can judge that this is an “unjust situation”? The hon. member for Rondebosch also prides himself on speaking on behalf of the young people of South Africa and I want to discuss that here and now. The young people who support them are to be found in a few haunts. For the rest, the young people are to be found in the ranks of the National Party. When their followers call upon the young people of South Africa to refuse to defend this country on its borders, are they consulted? Have these hon. members found it necessary to repudiate this member of theirs? When this kind of thing is happening in our country, it is time for us to take up a standpoint and show where our loyalty and our patriotism lie. That is a word these people take exception to when we speak about it, but then they, call into question their own patriotism and standpoints through their own behaviour in this hon. House.

I want to state clearly that the primary task of the Defence Force of this country is to defend the existing order here, whatever that order here may be. As it happens, at the moment it is the order created by a National Party Government. It is the function of the Defence Force to defend that order here, to develop it and maintain it. We might as well face the fact that the Defence Force of South Africa, owing to the dynamic leadership of its Minister of Defence and its Defence Force chiefs, is fully capable of maintaining and defending that order here. That is why it seems strange when one has to hear in the public Press, and in public debates too, that there is talk of recruiting of mercenaries. I should appreciate it if the Minister were also to explain to us the official standpoint of the Government concerning this matter.

This order has been created here in a democratic and evolutionary way, in the interests of everyone in this country, White, Brown and Black. Within the framework created here, there is opportunity for everyone to fulfil their aspirations in the economic, cultural and political spheres. However there are forces at work which aim not only to disturb this order, but to change it radically. In this process, of course, forces from without are also encouraged by implication to carry out exercises and experiments against us.

This war of low intensity, as the Minister has on occasion termed it, has in recent times been growing in momentum and scope. There is no doubt that the onslaught is aimed at total and radical change of the system, order and structure that prevails here. Sir, what is the strategy employed by these people? In the first place a feeling of guilt must be instilled in our young people. Our young people are told every day that this kind: of society prevailing in South Africa, is not worth fighting for, and that there is so much injustice here that it is unbelievable that there are still young men who want to defend this country. That is the strategy which is being employed against our young people. In the second place, the policy of the Government is vilified as being a demoniacal pseudo-religion which has to be undermined on Biblical grounds. In the third place, the idiom of these people, terms such as “an unjust society”, “oppressed peoples”, “liberators of the oppressed”, the language of the Marxist, is used, in order to discourage these young people from coming forward to take part in the defence of our country. That being so, it sounds very hollow and naїve when the hon. member for Rondebosch says here that it should be proved in a court of law that a group of individuals is a threat to State security before action can be taken against them. This obsession with our courts when we are dealing with matters such as State security, does our country no good. The Defence Force is a guarantee of our peaceful co-existence in this country between White, Brown and Black. The defence of the country with its order, peace and quiet is the highest calling of the Defence Force. It is our task and function, in this place in particular, to create the right climate for the young people to fulfil that calling.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to begin with a somewhat trite statement, and that is that the successful defence of South Africa in these increasingly perilous times will lie in several spheres. Firstly, it will lie in our military strength and the preparedness of our Defence Force. Secondly, it will lie in the successful economic, social and political upliftment of all the peoples of South Africa. Thirdly, it will lie in a situation in which real goodwill exists across the colour line. That is why we welcome the speech that was made last night by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development when he announced an envisaged extension of Government policy to embrace what I would call a confederal concept, created by the calling together of a form of convention. The hon. the Minister stressed that the defence of Southern Africa would certainly form one of the important topics for discussion. Quite clearly, in the long term, co-operation between peoples, States and communities is intrinsic to the safety of all of us, Black, White and Brown. We must also realize that there is much common ground. Black authorities in the homelands which have been created by this Government have as vital a stake in full employment, economic progress, growth and stable government as we who are represented in this Parliament. We must also know that terrorists and guerillas from whatever source will be as strongly in direct conflict with established Black authorities south of the Limpopo as they will be with this Government. In order to succeed in the long term, the first target of these forces of chaos will of necessity be the subversion and the overthrow of established order in the homeland territories, several of which are acutely strategically positioned. That is the case with Lebowa and Gazankulu in the north-east and Bophuthatswana in the north-west, not to mention the Transkei with its long coastline. We can well ask the hon. the Minister what his intentions are in regard to the defence of the Cape-Transkei coastline. Has this matter been discussed with the Transkei authorities and if so, what joint plans are contemplated? In these days of assassins and anarchists it would be suicide to grant independence to areas for which inadequate preparations have been made to ensure the maintenance at all times of controlled peace and sufficient trained strength to deal with the sort of eventualities which are becoming common-place in Africa today. As Chief Minister Cedric Phatudi said in Johannesburg just over a month ago, the trouble with many South Africans is that they think in bits and pieces and not in totalities. Southern Africa can only be defended, if the need should arise, in totality. For instance, the subversion of the Transkei, or if the National Party is in power for a further length of time and further Governments are in fact created, the subversion of other homeland authorities by possible invaders, has serious implications. To paraphrase what Douglas Reed said many years ago, I want to say that Lebowa means us. An agreed approach to the defence of Southern Africa in all sensitive areas is becoming increasingly important. For instance, as a start, much more should be done to create training facilities for the Blacks within the Defence Force in all spheres as part of our overall plan. If the lessons of Vietnam, the Far East and other trouble spots in the world are taken into account, it is essential that the Defence Force should be seen by the peoples of Southern Africa as their guardians of security and not as a symbol of oppression. The S.A. Defence Force itself can play a real role—even now—in adopting the stance of a protector in the cultural upliftment and economic upliftment of the peoples in the areas where they are presently stationed. An example of the exercise of goodwill was the way in which the recent exercises in Gazankulu were carried out. A greater involvement by the Defence Force in the welfare of people can only bear fruit, and such a direction is to be welcomed.

The hon. members for Potchefstroom and Cradock criticized both White and non-White leaders for statements they had made. I think it is correct to say that we are certainly unhappy that they hold the views which they have been quoted as having expressed. Let us recognize, however, that defence is a problem which is totally integrated with the politics of South Africa. I want to quote an article which, incidentally, I wrote myself in New Nation some weeks ago. I am modest enough to say that I would like to quote it because I am sure nobody else will. I quote from this article which I wrote in August:

In closing, therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say through you to the Government: You are in power, you are presently holding the reins. You will be judged on your policy and its implementation, but we—all of us—are going to do our duty, we—all of us—are going to pay the price and bear the cost. If the Government is hell-bent on proceeding with separate development as you see it and as I see it, the very least the Government can do for the sake of all of us and of our children, bearing in mind the integrated nature of defence and political peace, is to make its policy work. South Africa must be prepared to face the consequences of its political decisions. We are prepared to accept the consequences of our policy, but is the Government prepared to accept the consequences of its policy? I believe that therein lies the future of the safety of our country.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban Point said that sometimes he likes me and sometimes he does not. At least, I am pleased to hear that I remain interesting to him. It would be monotonous if he were only to like me. Of course we differ politically, sometimes very greatly. Of course I have very staunch political convictions. That is not unknown. Nor have I ever made any apology for doing so. I have never in my life held any other political convictions than those I hold now. My entire career is well known. I am making no apology for it. I do not intend making any apology for the fact that I hold certain political standpoints. I am not asking the hon. member to love me because of them. However, we are now dealing with Defence, and if the hon. member has reason to criticize me on my handling of the Department of Defence or of the armaments organization, he has the right to do so. I would be the last person to dispute that right which he has. That is why I do not blame him in the least, when he makes personal representations to me or when he holds personal discussions with me, for making his standpoints very clear. I thank him for the fact that he has given me this testimonial that the Department of Defence and the Defence Force are being reasonably well administered. That would not have been possible without the extremely competent services of those who are at my disposal within the Defence Force. However, I also take a little credit for this. After all, one does not build up an efficient Defence Force and put capable officers in charge if one’s judgment is not sound. I therefore thank the hon. member in that respect as well for the testimonial which he gave me.

Not all the United Party members hold that opinion.

The hon. member also said that the United Party is unequivocally committed to religious freedom. Mr. Chairman, I want to add to that: So is my party. The hon. member went further and said it was the responsibility and the duty of every South African to defend the sovereignty and integrity of South Africa and its borders. I fully agree with him. I will go out of my way, as I have done in the past in administering this portfolio, to make provision for people who have religious and conscientious objections. However, I shall not allow people to undermine the discipline and the solidarity of the Defence Force. In saying this, I know that I have the support of the official Oppositions The hon. member also referred to Gen. Webster’s call on the country and especially his call to English-speaking South Africans to come forward and to serve in the Defence Force. I underline Gen. Webster’s call and I want to stress the fact that I have the highest regard for Gen. Webster. He is devoting a large proportion of his time to the Defence Force. I have the highest respect for him and for his services.

*In the second place the hon. member referred more critically to the Armaments Organization, to Armscor, and I think the hon. member made a few statements which I ought to put right. Let me say in the first place that we have competent and extremely capable people in the Defence Force, who are at my disposal today. I have reason to say this, because I have just heard from other quarters what is thought of the calibre of the men occupying positions of control in the S.A. Defence Force. They are rendering excellent services. The same applies to those who control the armaments organization. It would be very, very ungrateful of me if I did not say here today that I have the greatest respect for the competence and the extremely capable way in which those to whom the armaments organization has been entrusted are serving South Africa. I also want to express my thanks to those persons from private industry who are serving as directors within the armaments organization. I have no intention of reducing their number. This is in fact one of the best methods I have of ensuring that business principles and efficiency are maintained within the armaments organization. The hon. member is now complaining that I have too many of those people on the boards of directors. I have always thought that it is a good thing if one has competent people which one takes from private industry and is able to appoint to these boards of directors so that they can help to apply business principles, efficiency and effective management.

How many of them have had any industrial experience.

I shall tell the hon. member how many of them have had industrial experience. I am coming to that. In the second place, I want to tell the hon. member what kind of system we have today. In the first place we have the Armaments Board with a number of technical officials—mostly technical officials, mostly engineers in the electro-technical, mechanical engineering and other fields—to help us with quality and cost control. This is the body through which the most important purchases for the Defence Force are made. On this Armaments Board the president of the CSIR has representation; there is also a person like Prof. W. Mouton of Stellenbosch, who is one of the greatest authorities in his field today; there is a Professor Du Toit, an engineer; there is a Mr. Van Aswegen of Santam, who has business know-how; there is the Chief of the Defence Force, Admiral Biermann; then there is Dr. Wennie Du Plessis and the president is Prof. Samuels whom we all know. In addition there is the Secretary for Finance, who is a full member of this board. This board is in fact constituted in such a way that it is able to obtain the necessary expert advice and exercise the necessary control, and this advice is at all times available to the Minister. That board works with its sub-committees. It is the body which controls costs, which applies quality control and which makes the acquisitions for the Defence Force. But as soon as the Defence Force has determined its requirements, a joint evaluation by combined teams from the members of the Defence Force and the Armaments Board takes place. This is not duplication. From the first day joint evaluations take place until a conclusion is eventually reached or until purchases proceed to be made. In regard to the question of research, too, there is the closest co operation between the research institute of the CSIR, the Armaments Board and the Defence Force, and it is not correct to imply that the defence institute operates on its own, separately from us.

Its control is separate.

There is the greatest co-ordination because the president of the CSIR has representation on the Armaments Board; there is a joint committee which controls the research and we spend the funds for defence research. Then there is a second body, and this second body is Armscor, a development corporation with a number of subsidiaries. But how did it come into being? Did the system fall out of the blue, or was it merely a creation of the Minister? The answer is no, and the hon. member knows this. Years ago, I think it was in 1967 or 1968-—we appointed a special committee which had to institute an investigation abroad into the best way in which one could set up one’s armaments organization, and inter alia they investigated the French DMA system, because France in one respect was to a large extent in the same position as South Africa was, which was that she had also at one stage been dependent on foreign countries for her armaments, and had to establish an organization which could, together with private industry, meet her needs. We caused a very thorough study to be made, under the direction of a responsible committee—those documents are still available today and if the hon. member wishes to read them, I could let him have them although I think that he has read the—to devise this scheme for us. We deviated from the French DMA system in certain respects. While the French, under their system, applied nationalization, we did not. In that sphere, by introducing this development corporation, we singled out only certain industries, viz. industries which for strategic or economic reasons could not be run by private industry. These we brought in under the corporation, but the rest is being done for us by private industry, and therefore we have more than a thousand contractors and sub-contractors who are working for us, but the people of the Armaments Board ensure that the required quality is maintained. There is therefore quality control. Who are the subsidiaries of Armscor about whom my hon. friend complains? The first is Atlas. Is there anyone in this House now who says that the Government did the wrong thing when it took over Atlas. We took over Atlas for an amount of approximately R15/R16 million, and today Atlass’ assets are standing at between R70 million and R80 million, so well is it being managed. It is under extremely competent management, for some of the best business brains available in South Africa have representation on the Atlas board of directors. Am I making a mistake now in involving them? These are some of the best brains, people who have had business experience. I do not want to discuss these people in public. They are rendering a service as directors for a small salary. I do not want to discuss them in public. I merely want to express my appreciation for their having come forward to help us. Atlas is a splendid institutions, and I have nothing but the greatest respect for the efficient management practices which are being followed by Atlas, and if the hon. member wants to know more about it, I shall arrange a visit for him; then he can go and see the latest managerial techniques which are being applied there, which are among the best in the world. I am saying this on the basis of what I know.

But it has been reshuffled three times in the last year.

But of course. Atlas is a young industry. It is a miracle that we are experiencing so few difficulties with Atlas because difficulties are being experienced in the aircraft industry throughout the world. After all, this is a difficult industry to operate. Take another subsidiary, that for optical instruments. Sir, this is a strategic industry about which I do not want to say very much more, but it is necessary to make use of the knowledge of specialists, and this is being. There is Krygsfontein, where we are manufacturing sporting and hunting rifles which have already received a testimonial at an exhibition in America to the effect that they are among the best rifles in the world. Now my hon. friend, without mentioning any names has singled out one person on whom he wants to cast suspicion, and I regret this very much.

No. I said there were a few farmers.

No, there is only one farmer, and this person is a well-known South African farmer, for whom I have personal respect not only for his exceptional competence but also because he is one of the greatest experts on rifles in South Africa. He can give this hon. member lectures on rifles for nights on end, and that is why he is on this board of directors. He has already played his part in the Defence Force, for example in the commando organization. He is known throughout the country. Now the hon. member comes here and talks about hunting parties. This particular farmer does arrange hunting parties, yes, but it is his own buck which he shoots. [Interjections.] No, Sir, these people must stop gossiping. If the hon. member had come to me I could have given him all the information. But let me tell him now that if wants to see a model farm, and if he wants to spend a night with someone who can talk to him entertainingly about rifles, then I want to suggest that he spends a night there. I shall arrange it for him.

But, Sir, I am still dealing with the Armscor set-up. There are also two subsidiaries, Somchen and Naschem. We took over or established Somchen and Naschem after a certain take-over had taken place in private enterprise. This was in regard to our explosive industry, our propellants and the manufacturing, the filling and composition of heavy ordnance ammunition. This was not always under the control of the State. It was not always under the control of the Defence Force or an armaments organization. It was privately-owned. And great profits were being made, enormous profits, a return of up to 20%. A stop was then put to this and it was placed under the control of expert guidance. And today South Africa has control over its explosives industry and its propellants. And let me tell you something—people talk about the treatment of non-Whites. We have non-White workers in this industry. We have Coloureds in our employ and we have Bantu in our employ. And the conditions of service under which these people are working in Armscor improved as day from night after this industry was taken over from this particular concern in private enterprise, private enterprise which is constantly taking the lead in telling you and I how non-Whites should be treated. I just want to mention two examples. At one stage those people’s Bantu did not receive midday meals. We then introduced midday meals for them. They did not have transportation to their work. They had to make use of every possible means to get there. We established amenities for them. Today there is a happy Black community working for us. And there are happy Coloureds who are working for us. We are proud of their work. I want to tell the hon. member that there is another subsidiary, viz. Bon Aero Park. This was a subsidiary of Atlas which was at the same time taken over, and by means of which we are providing certain people with housing. This is a very good undertaking. We have people there who have a thorough knowledge of housing. I do not know what there is to complain about. We have a scheme for those things which are uneconomical to leave to private industry or where, for strategic reasons, it is essential that it should be under State control. That is why this organization was established. But what have we done now? Under the guidance of Prof. Samuels we have succeeded in getting a number of business people interested, and they are serving on these boards of directors. Surely it is a good thing for a person such as Mr. Bamford to serve on one or two of these boards of directors, is it not? Surely he is not a mere nobody. Surely he has knowledge. Is it wrong, then, that a person such as Mr. Tony Trollip, who is an expert on the Companies Act, should serve on one of these boards of directors? Or is it precisely because he is on that board that people do not like it? Gen. Webster, who is known throughout the country for his business acumen, is also serving on one of these boards of directors. Is that wrong? I thought it was a good thing to have people such as Dr. Wim de Villiers, Dr. Knoll and others serving on these boards of directors, thus making their knowledge available and through the application of the best business methods ensuring us of the greatest efficiency. The hon. member could have had all this information, if he had only done what he ought to have done, viz. had visited me regularly in my office.

I am referring to the structure and not to personalities.

As I have said the structure was the result of an investigation. It is not someone’s whim we are applying here. The matter was investigated thoroughly in other countries of the world, and this is the structure we decided on after thorough investigation.

I want to deal for a moment now with the hon. member for Rondebosch. The hon. member for Rondebosch will still have to learn a tremendous amount in this place. He is very competent, but I do not think his judgment is very sound. If he wants to remain here as long as I have done, he still, believe me, has a lot to learn. For that reason his cheekiness makes no impression on me. And also what the hon. member said about me the other day in my absence, that I do not take amiss of him either. In case he has forgotten, I just want to quote to him again what the hon. the Prime Minister said—

It therefore seems to me as though the Prime Minister and I are in agreement on this matter, and with that I am in very good company. The hon. member must not misunderstand me. I have nothing against it if South Africans speak to people, in Africa. There is nothing strange about it; there was nothing strange about what they did in speaking to Black leaders in Africa. Nor was that the first time. In the past this Government not only demonstrated its willingness to speak to Black leaders in Africa, but did in fact do so. My colleague, the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, does it all the time. What is more—and this the young and inexperienced hon. member for Rondebosch does not know—I personally have negotiated repeatedly with Black African leaders, and not only in South Africa, but also in their own countries. I want to enlighten him on this matter in English, for then the hon. member would perhaps understand it better.

†I personally had discussions with different African States at a very high level. I met some of the heads of State. I was received with the greatest respect by them. I visited a number of these countries on more than one occasion.

He was not aware of that.

No, of course not. He thought he was the first. I have even received a decoration from one of them which I am allowed to wear whenever I like to do so. Over the years I have not advertised this fact; only a few of my closest friends knew about it. The Government knew, of course. I did not do this, because I was more interested in South Africa than in propaganda. In my discussions I have always stated emphatically, when I have visited those countries, that the Republic of South Africa has no aggressive intentions against any other country. Did the hon. members say that to the heads of States they visited? Well, why do they not tell us? I have furthermore explained to them that the main purpose of our Defence Force was to maintain peace and to defend our right to solve our own problems in our own way. They were very pleased to hear it, and they believed me. The best proof of this is to be found in our peaceful relations with our immediate neighbours. They need not build up strong Defence Forces, because they know South Africa is not going to attack them. No African country need fear any aggression on the part of the Republic of South Africa; so they can utilize their funds for the development of their countries. If they try to do that, they will find that South Africa will support them also economically. But in my discussions I have, further, referred to the Prime Minister’s declared policy to sign non-aggression pacts with any African country who would like to do so. That is what I advocated, and it is still the policy of this Government, that we are prepared to sign nonaggression pacts with countries in Southern Africa as well as in the rest of Africa. But I also clearly stated that we were against communist interference, be it military or through insurgence, and I still take up that attitude, because Moscow and Peking, as well as some of their satellites, are bent on exploiting Africa for their own purposes.

In a Sunday paper yesterday there was a statement, referred to by the hon. member for Cradock, by Archbishop Hurley in which he said that if South Africa got involved in a border war, such war would have been provoked by the policy of apartheid. That is not true. This is a lie. If South Africa gets involved in a border war, it will be the result of interference on the part of Moscow and Peking in the affairs of Africa. All I wish to say, is that if Zambia and Tanzania tomorrow closed their countries to terrorists, the whole pattern of political co-operation in Southern Africa can be changed immediately. It is the harbouring, the training and the support of murderers and terrorists which is standing in the way of proper co-operation between countries in Southern Africa. My hon. friend knows it, but he attacks me for saying that terrorists are murderers. Can you imagine a member of the Parliament of South Africa attacking the Minister of Defence because he says that terrorists are murderers! [Interjection.] What are they? Are they a lot of angels?

*That is why I say that the young hon. member still has a lot to learn. He is still much too presumptious. Now I have told hon. members what I said to these leaders in Africa, and what I am still saying to them every day. And let me say this to the hon. member there are numerous countries in Africa where I am welcome; there are numerous countries in Africa where I have friends and where the South African Defence Force is referred to with the greatest respect. If the hon. member wants to come here and lecture us in a superior fashion about what we should and should not do in Africa, he should go back and start learning all over again. [Interjections.] I took it amiss of hon. members of the Progressive Party for having gone on an African journey without even having had the courtesy to go to the Prime Minister of South Africa and to tell him that they were going on such a journey and that, although they differed with him politically, they wanted to be of service to South Africa. Did those hon. members, upon their return, inform the hon. the Prime Minister or the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs that they would like to come and see him to tell him what they had accomplished there? Surely this is not only the Progressive Party’s business, it is also South Africa’s business. That is why I came down on them, and that it why I exposed them here. That is why I told them that if they wanted to be accepted as a responsible party in this country, they should conduct themselves differently to the way they had hitherto done. Otherwise we would continue to expose them, and I want to inform those hon. members that there have been young Progressives who attended meetings of mine and who came to tell me after my speech: “We stand fully and squarely behind you as far as the defence of South Africa is concerned and we except from our leaders that they will take up the same attitude.” But no, that the hon. member for Houghton does not want to do. She laughs at everything which is South African.

I am laughing at you, for the way in which you are sneering at us.

I think I have said enough now about the African position. If it were not for the interference on the part of Russian militarism and Chinese insurgence, we would reach an agreement with Africa. If those influences had not been there, there would have been an opportunity in Southern Africa to spend less on arming ourselves and more on development. That is the position confronting this Government. For that reason I believe that we also have the support of the official Opposition in wanting to ensure the best and greatest happiness for Southern Africa and its people. However, we are not sheep. There is, after all, such a thing as interference from outside. I have here in my possession the statements of, firstly, the head of the Russian Africa Institute, who states openly that their main objective is to subjugate South Africa. In the second place I have here the declaration of the Organization for African Unity which, in spite of the fact that there are African states who openly desire to have co-operation with us declares that those States will be victimized if this is done openly. This organization states openly that it is its aim to get at South Africa in this conflict with military force. One of our friends which the Progressives opposite went to visit, said that nothing would help any more except force. The Chinese Prime Minister made a statement in which he set out clearly their plan of campaign against Southern Africa. These things are in our possession. It is for this reason that we are taking steps, in so far as it is humanly possible for us as a small country to do, to make South Africa defensible in the military sphere as well. We have no claims against any other countries in Africa, specifically in Southern Africa. In fact, we have no claims against any other country on earth. All that we ask, is to be allowed, with the means at our disposal, to ensure the best for our various communities. However, there are others who want to prevent us from doing this. That is why we are building up a Defence Force.

Is it true, now, that we have introduced such an enormous military Budget this year? Let us first spend a few moments replying to this question. If one reads the newspapers, one would swear that South Africa is arming itself against the entire world. What are the facts now? Britain spends 19% of its annual State expenditure on defence, or 5,75% of its national product. France spends 17% and 3,13% respectively. The Netherlands 11% and 3,50%, respectively. I shall leave Portugal out. Israel is spending 49% of its State expenditure on defence, or 26% of its national product. The Republic of South Africa, in contrast, is this year spending 13,5% of its State expenditure and 2,9%, all inclusive, of its national product. Is that such a terrible expenditure? That is why I said when I was discussing this matter in public the other day, that we would have to spend more. Why? Because there has been an escalation of prices, because raw materials are becoming more expensive, and because wages are rising. That is why there is a tremendous increase in the prices of armaments in the sphere of defence. If we want to have a good Defence Force, we must attract the best people to the Defence Force and the armaments organization, and if one wants to succeed in doing so, one must pay a good salary. The hon. member for Durban Point stated, quite rightly, that good salaries were being paid there; to my way of thinking some could still be improved, because I believe that South Africa should have the best available people in its Defence Force and its armaments organization. I do not want to lay it down as policy today, but I want to submit for consideration whether we should not perhaps do what Israel does, viz. to make it possible for its people to retire on pension at an early age so that they can re-apply their knowledge in private industry. At the same time we would be ensuring that the strength of youth is preserved in the Defence Force. This would also create greater possibilities for promotion. I am not saying that this is my policy, but I feel very strongly about this, and I hope that I will receive the support of hon. members when we move in that direction. It is not that I have any disrespect for the services of older people, but merely want to ensure that the Defence Force and the armaments organization ought to have the best young brains in the country to serve it. And then the necessary promotion possibilities should be created for them.

I referred here to the financial contributions of the State to Defence. I did this because I want to eliminate the impression that South Africa is an armed camp which wants to take on the entire world. That is not true. We are doing something which is perfectly natural in building up a balanced Defence Force. If hon. members were to glance at the printed defence estimates, they would see that there is a proper relationship between land, sea and air defence.

I do not want to fall into the temptation of speaking too long. Therefore I shall refer at a later stage to the other matters which hon. members raised, such as civil defence and other matters.

There is just one more matter to which I want to refer. The hon. member for Durban Point raised the matter of co-operation among the various political parties in deciding on the question of intelligence. In this connection there is something I want to tell him, and when I say this, I am speaking on behalf of the Cabinet, because I thrashed out this matter with the Cabinet. Therefore this is not merely my personal opinion. No legislation is introduced in this House of Assembly in regard to which I do not call upon the assistance of the Opposition. In other words, we have co-operation there. When important inspections or visits take place, I invite members of the Opposition to participate in these with me. Thirdly, we go so far, when it is in any way possible, to invite the wives of the Opposition members in the defence group as well to accompany us on these visits. For example I have on two occasions invited the hon. member for Durban Point to pay a visit to the border with me. We have many boards serving the Defence Force. There is in the first place the Staff Board, which the hon. member for Durban Point himself says is a board consisting of extremely competent people. There are joint advisory committees which convene monthly, joint committees of the Armament Board and the Staff Board. These are under the chairmanship of the Chief of the Defence Force. After these meetings they report to me. There are the boards of directors to which I referred a moment ago. There is the State Security Council. I have a host of advisers. If I were to establish another board, I would have too many. I want to make this offer to the hon. member. I do not think the hon. member wants to help manage the administration of the department for if he wants to do that then I want to tell he cannot.

No, not at all.

Very well, the hon. member therefore wants to discuss matters with me from time to time. But we are doing that. Perhaps we are discussing matters too infrequently. He said he does not like me very much as politician, but he likes me as Minister of Defence. I want to suggest that we agree to have regular discussions. We could arrange the dates for such discussions. If the hon. member does not want to speak to me alone, I have no objection if the hon. member for Green Point accompanies him.

As long as you do not bring Japie along.

I have no objection if the hon. member for Albany accompanies him. I have no objection if responsible people accompany him. I have no objection if they want to come and see me to discuss Defence Force matters because they have an interest in them. However, you must promise me two things. You must not expect me to account to you for the administration of my portfolio. In this regard my responsibility lies with the Prime Minister. Nor can you expect me to allow you to lay down policy for me. We can exchange information, and I shall furnish hon. members opposite with replies. A defence council will not work because we would then be poaching on the preserves of the Staff Board and the Armaments Board and the other boards. Over the years statutory provision for a Defence Council has existed, and not one of the former Ministers of Defence, from General Smuts down, have made any use of it. At one stage I did in fact want to establish a Defence Advisory Council. I went to the late Dr. Verwoerd and said: “Let us establish a Defence Advisory Council.” He told me that I should try it out administratively. He also warned me that such a council would not work very well. I appointed such a council. The late Dr. Van Eck was one of its members. After the third or fourth meeting the late Dr. Van Eck told me that I should rather put a stop to the meetings of that council and carry on with the work. He said we were wasting time. [Interjections.] Yes, now his son must quite probably serve on it. I do not know. The United Party will have to decide. [Interjections.] But, Sir, I am prepared to discuss matters with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition; he knows that we furnish him with information from time to time through the hon. member for Durban Point. Sir, all I am seeking is the greatest possible unity for the Defence Force, for I want the people of South Africa to be behind the Defence Force.

That is all we ask.

Sir, I should also like to bring home the idea that the Coloured population should to an increasing extent see the Defence Force as being their protector as well. We are proud of the work which the Cape Corps is doing, and we are proud of the Coloured members who have joined the Permanent Force, and I am pleased to be able to say that there are some of them today who are doing excellent work on our ships. I have already announced—some time ago—that we are going to establish an Indian Battalion and that we are going to afford them the opportunity, after having trained them as volunteers, to occupy certain Permanent Force posts, particularly at Salisbury Island.

Sir, I went further and said that we are prepared, in consultation with Bantu homeland governments, to take steps to help ensure Defence Force units from responsible elements for them. We are at present training Bantu instructors. A number have been recruited and are being trained; I do not want to say any more about this, but in this connection may I say the following: A different tone must really go forth then from this House of Assembly, and these people should not then constantly be told “You will be called upon to fight for an unjust society”.

For, Sir, the defence of a country cannot be carried out in the military sphere only; the defence of a country, to be total, must also be carried out in other spheres. But then we should not say to the Black peoples of South Africa: “To be born a Black man in South Africa is to have the kiss of death”; in that case one would not be encouraging them to support the Defence Force. I can understand that there are such people who blazon such nonsense abroad, because they have no love for South Africa; they are sojourners here. But Sir, I am making an appeal to responsible people to tell the non-Whites that the Defence Force is not there only to protect the Whites. For if terrorism or communism should take over in South Africa, then, surely, it will not spare the Coloureds; then the Coloured communities of our country will be ruined to a greater extent than any other. If communism or anarchy should take over in South Africa, then, surely, the Indian communities will not be protected. In Africa, South Africa is the only country in which the Indian communities are safe. If communism were to take over in this country they would not ask who are the United Party or who are National Party supporters.

Or who are Progressives.

They will come down on those who want to maintain standards of civilization in this country. Sir, why do we not come to our senses when we criticize one another across the floor of this House? It has been said that I should count my words. Sir, I shall count them as long as I am not speaking to people who play the transparent game which is being played by some people in this country. Therefore I count my words when I speak to the hon. member for Durban Point, because I know he is a South African; because I know he has the interests of South Africa at heart; that is why I count my words when I speak to him.

But, Sir, you must not ask me to count my words when I speak to people who use every platform in this country to place ammunition in the hands of the archenemies of South Africa. That is why I am making an appeal here today: The Defence Force is above party politics; the Defence Force is above pettiness, not because the Defence Force is perfect, but because it is the last bastion for the preservation of the State. I know we cannot arm ourselves against the entire world. I know we cannot arm ourselves against superior numbers, but we can arm in fact ourselves to maintain our self-respect and our national honour.

I consider myself very fortunate to be able to speak after the hon. the Minister of Defence. I need not comment on his speech. My confidence, like the confidence of every person in this House, has been fortified anew by his proficiency and skill in the post he occupies. We appreciate his energetic dedication to the business of the defence of our fatherland. Through this speech he has proved it afresh. Sir, South Africa is certainly experiencing one of the most critical phases in its history, and the person or organization which wants to deny that, is living in a fool’s paradise or is a stranger in Jerusalem and has no grasp of the true South African situation. Nor is he able to put into perspective the growing threat which is building up just outside our borders, the ripple effect of which reaches right up to Moscow and Peking, and which is also gaining footholds in the capitals of some of our mother countries, those countries from which our largest population groups here originate, in London and the Hague, where consultations are being held concerning propaganda against and subtle onslaughts on South Africa.

This is not merely an imaginary threat; it is not aimed at only a few facets of our South African establishment. It is a total onslaught, a total war, against the White man and everything he has brought to Southern Africa, The enemies of South Africa choose their points of attack on our Western view of life and the Western order with exceptionally calculated cunning. Listen to what a military expert says about the onslaught of the communist world on our Western civilization—

That is Gen. H. J. Kruls, one of the commanders of the 15 nations of Nato who co-operate in Europe. What that man says, is the truth and applies to the onslaught on the White man in Southern Africa. Here it is, in the first place, an onslaught by way of boycotts against our economy in order to weaken our ability to resist. The spearhead of the attack is even aimed at our sporting organizations, preventing our young people from competing with the best in the world on international sports fields. They thereby injure the pride and the potential of our young people in a very tender spot, in one of their most sensitive spots, with harmful results. They try to silence South African diplomats, South African economists and scientists in international organizations by refusing them participation and in that way isolating South Africa and eventually causing her to bleed to death in a condition of total isolation. They are trying to affect the spiritual preparedness of the entire South African population and they aim in particular to launch an attack on the youth of our country by indoctrination and conditioning at university level.

By means of brainwashing and sensitivity training, like that which took place at Wilgespruit, which was made public by the Schlebusch Commission, they tried to undermine the proven norms and the recognized Christian way of life of our people. They try to make us weaker, to undermine our ability to resist and to lessen our belief in our just and good cause. By sowing the doubt in our hearts that our cause is perhaps not a good one, they want to try to inculcate a guilty conscience among us, just like the conscience of the people sitting on the other side there, and which has already taken root in other parts of the world too. This is a mighty attempt to break the morale of the people, to drive it to defeatism and to cause it to believe that the present Government is really the only cause of the growing hostility towards South Africa in the world. This onslaught, alas, also has mouthpieces in our own national establishment which must be eradicated. It has already raised its ugly head in the Nusas student organization with its open confrontation with the existing White order in South Africa, in the Christian Institute with its Beyers Naude, a former clergyman of the D.R. Church as its mouthpiece, in the South African Council of Churches with its appeal to young men not to come forward or to refuse to undergo training for the defence force. They find mouthpieces in spiritual leaders who have distorted ideas about race relations in South Africa and, alas, they are within this House, too, with the unholy alliance of seven of the Progressive Party which you see sitting over there.

I want us to give them the name of the unholy alliance of seven because it is these leaders of the Progressive Party with their negative, anti-Afrikaans attitude, their dubious statements, as was once again evidenced by the recent statement of the hon. member for Rondebosch here in the House, and their fraternization with the enemies of South Africa, with whom they are involved in an underhand way here and beyond our borders, to whom I refer. [Interjections.] That is so; that is the truth. Why do they not want to say what they were doing? Why do they keep it secret? Now they are merely laughing about it.

The most important aspect however is the military onslaught against South Africa, a war which has not been declared. You know, Sir, the declaration of wars is old-fashioned. They simply begin by instigating insurgency, infiltration, attacks across the borders and anarchy within communities. Our hon. Minister calls it a war of low intensity which has already begun. For some time it has escalated into something which is much more than a cold war. There is brutal aggression from without and attempts at sabotage within our borders. The terrorist onslaughts only form the van, they are only the vanguard, they are only the advance guard of a well-organized force and forces which are being built up against South Africa further up in Africa and further away towards the east.

The collapse of Portuguese rule in Angola and Mozambique removes, too, the useful buffer which had existed between our borders and the terrorist bases. Our eastern and other land borders are now no longer our furthest lines of defence, they are now our only and last lines of defence. The Cape Times wrote an editorial on the subject which is well worth reading. I shall only quote the first sentence of it—

That is the truth. The position is far more urgent and far more dangerous than in 1960 and in 1961 with Sharpeville and … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Marico will pardon me if I turn immediately to the commentary by the hon. the Minister of Defence, who indulges in an attempt to reply at some length to the comments made by the hon. member for Durban Point. We realize that every word he said merely reinforced the fact that this is perhaps one of the most historic debates that has taken place under the Defence Vote in this House for many years. He dealt at some length with matters of extreme importance to South Africa and we shall come back to most of the items he raised in greater detail when later speakers take the floor. I do, however, want to say that we recognize that the South African Defence Force serves all South Africa. It would be only a fitting tribute that we should recognize today the fact that there are members of our South African Defence Force on active service on our borders and that many have already given their lives on active service in the defence of South Africa.

At a more parochial level, I think we should recognize what the South African Defence Force does for us and I want to refer particularly to four items. Firstly, I want to refer to the presence of a guard of honour at the opening of this session of Parliament in the Mother City. The opening of such an historic session is always of tremendous interest to the public and the fact that troops belonging to many regiments from all over the country took part is one which we commend. It is also a source of great pride to me that on this occasion we saw the Cape Town Highlanders, a regiment in which I served for some 25 years, as a guard of honour lining the steps to the Senate. They were dressed in their traditional uniform and amongst those Cape Town Highlanders were so many Van der Merwes, Smiths and other people that it can be regarded as being indicative of the unity which we are achieving in our Defence Forces.

It is because the Murrays go to Parliament.

Then I also want to refer to the part the Navy has played in the international sporting field in assisting in the running and smooth working of the Cape to Rio yacht race and the Round-the-World international yacht race. Without the active support of the Navy, these tremendously important international sporting events could not have taken place. Not only South Africa has gained in stature, but also our Navy.

I also want to refer, as a previous speaker has done, to the Civil Defence Training College for Women at George. During the last session of Parliament a number of wives of parliamentarians were privileged to visit this college. Those that had this privilege extended to them had nothing but praise for the calibre of girl that is serving there. In my own case, my wife commented that they might go there as Afrikaans-speaking or English-speaking girls, but that they certainly come out as South African girls.

Finally, I want to refer to Paratus, the magazine issued by the South African Defence Force. I want to commend those responsible for the tremendous effort they are putting into popularizing and making known the Defence Force and in bringing about a greater esprit de corps among our men serving in the Forces. It is an admirable journal and I hope it reaches almost every single person who is serving.

I believe that today for the first time civilians in South Africa have had brought home to them the fact that not only are our front-line forces important to us, but also that the civilian defence services are going to be of growing importance. It was last year that a parliamentary mission consisting of members of both sides of this House, visited the frontier in Mozambique as guests of the Portuguese Government. I was privileged to be in that party and on my return I indicated, as an appreciation of the situation, that I did not believe that the Portuguese were looking over their shoulders. I thought that they were going to continue in their fight, because one saw tremendous economic activity and constructional activity and there was no indication whatsoever that within such a short period a military coup in Portugal would reverse the situation. But as a result of this today we see headlines in all our papers that civilians in Angola and in Mozambique are now crouching behind shuttered doors, that women and children are being told to stay at home and that the war has been brought to their doorstep.

We on this side of the House agree with the Government that it is not a “Drang nach Osten” that we are experiencing today, but a “Drang nach Süden”, that the Third World powers, with specific reference to Russia and China, have designs on South Africa. The fact is that Mozambique is busy crumbling, and we have had to read in a Sunday paper only yesterday that no less a person than Prof. Feddema, “Hoogleraar in Volkskunde aan die Vrije Universiteit van Amsterdam” had the following to say—

He continues as follows:

Die tyd is een minuut voor 12 vir Suid-Afrika.

Against that background, I say that the role which is being played in the South African defences by our civil defence services must inevitably come under the microscope. I realize that only in 1969 the Civil Defence Amendment Act took away from the Director of Civil Defence Services his powers. These were taken over by the hon. the Minister, who was given tremendous powers, quite understandably, powers over civilians and over the commercial and industrial life of the country. I believe that today it is necessary that we should not only have on paper the minimal establishment which we had in 1972. When my hon. colleague asked the hon. the Minister how many officers and other ranks were employed solely and partly on civil defence duties at Defence Headquarters and in each Command, respectively, the answer was—

I believe that never before has there been such a degree of urgency that we should see that our civil defence forces are brought right up to date. The amount of money which has been put aside under this Vote is R561 000, a figure which is minimal in relation to the R700 million odd we are spending on overall Defence Force requirements. This is extremely important against the background of the Russian influence in the Indian Ocean and the Chinese influence in Africa; and in the light of the fact that our neighbours, the Portuguese, have crumbled on our borders, we must today by every possible means arouse the enthusiasm, the responsibility and the recognition of a public duty that is owed by every civilian who is not in the Armed Forces, to reinforce the efforts of our Armed Forces by making himself or herself available for civic duties in the civil defence services. We have had sufficient natural catastrophes in South Africa from time to time, be they floods, earthquakes, fires, natural hazards, pests and epidemics, to know that we must be on our toes. I believe I could ask the hon. the Minister sincerely to make greater use of the radio, of Paratus as such, of our schools, colleges and universities, and more particularly, of such specialized organizations as the Voortrekker Movement, the Boy Scout Movement, the Noodhulpliga, the Red Cross Movement, and blood donors, etc., to make people aware that it is not tomorrow that we must prepare for, but today, so that, in the famous terms of the Boy Scout motto, we will be prepared when necessary.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens made a constructive speech here in which I find nothing to criticise. It is in sharp contrast to the speech by the hon. member for Rondebosch who spoke about the dividedness, the conflict and the tension which defence can cause. We cannot do otherwise than say that the department of Defence has to a very large extent ensured that tension between races and language groups is eliminated. It is the aim of the Defence Force to build one nation and I want to maintain that it has succeeded in that aim to a very large extent.

Today I want to discuss the Navy. In recent times our attention has been drawn anew to our coast by the disasters in the form of shipwrecks, which have occurred. They called to mind the days of the old Cape of Storms, Jan van Riebeeck and the seafarers. In recent times disasters at sea have been taking place frequently, approximately every week. Then, too, the visit of the British task force of nine ships which took part in maneouvres with our Navy last week, reminded us of the importance of the Navy. The visit of the British ships took place in spite of the Labour Government in Britain. I think that this is a very important pointer to the importance attached by the world, and Britain in particular, to the sea route around the Cape. I found it interesting to read what Admiral Clayton, the chief of this detachment of the British Navy, said—

He went on to say—

I think we can take it that the Simonstown Agreement will continue to exist for a long time. The visit by the German nuclear-propelled ship, Otto Hahn, during the past week brought to our attention how important shipping is going to be, in the future as well. The question occurs to one what role our own Navy plays in the struggle for the sea route to the Indian Ocean. I want to maintain that our Naby will have to be taken into account to an increasing extent in the future.

I was very pleased to read in Paratus that there are major plans afoot to develop the harbour facilities at Simonstown and create more facilities. The tenders for doubling of the size of the tidal basin have already been taken up and construction will begin next year. This operation is going to cost millions of rand and it is calculated that it will take at least five years to complete. The planning provides for another 40 to 50 ships and when the harbour is completed, it will be the most modern harbour in the Southern Hemisphere. It will be capable of servicing ships like the Tiger and submarines bigger than those in the Daphne class. It will be possible to berth tankers of more than 25 000 tons and provision is being made for the most modern anti-pollution and oil spillage measures. As a part of this project at least seven hectares of land will be reclaimed from the sea at Simonstown and, as everyone knows, land is very limited at Simonstown. Other developments, too, are taking place at Simonstown. A workshop for the Naval maintenance unit is at present under construction and the maritime headquarters at Silvermine are being put in operation. Tenders for this service are being called for this very month. The staff of the Nayv, too, are being cared for. Married quarters for 363 officers and ratings are under construction and 198 flats for married ratings are being planned in Da Gama Park. In addition, unmarried quarters and mess facilities for 760 persons are being planned at Silvermine. Houses for 40 members of the South African Cape Corps are being planned for the Navy at Imhoffsgift.

Does this appear in Paratus or in the Budget itself?

This is information I have gleaned from Paratus and other sources. This just goes to show that we are seeing to our people who work in the Navy as well. At Salisbury Island in Durban, too, major developments are taking place. Ever since the Government decided that Salisbury Island should again be utilized as a Naval base, various buildings and facilities have been put into commission. The modernization and construction of workshops and administration buildings are also being envisaged. Buildings are being renovated for use by Naval staff and also for the commissioning, in 1974, of the Indian battalion which the hon. the Minister of Defence has just referred to. Sites for married quarters have been acquired and will be planned shortly. At Saldanha and Wingfield, too, major developments and improvements are being envisaged. These facilities are being created because we realize that the Navy will have to play its role to the full in regard to the route around the Cape.

What, in effect, are the objectives of the Navy? The first, I think, is to deter aggression and to act as a deterrent. Secondly, it is to patrol the coast effectively. Thirdly, when ships have to be defended against hostile action, the Navy has to be there to perform that function. Fourthly, the Navy must prevent a blockade of our harbours. Fifthly, they have to protect our fishing waters. Lastly there are many other tasks they undertake such as rescue work at sea, combating of oil pollution, mapping of the coastline, etc. You can see, therefore, Mr. Chairman, how important the Navy has become, not only as a means of attack, but also in working for South Africa.

We come of seafaring stock. Virtually all our forefathers lived on the sea and from shipping. I hope, therefore, that our young people will make the sea their career to an increasing extent. I hope that our Defence Force will to an increasing extent create the opportunities and the necessary facilities to enable all our young people who have the urge to work at sea, to qualify themselves in that field. In that way, we on the southern tip of Africa will also be able to play our role in shipping.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the hon. member for Humanedorp that our Navy offers a career second to none in this country to our young men. I was fortunate in getting my son into the Navy. I think that it has been the most fruitful year he has ever spent. I want to say to the hon. member that my experience is that far more young men want to join the Navy than at this stage can be accommodated by the Navy. When one considers all the expansion about which he spoke, we hope there will be more room for the young men who enthusiastically want to make the Navy their career. The other points which he raised will be replied to by other hon. members on this side.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to discuss certain aspects of civil defence with the hon. the Minister. I believe that the need for a well-organized civil defence structure has become more urgent at this stage of our history than ever before. It is a matter to which we will have to give increased attention and I believe that we must be quite sure on all sides, both on the military side and the civilian side, that our arrangements are the best possible. When we talk of civil defence, I think we must think in terms of the totality of our population. When we have to face the problems that arise, the natural disasters and the man-made disasters, I think that the hon. the Minister of Defence will agree with me that the manmade disasters are probably as likely to happen in the future as natural disasters happened in the past. We have therefore to think in terms of all the people. Our most serious problems will no doubt arise in the big industrial complexes where there is a great concentration of people. When man-made disasters are precipitated they will be directed at water supplies, at electricity supplies and at energy supplies. When this sort of thing does happen, one will have to be careful that disease does not break out and be prepared to counter such an eventuality. The hon. the Minister will no doubt tell me that we do have a blueprint in this regard. I have studied it very carefully. One is impressed by the plans that have been prepared. One notices that all the important organizations are drawn into the civil defence organization. In each military command, the officer commanding the area in question is, as I understand it, responsible for civil defence in such area. He is the officer who has to initiate what has to be done. He calls in to his assistance people like the town clerk, the secretary of the divisional council, the Noodhulpliga, the Red Cross, the Police, the Fire Brigade and all other local organizations. I believe that what has been prepared, is a good thing. However, how many civilians, ordinary citizens, know what they should do in the event of an emergency? I wonder whether the time has not come when the civil defence authorities should think seriously in terms of establishing a register so as to register everyone to fulfil some function somewhere in the civil defence organization. I shall be interested to hear from the hon. the Minister whether or not this is part of his overall planning. I think it is something that should receive attention. Many people have asked me what happens in the case of a civil disaster. They want to know what the civil defence authorities do in such a case. It seems to me that the message from these civil defence authorities is not getting through to people who will be affected by a disaster.

The second point I want to raise is that we cannot think of civil defence in the large industrial areas only, the large metropolitan areas. We have to extend our civil defence planning into the platteland, the areas which are less densely populated. There are many small towns which can be vitally affected by a disaster of any kind. They can also be vitally affected by manmade disasters. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister has considered making radio communication more readliy available to these outlying areas? Has he considered interlocking the commandos with the civil defence organization in these smaller towns? Should problems arise in those less densely populated areas, communications can become a very real problem. The first thing to be attacked or destroyed will be the telephone installation. Once that happens, the small, outlying areas will be completely cut off from any other authorities. This would cause serious dislocation. Sir, in dealing with a disaster, transport is very often a vital link. I believe that in that situation the commandos should be readily dovetailed into any organization that is created so that transport becomes readily available to the authority which is in charge of civil defence in the small village or dorp in the platteland. I hope that the hon. the Minister in his reply will give us a full picture of what he has planned, and then perhaps at a later stage we can further discuss the matter to see whether the planning is fulfilling the needs at the present time. The most important thing that has to happen is that the entire population must be mobilized to be in a position to render whatever service their specialized knowledge permits them to render.

Sir, perhaps it would be a good thing if I just mentioned that I have no reason to cross swords with my hon. friend, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. He has raised a matter here which we all have very much at heart. He is one of my voters and for that reason it is not pleasant for me to cross swords with him, because it was a great problem for him in the last election to decide who to vote for in that constituency. I shall therefore leave him at that.

Sir, I think it is a very good thing that the hon. the Minister today dealt in great detail with our Armaments Board, Armcor and all its subsidiaries. I also think it is a good thing that we have received, on the occasion of this debate, the magnificent publication, The Production of Armaments in South Africa. We have not had much time in which to read it, but it was quite instructive to be able to read in this publication about all that is being done by the Armaments Board and its subsidiaries. I just want to tell the hon. member for Durban Point that I am also privileged to be a good acquaintance of the one farmer serving on the board of directors at Krygsfontein. As a matter of fact, I am a very good friend of his, and I should like to agree with the hon. the Minister: If ever there is anyone who not only has the interests of this organization at heart, but who is also a great expert on the product he is dealing with on that board of directors, then it is that farmer serving on that board of directors.

Does he have any military experience?

Yes, he has a great deal of experience; I can give the hon. member that assurance.

Who is it?

I had the privilege of serving with this person on various organizations for a long time, among others on the Agricultural Union, and I have a great respect not only for his knowledge of this subject, but I also have a great respect for his knowledge of South Africa and her people. The success this person has had overseas in selling this weapon will be recorded in the annals of the history of South Africa as some of the greatest achievements we have ever accomplished, and I want to pay tribute to Krygsfontein, in particular as far as this hunting rifle is concerned. I think this is one of the best weapons a farmer could have in his hands when he sees a couple of springbok or kudu running past him. I think this weapon fulfils all the requirements of a hunter in this country.

Sir, I want to express a few ideas with regard to our system of compulsory military training, not in order to criticize, but in an attempt to be constructive. This system has been designed for the purpose of enabling us to have a defence force under arms at all times without harming the economy; in other words, without withdrawing from the economy too many people at a time. We have designed a system of compulsory military training in terms of which young men, after they have reached a certain age or, for the most part, after they have passed their matriculation examinations, are assigned to various arms of the Defence Force. Sir, it is essential that changes should be effected continually in order to achieve the highest degree of efficiency, and I want to say that this change that was made last year with regard to compulsory military service of 18 months and two years, in particular, was a step in the right direction. I believe that, through this system, we shall to a large extent succeed in introducing into our system of compulsory military service the element of leadership and that we, in doing so, will ensure that we shall never neglect the element of leadership in the Defence Force. It is a fact that we experience enormous problems as far as the July intake is concerned; parents are concerned about the future of children who want to study further, and this is understandable. Sir, the children are notified well in advance; they are able to make the necessary arrangements to complete their studies first before reporting for military training; they can obtain the necessary exemption, and they can commence their military service after they have completed their studies. But I want to tell you that, in view of the number of re-allocations we have had during the past two years, I do not think it is possible to plan in a meaningful way in the Defence Force. There are an enormous number of applications for re-allocations. I do not think there can be any proper forward planning in any Defence Force when so many applications are received. We cannot build an efficient Defence Force or consider any forward planning if this state of affairs continues. We in this country will have to decide what is important to us, and I think that in the times we are living it is essential to tell every person who has to know this that the interests of the Defence Force must now come first in this country. It is the duty of every member in this House to imbue parents in South Africa with the necessary motivation at all times. We cannot say too much about this matter. I think we shall have to put the case of the Defence Force in a positive way on every occasion that presents itself, whenever we address public meetings. It is imperative that our young men be motivated, and I think this must begin at home. If we could keep on telling our young men that the Defence Force is a magnificent idea to try to achieve, if we could tell them that it is a splendid thing to be able to represent one’s country in the Defence Force, I think we would eventually succeed in motivating our young men to such an extent that it would no longer be a burden to them when the day arrives for them to have to undergo compulsory military training or if they want to join the Defence Force on a permanent basis. I think the biggest task lies with our parents, because it is at home that ideals are instilled. That is where the ideal is instilled to defend one’s country by means of a Defence Force one day. Furthermore, we have the schools. To my mind our teachers have a splendid task in this regard in motivating our young men, and not only young men, but also our young girls and the whole of the population and presenting the Defence Force as something splendid and something those boys and girls would be proud of. The same applies to our colleges and universities. Furthermore, I have in mind our newspapers which also have an important task in this respect to develop the system of compulsory military training and the Defence Force and to make something splendid of it. It should be the object of every person in South Africa who loves his country to participate in a positive manner in a discussion on our Defence Force. Let us make this a national campaign to speak in splendid terms about our Defence Force, not only in this House but on every platform created for us. If we have a sufficient number of motivated public personalities in this country participating in this discussion, such as members of Parliament, Senators, members of the provincial councils, industrialists, shopkeepers, agricultural leaders, ministers of religion and leaders in every sector of the national economy, we shall definitely do our Defence Force a great favour. If we have well-motivated parents and teachers and teaching staff at our colleges and universities and if we have well motivated newspaper editors and reporters, I believe that we shall achieve this ultimate object we are striving to achieve. We will ultimately have a well motivated Defence Force at our disposal and well motivated young men serving in the Defence Force, a Defence Force which will not only be able to defend by force of arms the country and everything we hold dear, but which will also be able to repulse the moral onslaught on our country. For that reason I urge every citizen of this country to conduct a positive discussion on our Defence Force at all times so that we, through this dialogue, will ultimately be able to educate our people and our parents in order that we can establish a well-motivated Defence Force.

Mr. Chairman, the constituency of Pinetown has enjoyed representation during 54 years by only two men. I think there are few constituencies in this country which have had that privilege. Mr. J. S. Marwick represented the constituency for 28 years and Mr. Arthur Hopewell for 26. When Mr. Arthur Hopewell retired this year after the short session, he retired as the Chief Whip of the United Party. I am sure that all the members of this House who have not made maiden speeches during this session will have appreciated Mr. Hopewell as a gentleman and as a parliamentarian. When I came to meet him a few months ago, for the first time, he impressed upon me how important the work is which the parliamentary staff does. I have certainly been tremendously impressed by the staff of the Speaker, e.g. by the Secretary, Assistant Secretary, Deputy Secretary and the many other people, as well as the service officers. Mr. Hopewell certainly told me that I would be impressed by the standard of their work but I must say that I had no idea how impressed I would be. In 1961, when I was a student at the University of Cape Town, the oldest and most prestigious university in the Southern Hemisphere, I was privileged to go to a place called Coetzenburg, which is at the other place, and on that May day in 1961 I was in a very good mood because I crossed the Braak singing loudly, “Die Ikeys wen, die Ikeys wen die intervarsity! ”

*Unfortunately we have never again won since that year, but the spirit was there and I enjoyed it. But in 1949 Coetzenburg was the venue for another important incident. On 10 October 1949 about 2 000 students gathered there to listen to a tribute to ex-president Kruger. The Rev. Abraham Faure Louw, who was a prisoner on St. Helena, was on the stage. There were also a number of war veterans, among whom there were a few Cape rebels. That day the speaker was a man who was 79 years of age. When he arrived he called the Rev. Louw, the war veterans and the rebels by their names, and to the students’ astonishment they recognized this extremely controversial political figure as the Boer Field General he still was. The man was General Jan Christiaan Smuts. In two days’ time, 24 years ago, this Boer general died at the age of 80 years. When he was 30 years old, exactly my age, he was plunged into a war which was the womb for his creation as a general, especially a field general. At human level there were three men who had a special influence on him. The first was President Paul Kruger, the second was General De la Rey and the third General Louis Botha. I just want to quote from what they wrote when Roberts and Buller were on their way to occupy Pretoria, just before the guerilla stage started in the Anglo-Boer War. I am quoting in English because the book from which I am quoting, is an English book. They say—

There in the Magaliesberg under De la Rey, Gen. Smuts learned how to fight. After some months and an incident at Gatsrand he left for the Cape with his Commando. He travelled through the Eastern Cape more or less parallel to the coast into the cradle of civilization, the Western Cape. He was an outstanding general because of the example he set, his bravery and his leadership. He was such a great man that he even attracted men to him as followers who were regarded as rebels by the British authorities. His approach in the Colyn incident is interesting. This Colyn was a spy and it is said that Gen. Smuts said of him, “Take him away and shoot him”. The real incident was described in a school exercise book in which Smuts wrote down all the evidence. He worked through everything in a cool and controlled manner. If he did say, “Take him away and shoot him”, it was a well considered sentence. As a man he was a leader in a million. As a strategist it was difficult to beat him, because he always saw the situation in its totality as well as its detail. Upon his arrival in the Cape he had himself appointed commandant of the Boer forces in the Cape Colony. He immediately reorganized the commandos. He divided them into four divisions and immediately made contact with German West Africa to ensure that Boer propaganda would have an outlet. As far as administrative matters are concerned, he was also particularly capable. He also experienced the grief of the peace and commented as follows—

During the First World War Smuts proved himself again as a field general. In East Africa in particular he had no patience with the English officers and generals. In German East Africa he sacked all of them and appointed Van Deventer, Britz and Hoskins, all of them South Africans. During the Second World War Smuts again proved his competence. On his 69th birthday Smuts said he felt very old. On his 70th birthday Hitler conquered all five nations in Europe and there were thousands of people who listened to Goebbels on radio Zeesen in this country. He was Prime Minister, Minister of Defence, Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Supreme Commander of the Defence Force. Dunkirk took place two days after his birthday and Paris fell three weeks later. In South Africa he had a formidable opposition in the House of Assembly, In addition he had the Ossewabrandwag and the Stormjaers against him, while there was also a fifth column in the country. He had no Navy at his disposal. He had only 4 860 men in the Permanent Force. But he was a Boer general and he perservered. In 1943 he reached the pinnacle of his career. One wonders whether this great leader, this great figure, this type of person we are looking for in this country, has his equal at this time. I have heard many veterans, especially Afrikaans-speaking men, say that what we now need in this country, is a Smuts, I think many of us realize the danger in which our country finds itself at the moment. If we have men with his intellect, statesmanship and military ability, our country and our defence has a fine future. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, according to the conventions and traditions of this House it is customary to congratulate a new member on his first speech. But it is also customary that a new member should refrain from venturing onto a contentious ground. Without saying anything further about this matter, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Pinetown on becoming a full-fledged member of this House in that he has now made his maiden speech. I want to congratulate him on the way in which he presented and arranged the contents of his speech. We believe the hon. member will be able to make even further important contributions in this House of Assembly.

After the hon. the Minister of Defence has dealt with a person, there is not really much left for someone else to add. For me as well to address the hon. member for Rondebosch, would really be quite unnecessary. But, Sir, his little party is making their political début during this session of the House of Assembly of South Africa. In saying that, I am not reflecting on the hon. member for Houghton at all. She has held the fort here in her own way for 13 years. She has, as she said herself, become the old girl, because now she is also subject to the discipline of a caucus, and one can see it in the way she behaves. But I leave her at that.

In this session her party is making its political début in South Africa. One would have expected from a party with the money prestige and build-up with which this party came to the House of Assembly to have told South Africa by now what its attitude is as far as important matters of policy are concerned. We still do not know where we stand with the Progressive Party on one single matter, because they have not placed their standpoint on record in this Parliament. The hon. member for Rondebosch very ably steered his way through a great many problems of his party in this debate and, I think, also through some of the supporters of his party but he did not tell us what the attitude of his party is in respect of national defence, particularly in these days we are living in. He did not tell us what the attitude of his party is towards compulsory national service. He did not tell us what the attitude of his party is towards those who evade compulsory military service. I should like to know from him what the attitude of his party is in respect of border defence. It is quite clear to me that he has read the Sunday newspapers. However, I cannot believe that he only reads Rapport and not the Sunday Times. I should like to know from him what his attiude is towards the statement made by the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Durban. I just want to quote to him one statement that was made by the Archbishop—

Sir, “liberation movements” is another name for “terrorists”. “Terrorists” and “liberators” are but the same. It sounds to me as if Archbishop Hurley condones “liberation movements” here. I should like to know from the chief spokesman of the Progressive Party what his attitude is in respect of the other statements of the Archbishop which are even worse than the quotation I read out to hon. members.

The voters of that hon. member in Rondebosch also include the students of the University of Cape Town by whom the publication Varsity is published. On 8 August 1974 Varsity published a leading article under the heading “Will this be you?”. In this they said among other things—

Or do we say now that we cannot and will not fight in defence of an unjust and discriminatory society?

I am asking the hon. member for Rondebosch—and he can reply by way of an interjection—whether he approves of a leading article such as this one in a student publication? The hon. member is afraid to answer. He will not even look me in the eye. In Johannesburg there is a university, viz. Wits, at which the majority of students also support the Progressive Party. On 12 August 1974 Wits Student published an article in which it classified patriots under certain categories. It says the freedom fighter is really actually the true patriot. Then it refers to a patriot as we on this side of the House would regard him and a patriot such as that is described as a sectional patriot. I want to quote from Wits Student—

This is the old, conventional patriot—

The “true patriot” is now the “freedom fighter”. I quote further—

Who wrote that?

It was written by Wits Student. This is what appeared in a leading article in that publication. I now want to ask the leader of the Progressive Party, or their chief spokesman on defence matters, what their attitude is in respect of the statements made by Archbishop Hurley, and in respect of the leading articles which appeared in Wits Student and Varsity. I challenge those hon. members to say what their attitude is; to repudiate them. If they do not do so, it means that they are condoning it. I am asking the hon. member for Rondebosch whether he is going to call to order his student voters, who subscribe to Varsity? Is he going to reprimand them about what they write in this publication? The hon. member does not say a thing; he will not even look me in the eye.

Do you know what the ASB said during World War II?

We are dealing with something here 25 years after the Second World War and the situation is completely different; that statement is irrelevant. We are engaged in a struggle which, as was pointed out by the hon. the Minister, is a fierce struggle in which the onslaught is being financed and inspired from Moscow and Peking. That is where the onslaught is coming from; that is where the terrorists are coming from. And what is the attitude of the Progressive Party in this connection? Tomorrow we shall have another debate in this House of Assembly in which the hon. member for Sea Point is likely to speak. I am asking him how it is possible for him to speak in that debate tomorrow if he does not tell us today what his attitude is in respect of the defence of South Africa.

Read my Second Reading speech.

What is the hon. member doing about it? He sits there laughing as if it were a joke. [Time expired.]

The hon. member who has just sat down, has resumed the attack against the Progressive Party and the members who sit in these benches.

It will not be the last one.

I am quite sure of that. However, I hope the next one will be a little more learned than the one we have just had.

This debate has been described as a very historic one …

Hysteric.

… against a very sombre background in Southern Africa. Anyone who reads the headlines in today’s newspapers or listens to the radio reports and news broadcasts, knows that the events in Southern Africa are taking place right against our borders. Indeed, we need to weigh our words very, very carefully. Cool and controlled leadership is needed today in South Africa and in this House as perhaps never before. One should look for it, especially, from the hon. the Minister of Defence. He has rightly pointed out the newness and the inexperience of my colleague, the hon. member for Rondebosch. I stand in exactly the same position, of course. We are very new in this House and there is much we have to learn. One would have hoped that we could learn it from the example of those who sit in the front benches of this House. In particular, one would have liked to have learnt from the example of the hon. the Minister of Defence. Unfortunately, we who are new have looked in vain for that kind of control and cool and dispassionate leadership. The hon. the Minister of Defence has set an example which I certainly have no desire to follow whatsoever. His speeches last week were inflammatory, unwarranted and unfair. His specific reference to being after my blood, sweet as it is, is distasteful, violent and intemperate, and ill-becomes a Minister of Defence in these very grave days. It is regrettable that the hon. the Prime Minister found it necessary not only to support those statements and those inflammatory, bloodthirsty words, but to go even further and to say that he would have liked to use even stronger language. This is not the kind of statesmanship that South Africa calls for today.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “inflammatory”.

I withdraw it. Unfortunately, I am describing what was said by the hon. the Minister of Defence. If you regard that as not being inflammatory, of course I must withdraw it.

We know what he said. You just tell us about your policy.

Every time we make a speech, we are told that we hate South Africa. That is absolute nonsense. Wé are told again and again-that everything we do is unpatriotic. Nothing from these benches can be pointed at and described as unpatriotic. When a man or woman cares for and loves his or her land as much as we do, it is essential that they do not forsake their critical faculties. On the contrary, because of that very love, because of that devotion to his land and his people, he will speak up and say clearly what is right and what is wrong. He will naturally make mistakes, but let us once and for all not call into question the patriotism of the members in these benches whenever any one of them stands up and says anything at all. Let us not immediately call him un-South African, unpatriotic and all the rest. Let it be said once and for all that we believe in the defence of our country. We have never said anything other than that. If you look at the history whether of my father, my brother or myself in the last war and compare it with the records of those who constantly taunt and sneer and jeer at us in this House, you will know who has been prepared to defend his country and who has not.

Whose war did you fight?

South Africa’s war.

Oh no. You fought for the Empire.

Unfortunately, I have very limited time to speak during this debate. I should like to say only one more thing. It is true, as has been said by some of the greatest men in the Defence Force in this country in recent times, that South Africa can never win a war by military means alone. We know that and we recognize it as a fact. Therefore it is terribly important that we win the confidence and the faith and the loyalty of every single person living in this land, Whites and Blacks and Browns.

Do you include yourself as well?

Yes.

According to whose policy?

According to the need to care about a just society in South Africa. At this very moment there is a growing confrontation between churchmen and the State. We can make all kinds of accusations. We can say this person is wrong or that person is wrong, I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister of Defence. I have never yet had the privilege—and I mean this—of speaking to him about these very matters except across the floor of the House. Let us once and for all recognize the need for reconciliation and let this reconciliation come from the statesmanship of a man like the hon. the Minister of Defence. Let him call together these men who are making these statements and discuss with them the future of our country. That then would be responsible. We can make all the accusations we like; let us work together for the good of this land instead of sneering and jeering at and taunting one another.

Tell that to the hon. member for Houghton.

Let it be said once and for all that all these things can be said. We will go on, with the mandate from those who put us here, fighting against injustice as hard as we can, no matter how imperfectly that may be.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pinelands had an outstanding opportunity of replying to the questions which were put pointedly to his party.

I have answered them.

“He arrogates to himself the right to recite a pious moral lesson on statesmanship to the hon. the Minister of Defence. Who is talking? Statesmanship does not mean that one should come and speak piously here. Why did the hon. member not tell us where he stood in respect of Bishop Hurley’s statement?

I said it this morning, in today’s paper.

Does he stand on the side of these people who say that because of the “unjust society” they do not see their way clear to defending South Africa? Do they stand on the side of those people or not? We have reached a point in this country where we have to know where people stand. If these people are not prepared to come forward and to tell us where they stand in respect of this matter, to tell us that they will defend South Africa unconditionally, if they do not repudiate these other people unconditionally, they must not wail when we tell them they are unpatriotic. Then they should be the last people to wail. We want to know where they stand. It will serve no purpose if these hon. members, together with the Sunday Times, or whomsoever, try to launch a personal attack on the hon. the Minister of Defence in this debate. The hon. the Minister of Defence enjoys a high status in this country; the same holds true abroad. His ability is well-known. The small degree of discrediting they and the Sunday Times are trying to do, will not detract from the status of this hon. Minister in any way. We must know where these people stand in respect of the defence of this country of ours. There is a polarizing power which is trying to polarize the Black people against the Whites, and which is trying to gull the Brown people into believing that they cannot defend this country, that they may not defend this country since they are being treated unfairly and unjustly. We can mention scores of examples of this type of thing. I have one such example here from Wits Student. No, Sir, we have reached the point where we must know where these people stand, for we are engaged in revolutionary warfare, long-term, extensive, revolutionary warfare, and revolutionary warfare consists of from 20% to 30% of physical action, i.e. action with cannons and guns; for the remaining 70% to 80% it is psychological, i.e. conducted by means of the spoken and the written word and that 80% constitutes as much a terrorist war as that which is in progress on our borders. These activities of these figth columnists, to which the hon. member for Potchefstroom referred, constitute the same terrorist, fifth columnist activities as the activities of the terrorists on the border, and that is why it is necessary for us to know where these hon. members stand.

Mr. Chairman, I should also like to express a few ideas on the penetration of the Russian Navy into the Indian Ocean. The hon. the Minister of Defence has been warning the Western countries of this threatening danger for many years, and until very recently it seemed as though these warnings had actually been falling on deaf ears, but it seems that in most recent times an understanding has been gained of the danger presented by Russian penetration into the Indian Ocean. For example, it has been said that President Ford of America is in favour of the development and extension of Diego Garcia as an American naval base in the Indian Ocean. The fact that the British warships are here should probably also be seen as a sign that the people are beginning to realize what the dangers are. But, Sir, we have to accept as a fact that for the first time in more than a century the Russian Navy, which has always had its eyes on the Indian Ocean, has now succeeded in having a quite modern war fleet of allegedly 30 warships odd operating in the Indian Ocean. Sir, the danger will gain in magnitude next year when the Suez Canal might possibly be re-opened and when the Ninth Squadron of the Mediterranean Navy will also gain access to the Indian Ocean. Sir, the Russian admiral Grosskopf has succeeded in obtaining seemingly very good bases for his navy in the Indian Ocean. They control the old British harbour of Aden at the Horn of Africa; they have access to a former Italian harbour, Mogadishu in Somalia, and they have been granted permission by India to develop two bases in the Nicobar Islands; they are also conducting negotiations with Mauritius. There are Russian activities in the Kerguelen Islands south-east of Cape Town and the possibility that they may also receive aid from Mozambique in future can probably not be excluded either. The question is: For how long can the Western Powers sit back and wait until Russia has built up a strong power base in the Indian Ocean and may become invincible in future? We in South Africa hope and trust that we shall be able to live in peace for many years to come. We have no aggressive intentions, but we should also be, acting unrealistically if we should fail to take any notice of this threat from the sea, and therefore, because of our strategic situation between the East and the West, between the Indian and the Atlantic Oceans, on the only efficient sea route between these two oceans, which makes us vitally important to the military and economic security of the Western world, it is important that South Africa should also take notice of this threat from the sea. In my desire to congratulate the Minister and the department on the spectacular way in which they have built up the strength of our Navy over the past number of years, I want to plead for further and drastic development in this field, in the first place to protect ourselves, but in the second place so that we may be a worthy ally of the southern flank of Western defence here in South Africa, for the stronger we are, the worthier an ally we are, the keener and more eager will the Western countries be to acknowledge and retain us as an ally. That is why I want to plead for consideration to be given by us to establishing at the University of Port Elizabeth, which is situated on the Indian Ocean and has more than 1 000 morgen of land at its disposal there, a chair in maritime defence which will attract more young people to maritime defence, and to possibly constructing our own shipbuilding works at which we can build our own ships. It might sound farfetched to say that we shall eventually be able to build our own submarines, but if one looks at what we have been able to achieve in the past in a very short time in the field of armaments production, this is not altogether impossible. I say this is very important and even this can very conveniently be located at Algoa Bay where we have the motor car assembly plants and the building of diesel engines, which can already serve as basic industries for a shipyard of this nature. That is why I want to ask that we give attention to this, for it is of the utmost importance to our security. I am thinking in particular of the big cities on our east coast and the south-eastern coast, such as Durban, Port Elizabeth and East London, harbour cities which are very vulnerable. That is why I am asking that we should give serious attention to our maritime defence.

I should like to refer to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who unfortunately is not in the House at the moment, and who has displayed a conspicuous lack of interest in the Defence debate this year. You will recall, Sir, that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout announced very dramatically in this House last year that our Budget was a Budget based on fear. He said this on account of the fact that our Defence expenditure was estimated at R470 million. In addition he made the reprehensible insinuation, for the information of the outside world and of our enemies, that we were arming ourselves against the non-Whites within our own borders.

He never said that.

That is a point of history which I do not want to argue with the hon. member for Durban Point.

This year our Defence Budget is almost R222 million more than last year, and the hon. member is not even in the House to show his interest in it. Our Defence expenditure will amount to R692 million this year. I shall tell you, Sir, why the hon. member takes no interest in it this year.

Stop making personal attacks.

The hon. member would do well to pay attention. Then he might learn what his own people’s standpoint is.

Sir, I want to tell you that the hon. member’s bravado received a setback last year, and apart from the fact that he took such punishment in the House that he does not even feel like attending this debate, his eyes have in all probability been opened now to the realities of terrorism and to the acts of aggression all over the world … [Interjection.] … something to which that hon. member would rather not listen.

Sir, I repeat what I said, all over the world. It is not restricted to Africa. And it is not only aimed against the National White régime in South Africa, as is alleged by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, amongst others. Now I hope that his absence and his silence during the discussions on this Vote this year may be regarded as proof that his eyes have been opened to the realities which present themselves to the world every day and which have been pointed out by the hon. the Minister of Defence, and that his behaviour is not to be attributed to fear of the hon. member for Yeoville, who also happens to be absent today and who, I understand, is making things so hot for the United Party members in their caucus that they are beginning to have nightmares, and who is ruling them with an iron hand, or is it a Schwarz hand? [Interjections.]

Let us rather talk about sport.

I am referring to the hon. member for Yeoville, who is not in the House at the moment. What I now want to say in his absence is not meant to be disparaging. [Interjections.] If the hon. members would give me a chance, I shall continue with my speech. I am saying that what I now want to say to the hon. member for Yeoville is not meant to be disparaging, and this is that the hon. member for Yeoville, in the light of his connection with Israel, is at least aware of the prominent position which must be occupied by the Defence Budget within the framework of national security. That is why I say that I should be glad if the eyes of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout have in fact been opened by the realities, realities such as the statement made by Red China to the so-called uncommitted countries during their summit meeting in Algiers in September last year, in which Red China expressed its support for the Asian, the African and the Latin American nations of the Third World in their fight against imperialism, against colonialism and against the Great Powers. So revolution is being fomented by the communists all over the world. I want to emphasize and repeat—all over the world. And that is why I cannot understand where the foolish and reprehensible propaganda of the Opposition comes from, i.e. that terrorism in Africa is mainly aimed against the National White régime in South Africa. According to Die Transvaler of 5 September 1973 Mr. Chou En-Lai sent the following message to the summit meeting in Algiers, to which I have already referred. It seems to me that there are hon. members on the other side who regard this as a big joke and who are now laughing at it. Chou En-Lai sent the following message to the summit meeting in Algiers. He said (translation)—

And in this way the communists are fanning the revolutionary spirit in the Asian, African and Latin American countries where there is no apartheid. And we in South Africa are not the polecat of the world because of our policy of separate development, as hon. members opposite have alleged in the course of this session …

That was said by Die Burger.

The hon. member does not seem to realize that if the communists come, no one will ask whether he supports the National Party or the United Party, for the whole world is the operational field of the communists. And in every area they invent a different reason, in accordance with local circumstances, for the local population to revolt against the existing order. And apart rom this ideological struggle on the part of China, which is backed by military display, we must also refer to the position of Russia. This is a country which has developed into a great maritime power with a well-equipped, modern and seaworthy navy. This consists, inter alia, of 350 submarines, of which more than 100 are nuclear-powered. It is the biggest navy in the world. And every month a new nuclear-powered submarine is launched under the Russian flag. But under a convenient show of putting an end to the arms race, and under the cloak of peaceful co-existence, Russia is still spending 8% of its gross national product on defence, as against the less than 7% spent by the United States of America and the 5,75% spent by England. The hon. the Minister of Defence has already referred to this. And in spite of this tremendous military build-up all over the world, Mr. Brezhnev expressed himself as follows before the World Congress of Peace Forces, a communist front organization, according to the Intelligence Digest of August, which is published in England. I quote—

In other words, we need not even speculate about it. We know that forces all over the world are arming themselves on an unprecedented scale. The Western countries are doing this, amongst other reasons, because they are aware of the communists’ ideals in respect of world domination, and because they know that once the communist ideology has been established, it is extremely difficult to get rid of it.

Now one fears that the free Western countries will allow themselves to be misled by Russia’s double-talk, which is aimed, firstly, at lulling the West, and secondly, at fanning the revolutionary spirit in the countries of its choice. This is the object of Russia’s double-talk. I should like to mention an example, namely Russia’s appeal to the West to be reasonable in respect of the mutual confidence which Russia allegedly desires in an attempt to establish collective security and co-operation for Europe. In this regard Radio Moscow has broad case a report on its English service for the information of the Western world, which I should like to quote

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in the time at my disposal I want to avoid, if possible, being caught up in the battle that is raging between the Progressives and now the renewed battle between the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and the hon. member for Parys. A quick glance at the Hansard of last year shows that it was a running discussion between them. The hon. member for Parys was making allegations that were unfounded as far as the speech of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was concerned. With this war going on around me it felt like the old times, back in the army, when you had to grab a tin hat and run for a slit trench to avoid the shrapnel.

The hon. member for Potchefstroom made reference to a recent speech made by Mr. Sonny Leon. I want to react to that and use this occasion, if I may, to say a few words publicly to Mr. Sonny Leon and other Coloured ex-servicemen. Mr. Leon is a Coloured ex-serviceman who served during the last war. These are people for whom I have the highest regard and there is many a White man today who owes his life to the Cape Corps stretcher bearers and to their service in the last war. There are many of the Cape Corps who lost their lives while serving in our defence forces. I know of the hurts Mr. Leon has had; I understand them. I am talking about the hurts when after the war he was living in Kimberley in comfort and held office in certain official capacities. As a result of laws that were introduced and passed in this House, he had to move from his home and give up certain offices which he held. I was also present at the congress of the South African Legion in Pretoria when Mr. Leon, the then vice-president of the Coloured ex-Servicemen’s Legion, together with the president, were not allowed to attend the official opening of the congress because of their colour. I say these things because I understand these hurts. Mr. Leon and I were associated for many years after the war in regard to ex-Servicemen’s matters, he with the South African Coloured ex-Servicemen’s Legion and myself with the South African Legion. Thus I hope he will understand when I say to him today publicly that he must not surrender his ideals, that he must not overestimate the odss that are against him. I believe that he must persevere with other ex-Servicemen in peace as they did in times of war. We must avoid conflict between his children and my children in solving the problems of South Africa. I believe that his children and my children—I am talking metaphorically—are both serving in the defence forces of South Africa and are both part of it. I believe that we have to use our energy by persuasion and not by force to achieve those things which he and I and thousands of our fellow-citizens believe in, namely human and personal dignity irrespective of colour and creed. I believe that that must be done outside of accusations as to whether one does or does not discharge one’s duty to defend the country of which we are all citizens.

I now want to deal with one or two matters as far as the armed forces are concerned, to which I think it would be appropriate for the hon. the Minister to give his attention. Before doing that, may I say to the hon. the Minister that the Scottish lion, which is traditionally-rampant, is resting at the moment, waiting for the pay-out of subsidies for the uniforms of highland regiments, so that they can all be properly dressed as part of the armed forces of South Africa. They have taken the will for the deed so far, but the pay-out has not yet jingled so far as the regimental funds are concerned.

There is one other matter to which I would ask the hon. the Minister to be good enough to give his attention, and that is that there is to be established—the hon. the Minister is probably aware of this—a Cape Corps Memorial Hall at Athlone, which is to be a gathering place and a club for Coloured ex-Servicemen. The ground has been made available by the city council, and the Coloured ex-Servicemen themselves have collected many thousands of rand towards the cost of that hall. I hope that with the re-establishment of the Cape Corps, it will be possible for the Government to find ways to assist in the establishment of this club for the ex-Servicemen of the Cape Corps.

Now, Sir, with all pensioners there is always a problem. They receive their pensions, but the money has less and less purchasing power as time goes on. There is one class of pensioners in the Defence Force who I believe are finding matters particularly difficult at the moment, and those are the men who went on pension before January 1964. Members who retired from the Permanent Force before January 1964 also received smaller salaries and now receive smaller pensions. Deductions in respect of medical and dental services were made from their basic salaries throughout their period of service in the Defence Force. But their medical and dental privileges ceased upon retirement. Now these members are required to contribute R6 per month per married member if they want to belong to the Army medical aid scheme. There is an item in the Estimates of R14 400 as a contribution towards that medical aid scheme for this category of pensioners. The pensioner himself is required to pay R6 per month for membership. At present, serving members in the armed forces are allowed to extend their service up to five years, thereby increasing their pension benefits. They contribute only R1 per month, as I understand the figure to be, for medial and dental privileges. On retirement their contribution ceases, and they receive full, free medical, dental and optical privileges. It does seem to me that the position of the pre-1964 pensioner is very much more unfavourable in relation to the later pensioners, in that he has the continuing obligation to pay the R6 per month. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could not look into this matter to see whether that category of pensioners could be assisted.

Finally, I want to raise a matter which the hon. the Minister could say to me is not strictly his concern. However, I believe it is a matter which is in need of attention. As we have the position that more and more of our armed forces are being involved in duty on our borders, and in training of a hazardous nature, we must expect more and more casualties to occur, either accidentally in the course of training, or as a result of actual operations. When I say this I am not suggesting that a catastrophe or conflagration is about to envelop the country. I do believe, however, that it is something that must be provided for. Fortunately, a large number of good people have started funds of various kinds to assist in the welfare of our armed forces i.e. the Army, Navy and Air Force. From experience one knows, and I am sure that the hon. the Minister is aware of the fact, that there are more permanent ways in which these funds can be established. In saying that I am not suggesting that welfare, gifts, comforts and matters of that kind are not necessary for those who are actually on service. However, I think that a tremendous service to the serving men, and especially those who have been maimed in any way, has been rendered by the National War Fund which was established in respect of the 1914/1918 War and the 1939/1945 War. Inevitably, if a man is injured, whether on active service, in conflict or whether by accident—such as in training— there is always a hiatus period between the application for pension rights and the granting thereof. Funds of this nature can be valuably used to tide over that period. In the case of a man who has been injured in warfare or who has suffered an injury there may come an emergency in his life afterwards, which is not directly connected to his war service or to the cause of his disablement, which has to be covered. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that the time has come to create one organization in order to benefit from the enthusiasm of all these good people who have done tremendous work for South Africa. I am not suggesting that they should fall under the National War Fund, but I believe that a new organization should be formed to deal with the present position and with the position which may arise in the future. The hon. the Minister will know that many of these organizations have the honour to have the State President as their patron and under his patronage I believe something can be done to bring them together and to make these funds stronger and more effective for serving men. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Green Point will pardon me if I do not follow up on what he said, for I think the hon. the Minister will reply to him at an appropriate time.

I think that hon. members would agree with me when I say that there are three important facts which make South Africa important in the eyes of Western and Eastern countries. In their eyes South Africa is important because of its strong and stable economy, the fact that it lies along the vital route between East and West, and because it is one of the greatest stumbling blocks to the march of Communism. Because there are countries which realize this, we find that our Western friends are glad to form ties with us, are glad to enter into agreements with us, and are glad to trade with us. It is also true that there are countries which look at us with covetous eyes and which are jealous of what we have achieved here. There are also countries which look at us with eyes which are filled with hate and contempt. I do not want to elaborate on statements made by leaders in the East and to the north of us in the African countries, but I think it is important that the White political parties in South Africa should achieve a greater measure of consensus in respect of defence. I think it is very important that all the political leaders in our country, White, Brown and Black, should achieve greater consensus in that sphere. For that reason I appreciate the words which the hon. member for Green Point expressed here in public towards Mr. Leon. But we honestly hope that Mr. Leon will listen to the man who once fought with him in a war. I am also pleased that we heard through the hon. member for Durban Point that the United Party supports this Budget, but I do want to address a few words to the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens. He did support the Budget this year and last year, but he always followed this up with a “but”. He stated that because, like last year, we again had such a large Defence Budget, this money which was being spent meant that again it would not be possible to put millions of rand into the economy of the country. He then said that this policy would lead to a recession, that there would be hunger, frustration and despair and that an extremely dangerous situation would be created in the political, social and racial spheres of the country. The official Opposition supports the Budget, but they always keep a back door open in order to have a little dig at the Government. I want to refer the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens to something which was written in the London Times, from which I merely want to quote one sentence to him—

Therefore I say that the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens should not say that he supports the Budget and then at the same time make a little political capital and try to score a few political debating points by telling the world at large that this appropriation for defence is going to entail that we are going to have a recession and starvation in South Africa.

Enough has already been said this afternoon about the small party on the opposite side. I want to say that this mother hen with her six chickens should adopt a tone of greater responsibility. I have already gained the impression that they think that if there would be a confrontation they would be able to hide themselves away safely in Houghton, Sea Point and Pinelands. If there were to be a communist-inspired onslaught on South Africa, they are also going to be affected. I do not know whether they have already made arrangements to leave the country in a hurry if there would be such a confrontation, or whether they have already made investments overseas to be able to leave in a hurry and live there if we were to experience a bloodbath, but it is time these people realized that this order of authority in our country which they want to demolish and nail to a cross, also guarantees them their security.

I want, for a few moments, to address a few words of gratitude to the National Party Government. I think that in view of this Budget this year and the budgets of the last few years, we can say that the National Party Government has planned with great determination, with vision and with daring. In the forefront stands our hon. the Minister of Defence. The hon. member for Potchefstroom said: “I like a man who can hold his own, like an arm that can strike a blow”. (Ek hou van ’n man wat sy man kan staan, ek hou van ’n arm wat ’n slag kan slaan). There is such a man at the head of our Defence Force. I want to pay tribute to him, and I shall tell you why in a moment. I want to give three reasons. The first reason is surely that, with his vision and his enterprise and with the assistance of those who support him, he has made South Africa militarily self-sufficient. In this regard I want to quote none other than the President of the Armaments Board. Professor Samuels stated very recently, on 31 May 1974 (translation)—

I think that South Africa could pay tribute to this Government and to this Minister for having succeeded in making our country self-sufficient in the military sphere. I want to say that the National Service System which was introduced in the time of the hon. the Minister is making a tremendous contribution to the building of a South African nation and to the propagation of the true idea of South Africanism. We cannot but be grateful that the Defence Force is playing a very major part in making our young men and women conscious of their nation. I also want to furnish a third reason why this National Party Government may be praised. If we think back to 1955, to the take-over of Simonstown, and we read the documents dealing with this, documents which we today call the Simonstown Agreement, and we see their requirements which were set to this National Party Government, the requirements with which they had to comply—in a very good sense I must say, because the negotiation between the British Government of that time and our Government of that day were very friendly and very positive —then I say that we can state with the utmost praise and in all sincerity that the National Party Government has done what was required of it in terms of the Simonstown Agreement. In fact it has done far, far more. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, had I still been in my previous profession, I should have said that it is almost time for evening meditations now and not exactly the time for quarrelling. I have listened to this debate very carefully and I do not believe that any doubt can exist either within or outside this House about the fine and, allow me to say, brilliant image of the S.A. Defence Force. I believe that there is general agreement of that point. In fact, it is an image of which every upright South African can and must be very proud. We must be proud of our army, our air force and our navy. If one considers that we here at the southernmost tip of Africa are not a very large country nor a very large nation and that we have nevertheless managed to build up a defence force which is known for its operational preparedness—and I do not doubt its striking power either—then we are very thankful for that today at the end of this debate. It is an image which testifies to a very thorough administration. These things do not come about by themselves; they are only achieved by hard and thorough work. It is an image, too, which testifies to efficiency and total discipline. That is why our voters are not lacking in appreciation for the great task which is being performed and why they have no complaints either about the amount which appears opposite defence on the Budget. I think that, if we want to be honest with our voters, if we want to give an honest account, we shall have their full co-operation in this regard.

There is, however, another aspect I wish to mention. That is the great goodwill which exists between the citizens on the one hand and the Defence Force on the other hand. I am very sorry that there were certain hon. members who made use of the opportunity this afternoon to make an attack on the hon. the Minister, and specifically on his statesmanship. It is a great pity, too, that hon. members made use of the opportunity to seek refuge in the Church. I do not think these people are finding fault with our Defence Force. They want to get at the National Party, the policy of the National Party— that is what they want to disparage—and that is why they make use of an opportunity such as the discussion of the Defence Vote. In full awareness of my responsibility, I say that I believe that there are certain churches in South Africa that should take certain matters more seriously, particularly matters relating to the national security. This Government has always accommodated people with conscientious objections. This Government has always believed in religious freedom and it will protect and guard it. But, Sir, people should not abuse these things. I think we have to get our priorities right in this country. I think there are certain churches that have to set their affairs in order; there are churches, as has already been said here, which should perhaps keep their own house in order.

Sir, I have mentioned the goodwill that exists between the citizenry and the Defence Force. I believe that that goodwill exists because everyone in South Africa realizes that we are facing a threat from outside; that we are facing enemies who will not rest before they have conquered this country. That is a threat to us all, regardless of our colour and our faith and whether or not we have conscientious objections. I do not believe that an enemy will be selective and ask to which church or party one belongs, and this is a unifying factor which should unite us in protecting our country, our own soil, our fatherland. That is the reason, Sir, why there is confidence in South Africa in respect of our Defence Force, because we give priority to our country’s security. What makes it possible for us to continue to live peacefully in this country; and conduct our affairs as we do today in spite of the threat from outside? Is it not because we have confidence in our Defence Force; is it not because we have the assurance that there are people protecting us; because we know that we may sleep soundly at night in the knowledge that there are people on our borders who are protecting us?

Sir, I say that fine bridges have been built, and this afternoon I want to plead that those bridges between the civilian on the one hand and the man in uniform on the other should be extended. I want to recall with appreciation this afternoon the former commander of the Southern Cape command for the mammoth task he performed in that command. I think of an organization which was established for welcoming trainees into people’s homes and for giving them a pleasant time. I believe, Sir, that we can also do much more from our side to show the people in uniform, our Defence Force, that we take a real interest in them; that we have a real appreciation for what they are doing. Therefore I want to mention with appreciation the freedom of the city of Cape Town which was conferred upon the South African Cape Corps on 11 May 1974. Sir, this is not done lightly by the Cape Town City Council. Up to 11 May it had been conferred upon three local regiments.

I am also mentioning this, Sir, in order to emphasize the role and the place of our Brown people in South African society. The hon. the Minister has already referred to that. Brown people have always been willing to fight for South Africa and to die for South Africa. I think the Coloured soldier in South Africa has a tradition which goes back a very long way. As far back as 1791 there was a regiment known as the Pandour Corps. So, with a few years’ interruption, the Cape Corps can certainly lay claim to seniority as the oldest South African regiment. We can think of the First World War, when there were eight Coloured soldiers among those awarded decorations for bravery; and 45 000 Coloured soldiers served in the Second World War. In 1963 the Defence Force decided to provide military training for young Coloured men on a part-time basis in peace-time, and we are glad to be able to say that within ten years that centre has developed into a corps with its own character and its own pride. It is a training unit that is a credit to our Defence Force; now it is also ready to supply the first Brown officers of the Defence Force, and 15 January this year was a special, historical day for the South African Coloured Corps and service battalion when the first group of young Coloured men reported for a year’s national service.

One is particularly glad to be able to say, too, that in spite of some initial hostility towards the Brown man in uniform, the Coloured people have begun to associate themselves with this corps; that they are making it their own and that they are proud of that corps, and that we can say on the whole that our Brown people, too, are concerned about the defence of our country and their country. It is a matter of concern to them that we should both ensure our country’s security and protect ourselves. That is why one naturally finds it a pity that a person such as Mr. Curry is alleged to have said in the Coloured Council, amongst other things, that he would not offer White South Africa his loyalty and the blood of his son on the country’s borders unless there were full civil rights for everyone in the country. Sir, I think one has to make a distinction here. On the one hand there is the political aspect. We can discuss that. If there are bottlenecks, we can discuss them and try to eliminate them. But on the other hand there is the defence of our beloved country, for which I believe we should take up arms together, and together achieve victory over the enemy that is seeking our downfall.

I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Oudtshoorn on his fine sentiments concerning the Coloured people of South Africa, and especially in respect of the role the Coloured people have been playing through the years in the military sphere. Those were fine sentiments, and I think they were fitting coming from him. However, I want to remind you, Sir, of the fact that it was not this side of the House that abolished the old Cape Corps; it was that Government sitting on the same side as the hon. member that abolished the old Cape Corps with its proud traditions some 20 years ago.

†The fact that they have now recreated the Cape Corps is, I think, a realization of the fact that they were wrong in the first place to have done away with it, and I wish the Cape Corps success in the years that lie head.

*The hon. member for Worcester referred to White political parties that should now try to reach a greater measure of consensus on defence. I agree with him wholeheartedly. Hon. members on this side of the House have always tried to bring about greater consensus on military affairs. He also said that all leaders, including Whites and non-Whites in South Africa, should try to reach greater consensus. It is, of course, also the policy of this side of the House at all times to try to reach greater consensus among all the leaders in South Africa, Whites and non-Whites.

It is my pleasant duty this afternoon to congratulate the hon. member for Algoa on what he said here today. He said we should have clarity in South Africa now, and that we should know where people stand in the serious times facing South Africa. He referred to polarizing forces of Blacks against Whites, and said that we are engaged in a revolutionary war. I agree with him.

†That is why, Sir, I listened so intently to the hon. member for Pinelands and what he said. He started by referring to the sombre background, the need for cool and controlled leadership, and then he said it was his duty to speak out. It is not only his duty and that of the party he supports to speak out; it is the duty of every South African on that side and on this side of the House to speak out when it is necessary in the interests of South Africa. He says, “We care about South Africa,” as if they are the only people who care about South Africa. He says there is a real danger of a confrontation between Church and State in South Africa.

*I agree wholeheartedly, but what is he going to do about it personally?

†Sir, a lot has been said about patriotism lately and I believe it is right that a lot should have been said about it.

*Where do I stand in relation to patriotism towards my country? I shall support the Government where the Government take steps in the interesst of South Africa.

†I have no doubt that everybody on this side of the House will share those sentiments, and the record of those people who are sitting on this side of the House shows that they acted patriotically where they thought it was in the interests of South Africa.

*But we are not quite sure of the action or the reactions of my friends on my left, because over the years they have been saying certain things of South Africa and about the difficult situation here on our sub-continent that do not really redound to their honour.

†We know how we felt about Harold Wilson when he refused to supply Buccaneers to South Africa; we know how we feel about Joan Lestor, about the World Council of Churches and their support for terrorist movements and the supplying of money. We know how we feel on this side of the House about the South African Council of Churches’ recent resolution, about the activities of a long line of priests who have come to South Africa and who have caused considerable difficulties for all of us. White and Black in South Africa. I think of those priests, I think of Michael Scott and South-West Africa, of Huddleston, Reeves and Bishop Crowther. And now, if the hon. member for Waterkloof is correct this afternoon, Archbishop Hurley has joined this throng. If what he quoted to us was a full quotation and if what he said was what Archbishop Hurley said. I want to state that we on this side of the House completely and utterly dissociate ourselves from those sentiments. And if the quotations he made from the Wits Student are full quotations, and if they are in context, I want to say that we on this side of the House entirely dissociate ourselves from the sentiments expressed in the Wits Student. Where it has been in the interests of South Africa, we have never hesitated to play our part side by side with the Government when we have considered this to be necessary. That is why we participated in the Schlebusch Commission. That is why we have steadfastly stuck to participation in the Schlebusch Commission because it was the right thing for us to have done. The hon. member for Durban Point has said that it is necessary for us, as a responsible Opposition, to be given information and that he in fact is given information from time to time by the Minister of Defence. I think that is a right and proper attitude. But I want to explain to the Minister that it is not a desire to take away from him his responsibility. It is not a desire to embarrass him in the administration he has to carry out because that is his responsibility and his alone. But there are many things that come to our ears, many things that we feel could constructively be shared with the Minister in a joint council. There are many things we would be able to put right outside if we were to be given more information about what is really going on. That is the basis of the hon. member for Durban Point’s appeal to the Minister.

When it comes to our defensive position, I think our defence is only as safe as the defence of our frontiers against attack will allow. It is as safe as the extent to which our civil defence can cope with the attacks that have been made on us, only as safe as the extent to which we have been able to get external allies and make treaties. It is common knowledge, of course, that the only treaty we have at the moment is a tenuous treaty with Great Britain known as the Simonstown Agreement. We are only as safe, and our defence can only be as good, as the ability of the people living within the framework of the Republic to support us and show loyalty and patriotism to South Africa. Reference has been made by earlier speakers to the growth of Russian influence in the Indian Ocean, the presence of Russian ships and the creation of bases there for them by people who are not friendly towards South Africa and who have turned to the Russians. You know, the sea is our longest frontier. It is approximately 2 000 miles long around our coast. What is our deterrent to aggression from the sea? I think the only real deterrent that we have are the allies we are able to seek, the allies we have been able to obtain and maintain over the years who see with us the necessity for maintaining the sea routes around the Cape. I think our next most effective weapons are those three small submarines that we have. I know there are some people who say: What are three submarines? What are they worth? But they are an effective deterrent, and no aggression will lightly be undertaken against South Africa when it is not known when and where a submarine may be able to counterattack. I shall make a suggestion to the Minister that where possible he should give more attention to the establishment of light fighting craft. I think that we have now reached the stage in shipbuilding in South Africa where we can undertake the building of these small vessels, particularly where one has a coastline such as ours with harbours placed at strategic intervals along that 2 000 mile coastline. I also commend to him the idea that has been mentioned under his Vote once before, namely the establishment of a coastguard service. I think it is vitally important that we build up an efficient coastguard service and give our full attention to the building of a small fleet able to operate swiftly and effectively between our harbours. Our fourth line of defence, from the point of maritime defence, is of course the maritime air defence. While we cannot mention these things in the House I am satisfied that we can give as good as we get.

But I want to say to the hon. the Minister that we have a harbour-chain in South Africa. I think that each one of these harbours must be turned into a potential fortress. Very much more attention must be given to the development of fortifications at each one of those harbours. It makes me think of the coastal defence installations which we had during the last war. I know where these coastal installations are and have often been to them. The Minister should give his urgent attention to the preparation of these coastal installations to make sure that they are always in good working order. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Simonstown has a thorough knowledge of the part of the Defence Force which he represents, i.e. the Navy. I require a little more time to reply to his questions and I hope to do so tomorrow. I will also have more to say then about the question of civil defence which was raised by the hon. member for Potchefstroom and others. In view of the short time still at my disposal, there are a few other matters to which I should just like to refer in brief.

†The question of mercenaries has been raised by the hon. member for Cradock. We saw some reports in the papers that there are attempts to create a mercenary force to act in neighbouring countries and I think it is time that I took a stand in regard to this matter. As far as the question of mercenaries is concerned, I want to express the hope that South Africans will not join such a movement. Our country has a proper Defence Force and our loyalty is to this Force. If people want to do service in the protection of our country, they are welcome to join our Defence Force, either the Permanent Force or the Citizen Force or the Commandos. I do not believe in the type of effort we have been reading about during the last couple of days. I must, therefore, express the hope that people will not follow such an example. We do not believe that it is in the interests of the Republic to interfere in the affairs of other countries, because we do not want other countries to poke their noses into our affairs. I take this stand on principle.

*The fact is, and it was also referred to here this afternoon, that there are events taking place to our north which create a measure of insecurity in all our minds and which excite our interest. As far as the Defence Force is concerned, I want to say that the South African Defence Force, in pursuance of the policy laid down by this Government, has an interest in peaceful coexistence with its neighbours. Consequently it does not interfere in the domestic affairs of other states, and we hope that what is taking place to our north will bring about satisfactory solutions on a peaceful basis. As far as the Defence Force is concerned, it is there to resist any attempt to interfere with our borders. We shall ensure that we have the striking force at our command to resist and deal effectively with any attempt which might threaten those borders.

The hon. member for Simonstown raised the question of maritime defence, while the hon. member for Humansdorp gave a very fine review of how far we have come in making progress in the field of our Navy as well. In times of peace the Minister of Defence has an almost impossible task, for he cannot really convince anyone that money is required for building up a defence force. Everyone tells one that one is only making new toys and wasting the country’s money in that way. In a White Paper of one of the Western countries the following is said—

Sir, I am afraid we have had experience of this in South Africa over the past few years. We had it—let me acknowledge this openly —on the part of the Government before the Second World War. South Africa was totally unprepared for war, and it had to spend money on a large scale in order to procure the necessary equipment. It was not so much the fault of the Minister of Defence. He did try, but in times of peace no one wants to give one’s money for building up a defence force. The one is allegedly squandering money. But when war comes, or there is a threat, the question is asked: What were the Minister of Defence and his Chief of Defence doing while they should have been preparing the country? This is human. We again find ourselves in the position of living in an unstable world. We are living in a world in which we hear about detente, although it is a strange kind of détente we hear about. This détente is on the part of the Western nations alone, on the part of the Free World alone. The building up of military strength on a larger scale than ever before is taking place on the other side. The Western nations are expected to spend less on defence while under the guidance of Russia and its satellites, preparations for war are not being made on any large scale, but means are nevertheless being made available on a large scale since they are constantly preparing themselves for war. Therefore, Sir, when I plead for more money it is, inter alia, to comply with what the hon. member for Simonstown is requesting, i.e. that South Africa should build up a balanced Defence Force. It serves no purpose if we concentrate on a strong air force and neglect the army. It serves no purpose if we concentrate only on the army and on land defence, to the detriment of maritime defence, with the Navy as a sub-division. South Africa has an extensive coastline and we should take this into account. But to meet these needs will require far more money than that provided by the appropriation we are discussing at the moment. One does not obtain these means off the peg at O.K. Bazaars prices. Research, planning, training and quality are required. To obtain that, one has to pay. I want to say this afternoon that I might no longer be here the day South Africa recalls these words. But if South Africa is not prepared to pay for an effective air force, army and navy, and for a balanced Defence Force, it will have to pay the price in another way.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.