Mr. Chairman, when the House adjourned yesterday evening, I had just begun to refer to certain matters which had been raised by hon. members. The hon. member for Bloemfontein West had advocated that the difference in Defence Force pensions and Police pensions should be rectified. I want to inform the hon. member that this is a matter which is at present engaging my attention as well as that of the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions and our respective departments. As soon as we have reached finality on this matter, we shall make an announcement in this regard. We are at present discussing the matter. But I would be pleased if the hon. member would also raise it under the Vote of the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions. I agree with him.

The hon. member for Albany requested that a Defence Force unit be stationed at East London. The Chief of the Defence Force is investigating this matter at the moment, after representations which he received from that source. We do not, at this stage, want to make any promise in this regard. It is not so easy to form units and establish bases. At present there are no proper facilities for such a base. What will happen in East London, though, is that one wing of our coastal reconnaissance aircraft, the Albatross, will be stationed there. This has already been announced. The hon. member also referred to the question of “overlapping” by the various subsidiaries of the Armaments Development Corporation. I think that I have already said enough about this matter to prove that there is no overlapping, but only proper co-ordination with specialized service in every sphere where necessary.

Various hon. members referred to the question of means of communication. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central in particular, the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, as well as hon. members on this side of the House, referred to the need for proper means of contact and communication. This matter is a complicated one which in my opinion should not be discussed in detail in Parliament. In general I may say that a proper teleprinter network, which is operational 24 hours a day, exists between the Defence Force headquarters and its various command headquarters. The Army also has a radio assist for teleprinter traffic to commands, in case there should, for some reason, or other, be an interruption of the other means of communication. Then there is a spoken order network including all commands. In addition to that the commands are in contact with all commando group headquarters. Hon. members know that a number of commandos are being merged in group headquarters. There are communications between the commands and the commando group headquarters. The group headquarters, in turn, are in radio communication with individual commandos throughout the country. The necessary communications exist between the Defence Force and the Police at headquarters level. The Defence Force, in consultation with the Department of Posts and Telecommunications, is working on a project which will integrate the microwave system and the troposphere-communication system. In that way a network will be established which will lead to those centres and are as of our country which are not properly covered, being properly covered by communications. I do not think that I should say any more about this, because these matters are highly technical. I do think, however, that the Government is in fact giving very thorough attention to our communications network.

The hon. member for Algoa requested the establishment of a chair of maritime defence, and suggested that this be offered as a subject at the University of Port Elizabeth. I have a great deal of sympathy for the hon. member for Algoa, and I can understand him wanting the best for the University of Port Elizabeth. Consequently I do not begrudge them having everything of the best, but I do not think that the Defence Force could have any more direct connections with universities than it has at present. There is an agreement which was concluded years ago, in terms of which medical practitioners for the Defence Force are trained at the University of Pretoria. An agreement was also concluded with the University of Stellenbosch, in terms of which the Military Academy at Saldanha Bay has certain connections with this university. In addition there is a chair of maritime defence at the University of Stellenbosch, where very excellent work is being done. Maritime engineers of a very high calibre are being trained there. I think there was a single contribution on our part, but I do not think that we can go any further than that at this stage. Engineer officers are being trained in this faculty, and they receive their practical training at sea as well as at the coastal installations of the Navy. In my opinion we are not at present in a position to undertake any further developments in this regard.

†The hon. member for Green Point raised a number of matters including the question of the Scottish regiments. I am informed that the subsidies have been paid out already. I can give the hon. the member the particulars. On 15 August the Cape Town Highlanders received theirs, and on 24, 30 and 5 May 1974 individual subsidies were paid out to the First City Regiment, the Pretoria Highlanders and the Transvaal Scottish, respectively. Therefore we have carried out our promise in this regard.

*The hon. member for Green Point raised another important matter, viz. the question of medical benefits for persons who retired prior to 1 January 1964. This matter was dealt with a few years ago. A B fund was established for them because the persons contributing to the A fund make a monthly contribution while those who contributed prior to that did not contribute on the same basis. The State subsidizes the B fund to an amount of 60%. I do not think we can go any further than that, because it would have an unsatisfactory effect on the existing fund to which members are contributing. This fund was worked out actuarially. In order to cope with these actuarial problems, I do not think we should confuse the two. As I have said, the State contributes to the augmentation of the B fund.

It is a very small amount though.

It might be a very small total amount, but 60% is a considerable contribution, a major goodwill gesture on the part of the State, I would say.

The hon. member also referred to the other funds. I just want to say a few words about them. Today there are three funds in particular for which money is being collected. Firstly there is the Police Fund, for which collections are held throughout the country. This is a fund which ought to be supported on its merits. As far as the Defence Force is concerned, there is the Brandwag Fund to which people contribute and which the Defence Force builds up itself by way of its own collections or collections by its friends. This Brandwag Fund is used to provide all kinds of facilities not provided by the State for soldiers on their bases and particularly on the borders. This Brandwag Fund has become a reasonably strong one and very valuable work is being done by means of it, particularly in regard to the spending of leisure time, and so on. Then there is a similar fund which has been organized by Mrs. Elizabeth Albrecht. This fund is called the Southern Cross Fund and collects money for both the Defence Force and the Police. From time to time she transfers money from this fund to the other two funds. Since the establishment of this Southern Cross Fund in 1968, an amount of R165 000 has been received by the Brandwag Fund. I want to avail myself of this opportunity to convey my very sincere gratitude to Mrs. Albrecht and the Southern Cross Fund for their financial support in this respect. Mrs. Albrecht has already arranged for us to receive a further large contribution from this fund soon at a function in Johannesburg. I want to express my greatest appreciation for the work which she and her fund are doing.

Hear, hear!

Since 1968 we have, from all sources, received an amount of R1 723 400. The Brandwag Fund, which concentrates to a greater extent on the members of the Defence Force, has done a great deal in respect of sport equipment, equipment for leisure time activities and cooling facilities on the borders—to keep food supplies and so on cool—and I think that this is a very deserving matter.

It was not a question of querying what was being done; it was merely a question of building up a capital amount in those funds.

This is being done. We already have a large amount on fixed investment. We are trying to supplement this amount. I can assure the hon. member that something splendid is being done in this regard.

The Defence Force, of course, has its own funds which very few people know about. The State has nothing to do with these funds. There is, for example, the Air Force Fund and the Army Fund which they themselves maintain. There is the Sadfi Fund, the fund of the South African Defence Force Institute, which is utilized for various purposes. It would interest hon. members to know that I recently caused a survey to be made in order to establish what the Defence Force had spent from its own private funds in regard to the maintenance or improvement of buildings, i.e. buildings on State-owned property. It appeared that over the past ten years it had spent over R1 300 000, from its own funds, for this purpose.

Hear, hear!

This was for the purpose of improving buildings on State-owned land. I think this is a wonderful achievement and deserves to be praised by everyone.

Could the hon. the Minister tell us whether the Mozambique Soldiers’ Comforts Fund is included among these various funds?

No, that fund has nothing to do with the Brandwag Fund or the Police Fund.

But it does in fact contribute money to the Defence Force and Police?

No.

†The hon. member for Green Point also referred to the Cape Corps Memorial Hall in Lansdowne.

No, in Athlone.

I have referred this matter to the Chief of the South African Defence Force, as we have come to the conclusion that we cannot assist them out of State funds. However, Admiral Biermann has undertaken to see whether it is possible to assist in some way by means of the Sawi Fund.

*I think that I have, with this, replied to all the points raised by the hon. member for Green Point.

I come now to two matters which I want to spend some time discussing. The first is the question of civil defence. Because I think that misunderstandings exist in regard to civil defence and, in the second place, because I think that we should take care not to create a psychosis in the country which we cannot maintain when it comes to civil defence, I want to say in the first place that we cannot, alongside the Defence Force, establish a duplicating organization which will have country-wide control over means of communication, transportation and other services, capable of acting parallel to the Defence Force, and for that reason the Government has, quite rightly, placed Civil Defence under the control of the Defence Force. A division of the Army was established which was called the Civil Defence Services Division. That division has been reduced in size, but it is at present engaging the attention of our team of inspectors to see whether it cannot be removed from the Army and placed directly under the Chief of Defence Staff, so that it will operate far more closely and directly with the Chief of the Defence Force. We are devoting attention to this matter at present, and if any changes need to be effected, they will be made after this inspection. But in the second place I want to say that civil defence services, as we see them, are in fact generally controlled and influenced by the Civil Defence Division which is vested in the Defence Force, and we are doing this by means of our commanding officers of commands situated throughout the country. As the hon. members know, the country is divided up into commands. But those commanding officers of commands work through officers and have access to local authorities, and it is the local authorities whom we regard as the real centre around which civil defence services should be built up. I do not think that this could be faulted in any way. The total number of local authorities in the four provinces and South-West Africa is 661. Of this number 537 have already appointed chiefs of civil defence at our request; in other words, they have designated a person who accepts responsibility for civil defence, either their town clerk or some other person. There are 124 town councils which have not yet proceeded to appoint chiefs of civil defence. Together with these local authorities, there are 249 commandos organized throughout the country, and these commandos co-operate, and ought to cooperate, with the representatives of local authorities in the task of civil defence. It is interesting, Sir, to know that during the recent floods in the Orange and Fish Rivers, 1 200 persons attached to the Defence Force were involved in civil defence service which became necessary as a result of those floods, and the total expenditure in respect of supplies and transportation, which we spent as a result of those floods, was R427 (100. A total of 924 lives were saved; a total of 1 071 people were taken to safety; a total of 806 metric tons of freight was transported. The Air Force, which was called in at one stage, logged up 8 170 flying hours, and the flight costs were R237 800. In other words, when put to the test in a time of disaster, a natural disaster such as this one, I think the Defence Force has proved that it was able, by means of its commando organization and its widespread Air Force elements, to perform a valuable service to South Africa.

But having said this now I do not want to imply in this way that our civil defence service is perfect, for I think it is the duty of this Parliament, and it is the duty of every M.P. in his own constituency, to lend a little moral support to the local authorities to ensure that there is co-ordination on a local level between the town council, the commando and the auxiliary service such as the Red Cross and the S.A. Noordhulpliga and the St. John Ambulance Brigade, where these are established, because we susbsidize these first-aid services. There has to be co-ordination between these elements, and that co-ordination has to be effected through the town council or its representative. There is an organization which has recently shown a great interest in this matter and this organization is the Women’s Agricultural Association, and I want to express the hope, as I did at their congress, that the Women’s Agricultural Association will come forward to an increasing extent to be of assistance with orderly preparation for civil defence services. Civil defence services are not only being established with a view to a war, but also with a view to natural disasters. There is one aspect of civil defence which is of the utmost importance to us all, and that is the ability to provide fire-fighting services. Now, the Government has in recent years, since the time when the hon. the Prime Minister was still Minister of Justice and civil defence—was his responsibility—this was subsequently taken over by the Defence Force—commenced a system of paying subsidies to a number of town councils, to the tune of slightly more than R1 million, to acquire certain fire-fighting installations. But over the years it has become apparent that a backlog has been built up again and we have just, in co-operation with the four provincial administrations and South-West Africa, had an interdepartmental commission which brought out a report on the entire matter of fire-fighting services, which is now available. I intend publishing the report and making it available to the Press, for I think it will become apparent from this report that there are still too many local authorities whose fire-fighting services leave much to be desired in that they do not have the necessary means at their disposal to perform those services.

In conclusion I just want to say this in regard to civil defence. The idea of the possible establishment of another hostel at George at which 200 young women could be trained is under consideration at the moment; it is being planned. In addition, there has been strong pressure for the establishment of a second civil defence college.

Yes, in Natal.

I have received letters in this regard from more towns than the number for which I could build civil defence colleges. The question, however, is where we are going to find the money with which to build them. Now it so happens that in Bloemfontein, near Tempe, there is a building which is at present being occupied by the Department of National Education, which I think should not be occupied by them because it is situated among the Defence Force installations. We have therefore made representations to them to try to construct another building, which they are now doing, and we shall establish a second civil defence college in Bloemfontein. This will enable us to use many of our instructors and some of the means of conveyance which already exist at Tempe and in that way save costs. I therefore want to say that we have already decided in principle where the college is to be established.

Now I want to deal with the last matter in regard to which I owe a reply. This is a very important matter for South Africa, viz. the question of maritime defence. Quite a number of members, for example the hon. member for Durban Point, the hon. member for Simonstown, the hon. member for Humansdorp—in a very thorough speech—the hon. member for Algoa and the hon. member for Worcester referred to the question of the sea route round the Cape and to the possible expansion of our Navy. Because this is a matter in regard to which there must be no misunderstanding, I would prefer to confine myself to a previously prepared statement.

†The future expansion of our maritime forces has been planned with the following aims in view. Firstly, the surveillance and protection of our long maritime border and, secondly, the protection of our major commercial harbours and the shipping using these harbours. The major part of our export-import trade, now totalling approximately 53 million tons per year, is conducted through these harbours in shipping belonging to nearly every maritime nation in the world. Any disruption of this trade however slight, will have an immediate detrimental effect on the economy of the Republic. With these aims in view, the surveillance system along our coast from the shore, sea and air, will be expanded and improved by the provision of coastal radar stations, patrol vessels and light, short-ranged maritime patrol aircraft. To provide logistic support for these, it will be necessary to establish operational naval and airbases along the coast. We are busy with some of them. Within the port areas themselves provision is being made for seaward defence boats, harbour patrol boats and anti-sabotage units to supplement the harbour security units. The potential threat of a limited commodity blockade is possible and steps to counter this threat are also being taken by the provision of mine counter-measure vessels and submarines. In this regard the Government has already, in principle, agreed to an increase in the number of our submarines.

*In view of events in other parts of the world we have to rely, however, on building up and further expansion our means of external defence, and in particular the defence of the Cape sea route. It is a source of great joy to me that I am able to inform this House now that tremendous progress has been made in this sphere during the past few months. This includes purchases as well as the acquisition of licences and knowledge in respect of these matters which relate in particular to the surveillance and defence of our coast and the sea route round the Cape. Steps are being taken to overhaul certain ships, to cause conversions to take place and to effect modernization. Hon. members will realize, however, that it would be irresponsible to furnish any particulars of these matters. And therefore I now want to make an earnest appeal to our newspapers not to start any speculation in this regard, for speculations are the greatest evil we have to contend with.

†With regard to our common interest with the West in safeguarding the area which the sea routes around South Africa pass, we cannot be expected to shoulder this burden on our own. We are prepared to contribute to the defence of these routes by the provision of base and communication facilities to the maritime forces of those Western countries interested in the protection of this area, as well as to provide maritime units to co-operate with them in this task. However, to my mind the time has now arrived when those countries with interests in this area must also be prepared to contribute to this defence by providing the long-range maritime patrol aircraft, which are very expensive, and more powerful ships required to achieve the surveillance and protection of this area as a whole.

*I am referring specifically to these two aspects because long-range reconnaissance and long-range patrols are matters which also affect the interests of other countries. South Africa pays special attention to the protection and the patrolling of its own coast. We are doing this effectively, and are going to do it all the more effectively as a result of what I have just announced. I do think, however, that other countries which have a direct interest in the sea route around the Cape, should, as far as long-range reconnaissance and long-range patrols are concerned, really begin to relieve South Africa of a little of the burden. Facilities have been created by us which will enable them to perform that task from some of our harbours.

The hon. member for Simonstown also raised the question of a coast guard. That is ideal, but I think that for us to undertake the establishment of an additional coast guard, as other countries have, over and above this task, is asking too much in view of our financial limitations. I do not want to shoot down the idea, but simply say that I do not think it can be done at this stage. There is no objection to our entering into negotiations for the better utilization of existing facilities by means of better co-operation.

Co-operation with whom?

With existing elements.

What about Salisbury Island?

Salisbury Island is one of the matters which I have recently covered in full in a statement. I have recently designated this island as an advance fleet base and said that certain ships would be kept there for patrol purposes. We shall ensure that this base as fully equipped in order to comply with all the requirements. With that I have now replied to most of the points.

Mr. Chairman, having listened to the hon. the Minister of Defence for two days one gets the feeling that one need not yearn for the military leaders of the past, that one need not, like Saul of old, go to the Witch of Endor to call up the spirit of Samuel to serve one with wisdom in the present situation. One has gained the impression that the affairs of the Defence Force of the country are in good hands. We appreciate what the hon. the Minister is doing for our country and our defence. Yesterday the hon. the Minister indicated that our armaments set-up was developed after a study had been made of such systems in other countries. Our system has already been in operation for a number of years. The question may now rightly be asked whether other governments and countries have shown an interest in our system in recent times. I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister what his standpoint is or will be in the future in regard to such an interest.

The hon. the Minister also said that it is the duty of every member in this House to give guidance in his constituency, too, in respect of civil defence and Defence Force matters.

I listened with interest to the speeches that were made here during the past few days. I also formed some impressions. I am of the opinion that if the hon. member for Durban Point were to take the lead now in respect of coastal defence in Durban, the hon. the Minister would have little to fear. The same applies to the hon. member for Simonstown, but I do, however, have misgivings about how things will go in Sea Point, Rondebosch and Pinelands. I do not, like hon. members of the Progressive Party, wish to enter this debate ostentatiously, but I should like to bring a few matters to the attention of the hon. the Minister in all modesty. We are a peace-loving people, but we set great store by our freedom. Although we shall never declare war against another country, we must, on account of our special place in world politics, always be prepared to defend what is sacred and dear to us. It is essential that the necessary spirit of patriotism and nationalism should exist with our people, and this should be instilled in our young people and our children. Our children are subjected to the pressure of a permissive society every day. The principles of authority and discipline are undermined, directly and indirectly, by forces seeking our downfall, forces seeking to undermine the will of our youth to survive. That is why it is necessary for us to make our children spiritually prepared, and that is why it is a good thing that our education system and syllabi make provision for a youth preparedness programme. I want to tell you, Sir, that splendid work is being done in our schools in this regard.

But there is something that troubles me, and that is the role which cadet training plays in this programme. When saying this, I do not want to criticize. I know that the present situation exists because of an experiment which was carried out; but I should nevertheless like to say that I am of the opinion that the cadet training which forms part of the youth preparedness programme is not a success. The youth preparedness programme is, indeed, a success but not the cadet training which forms part of it. I can assure you, Sir, that, as far as I could ascertain from teachers and principals, the majority of them are of the same opinion and they are concerned about this situation. I want to put forward a few reasons for this: Cadet training in its present form involves only a small percentage of the boys of a school, only those who are chosen to serve in the so-called “Guard-of Honour”. The rest of the school is excluded. This creates the impression—and this also has its affect on the community, something which is to be regretted—that it is the task of only certain people to take care of our military interests. This is regrettable. Sir, it is the task of all of us. The boys wear their uniforms only when they perform in an official capacity. They do not wear uniforms when they do drill practice, and there is no military atmosphere, with everything that accompanies it. There is a spirit of frivolity among the boys, one may almost say, a spirit of indifference. Discipline consequently suffers tremendously. The teachers acting as officers do not wear uniforms either, and to the boys they remain merely teachers. As boys are, they play pranks and do not take drill practices seriously. If the teachers and the boys were in uniform, and the teacher wore his insignia of rank, I think the right atmosphere would be created.

Then there is the problem of the training of student officers. That is, the senior pupils who are used as platoon leaders, and so forth. Previously we trained them in holiday camps. These no longer exist, and the teachers tell one that, due to their very full syllabus, they just do not have the time to train these student officers. Here in the city, where they are close to the Castle, the instructors available at the Castle are used, but in the rural districts it is not such an easy matter.

The manner in which cadet training is offered in our schools at present, has little educational value and, I almost want to say, no military value. Today I want to plead that school cadets should not only be restored to their former glory but, in co-operation with the Department of National Education, also be extended to become an asset to our country and our people. In the past, throughout the rural areas, school cadets were the pride of the local community. They were an asset to the community and stimulated pride and patriotism within the community. I can recall how proud the older community always was to watch school cadets perform on occasions such as national festivals, commemorations, agricultural shows, and so forth. Then there were also the regional competitions between the cadets of different schools at which they performed jointly. While civil defence is now being high-lighted and has to be propagated, and while everyone sees and realizes the absolute necessity for civil defence, the question arises as to whether the time has not arrived for us to restore our cadets, specifically by means of a programme geared towards civil defence. The sooner our children realize how important it is for each citizen to take his place and to play a role in the defence of the community and the defence of that which is important to the community, the better it will be. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet said we should motivate our children and that this is the duty of the parent, but the school also has a role to play in this sphere. The school can do this through the school cadets. Hon. members will notice that I speak of our children and not only of our boys. I am of the opinion that cadet training is meant not only for boys, but that it should also be introduced for girls at school. There are schools at which enthusiastic principals and assistants have already made a start with this. According to reports received from these people it seems that girls approach the drill practices with great enthusiasm and show a particularly great interest in them. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to tell the hon. member for Malmesbury that I agree with him in every respect on what he said about school cadets. It is in the school cadets where young men and boys get their grounding and it should only be carried on when they do their national training. I have the fullest sympathy for his plea for school cadets and he has my support as far as that goes.

Whilst the hon. the Minister is in such an expansive and benign mood, I should like to ask him to give me some explanations about the pay structure in the Defence Force. The other day I asked a question in that regard and I found that a major has a top scale of R7 380. His top scale is exactly the same as that of a warrant officer, class I. A captain has a top scale of R6 300 and a warrant officer, class II, has exactly the same top scale. A staff sergeant has a top scale of R5 820 which is slightly less than that of a captain. A sergeant has a top scale of R5 340 which is exactly the same as that of a lieutenant. A corporal has a top scale of R4 740 which is more than the top scale of a second lieutenant who has a top scale of R4 200. The top scale of R4 200 is incidentally also that of a lance-corporal. To me this seems to be a misdirection of priorities in regard to the pay structure. I am not against the lower ranks getting higher pay, but it seems to me that the officers who after all nowadays hold military degrees and are highly trained men, men who are devoted to their duty, are being what I may call “stiefmoederlik behandel” or penalized. Surely there is something wrong with our priorities in fixing the pay structures in the army, particularly if one takes into account that these men have gone through the whole gamut, that their responsibilities are immense and that they have to command men in the field and during training. I do not wish to belittle the responsibilities of warrant officers and NCOs—after all, they are the backbone of the Army—but, as I have said before, there seems to be a misdirection in the pay structure. It seems to be out of all proportion. There is an imbalance in the pay structure.

As far as instructors’ allowances are concerned, the hon. the Minister informed me that officer-instructors received no instructor’s allowances with the exception of flying instructors in the Air Force.

You are mixing up the structures now.

A major gets a flying instructor’s allowance of R240 per annum and the other officers in the Air Force get R120 per annum while the ranks from warrant officer to lance corporal get R120 per annum. There again there seems to me to be an imbalance. One must remember that in the South African Air Force there are a lot of men who have given up professional jobs because of their love of flying. They would not give up flying for anything in the world. There are men with B.Coms and other degrees, whom I know, who are officers in the Air Force. Some are lieutenants and captains, and one or two are second lieutenants. I know of one in particular who is teaching people to fly jets. Yet he is receiving an allowance of only R120 per annum, the same as a corporal in an infantry battalion on a parade ground. To me that is entirely wrong. It seems to be out of proportion. Therefore I want to plead with the hon. the Minister to go into the question of instructors’ allowances. I should think that the same would apply to the Navy, which makes use of highly sophisticated electronic equipment. The Navy instructors get no allowance at all. Yet I should think that the petty officers do get an allowance. I should say that ample allowances should be given so that men who have made a study of this equipment are justly rewarded. This will create an enthusiasm and a willingness to serve in all ranks throughout the whole of the Defence Force.

Mr. Chairman, the names of certain officers who were promoted recently—Gen. Webster and others—were mentioned here in the House. I notice, however, that Gen. Armstrong has also been present for a day or two. As is the case with me, this is his first session, too. I want to congratulate him on his promotion and express the hope that, like me, he will find the work very enjoyable.

As far as the hon. member for Umlazi is concerned. I shall not try to reply to the points he raised. All I know about money matters, is that mine are in a pitiable state. In the short time at my disposal I should like to raise three matters relating to defence. In the first instance I want to tell you a thing or two about bats; secondly, I want to make a few remarks on the SAMC; and, thirdly, I want to quote from a newspaper cutting—I find this a very popular thing to do in the House, therefore I shall do it, too. As far as bats are concerned, we all know that a bat is not a mouse. Being the only mammal that can fly, it is not a bird either. Bats are dormant all winter long and fly around in summer. They like neither bright sunlight nor pitch darkness; it must therefore be twilight. One finds some of them that are insectivorous, some that are frugivorous and even those that are piscivorous, and then one gets the real vampires, the blood-suckers. That reminds me of what the Bible says of being neither cold nor warm, and what follows. In pursuance of this I want to say very clearly, very emphatically and as convincingly as I can that with the world condition being what it is today—and you know what I am speaking about—and with conditions in Africa being what they are today—and you know what I am speaking about— and with the threats to and the attacks on South Africa being as serious as they are today—and you know what I am speaking about—we do not have room in South Africa for political bats, and that applies to both inside and outside this House and to White and Black and Brown. As far as defence is concerned, and not only defence but also certain other matters—permissiveness is one and the maintenance of proper human relations is another, but we are now speaking about defence—I say we have no room for bats. We must adopt a very firm standpoint on that.

Order! Is the hon. member referring to other hon. members as “bats”?

I am not referring to particular people. I am speaking of just any place in South Africa.

When speaking about political bats, the hon. member must just not refer to persons in this House.

I withdraw it, Mr. Chairman. I say that we should adopt a very firm standpoint in regard to these matters. To put it in modern terms, we must make up our minds. I want to quote to hon. members a relevant example when I say we should adopt a firm standpoint, that we should make up our minds in regard to certain important matters. The relevant example I want to quote is the statements made by Archbishop Hurley. I say that any right-minded and balanced person in South Africa cannot and may not get away with a fine show of words, with conditional statements, with relative, bat-like concepts. We must adopt a standpoint on that decisively and unconditionally. I have spoken here about relative concepts. They say a man can sit for 10 minutes, 10 hours rather, with a blonde on his lap and it can seem like half a minute to him; but they also say a man can sit for half a minute with his bare bottom on a hot plate and it will feel like 10 hours. I want to sound this serious warning. People should be very careful as far as this question of defence is concerned when holding out relative concepts and making utterances such as these. They should realize that here in South Africa—and now I am speaking about the vast majority of White, Brown and Black people—we have definitely made up our minds and have adopted a firm standpoint on this. We have no time for bats that are here, there and everywhere, especially not for the blood-sucking type I have already mentioned, things which lead to terrorism, and so forth. We have no time for that. I just want to say that those people must mind their step because before they know it and even quite soon they can land with their bare bottoms on hot plates.

But, Sir, I just want to mention a second matter. I leave the bats at that, for I fear that I might again be called to order. I should just like to pay tribute briefly to the SAMC or, as it is perhaps better known the South African Medical Corps. Sir, these men, the doctors, the officers, the non-commissioned officers, from the Surgeon-General down to the youngest private, are fulfilling a major, very honourable and noble task in the Citizen Force and the Permanent Force, both in war and peace, both at home and on the borders. I think we should honour those men for the task they fulfil. I have some experience of that because I myself was permanently associated with the SAMC for four years, and I know that conditions today are far worse and more difficult than they were when I used to be there.

†l think that the R5 171 000, which is set aside in the Estimates for this purpose, will be money well spent. I think I should mention just one other aspect and that is the way in which the Surgeon-General’s department and also the other departments of the Defence Force connected with the problem are handling the question of the misuse of drugs, or drug addiction; the way in which they treat their patients and the way in which they prevent drug addiction, and also what they are doing in connection with rehabilitation. I think we should pay tribute to them for what they are doing in this connection.

*Sir, I finally want to read out to you a quotation from the Rand Daily Mail of Tuesday, 2 April 1972, and I am doing so with a specific object in mind. We on this side of the House believe that one should act in balanced manner in life. Certain unfavourable reports were read out here about statements made by certain homeland leaders, and in order to put the matter in its true perspective, I want to quote to you the following report; the heading is “Matanzima lashes out at terrorism”, and the report reads as follows—

Sir, you will notice that there are no battactics here; he speaks of “all terrorism”; he does not qualify it—

He then goes on to say why he accepts the policy of this Government. He says there are a few things they quarrel about but they are things of minor importance; he says he can obtain complete independence, and then the report proceeds—

Sir, I think this makes it quite clear what I mean. There are certain matters on which we can afford to differ and quarrel about, but there are certain matters on which we must very definitely adopt a common standpoint, and defence is one of them.

Sir, I leave the hon. member who has just sat down amongst the bats. I agree with much of what the said, but I wish to come back to general principles to which I think we must return now that the debate is drawing to its conclusion. I have been asked, Sir, what has come out of this debate—it does not seem to have been very exciting? I think a number of things have come out of this debate, and I think perhaps it is as well that we should analyse at this stage what some of them are. I would say that the first thing that has come out of this debate is the message to everybody, whether inside or outside of Souh Africa, who sees violence as the solution to political problems, to lay off because they will find that this Parliament and all the people represented by Parliament are unanimously united and opposed to that type of solution. I include here the members of the Progressive Party who have indicated through their spokesmen in this debate that they accept the responsibility and the duty of every South African to serve South Africa in her defence. And so I think the first message is a message of a solidly united front represented by this Parliament, the sovereign body of South Africa, in opposition to violence and force against South Africa wherever and whencesoever it may come. The second is tied up with that. That is the clear message that has gone from this Parliament in regard to the duty of all South Africans to serve in the defence of their country. I would say the third message is that from Government and Opposition alike there is a recognition of the part that all the races in South Africa have to play in the defence of our country, and I welcome the indication that in addition to the Cape Corps and the Indian unit which is now starting, practical steps are also now being taken to enable our Bantu peoples to take part in our defence. When I say this I think I must raise one point with the hon. the Minister. I have raised it in other debates and different context. I believe, and this party believes, that a life is a life and that its value to South Africa and the security of South Africa is equal. I would ask the hon. the Minister to remember this principle. Whether the life that is given on our borders has a black skin or a white skin round it, it is a life risked for South Africa, and I believe that pay and allowances for serving South Africa in the field should be equal, whatever the colour or the race of the person serving South Africa may be.

Then I think the fourth thing which has emerged from this debate is that even where we are agreed, fully agreed, on the principles, on the objective, on what we are aiming at, we are still as a Parliament able to carry out our duty and to criticize where we feel that criticism is called for or necessary; and what is more, that we are able to criticize calmly and to be answered calmly when we are dealing with a matter of basic importance to South Africa. So I think the answer to what has come out of this debate is largely covered by these four aspects which I have mentioned.

I welcome the hon. the Minister’s agreement to meet members of this party to discuss in private some of the things which I believe can much better be discussed there than here. One thinks, for instance, of the fact that armaments and equipment, known as “hardware”, comprises 65% of the Revenue Vote. That is why I raised in the Second Reading the question of our military industrial complex. I am afraid that the hon. the Minister has not satisfied me in his reply to that. I had another two pages of questions, but now I am not going to ask them across the floor of the House because the hon. the Minister has indicated that there will be a better place to discuss matters which affect individual people. So I do not want to go into that sort of detail. But I do think I must return to the principle which I raised in regard to the form, the structure, which will give the most efficient and effective control over the armaments industry in South Africa at the least cost. The hon. the Minister spoke of the boards. I agree that there are some outstanding people on these boards. When it comes to professional advice, the hon. the Minister has a great deal of professional advice to draw on. These are people who are experts in their fields; I do not dispute it. The issue which I raised and which the hon. the Minister has not dealt with is the question of cold, hard-headed business experience. We have legal experience, we have accounting experience, we have scientific experience, we have experts in the engineering field, for instance, and on the academic side there are six professors, top men who can give outstanding guidance. My query, however, relates to the lack of hard-headed business experience. If the hon. the Minister goes through this list he will find that there are only four or five people in these 67 posts who have the sort of hard business experience which makes an industry successful. You can have all the management theories in the world, all the academic theories and all the cost control, but you will still be lost without the down to earth, practical background that comes of having run a business. There are things you can never get from an academic background. That is why I say that the hon. the Minister has not satisfied me in this respect. I do not want to go into details and I do not want to bandy names about. I merely want to say that I am not happy with the answers to the specific questions I have raised on the possibility of a more effective control structure and the need for an investigation to remove any rumour, any suspicion, which surrounds the operation of the boards.

I want to deal with one or two other matters of importance. One is the question of stock-piling, to which the hon. the Minister has referred. I want to ask to what extent stock-piling in South Africa is based on national planning as opposed to departmental planning. To what extent, for instance, are petroleum products, metals, minerals and chemicals stockpiled in a consolidated form to serve all the needs, of the Defence Force, the Railways, the mines or any other industry or user? To what extent are the requirements of these users co-ordinated? To what extent is stock-piling handled on a national basis rather than a decentralized basis, in respect of the various users of strategic resources? I shall take the matter no further; I think the hon. the Minister has got the meaning of the question. There are questions of detail and other questions linked with this which, I am glad to say, will not have to be asked across the floor of the House. I welcome again the opportunity which the Minister has indicated we will now have to deal with sensitive aspects in regard to which we may have doubts or where we may have information which may be incorrect.

One item I want to ask the hon. the Minister to clarify in the Estimates before us, is the ex gratia grant to Marconi of R338 000. Could the hon. the Minister give us some information on that?

Now—and I might have a few minutes later to complete this—I come to the question of the Citizen Force and matters affecting that force. I want to start with the question of regimental headquarters which I have raised before. There has been a change and an improvement in the policy of the department towards regimental head-quarters. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to treat this as a matter of priority. Particularly now with the growth of the Citizen Force and particularly with the need to build up a stronger national service and Citizen Force as a whole, the morale of every unit is going to be, and is, affected by the headquarters on which that unit is centred. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to respond to the hon. member for Durban Point because I believe the hon. the Minister will do so in his reply, but I do want to congratulate the hon. member on his very clear and sober presentation of his contributions to this debate.

In an independent, self-respecting state which has the welfare of its inhabitants at heart and endeavours to provide in all the needs of those inhabitants, national security is an essential requirement to all. The position in which South Africa finds itself today makes it necessary for us to put our safety first under all circumstances. Therefore one is grateful for the fact that this essential, primary function of the State enjoys priority and is being handled by the hon. the Minister in such an extremely capable way. In addition we are very pleased indeed that, by reason of a healthy economy, healthy planning and a stable government, we are able to approve this record Defence Budget here this afternoon. Last year the hon. the Minister appealed to companies to pay the salaries of their employees while they are engaged in their military training. One is very grateful indeed for the fine response there has been to the hon. the Minister’s request on the part of some of these companies. I am thinking, for example, of firms such as Volkskas, United Tobacco Company, Perskor, the S.A.B.C., Iscor, Burroughs Machines, and many more. One is particularly grateful to those firms which are co-operating with the South African Defence Force by encouraging their employees to serve voluntarily in the Citizen Force. Here I am thinking in particular of some of our large firms such as the Chamber of Mines of South Africa, Barlow Rand Limited. Afrox Limited, Barclays National Bank, the United Building Society, the South African Permanent Building Society, Natal Building Society, Saambou National Building Society, Sanlam and Mutual. These are all firms which, inter alia, grant those of their employees who perform voluntary service, 21 days of special leave per annum so that they can attend their training camps. These firms also pay these employees their full salaries or at least supplement them so that they do not suffer any financial loss. Nor does this prejudice their prospects of promotion. Since these volunteers are usually senior people in executive positions, this action is so much the more deserving of praise. I just want to mention that these people may of course be promoted. Gen. Du Preez is the first civilian who has been appointed as a general in the Citizen Force. I am thinking here of Gen. Webster, whose name has been mentioned before. He, for example, is a businessman himself, a company director, who sacrifices his free time in the interests of South Africa by serving in the Citizen Force. We are thankful for having such men. But then, of course, there are those firms in South Africa which do not do their duty at all. I want to appeal to them today to make a contribution to the defence of our country. I have before me a company of seven, the Progressive Party (Pty.) Unlimited, I want to appeal to hon. members in this party today to promote a different spirit among their supporters through their subsidiaries and satellites. In this country we cannot afford to encourage the kind of a spirit that has been evinced by some of the hon. members in the past.

I want to deal with those firms that make a profit. Firms can make an important contribution to civil defence. Normally, our smaller authorities in particular do not have enough funds at their disposal for civil defence, as we know only too well. Some of these firms can give the smaller local authorities receiving and transmitting sets which they can operate in times of disaster. I should like to appeal to these people to do this. Sometimes large firms want to know what gifts they can give. Here is an opportunity now for these large firms to give transmitting and receiving sets to the smaller local authorities. Sets like these are absolutely essential when an emergency arises. Whether it is a manmade or a natural catastrophe, it usually happens that all communications are cut. If one then has such a receiver and a transmitter, especially those which are battery-operated, they can be very useful for making contact with the rest of the community or with other communities.

The time has also arrived for local authorities who have done nothing positive yet in regard to civil defence, to see to this matter. We heard here this afternoon that there are 124 of them who have not yet begun to organize. I should like to appeal to these people to start now, for we cannot rely on a disaster never befalling us. Civil defence should be a joint effort by the whole community. Societies such as farmers’ associations, which are already making contributions in some places, women’s agricultural societies, individuals, retired doctors and nurses—all have a function to fulfil here. I think the time has arrived, too, for our Coloured people to make a more energetic contribution to civil defence in their community by means of their management committees.

I should like to say more about this, but my time is limited. Finally I just want to say that our Press also has a very important function to fulfil in respect of civil defence. They can encourage their readers to be of service in this regard and they can emphasize the necessity of civil defence. For that reason I welcome the article by Willem Steenkamp which appeared in the Cape Times supplement last Saturday under the heading “Civil Defence”. May we have more such articles in the supplements of our newspapers.

Mr. Chairman, I have just three minutes in which to dispose of certain matters and for that reason I shall not take my plea in connection with unit headquarters any further except to say to the hon. the Minister that I believe that it is an unsound state of affairs for different units to share one mess. This is so because in that case none of those units wants to give any attention to it or spend money on it knowing that the mess is not for its use only. The regimental mess and headquarters are the places in which the spirit of the unit develops and from which the morale comes.

†There are two other points which I have taken up administratively and on which I have had complete assurances, but which do not work in practice. The one is the notification of parents when national servicemen are hospitalized. I know what the policy is, I know what the instructions are and I know that they have been tightened up, but still parents are hearing casually by letter or a telephone call from another boy who is home on weekend leave that their son is in hospital with flu or pneumonia or sometimes a broken leg. It causes tremendous resentment to hear casually that one’s son is in hospital. Whether he is in a critical state or not, the fact that one’s son is in hospital is always critical to a parent.

The other matter I want to raise is in regard to the discharge of national servicemen. I do not have time to deal with cases, but in one case a person who was discharged in order to join the Permanent Force, was shuttled backwards and forwards from Pretoria to Bloemfontein; he handed in his uniform, and by that time all his civilian clothes had been sent home. He happened to have a few rand with him which was just enough to buy a pair of pants. I have another case of a boy who did not have the money to buy anything at all and who only had a shirt and a pair of shorts when he was discharged at Upington as medically unfit and sent all the way back to the South Coast. His trip included two waiting periods of six hours at De Aar and at Bloemfontein, and I may add that this was in mid-winter. I have taken up the one case and I have been assured that this is all wrong, but surely when a person is discharged either at the end of his service or for medical reasons, a booking should be made for him. A whole batch of boys was discharged at Christmas time but there were no bookings no seats to be had anywhere on the trains or on a plane. Secondly, if they do not have civilian clothes, some arrangement should be made for them to go home in uniform or to collect their civilian clothes. I do not have time to take it further, and I only raise this matter here because I have tried to have this matter handled administratively, but although the orders are there, they are not always carried out.

Lastly, I want to refer to allowances for married people who receive civilian pay which is deferred. The hon. the Minister knows about this. I have written about it and I hope that he will give attention to this hardship and that he will try to eliminate this problem.

Mr. Speaker, as a result of all the dust, and especially the unnecessary dust that was kicked up yesterday by members on the opposite side of the House against the Progressive Party’s attitude in respect of the defence of our country, I have deemed it necessary to put this point of view once again. The point of view was put during the censure debate, during the Budget debate, and also during the Second Reading of the Defence Amendment Bill. It is nevertheless necessary to put and state certain aspects of our attitude again.

†I think it has emerged from the debates which have taken place that my colleagues and I are deeply concerned about the defence of South Africa. We have said this time and time again. Because we are so deeply concerned about it, frankly, we are shocked by some of the superficialities, by the apparent war psychosis which at times seems to have gripped the hon. the Minister and the hon. members on the other side and by the blatant attempt by certain members on the other side to use the critical defence issue of South Africa to drum up party political support. I believe that this House should be setting the example of quiet, mature consideration in depth of a very serious situation which is confronting all of us in South Africa. It is in this vein that I wish to comment further on this debate.

Having listened to the debate, I am even more concerned about the defence of South Africa than I was. I am concerned for the Chief of General Staff and his highly efficient team of military leaders who in the end are going to be responsible for directing the Defence Force in difficult circumstances. I feel desperately concerned for the young South Africans who may one day find themselves in the firing line. Having listened to this debate I have not sensed that either the hon. the Minister or his supporters are prepared to face the fundamental problems in their totality involving the defence of South Africa.

What are those?

As we see it, there are three fundamental problems. Firstly, one would like to eliminate the potential areas of conflict. One does not wait until conflict comes upon one, but one tries to eliminate potential areas of conflict. In order to do that, it is necessary to identify the areas of conflict. The hon. the Minister —I think I heard him correctly—said it was all bound up with the machinations of the communists and, were it not for the influence of Moscow and Peking in Africa, we would not have this threat upon our borders. As I have said in an earlier debate, communists are always looking for situations that they can exploit. However, we believe that it is a hopeless over-simplification of the problem to blame the total situation which is developing around South Africa on the machinations of people in Moscow and Peking. Rightly or wrongly—I use these words advisedly—the race policies which we apply in South Africa are the root cause of the tensions that exist between us in South Africa and the rest of the world. In order to get a better understanding of our complex situation, in order to try to convey to people in the north that ours is not a static society, that there are evolutionary factors at work—the hon. the Prime Minister used the word “ontplooiing”—and that even in the Nationalist Party and in terms of Nationalist Party policy there are changes taking place, we ventured north earlier this year. I believe that the hon. the Minister of Foreign affairs will know that time and time again we argued to these people the case against violence and coercion as a means of trying to get South Africa to change. Time and time again we said to them we believe that dialogue, communication and contact is the best way of resolving misunderstandings and areas of dispute.

We do not claim that our efforts were a dramatic success, but I want this House and this hon. Minister to know that it was a serious attempt by concerned South Africans to try to lessen some of the tensions and keep open the lines of communication between ourselves and the States to the north in order to try to avoid conflict. We believe that in the eight days we spent in the north, we did succeed in creating more goodwill for South Africa than the hon. the Minister created in the last eight weeks by attacking us and heads of State to the north in extravagant language.

The second point is that we believe that there must be an efficient Defence Force. This means that one must have effective weaponry manned by motivated personnel and supported by willing allies. The fact that we have supported the amount budgeted for Defence in this debate, indicates our acceptance of the need for an efficient force and effective weaponry. We are not able to comment on the details of the weaponry which is to be employed. We have made it quite clear that we acknowledge the claim which the State can make on its citizens to participate in the defence of the country. We have said before and I say again that we want to see South Africa in which all its citizens, Black and White, will be prepared to defend South Africa, if necessary, through military service. This is our approach towards this problem. This is our goal and our desire. However, the reality is that there is a growing number of citizens who are considering very seriously the whole issue of their participation in a war to defend South Africa as it is today. I am stating a fact.

What are you doing about it?

We have made it clear that we do not support the point of view of those people who have decided that they do not want to participate in the defence of South Africa. We have made that quite clear to this House and we say it again. What should concern this House and this Minister is the fact that there are concerned, caring South Africans who have this point of view, and this is a reality that cannot be wished away. It is a serious factor to take into account. The fact is that Church leaders and others who hold this point of view are deeply concerned with the whole moral issue of our race policies. They are patriotic people and they are deeply concerned at the situation that is developing. We do not believe that they can be legislated or coerced into silence. So we say again: We are concerned about our defence and that is why we say that our defence will not be strengthened by inviting a confrontation between the Church and the State on this issue. Our defence will be strengthened by a statesmanlike attempt at reconciliation, especially by those members of this House who are charged with the responsibility of making laws. We should weigh up very carefully the moral challenges which are posed to all of us in South Africa.

Thirdly, and this has been said by leaders in the Defence Force time and time again, we need the confidence and the loyalty of the total population of South Africa in the defence of our country. Perhaps this should be the area of the greatest concern to all country. Perhaps this should be the area of the greatest concern to all of us in this House because there are distinct signs that a growing number of Black and Brown South Africans are dissociating themselves from the concept of the defence of South Africa. Indeed, there is an indication of a growing number of them evidencing a sympathy with the objectives, if not the methods, of those people outside who are trying to force a change upon us. This is the unhappy truth of the situation developing in South Africa. The chief ministers of Lebowa, Bophuthatswana and kwaZulu have all pointed to the growth of this attitude amongst their people. Mr. Sonny Leon’s recent statement, only yesterday in Johannesburg, is another pointer to the harsh reality that under the policies which exist in South Africa today many Black and Brown South Africans are dissociating themselves from the concept of the collective defence of South Africa. We can call them “papbroeke”, we can call them people without patriotism, but when we have said all those things we are still left with the reality of the situation. Talking and shouting at people is not going to change the situation that exists. We believe that we must stop exploiting patriotic sentiments, that we must stop calling other people “papbroeke”. This Government and all of us have a collective responsibility to sit down and to meet with Black and Brown South Africans. Let us talk to them. Let us listen to their pleas for a change. Let us fashion policies in South Africa which will make them want to defend South Africa. I want to say to the hon. the Minister: Let us make the changes which will earn for South Africa the loyalty of 25 million citizens. And if the Government is afraid of verkramptes in its own ranks when taking this bold step, it can rely on the support of the Progressive Party. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Malmesbury referred to the question of cadets, and I want to give him the assurance that a good deal of progress has been made with the negotiations with the education authorities. He was supported by the hon. member for Umlazi. I expect that we shall be able to take a further step in the direction of reaching a satisfactory agreement so as to have the cadets placed on another basis. At this stage I do not want to anticipate matters, but a chief of cadets has already been appointed, a director of cadets in the Defence Force, in the person of a very efficient young officer specially selected by us for this position. As far as the cadet organization is concerned, I hope that we shall soon be able to enter a new dispensation. Therefore you may rest assured that we are giving this matter our attention.

†The hon. member for Umlazi raised the question of the pay structure. It was a question of creating opportunities. In the officers’ ranks one has opportunities for promotion. But in the other ranks one does not find this as frequently as one does in the officers’ ranks. In co-operation with the Public Service Commission, the new scales were therefore laid down.

*We have also taken up the question of incentive wages. With a view to establishing a system of incentive wages in the army, we have already received an amount from the Treasury. This is working very well. Specific tests are applied and in this way allowances are increased for people who render proper services.

†The Riekert Committee is also investigating some other proposals with regard to the allowances payable to serving members of the Defence Force. I cannot say any more about it at this stage, except that we have made certain representations to them.

*The hon. member for Krugersdorp had a few kind words to say about the medical services. I agree with him. The Surgeon General and his division are deserving of everyone’s thanks. I am pleased the Government has decided to build two new military hospitals, one at Voortrekkerhoogte and one in Wynberg; a great deal of progress has been made in this regard. I just want to say that the Surgeon General is working under very difficult circumstances. He has a major shortage of doctors and he has to employ the services of civilians from time to time. He also has a major shortage of nursing officers; these people are not readily available. This at the same time, is my answer to the hon. member for Durban Point concerning the people who complain and want the Surgeon General to be at the ready at all times so as to inform every parent of every imaginary complaint which occurs. I have a great deal of sympathy with their children who require medical attention.

I had children there myself and I had sons-in-law there, but parents ought really to understand that the Surgeon General has more to do than just phoning parents each time so as to inform them of their child having a pain in his heel or some imaginary complaint elsewhere. He has a major shortage of staff and I want to pay tribute to him today. He has a shortage of nursing staff and of medical officers and he has to perform an enormous task. He has three military hospitals and he has more than 80 sick bays, and in addition there are the services he has to render on the border. I think they are doing wonders. Also in the field of anti-insurgence the division of our Surgeon General is doing outstanding work because not only are they rendering medical services, but they also form a part of our pattern for combating insurgence.

Sir, the hon. member for Durban Point made mention here of certain results of this debate. I agree with most of his remarks and have no fault to find with them. He again came back to the question of the armaments industry. I have given the undertaking that I shall have him informed, but I shall give a second undertaking. Not only shall I have him informed, but I shall also have it proved to him how many millions we have saved for South Africa under this system, and then the hon. member should come and tell this House next year that he has seen proof of this. But I want to add again that there are three conditions to this. The hon. member is not going to interfere in my administration; in the second place the hon. member is not going to lay down policy, and in the third place the hon. member is not to expect of me to release information which is highly classified.

That is fair.

In that case we understand each other.

†The hon. member raised the question of Marconi. Well, it is a very long reply; I have it here, but I would say that the original Nassau system provided early warning for the Transvaal complex and fighter control facilities. A contract was signed in mid-1966 for an amount of something like R4 million. The project was concluded early in 1971. Then on 14 July 1971 a hardships claim was received, and the company also made certain offers to us. The matter was referred to the Chief of the Air Force to convene a board of inquiry, and the board recommended that a certain sum be paid as justified expenditure and that a portion of the originally anticipated costs should also be paid. The convening authority concurred, but left the matter of anticipated profits lost to higher authority. The State Attorney’s legal opinion was then obtained and the matter was finally referred to the State Tender Board and to the Treasury for approval. This is the background of this amount.

May I ask whether this had anything to do with building it above the ground and then burying it after it was completed and then having to move everything?

Yes, I think to a certain extent it had something to do with it.

*The hon. member for De Aar spoke up for volunteers. I can only tell him that higher allowances will also be paid to members of the Citizen Force and the Commandos and national servicemen in pursuance of the increased salaries in the Permanent Force. This will be announced shortly. I think I have hereby replied to all the hon. members.

And regimental head-quarters?

That is a matter we can discuss. I go out of my way to co-operate with local authorities as far as possible to bring about better conditions and more headquarters. I got into touch with the Administrators of the different provinces and advocated the policy that they allow local authorities to make available certain facilities to the commandos and to the Citizen Force. I have the full co-operation of the provinces and of the Municipal Executive. As the hon. member knows, the Public Works Department makes the necessary provision in this connection.

*Then there is the hon. member for Sea Point. I think he is the last hon. member to whom I have to reply. In the late hours of this debate, I do not wish to start all over with the hon. member for Sea Point. He has had a lot of time.

No, I have not.

Of course, he has. The debate lasted 4½ hours. The hon. member waits until I give my final reply and then he rises and delivers a sanctimonious plea. Sir, I do not want to fight with the hon. member for Sea Point. I just want to tell him that he should set matters straight as regards his party and his own conscience. There are sections in and behind his party who are disloyal towards South Africa. They are in Nusas, Sir.

Your pet scapegoat.

There is an hon. member sitting over there who, when one speaks of disloyalty towards South Africa, cackles first. The hon. member should first set matters straight with his own people. [Interjections.] I shall be pleased, Sir, if the hon. member for Houghton would stop making a noise for a moment so that I may speak.

Order!

I am saying that the hon. member should not quarrel with me; he should settle things with the elements behind his party. He should settle things with the Hurleys.

Oh!

No, do not say “Oh!”. Let me read him a quotation—

This Mr. Hurley says, “it is our duty”. He says—

You see, Sir, this is the kind of arrogant talk we get from this man. One would not hear him asking Moscow in the name of Christendom to stop interfering in Africa. No, that “just society” of Moscow and of Peking may raise Cain in Central Africa and in Southern Africa. Only the “unjust society” of South Africa should be condemned by the “just” Mr. Hurley.

[Inaudible.]

I say the hon. member should not fight with me. He should fight with these lackeys of Communism. According to this morning’s Cape Times this Mr. Hurley went further. Yesterday, during this debate, I said that if it were to be said that the policy of this Government was the cause of a war that might come, it would not be true. This Mr. Hurley reacted immediately—

But surely we are assisting Black Nationalism in the Transkei and in the other Bantu homelands. Surely that is not the reason for people being trained in Algeria, Czechoslovakia, Cuba, Moscow and Peking, to be let loose on South Africa as terrorists. Surely this is not happening for the sake of nationalism; it is happening for the sake of Russian communistic militarism and insurgence on the part of the Chinese. Surely the hon. member knows this. However, he fights with me because I fight not to have military forces let loose on South Africa. He and this Mr. Hurley fight with me, but I say to the hon. member that he should sweep in front of his own door. The hon. member should sweep in front of that filthy door behind which Nusas and the Hurleys slander South Africa in the eyes of the world. Before he has done that, he should not come and preach to us. I want to ask the hon. member for Sea Point whether Black Nationalism is the cause for attacks having been made on Portuguese territory under communist leadership. Surely there is no policy of apartheid in those territories; surely theirs is a policy of assimilation.

Colonialism.

Now it is “colonialism”. Here we now have a revelation of a beautiful mentality. The moment one begins conversing with the hon. member, he has an excuse for every step taken by communists against Southern Africa. In South Africa it is the policy of this Government; in the Portuguese territories it is colonialism! And in Rhodesia where Prog policy is being implemented?

What Prog policy?

But surely there is qualified franchise and Black people in Parliament in Rhodesia. Surely that is Prog policy.

That is only part of the policy.

Whatever Rhodesia does, it has already been decided by the powers paying special attention to Southern Africa, that Rhodesia should be brought to its knees. What, on behalf of Moscow, is the hon. member’s excuse for this? Now the hon. member sits and gesticulates, and yet he got up here and said that he was “perturbed about the defence of South Africa because South Africa has a wonderful defence staff—wonderful, capable people— but the bad Minister is bringing South Africa’s defence into jeopardy”. Who put this wonderful staff there, for they were not in those managerial positions when I came there. It was probably a small angel, the small angel Hurley, who put them there. I want to tell the hon. member for Sea Point that the fault lies with his party, that they are a chance phenomenon in this country. South Africa has experienced more such chance phenomenons before. In the best societies it happens that chance phenomenons occur. South Africa, however, will rid itself of this temporary attack of measles, because the Progressives do not really represent the people, the numbers that sent them here. There are too many South Africans who voted for them simply because of a feeling of despondency with regard to the Official Opposition and not because they hold those views.

I want to leave the hon. member at that. He and his six colleagues and the “three blind mice” who support him each Sunday should first determine in their own circle how loyal they are towards South Africa. Until they have called Nusas to order and until they have called these disloyal students to order, whom they defend, they should not expect much respect from us. I know that more than 95% of the 30 000 to 35 000 men who become able-bodied each year, are fine young South Africans, and they will not listen to the Eglins, the Hurleys and their kind. I know that the youth of South Africa will remain the guarantee of this country remaining strong, healthy and fine.

Votes agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 13.—“Foreign Affairs”:

Mr. Chairman, may I have the privilege of the half hour? To begin with, we on this side of the House would like to state the main tenets of our party’s foreign policy. It is an accepted truism that foreign policy begins at home, and our foreign policy should therefore be seen against the background of our party’s domestic policies. These provide for an open society, free of official discrimination on the grounds of colour and organized multi-nationally in a federation, based on the principle of co-operation of our various peoples without the domination of one over others. In short, we aim to place South Africa in a morally sound position. This forms the foundation of our foreign policy. We believe that without this our country will never taste normal relations with the world at large.

1. (1) In the first place, we support the principle of non-interference in the domestic affairs of other countries. It must be said for South Africa that we have always faithfully adhered to this principle, and we believe that our country, therefore, has every right, under any Government, to expect that other countries will refrain from intervening in “matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction” of South Africa. This principle of non-interference has never been more important than now. Under no circumstances must we intervene, or allow South Africans to intervene, in the affairs of Mozambique and Angola. I am very pleased to see in tonight’s paper that our ambassador in Lisbon, Mr. Montgomery, has already reassured the Prime Minister there that we will not assist anybody or interfere in the affairs of that part of the continent.
2. (2) In the second place, we are vigorously opposed to the application of “double standards” in international politics. As far as our country is concerned, we believe that the best way of counteracting such practice against us is always to set the example in our own politics, our politics abroad but especially in our politics at home.
3. (3) Thirdly, we believe that we should consistently uphold and support the principle of universality in respect of membership of the United Nations. We should come up for the right of every sovereign independent State to be represented in the United Nations, whatever the form or the nature of its Government.
4. (4) In the fourth place, we are strongly in favour of preserving our own membership of the United Nations and of its specialized agencies. We realize of course that conditions may arise in the face of which continued membership becomes impossible for South Africa, but in such a case the honour and interests of South Africa should be the deciding factor.
5. (5) In the fifth place we believe that in no forum of which South Africa is a member should it allow its case to go by default through absence. I was sorry to note in the “Review of Proceedings at the United Nations in 1973 on Questions Affecting South Africa” which the Minister only yesterday placed before us, that

We should welcome a satisfactory explanation by the Minister as to why the Government allows its case to go by default in any organ of the United Nations, or any international association of which we are a member.

1. (6) In the sixth place, we are mindful of the fact that membership of an international association, such as the United Nations, entails rights, but also implies obligations. We as a country freely subscribe to the Charter of the United Nations, and we believe that we should therefore not neglect our obligation, in terms of the Charter, to assist the United Nations in promoting the removal of race discriminatory practices where these exist.
2. (7) In the seventh place, we believe that the multi-national character of South Africa should be soundly reflected at the United Nations and in all international forums where our country is officially represented. I had the experience last year of being confronted by an individual at the United Nations, who said that our Government claimed that South Africa was a multi-national State. “Yet,” he asked, “where are the other South African nations that your Government always talks about? All your missions abroad are a living image of White exclusiveness.” For the sake of credibility, and also, of course, for the sake of good foreign policy, we believe that it has become imperative for us to present a multi-national South African front where and whenever we appear on the international stage. For years we have been advising the Government not to delay the training of Black and Brown and Indo-South Africans for inclusion in our political and our promotional services abroad. I want to make it clear that we include the Black peoples of South Africa. If I am correct, the Minister has indicated outside that steps are now being taken in the direction of the training of non-Whites for foreign service. If that is so, then certainly we welcome it; except that there seem to be reservations about the inclusion of Black South Africans. Our feeling is that this is a completely unrealistic attitude, because there is, as yet, no proof that every one of the eight Black South African nations will opt for a separated independence when finally they come to exercise the right promised to them to determine their future place in South Africa, be it independence or interdependence. Our belief is that South Africa will remain a multi-national or multi-racial, whatever you wish to call it, State for all time to come. We realize that it will take time for the Government to obtain visible results, but we do hope that if the policy of training non-Whites for foreign duties is accepted, there will be no undue delay on the part of the Government in putting it into practice. During my visit to Canada last year, I was impressed by Prime Minister Trudeau’s approach to Canada’s foreign relations. Mr. Trudeau views foreign affairs primarily in relation to his most important national policies. He sees foreign policy more in terms of the extent to which it promotes his national policy. To achieve a feeling of greater fulfilment between French- and English-speaking Canadians at home, he has reached out beyond the British Commonwealth—of which Canada is a member—and forged active links with French-speaking countries, particularly in Africa. We believe that we, too, in South Africa could inspan foreign policy to promote better co-operation and understanding between our different national groups inside South Africa. The enlistment of non-Whites in our foreign service will in time open the way for better relations between South Africa and African and Asian countries, thus promoting greater harmony at home, especially between Whites and non-Whites. We believe that we should realize that instead of being a European state in Africa we should begin to take our place as an African power among African states. In this respect, I want to say that it is a matter of deep regret to us that the Government has failed in what was commonly known to us as its “outward movement”. As yet we have advanced no further than the “telephone stage” of diplomacy with our nearest neighbours, and this in the face of the fact that developments in Angola and Mozambique have placed countries such as Botswana and Swaziland in a far more strategic position in relation to us than ever before. We should like to hear from the hon. the Minister whether he sees any positive developments in the relationships between ourselves and our immediate neighbours in the near future. We believe that the real test for South Africa and our future survival will not lie in good relations with Europe or Latin America—necessary as they may be—but in the place that we hammer out for ourselves in Africa.

Before I leave the question of the training of diplomats I want to refer to Mr. Pik Botha’s appointment as South Africa’s new ambassador at the United Nations. At the end of last year I had the privilege of seeing four of our career diplomats in action overseas. I am referring to Mr. Carl van Hirschberg, our present ambassador to the United Nations, in New York; Mr. Frikkie Botha in Washington; Mr. Norman Best in Ottawa; and Dr. Piet du Plooy in Buenos Aires. They are without doubt men of the highest ability and quality. I found myself in full accord with their adroit approach to the problems which face South Africa abroad. I do not want to use the term “low key”, because this may be susceptible to misunderstanding. There was no lack of firmness in their handling of affairs. I am aware of the fact that there is a school of thought in the political ranks on the Government side which advocates a more aggressive approach to foreign affairs. I sometimes gain the impression that the hon. the Minister of Information is sitting hard on the tail of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Personally, let me say, that in the climate in which we are living today, I can think of nothing more calamitous for South Africa’s interests than a return to the diplomacy of assault which was practised at one time by the late Mr. Eric Louw. It remains to be seen what line Mr. Botha intends to take. It is the expressed feeling of this side of the House that his parliamentary record was an extremely partisan one and, as a result, we would have preferred a man with an unbroken diplomatic career for the post. However, this does not mean that we do not wish Mr. Botha success. He goes as he does with our very best wishes, and let me say that he will need them because the hostility towards our Government and our presence in South-West Africa are matters that are likely to assume record proportions in the days that lie immediately ahead of us. Luckily Mr. Botha has two very helpful attributes: He has a long association with the South-West African problem and a knowledge of the situation there, and he pleaded in this House for South Africa to accede to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. He will now have the opportunity—we wish him the luck—to practise what he preached, and in this he will have the full support of our side of the House. We believe that by acceding to that Declaration, we would give our country a feeling of being at home in the world. Certainly, it would lend greater credibility to the Government’s declared intentions and policies. I want to ask the hon. the Minister pertinently whether we can expect this and, if not, why not?

It is relevant to what I have just said to add two further points to our foreign policy. (8) We believe that any diplomatic appointments from the ranks of party politicians should first come under the scrutiny of Parliament as a whole. This is the practice in almost every Western country in the world that has a democratic parliamentary system. We know what the practice is in European parliaments and in the Congress of America. Also in Latin American countries such as the Argentine, diplomatic appointments must first be passed by Parliament or the Senate before they become operative. (9) We believe that is vitally important that we set up a Parliamentary Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, representative of both sides of the House. We know that the hon. the Minister is reluctant to do this, but that does not prevent us from stating the need again. We believe that this step has never been as necessary as it has now become. We remain one of the few countries in the Western world which have no standing committee of this sort. There is not a single Parliament in the world which, once having had the benefit of such a standing committee, would want to do without it. We all know that a truly grave situation faces South Africa today. Developments in our neighbouring states such as Angola and particularly Mozambique give us grounds for very deep concern. Perhaps one must expect instability in Mozambique until the new Government has become established, but even then we cannot foresee precisely how events will shape and how South Africa’s future will ultimately be affected. As I have said already, we support the policy of non-interference and of judging the new Government-to-be once it has been established.

We are faced with other problems of a very delicate nature. As things are developing, we shall almost certainly soon be faced with having to make fateful decisions in respect of our involvement in Rhodesia. Our belief is that only a Parliamentary Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs could ensure a consensus and unity of action. It is quite amazing that, with all these circumstances facing South Africa today, the Government prefers to go it alone and to act without the co-operation of Parliament. This is also the case in respect of the avalanching problem of South-West Africa.

1. (10) We believe furthermore that it is in the interests of both South Africa and South-West Africa that the international problem of South-West Africa be solved without delay. It is generally agreed in this House that the future of the Territory lies in the hands of its own inhabitants, and that there is now no way out for South Africa other than a sincere application of the principle of national self-determination. The sooner this is accomplished, the better. We are poised at the moment for a dangerous confrontation with the whole of the Security Council. The Government has found agreement with the United Nations on the principle of “self-determination and independence” for the Territory. Let me say that this was remarkable progress indeed. Therefore we deeply regret it that the working relations which had been established between the Government and the Secretary-General, Dr. Waldheim, were terminated towards the end of last year. We were told by a high official at the United Nations, where other members of Parliament were present and where our ambassador was also present, that it was because of the Government’s consistent failure to explain how they saw the application of the principle of self-determination and independence in South-West Africa in practice. There were certainly other reasons as well. I have no doubt about that. We are not so naïve as to think that this was indeed the only reason. It was a privilege for those of us who were there to have an interview of the kind with Mr. Abbas Farah. I found him to be a reasonable man. He told us that because of the failure of the Government to state clearly —after they had asked for it—how the principle would be applied in practice, it was felt that it was futile to continue the dialogue. As I say, we know that there were other reasons as well. We are aware of the pressures applied, particularly by the Organization for African Unity, in favour of confrontation rather than negotiation. We should very much like to know from the hon. the Minister how he plans to deal with the situation from here on. One thing is certain in our minds: If the Government wishes to retain any sort of backing for further negotiations, it will not be able much longer to avoid a clear exposition of how it intends to apply this principle of “self-determination and independence” in South-West Africa to the reasonable satisfaction of the various peoples in the Territory who regard themselves and will no doubt continue to regard themselves as South-West Africans and as an inseparable part of the whole. We wish we could believe that the Government has ten years within which to settle the question peacefully. We don’t believe that it has ten years.
2. (11) Our policy is that the Prime Minister’s Advisory Council, the Advisory Council for South-West Africa, should be converted into a permanent body somewhat of the nature of a national convention and truly representative of all South-West Africa’s peoples. They should then meet to reach agreement on the practical application of the principle of self-determination and independence and to determine their future relations with the Republic of South Africa. The Government should then again seek the co-operation of Dr. Waldheim and proceed with the application of the arrangements decided upon as soon as possible. The hon. the Minister will know that the Government itself has told Dr. Waldheim and the United Nations that the Advisory Council would be made, and I quote—

That was a year and half ago. Sir, we believe that if a bold and positive initiative is taken by us now and not under pressure, while there is still a substantial reservoir of goodwill for South Africa in the Territory, there should be no reason why South-West Africa should not opt for an internal federation and for a place in a wider South African federation or confederation or even in an economic commonwealth on which the Government itself pins its hopes for the future of Southern Africa. Sir, to us one thing is certain and that is that if the matter of South-West Africa is not soon settled peacefully, it could very well lead to ruin not only for South-West Africa but also for the Republic of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to quarrel with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout about the principles of his party with regard to foreign policy. Judging superficially—and I would like to study them—my first impression is that all their principles are acceptable. I must admit that I do not like the veiled dig at the Government’s policy in the first principle, namely that the hon. member and his party will place South Africa in a morally sound position. But even that matter has often been raised; the moral aspect of our policy has often been debated in this Parliament, and I do not intend going into that again today. One other principle raised by the hon. member is that of non-participation or rather his opposition to our failure to refute certain attacks against South Africa and so allowing South Africa’s case to go by default. Sir, it is also the Government’s policy; it has been tried before, but it has served no purpose whatsoever, and when you are involved in a struggle like that in which we are engaged at the United Nations, you must know when to change your tactics, and that has been done.

*The hon. member referred to the appointment of South Africa’s new ambassador at the United Nations. I am sorry about his reaction. Sir, I think it can be described as petty.

I do not think so.

I want to say here that South Africa is fortunate to have a person such as the hon. member for Wonderboom for this post. We are fortunate to have a person with the experience he has, a person with his expert knowledge of the United Nations and of our problems which are brought up for discussion there. We are fortunate to have a person with his ability, with his political attunement, with his standing in this Parliament and in our country, with the standing he enjoys in the Department of Foreign Affairs and the standing he enjoys among both his future colleagues and his ex-colleagues in the outside world.

Mr. Chairman, we have often in the past conducted debates here on the standing committee being advocated by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. My reaction is exactly the same as that of my colleague the Minister of Defence was to a similar proposal put forward by the United Party. The hon. member was here when my colleague dealt with that matter, when he told the Opposition that they should avail themselves more often of the opportunity to call on him, to come and discuss certain matters with him. I am extending a similar invitation to the hon. member and his colleagues on that side of the House. I shall most definitely welcome it if certain things are discussed more often.

Does the Government not have a duty in this regard?

The Government has a duty and the Government is doing its duty under very difficult circumstances. In the international sphere South Africa finds itself in an exceptional position. Our position is such that most of our negotiations with countries abroad have to be conducted on a confidential basis. We examined the hon. member’s proposal and spoke inter alia to persons from other countries which have a system like the one being proposed by the hon. member, countries which also find themselves in difficult situations. They pointed out the disadvantages of such a system to us, i.e. that one has to discuss confidential matters with one’s political opponents, who have no responsibility because they have no executive authority. That is our objection. That is why we are inviting hon. members on that side to come and talk to us about confidential things. We shall welcome that. The hon. member says it is necessary for us, with a view to a consensus in this Parliament in respect of Rhodesia, to have such a standing committee. But, Sir, surely we have consensus in this Parliament in regard to Rhodesia; we have had it all these years. I do not know whether the hon. member is perhaps the only one in whose mind there is no consensus with us and with his colleagues in respect of our attitude to Rhodesia.

†Mr. Chairman, before dealing with all the other questions posed by the hon. member, I would first, at this stage, like to deal with a few other important matters. I may also say that in the course of the debate I intend giving the House an evaluation of South Africa’s position in the world in general and in Africa in particular. First of all I would like now to comment briefly on our position in the United Nations. I regret to say, Sir, that the character of this organization has changed over the years. Instead of trying to save successive generations from the scourge of war, the UN actually encourages conflict in certain cases. Resolutions are often passed which, particularly in the case of South Africa, contain veiled exhortations for the use of force and violence to overthrow lawfully constituted Governments. Take, for instance, the latest resolution on South-West Africa, and I am thinking particularly of one which refers to terrorists, the so-called freedom fighters, and contains the clause “re-affirms the legitimacy of their struggle by all means against the illegal occupation of their country”. The phrase “by all means” is obviously a euphemism for armed struggle. One is almost surprised that the sponsors of this resolution took the trouble even to try to conceal their true aims. Sir, the picture at the UN is certainly not rosy or encouraging for South Africa, or for the world for that matter. Of the 151 resolutions adopted by the General Assembly last year, about 12% contained attacks upon South Africa. The Fourth Committee devoted about 80% of its time to South African items. What a waste of valuable time! The 29th session of the General Assembly will commence on the 17th of this month—in other words, in exactly a week’s time. One thing is certain. The attacks on South Africa may be expected to continue. Last year the attempt to prevent me putting South Africa’s case did not succeed and, consequently, it was possible for me to put our case fully. A question mark rises over the future, over this coming session of the General Assembly. Despite our desire to co-operate with the United Nations as we proved by the contacts with the Secretary-General, to which the hon. member has referred and which were discontinued not by ourselves but by the Security Council, there are limits beyond which we are not prepared to go. South Africa will not and simply cannot put up with boundless insults. Moreover, as the hon. the Prime Minister has already made very clear, we have no intention of accepting a situation whereby South Africa would be denied the right to participate in the General Assembly.

South Africa is a peaceful country. We present a threat to no State in the world. We strictly adhere to the principle of non-intervention in the domestic affairs of other countries and we are naturally entitled to expect the same consideration and to enjoy the rights and privileges of a member state. After all, we are a foundation member. That we do not receive or enjoy it, is a sad commentary on the double standards applied in the international organization.

The international order is at the present time threatened as never before because gross interference in the domestic affairs of any country is not only permitted but even inspired and encouraged by an organization founded in order to uphold the cause of peace.

A good example of the tactics used by our opponents was the allegations that a massacre had been committed by South African forces in the Caprivi. In this case the Government was able to demonstrate, with a great deal of publicity here and overseas, the falsity of the story, but this is not and will not always be possible. The spirit in which the attack on South Africa was launched is proved by the fact that in spite of the findings by the foreign and South African journalists, the showing of the film concerned has evidently not been terminated. The vicious propaganda continues and is brought to the notice of millions of television viewers. It will undoubtedly be lapped up by some at the United Nations and used against us.

*I nevertheless think that it will be acknowledged that I am right in saying that this invitation to the journalists from abroad and to some of our own and the visit to the territory were definitely worth while. I think we can depend on it that all rightminded persons will in future be even more critical of spurious anti-South African propaganda.

†As far as South-West Africa is concerned, I have to disappoint my hon. friend because I am going to be very brief. This matter has been fully discussed under the Prime Minister’s Vote and the hon. the Prime Minister has made the position of the Government on this very difficult and delicate issue quite clear. The hon. the Prime Minister has emphasized, once again, that it is a delicate matter. There are many things which one would like to say, but we know from experience that such things could so easily be misused against South-West Africa and its people. They could so easily be abused also in the case of South Africa. All I want to do today is to repeat what the hon. the Prime Minister has already said here last week, viz. that as far as we are concerned the door for discussions with a view to finding a peaceful solution to this problem is not closed. We remain prepared to discuss it with whoever is genuinely interested in looking for a satisfactory and peaceful solution. We will also continue to make available information about all aspects of South-West Africa, of its peoples, and of our activities there. In this respect I would like to inform members that a second volume of the survey on South-West Africa, in respect of which a first volume was published in 1967, has been prepared and is at the moment with the printers. It will be available soon. In this volume all information has been brought up to date. I am sure that South-West Africa will feature very prominently in the discussions which I and members of my delegation are planning to have with other Ministers and others when we arrive in New York next week.

*The hon. member for Bezuidenhout referred to the participation of non-Whites in our delegation to the United Nations. It was in any case my intention to inform the House on the composition of South Africa’s delegation to the General Assembly of the United Nations next week. I am pleased to be able to say that the Government has agreed to allow me to include, in addition to the new ambassador—the previous one will still be there for a while, too—and his staff and members of my department, the following three persons in my delegation as observers. The first of the three is the Chief Minister of the Transkei, Paramount Chief Kaiser Matanzima. The second is Mr. Daniel Rudolph Ulster, a member of the Coloured community and principal of a training school for Coloured teachers for the past nine years. The third is Dr. M. B. Naidoo, a member of the executive committee of the Indian Council. As far as the inclusion of a representative of a homeland is concerned, I want to recall the fact that this possibility was envisaged previously by my colleague the Minister of Bantu Administration. We discussed this matter with the Chief Minister of the Transkei, and he suggested that he himself be included in my delegation as an observer. I think you will agree with me that he will find this to be useful and very good experience with a view to the negotiations in connection with the attainment of independence by the Transkei. I can also confirm here that it will be a privilege and very useful to me and my delegation to take him along with us. This goes for the other two gentlemen as well. Dr. Naidoo was invited after consultation with the chairman of the executive committee of the Indian Council. As far as the invitation to Mr. Ulster is concerned, I want to state that, after consultation with the leaders of the two main parties in the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council, he was chosen from a short panel of names that was submitted for consideration. The Government took this decision in order to enable representatives of the Indian and Coloured population groups to see and experience for themselves what is happening at the United Nations, what problems we have to contend with there and how South Africa’s case is handled there. We do of course look after their international interests as well, i.e. the interests of the Coloureds and the Indians. This is in line with the Government’s policy of giving these people an opportunity to become involved and to participate in as many activities as possible which affect their own interests. Last year it was my privilege to take with me three members of the House of Assembly on my delegation to the United Nations. That was a privilege to all of us, to my staff as well. But, especially in view of the fact that our Parliamentary session coincides with the session of the General Assembly this year, members of the House of Assembly will not be invited again this year to serve on the delegation. I hope that this will be possible again in the future and that it will happen again that hon. members are invited to enjoy this dubious privilege.

Another matter that has been raised before, I think by hon. members on both sides of the House, is the question of the training of non-Whites for service in countries abroad. This was also raised by the executive of the Coloured Persons Representative Council. A year or so ago I had very interesting talks with them on this matter in the presence of the Minister of Coloured Relations. Now, our attitude in the past was that the time was not quite ripe for something of this nature, that, what is more it was a question of priorities with those population groups, i.e. where they had to put the emphasis at that particular stage. Recently the Government considered this matter once again, and it was decided in principle to allow citizens of the Transkei and members of the Coloured and Indian population groups to be trained for the diplomatic and the information service and to appoint such persons to the staffs of some of our missions abroad. It may interest you to know that only yesterday we in the Department of Foreign Affairs received a letter from the head of one of our missions in which he asked whether we would not be so kind as to send him such a person. He was quite unaware of the announcement I was to make today. Now, I can say that the details in connection with this service abroad are still being worked out by my colleague the Minister of Information and me, in conjunction with the three colleagues of ours and all five of the departments that are concerned in this matter.

Now I come to the events in Portugal since 25 April and their repercussions for Southern Africa and especially for our two neighbouring states. Of course, those events are of great importance to all of us and to the whole of our sub-continent. Our Prime Minister has already dealt fully with this matter, and we are pleased that there is general appreciation throughout the country for the way in which he stated his standpoint, for the way in which he has handled this delicate situation up to now. However, this matter is so important, and so much has already happened again since the Prime Minister made that speech, that I should also like to pause briefly this afternoon at certain aspects of it. I can inform you now, Sir, that the Government has been keeping a very close check on and studying the situation all the time, and is continuing to do so. The attitude adopted towards us by the new Portuguese Government in Lisbon has always been and still is most courteous and correct. We are being kept informed regularly, and we appreciate this, but we must also accept that the attitude which the new Government in Portugal will adopt towards us at the United Nations will, as a result of the basic change in policy that has taken place in their ranks, be different from the one adopted towards us by their predecessors in the past. Of course, that does not mean that our Government and theirs will not continue to co-operate in matters of common interest. The South African Government was one of the first governments to recognize this new Government after we had been notified officially that they had taken over the reins of government. Our normal contacts with Portugal have been maintained throughout, from the beginning, and talks are taking place regularly. As is known, matters have developed at lightning speed, and the position in our two neighbouring states is still fluid and uncertain. It changes from day to day, and one can almost say from hour to hour. As is known and has already been announced, a provisional government for Mozambique will be constituted, and at the moment we are waiting to see whether matters will be normalized. For that reason I prefer to say no more at this stage on the state of affairs in this neighbouring state as it appears to us. I want to add that the position in Angola differs considerably in many respects. I think hon. members will agree with me that the situation in Mozambique and Angola can of course hold dangers for South Africa. The hon. member for Sea Point may perhaps regard this as the understatement of the year. It may hold problems and dangers for us; we are aware of that, but I do not want to elaborate on that today, except to assure hon. members, as has already been done by our Prime Minister and our Minister of Defence, that the Government is giving the situation its urgent attention from day to day and will not allow us to be caught off guard or on the wrong foot.

However, under no circumstances should we lose sight of the fact that this picture also has a bright side; in fact, these events may hold benefits for us and for the whole of our sub-continent. What has happened should rather be regarded as a challenge and not as a disaster or a threat. It should rather be seen as an opportunity for us to prove further that we, as is the position in the case of our other neighbouring states, are prepared to and can live and work together with these neighbours in peace and friendship, irrespective of who is in power, as has repeatedly been stated by the hon. the Prime Minister, by other members of the Government and by me. The South African Government’s attitude in respect of these developments is therefore a positive one.

I base my confidence that we shall be able to co-operate with the independent governments in these two states, firstly, on South Africa’s record of co-operation over many years, indeed over many generations. This applies to Mozambique in particular. Our economies have developed together. Since the previous century they have been growing together. Since the days of the two Boer Republics we have been co-operating with them. One calls to mind the construction of the Lourenço Marques railway line and the harbour. Over many years it has been South Africa’s policy not to reduce our exports via Mozambique as we obtained more harbour facilities of our own. We voluntarily committed ourselves to that under the Mozambique Convention of 1928. We did so in a spirit of co-operation between good neighbours. Of course this has been to our advantage, but it has also been a great advantage to that neighbouring state. I could mention many other examples in order to emphasize this aspect, but the hon. the Prime Minister has already dealt with it.

Apart from South Africa’s splendid record of co-operation, there is another factor which is beneficial to the climate for friendly relations and co-operation between us and these two territories, namely our dependence on one another, especially our economic inter-dependence. I need not elaborate on this either, for the facts are known to all of us. It is common knowledge how valuable it is for both us and Mozambique to co-operate in respect of the Lorenço Marques railway line and harbour and in respect of the gigantic Cabora-Bassa power and irrigation project, and to co-operate and make arrangements in regard to labourers, who have been coming to the Republic for generations and have been happy here. One calls to mind the mutual benefits for both countries in respect of tourism from South Africa as well as from the outside world. In this respect we are co-operating with the Portuguese territories. In fact, all of us in Southern Africa are working together on a multilateral basis in an organization called Sartoc in order to promote tourism. One also calls to mind the trade between us. Especially in the case of Mozambique it is growing rapidly and holds benefits for both countries. In addition there is technical cooperation which we are undertaking on a multilateral basis in Southern Africa in the organization known as Surccus. In the technical-scientific sphere, too, there is cooperation on a considerable scale between our two states. I can mention many more examples in this regard.

Furthermore, we must view the events in the neighbouring states in the light of our internal relations policy. After all, our policy is based on the self-determination of peoples, and we have made a very great deal of progress with the implementation of that policy. Hence the important announcement made and the important details disclosed here this afternoon by the hon. the Prime Minister. We trust that we shall be able to live and work together with these independent Bantu peoples in our midst, and that there will be peaceful coexistence between us and them. In that case, surely, it stands to reason that we should also welcome the emancipation of other peoples in our neighbouring states, that we should not take fright at it and run away. By this time nobody should have any doubts that South Africa is in favour of and is exerting itself for the self-determination for peoples in accordance with the principles written into the Charter of United Nations. There ought to be no doubt that we do not identify ourselves with colonialism, “that we hold no brief whatsoever for colonialism in any shape or form”. Traditionally and in principle we are opposed to all forms of it. This is apparent, inter alia, from the history of a large section of our White population. Everybody knows that South Africa is opposed to the so-called neo-colonialism, which amounts to one state being dominated by another in the economic sphere. We are outspokenly, strongly opposed to that.

The Government’s attitude in regard to these developments on our borders amounts to the hand of friendship being extended anew by South Africa to all African states, irrespective of whether they are already independent or whether they are gaining their independence, as is the case with the two neighbouring on our borders. That is our declared policy; it has always been the case and so it will remain. We also want to co-operate with Mozambique and Angola, as we are already co-operating with others very successfully. Of course, we should also like to see them developing, to see progress being made there in all the spheres that are necessary for every young developing state.

Last week the hon. the Prime Minister expressed the hope that sound, stable governments would come into power in these states. He added that it was not for us to dictate to them by whom and how they were to be governed. This has always been South Africa’s attitude towards all other states, wherever they may be situated. What is more, we do not accept that an indigenous government must necessarily lead to instability or anarchy, just as we believe that anarchy will not necessarily prevail in other independent states and among other peoples around us. Both Angola and Mozambique are countries with great potential. They are rich in natural resources; they have large populations. But those resources must be exploited and developed. There is a great deal that has still to be done. Just think of infrastructure. The South African Government welcomes the fact that our neighbouring states are developing—in their own interests, in the first place of course in the interests of their own people, but also in our interests, in the interests of the whole of Africa. For it is to the advantage of any state in the world to have neighbours where development, prosperity and stability are the order of the day. That is why we offer our neighbouring states our co-operation. To give a relevant example, an example of our endeavour to co-operate, I want to refer to the Cabora-Bassa project once again. Not only should we, in respect of Cabora-Bassa, like to carry on with the Government of Mozambique as planned and contracted, but, if things go well, one may even at a later stage discuss the possible expansion of the present scheme, i.e. the second stage of development of which there is talk. I accept, too, that there are also other economic and development projects which will be considered and in which South African concerns could in fact participate. Incidentally. I think all of us welcome the reports which appear in the Press from time to time and of which I have one or two here: “Frelimo says White farmers are safe”; “Frelimo does not fight against colour”. We are not fighting against colour either, Mr. Chairman. We hope that this policy of theirs will also hold good in respect of their neighbours in Southern Africa. Now this question arises: What has the Government done; what is the Government doing and what can we do to prepare the way for creating a favourable climate for future friendly co-operation with our two neighbours? The Government’s actions and attitude up to now have been absolutely correct. In the first place, we proved our goodwill by recognizing the new Government in Portugal without delay. To that I want to add that although we condemn and are fighting and will continue to fight terrorism as a political weapon, we as the Government and as South Africans have understanding and appreciation for the legitimate aspirations of Black nationalism. We are maintaining liaison with the new Portuguese Government, whose policy it is to render self-determination and independence possible for our neighbouring states by, in the case of Mozambique, putting an indigenous government in charge there. Those in Africa and elsewhere who have questioned our bona fides up to now, would be well advised to take cognizance of this. In the second place, we have offered our co-operation and are still doing so, repeatedly; for instance, this was done in the State President’s address; our Prime Minister did so and I have done so repeatedly today. In the third place, Sir, we have been and are acting correctly in that we are not interfering in the domestic affairs of others, in that we are adopting an attitude of waiting in this period of transition in the hope that the situation will return to normal soon. I have proof that this attitude of the South African Government is being appreciated everywhere.

In the light of what I have said about our policy of non-intervention, it follows automatically that newspaper stories and speculation on the possible formation of groups of mercenaries here in the Republic are mere figments. My hon. colleague the Minister of Defence has already referred to that and expressed his opposition to it. For the record I want to say here, Sir, that under the Government’s policy no recruiting of soldiers for action in another country by any person or group, nor the organization in the Republic of any unit of mercenaries, will under any circumstances be permitted here. In the fourth place, we have been acting correctly by continuing our normal activities with Portugal and the two territories as far as possible, and by maintaining existing contacts and co-operation. We hope, further, that a satisfactory so’ution to these problems will be found soon, without violence and without loss of life. Personally I believe that the development of another two stable, independent and friendly states in Southern Africa can only be advantageous and conducive to peaceful coexistence and fruitful co-operation, co-operation among all the states of this sub-continent, and this will especially be the case if the Rhodesians should also succeed in finding a speedy and satisfactory solution to their problems. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to depart from the good practice we have always had here in the past, i.e that of not discussing Rhodesia in our Parliamentary debates, but there is one matter which I nevertheless want to put right this afternoon and on which there is apparently lack of clarity and even misconception in certain quarters: I want to deny most vehemently that the South African Government is interfering in the internal affairs of Rhodesia.

†We have never been and will not become involved in Rhodesia’s affairs, politically or otherwise.

*The hon. member for Sea Point referred in a previous debate to “South Africa’s involvement in Rhodesia; South Africa’s political commitments”. Sir, these deductions, these insinuations, are totally unfounded and very misleading. These are very dangerous deductions to make.

I want to conclude this part of my speech by referring to the statement by Mr. Cas de Villiers of the Africa Institute, a statement which he made in connection with the gaining of independence by Angola and Mozambique and with which I agree wholeheartedly. It reads as follows (translation)—

He bases his statement on the fact that this sub-continent of ours accommodates states which can contribute a great deal towards making Southern Africa a model for socio-economic development and political stability in Africa.

Mr. Chairman, there is much in what the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs has said with which we can agree. It is always a pleasure to debate with the hon. the Minister and in some of the things he has said he has come so close to the views we ourselves hold on these matters that it would be churlish for us to disagree or to pretend to disagree. We have always been willing to recognize any action by the Government which is conducted in a vigorous and in a constructive manner, and I can only express our total support for such action taken by the Minister in the various matters which he has already brought to our attention this afternoon. We would commend, for example, the quick and effective action taken in connection with the alleged incident in Caprivi. We believe this is the way a Government should react, and we commend the action taken. We believe that the proposal in regard to the reconstitution of the delegation to the UN is also a good and constructive approach and we have no quarrel with it whatsoever. We believe, furthermore, that the plans made for diplomatic training of certain other groups in this country is also one which may well be pursued with advantage. We like the spirit of the response to the problems which arise from the change in the Portuguese territories. We too believe that it should be seen as a challenge and not as a disaster. And lastly, we strongly approve of the Minister’s attitude towards non-intervention in Rhodesia.

Sir, there is no question that the events which have taken place in the Portuguese territories are the herald of dramatic change in the situation in Southern Africa. They bring Southern Africa into a new focus of world attention. There is a new pressure of events which will create change in this sub-continent and make it into a structure which will never be the same as it was before. There is a concentration of forces taking place. Although not immediately, there will be a reformation, a regrouping of some of the forces which have been instrumental in this change and we should not be too self-satisfied if, for a time, things are peaceful. We must expect a loading up of circumstances; we must expect new dangers.

There was talk some time ago, in America particularly, of a domino theory in relation to South-East Asia. It was believed that if one State fell, all the others would fall over at the same time. I do not believe in the domino theory. I do not believe it applies to Southern Africa, but I do believe in the great interdependence of all the countries of Southern Africa. I believe that if they are stable, if they are strong, they will give each other mutual support. It is important that they should remain in a position of interdependence and of mutual support because if one gives way weaknesses will be opened up, changes will take place and we shall lose the advantages which we now derive from the fact that we are inter-related and provide for each other a kind of cordon sanitaire, a kind of buffer effect which is not only for the protection of those behind the buffer, but also for those in advance of it.

What policies are we to adopt in a time of change, in a time of danger such as we now face? Should our policies be isolationist and defensive or should they be positive and reconstructive? We have had a defence debate this afternoon in which great attention was paid to the kind of military defences which can be called upon for our protection. This is a necessity we cannot do without but we are conscious these days that an army, a navy and an air force will not be enough. We know that other kinds of warfare now take place and we must depend on other kinds of defences.

I believe that in building up interdependence with the other countries of Southern Africa we will achieve little progress by means of political advances, the seeking of common political objectives. I believe that there are differences which are in many respects irreconciliable and that we must look elsewhere for the common bases of action, for the common bases of support which we need in this subcontinent.

The hon. the Minister has spoken a little of the economic interdependence that already exists. I believe there are a great many more other directions in which this common interdependence should be developed and evolved. I think, for example, of an old plan which has never come to fruition, for a Transport Commission for Africa. If in Southern Africa we could now renew a vigorous action towards the development of transport links which would guarantee access to the sea for all the countries of Southern Africa, we would, in fact, justify not only our attitude vis-à-vis Rhodesia; we would in fact be opening up new perspectives, new prospects for certain countries in Southern Africa which badly need these links. I believe that in the planning of our own domestic Railway policies we should also bear in mind, not just the temporary advantage of one or other group or even State corporations, but the advantages of South Africa and our links with Southern Africa as a whole. I believe that railway planning is not just economic; it is strategic as well.

The hon. the Minister has mentioned the question of water and hydro-electric power. Quite recently a statement was made at an energy conference in Cape Town pointing out the enormous hydroelectric potential and enormous water potential of Southern Africa. We have the wet lands to the north of us and the dry lands to the south, but in the dry lands, which include South Africa, we have vast capital and resources. The time is coming when these must be applied and interconnected with the enormous resources of power and water which lie to the north. At this conference Dr. Olivier pointed out that the Zambezi, the Kunene, the Congo, the Shire, the Rufigi and the Rovuma rivers have a giant potential hydro-electric capacity of 40 000 MW. That is more than three times as much electricity as we have the capacity to generate in South Africa at present. In an era of oil scarcity this is a vast asset which could be developed for the creation of new mineral and food resources with which Southern Africa could feed the world. It is an enormous potential which can be developed. Through such capital assistance and technical aid I believe that we could not only maintain the inter-dependence that exists among the countries of Southern Africa, but that we can enhance and improve it and create within Southern Africa, despite political difficulties and despite the divergencies and crises which may arise from time to time, a kind of inter-stability which can create in Southern Africa a new era of peace and prosperity from which all will benefit and where it will pay every single country to give their mutual support and mutual assistance which are so vital at this time irrespective of the political differences that might exist. I believe that this should be the basis of our Southern African diplomacy. These are the bones and the muscles of constructive diplomacy in Southern Africa. I believe there are many other avenues which could well be developed in the same direction. These are the elements of interdependence and the forms of co-operation which I believe create the basis on which a mutual interest and a mutual security may be built in Southern Africa. There are some other matters that I wish to touch on, but I see that my time has expired. I shall continue at a later stage. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for Von Brandis, namely that as far as this single over-riding question, i.e. South Africa’s role in Southern Africa, is concerned, there can, probably, be no difference of opinion between us as parties. I do not think that at this stage, the question of what South Africa’s role in Southern Africa ought to be is still at issue. I think the facts speak for themselves. In spite of the fact that attempts have been made in the world to isolate South Africa, not only here in Southern Africa, but in the world as a whole, we find that in one major sphere, namely that of international trade, South Africa’s trade with other parts of the world is continually growing in scope. In this connection I want to mention only four figures. In 1968 South Africa’s exports came to R1 501 million, excluding gold. In 1972, four years later, it was R2 003 million, an increase of 33%. Over the same period South Africa’s imports rose from a figure of R1 884 million to R2 820 million, which means an increase of almost 45%. This shows us in a few figures that in spite of attempts to isolate South Africa, South Africa cannot be isolated from the international community in the economic field. That is why I think that as regards cooperation in South Africa, this is the field on which the emphasis should consequently be laid. But when co-operation in the subcontinent in which our country is situated is being discussed, I think we should set certain conditions for such co-operation. In the first place, in the situation that has developed in the world today, namely that countries producing certain strategic products, such as oil, have come together in order to aim that product given to them by nature against the industrial countries of the world and use it as a weapon in international affairs, we here in Southern Africa, where there are now the first signs of a new bloc in the world, here where, for the most part, primary products are produced, but also products which, in the decades ahead, are going to be just as important for the survival of the major industrial countries of the world, namely mining products, should co-operate and agree that when we co-operate it will not be to blackmail the rest of the world. We must not allow the natural resources of Southern Africa to be used as a weapon against other countries in the rest of the world. In that sense we ought to come to the understanding that before we speak about co-operation, we should ensure that it will be the co-operation of a part of the world which does not have exclusive relations with any other great power or power bloc in the world.

Then, too, there is a second condition we would have to set for co-operation. In my opinion not one of the various countries situated here should allow itself as a single state, or us as a subcontinent, ever to come as a whole within the sphere of influence of any great power recognizing a specific ideology in the world. I do not believe that we shall ever have peace and co-operation here in the long term unless there is the greatest possible degree of mutual confidence between the States. When there is talk in Europe of co-operation in the economic sphere, it is co-operation between old and established White states, states which have all reached virtually the same level of development. When there is talk of co-operation even in the Middle East, after fierce wars have raged there, it is between peoples who have in fact cooperated in earlier centuries. I think that here in Southern Africa the ingredients for an explosion are present to a greater degree than in any other part of the world. That is why we cannot afford member states of what we hope will eventually be a power bloc of States in Southern Africa, or a group of states, to allow itself to form part of the sphere of influence of a specific ideology in this region. I think that these States must agree that one of the conditions of co-operation will be that we cannot allow the power struggle which raged between world powers in Europe, to be repeated here in Southern Africa. We shall simply have to speak in the language of post-war Europe, namely that Europe has a point of view and standpoint of its own in the world, and it wants a friendly relationship with all peoples, with all great powers and power blocs in the world. Once these two conditions have been agreed on here in Southern Africa, we can go on to discuss the further practical steps which could perhaps be taken in order to give content to what we hope will come into being here.

It is not possible to have development in under-developed countries, or even in developed countries, if two major conditions cannot be met. The first is that the necessary private initiative and capital should be available. The second is that there should be the necessary skills to develop those resources which are capable of development. It is in this very sphere that South Africa, as the most developed state in Africa, is the natural factor around which all development in Southern Africa will, in the long term, have to centre. To mention only a single factor, namely the acquiring of development capital for new enterprises, I think that an organization such as the Johannesburg Stock Exchange would be just the place where capital would have to be sought to establish any industry of significance in Southern Africa. I do not believe that any entrepreneur abroad or in our own country would readily invest all his capital in a new and under-developed country. It is pre-eminently those enterprises which possess a great deal of capital and which are able to allocate a small part of their resources to development in an under-developed region that are in a position to initiate development in such a region. It is those enterprises that want to establish themselves not in one country alone, but in a number of countries and which for the greater part want to be based in developed countries. In that sense South Africa is the location par excellence for any large enterprise in the world, which wants to look at Southern Africa as a potential market or as a part of the world in which it can produce, in which to establish itself.

As far as skills are concerned, I think we can make a contribution in various fields which no other country on earth is in a position to make. Here I want to refer to one industry which, in my opinion, has not yet received the attention it deserves. South Africa’s fishing industry is already established as one of the most developed fishing industries in the world. On our borders lie two states, Mozambique and Angola, which will probably become independent shortly. I think that in this field the South African fishing industry and all it embraces is able to make a contribution which can give to these regions too an industry which will find immediate markets in the world. With the skills which already exist in South Africa, with our knowledge of the problems along our coasts, and owing to the fact that our coastline constitutes 40% of the coastline of Southern Africa from the Equator in the West to the Equator in the East, I believe that there is no other nation on earth possessing the skills, the capital resources and the knowledge of local conditions which South Africa possesses to assist these countries to establish new industries for themselves in this field. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I believe that the hon. member for Vasco has made a very constructive speech and there is very much in common between the attitude that I hold and the attitude that he has just expressed. However, I should like to make just this comment, viz. that I believe that he sets certain preconditions for co-operation, “voorvereistes vir samewerking”, which are to my mind a little too stringent. I believe that the purpose of interdependence is in fact to create some of the conditions which he sets as his preconditions. I believe that with true interdependence you can slowly create the kind of climate in which you can expect of your neighbours the kind of conduct which you would hoped to expect from them before you began to create that interdependence. I believe that one cannot be too impatient in these matters and we must expect that the conditions which we hope will emerge will be the product of interdependence and generosity and cannot be set as a qualification before we begin.

I spoke a little while ago of some of the constructive things that can be done in order to enhance interdependence in southern Africa. I also believe that there are certain hindrances to that interdependence which must be removed. We must eliminate the causes of friction if we hope to achieve the conditions which I described. I think the Government is entirely correct in its policy of non-intervention in the internal affairs of our neighbours. I believe that that policy is right and that by maintaining this policy as a general rule for all our neighbours we shall do well to ward off the kind of criticism that might otherwise be directed at us if we were to adopt a policy of either intervention or differentiated intervention. I believe that the policy of universal non-intervention is the right one. We must, however, take care that, however good our intentions in the political field, our preponderance as an economic force in southern Africa does not lead us almost involuntarily to use that force to override the wishes of our neighbours and to stifle some of their own projects which they may have in mind in the realm of their own economic ambition. I believe it is only too easy to injure a small neighbour with a vulnerable economy unless one has particular regard to the long-term advantage of maintaining good relations. There have been cases in our relations with our smaller neighbour states where they have in fact felt stifled by the giant who lies so close to them and who, if he turns over in his sleep, will suffocate them. I believe that this is something to which we must pay very special attention.

The Government is also correct in acknowledging that we must accept Black governments as good neighbours and that we must contribute to their stability. The kind of development of which I have spoken will in fact help to build that kind of stability, that degree of security and that degree of moderation. There are nevertheless difficulties which do arise. The very kind of good inter-relationships that we have in mind are still disturbed by what our neighbours see as a domestic unwillingness to deal with the status of people of the same colour as our neighbours. Many of these difficulties are seen in South Africa as traditional and insurmountable, and as conditions which are not subject to change but which must be accepted as being unchangeable and permanent in our society. I believe that many of these things are far more superficial than they are believed to be. I believe that in many cases they are less deeply rooted than they are believed to be. Indeed, I believe the Government would create far greater goodwill for itself if in many of these instances it would take a more constructive lead. Perhaps I can best illustrate my point by indicating the difference between our shops and supermarkets on the one hand and our post offices on the other. In the free-enterprise system which flourishes in this country there is no real problem about apartheid, but in the offices of the Government these practices persist even though the Government holds itself up as the maker of public opinion and should be the exemplar of enlightenment in this country. It is in the Government’s own offices that these practices persist while because of common acceptance by the public, these practices are already in disuse in the establishments of many private enterprises. One could give many other examples. For instance, compare the banks with Government offices. One could look at the difference between the attitude towards sport in this country and the still much delayed reaction in regard to cultural activities. In all these things I believe there is a role for the Government to play. I say this without rancour and without an undue sense of criticism. I believe that if the Government wishes to engage with its neighbours in a relationship of trust and confidence, it is the Government itself that must show itself to be concerned about these matters by taking the lead where it has the authority to do so. I believe the Government should not allow private enterprise to run ahead while it drags its feet in the rear. This does not create confidence or give the impression that the Government itself is concerned about inequality and discrimination. I believe that the Government at no great cost to itself could show that it is itself the prime mover and not the secondary mover in these matters.

It is the ultimate end of our policy to eliminate discrimination.

The hon. the Chief Whip uses that long-term word “ultimate”, but we do not have 25 years …

You like the approximate.

We are talking about the present time.

However, I must come quickly to the problem of South-West Africa. I do not want to speak at great length on this subject since it has been dealt with before. I believe that the problem of South-West Africa in the whole southern African complex about which I have been speaking, is still a danger point. I agree with a great Geal of what the hon. the Minister has said about the United Nations, its intractability and the problems that exist there. Nevertheless, it is a reality of our lives that South-West Africa is a very dangerous and thorny problem. We know that the basis of progress must be in terms of the territorial integrity of that area. Whatever provisional arrangements are made and whatever local or regional developments take place in South-West Africa, success must eventually be achieved on the basis of territorial integrity. This involves some degree of consultation, of closer co-operation, between the various territories. This is a field where the Government has not yet shown itself, in my view, to be sufficiently active. I believe it would instil greater confidence in the responsible nations of the Western world if the Government showed itself to be at least as active in the field of co-operation between the territorial groups or communities as it is at present in the field of local development, separate development in South-West Africa. In my view this is a very important matter. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to tell us, when he replies in due course, what is actually going on in the advisory council. How many meetings has the advisory council had? What elective status do its members have at the moment? How much guidance and assistance is the Government giving—I mean active guidance, dynamic guidance and assistance—in promoting inter-regional structures? And what encouragement is it giving in creating a better climate of goodwill and interdependence? There is a great suspicion in the outside world that South-West Africa is being developed on the basis of homelands, “as in South Africa”. These words have been used in a White paper preceding legislation, and they have been repeated in the United Nations. If this is not the ultimate intention, if the Government’s intentions are as they have been expressed and explained to the United Nations, then it is necessary to give a counterweight, a compensation, to this development by showing that the Government is as concerned, as anxious, as encouraging in the process of interdependence, of co-operation which is eventually to lead to territorial integrity, as it is in its regard for the separate territorial developments that are taking place. I believe this to be a key factor in the whole of the conduct of our international relations in southern Africa, and in my view the Government must look to this problem of South-West Africa as an urgent way of creating a diplomatic asset out of what is now a grave diplomatic liability. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to react to the hon. member’s speech. I just want to tell him that South Africa and this Government have never forced their policy of separate development, or any facet of it, as an export product on any other country with whom we have relations. Before going any further, I should like to say a few words arising out of what the hon. the Minister said about the appointment of our colleague, Adv. Botha, the hon. member for Wonderboom. I can give you the assurance that this hon. member is going to have a task laid upon him the magnitude of which will not easily be grasped by anyone in our ranks here this evening. I can only tell him that notwithstanding the fact that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout does not view his appointment with much pleasure, this side of the House will remember him in their prayers. Since I have had the privilege of being with him in U.N. for a month, I want to remind the hon. member of a sermon we both listened to one Sunday on television. This clergyman’s text was addressed to anyone who wanted to enter the world: “Determine your role, set your goal and be prepared to pay the toll.” That is our view, not only as far as our internal policy is concerned but as far as our foreign policy is concerned as well. But, Sir, I want to tell the hon. member that he is going to have many problems. I just want to quote from a newspaper and then I shall tell him where his difficulties are going to arise. I quote, from the Suidwester of 22 March 1958, what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said at a meeting in Windhoek when he was still a Nationalist (translation)—

That has been quoted a hundred times already.

I quote further (translation)—

Sir, I want to tell the hon. member that he will continue to be saddled with these things. Then I quote from Die Burger of 5 April 1974, what the hon. member said at a meeting in Windhoek (translation)—

I do not know whether it is true, but that is what the report states.

Who said that?

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout. Sir, worse is to come. While each one of us will agree that we are fundamentally opposed to Communism and that we make this clear in our behaviour at home and abroad, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout comes along with this kind of statement at a meeting in Durban, according to a report which appeared in the Star of 10 April 1974, with the very purpose of deterring anti-Communist countries which still support South Africa; this report, under the heading “Basson’s safety formula”, reads as follows—

Is this a debate on foreign affairs, or what?

I wonder what John Wiley says about you?

Sir, I want to inform the hon. member of things he will still have to deal with. The hon. member was at U.N. and in connection with the speech by the Minister of Foreign Affairs at U.N., the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said the following (translation)—

That is what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has to say concerning the struggle we have to wage to convince the world that we have a case; the hon. member comes along and waters it down in this way.

But, Mr. Chairman, enough of him. There is one matter which I should like to broach in the few minutes at my disposal and that is that basically, as the hon. the Minister said, we in South Africa are not a colonial power.

What about the Bantustans?

Can that hon. member point out to us a single sign in our whole history from the establishment of the Republic indicating that our attitude to the homelands is in any way that of a colonial power? But in February in a debate here the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said the following (Hansard, Vol. 47, col. 223)—

And in this concept of Africa we know that virtually 80% of these peoples came into being as colonies, but they developed and eventually acquired their independence. These countries are now very sensitive about colonialism, and what can we do to show them that we are not a colonial power? The best we can do is to present the history of this country, particularly the history of the National Party from the time it came to power. Our history shows that we have always struggled against a colonial power. That is why I should like to appeal to the African States to develop a new insight and to see us as a country of Africa. Then, together with them, we should enter a new future particularly now that the last few countries which still possessed colonial territories, will no longer continue to exist as such in the future.

The fact that South Africa is an indissoluble part of Africa is a reality to which we shall have to give more expression in various fields. For more than three centuries, owing to our origin and ties, our face has been turned towards Europe in particular. In many respects the strong historical cultural, religious and philosophic ties with the countries of our origin delayed our becoming indigenous, our becoming part of Africa. Besides, Africa was for generations a relatively unknown continent and in addition, the style of life, the view of life of the people of Africa differed radically from our Western Christian tradition in many respects. The points of contact with Africa were few and became fewer through the years. This resulted in Africa, and Southern Africa in particular, disappearing from South Africa s horizon to some extent.

For example, there are many people in our country who think that South Africa is an untouchable island in the sea of nations of Africa. The events in Angola and Mozambique and the withdrawal of the Portuguese have brought home to us afresh to what extent we are a part of Africa. What happens in one country in Southern Africa, does not leave the other countries unaffected. For that reason I believe it to be important for us in South Africa too to realize that we too are Africans—people of Africa, and not Europeans. The reality of our involvement in Africa, our being part of Africa, is so important that I believe we shall have to bring about a greater orientation towards Africa across a broad front. We shall have to give more content to our African identity. We shall have to develop a greater association with Africa across a broad front. This has already been referred to by a number of speakers this afternoon. In order to be able to do this, we shall have to give up many of our prejudices concerning Africa and the people of Africa. It is important for us to find a method to live constructively with Africa at various levels. Achieving this will require of us a readiness even to form unaccustomed associations with Africa. We shall have to make contacts; we shall even have to seek contacts with people whose way of judging our problems in South Africa is different to ours.

Of course, it is important not to play into the hands of our enemies in this regard, our enemies whose sole aim is the eventual destruction of the White man in Southern Africa. In our orientation towards Africa we may not surrender our own identity or principles. In any event, we shall have to be prepared to learn a great deal more about Africa and the people of Africa. Knowledge is the basis of that insight and understanding which makes good relations possible. This, of course, applies reciprocally.

I wonder whether our involvement in Africa does not already justify the inclusion of African studies as a school subject. How much do we really know about the problems of Africa. How much do we know about the way of life, the life style of the millions around us who also work with us in their thousands? For example, we energetically learn a third language at school, a third European language. This should be encouraged and is highly appreciated, but how many of us know the languages of our own Black peoples and of the peoples of Africa? In many respects they are a closed book to us and in the years that lie ahead, will we in Africa not have a great deal more to say to each other than to Europe?

The Government does realize how important our relations with Africa are. Through the years and under difficult circumstances it has been attempted to create a climate for friendship and co-operation in Southern Africa in particular, by means of dialogue-diplomacy in a quiet, but penetrating way. Our African orientation, however will have to be more widespread than the untiring and dedicated zeal of the Department of Foreign Affairs and the hon. the Minister. It requires a new alignment, an alignment with Africa across a broader front. There are many points of contact, there is much common ground which could make co-operation in Africa possible. The hon. member for Vasco has already referred to such a point this afternoon. I could have discussed a number of these points this afternoon, but in the limited time at my disposal, I want to mention only one or two.

An important point of contact between the countries in Southern Africa is the fact that, just like the rest of Africa, we in this country also acquired our freedom and sovereignty by struggling free of colonial and imperial forces. We had to struggle free of a constellation the power base of which was not of Africa. For that reason we join in Africa’s fight against any form of colonialism. This afternoon the Minister again referred to that point in no uncertain terms.

Another point of contact is that just as in Africa, our primary driving force was and remains Nationalism. Our primary driving force was and remains the striving for independence. This urge lives, too, in the peoples of Africa, lives, too, in the peoples of South Africa. That is why the Government, through a policy of differentiation, allows room for the unfolding of each national aspiration.

An important point of contact in our relations with the Southern African states is that the dilemma for Africa in the ’seventies is no longer a political problem, but an economic and a social problem. Illiteracy, unemployment, poor health services, a sluggish rate of development, particularly in the sphere of agriculture, searing droughts and other non-political matters have become Africa’s bottlenecks, bottlenecks which threaten to destroy the economic structures.

The billions of rand in development aid which have been pumped into Africa through the years, particularly during the ’sixties and ’seventies, sank like water into the ground in many respects because the donors were not acquainted with the particular problems of Africa. Development in Africa requires not only money, it requires a sensitive knowledge of the people, the climate and the specific problems of Africa. Notwithstanding the ambitious aid programmes of past years, the gap between the countries in Africa and the rich countries of the world is becoming relatively ever broader. Poverty is becoming an ever more threatening problem. Poverty in an underdeveloped Africa creates a fruitful breeding ground for revolutionary forces which could seriously disturb all peace and quiet in this continent. In South Africa we are possessed of an abundance of knowledge and experience of the problems which developing countries are contending with in all earnest in these very times. President Nyerere of Tanzania once remarked—

We have that knowledge and experience to contribute towards the development of Africa and towards peace and quiet on this continent. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak about some of the obligations and responsibilities that rest on the hon. the Minister in respect of our African policy. As the hon. the Minister knows, we on this side of the House believe that perhaps the most important aspect of our foreign policy is indeed our policy in Africa. The reason why we feel so strongly about it is because we are convinced that if we are to secure a prosperous country and a prosperous future for ourselves in South Africa the initiative must be taken in Africa, because it is through Africa that the key to our diplomatic isolation can be opened.

One encounters insurmountable problems when one looks at the situation today as far as South Africa in the international situation is concerned. I think if one brings it into relation one can see that the main reason why we have problems in the world is because of our situation here on the continent of Africa. If we can achieve good relations with Africa and in Africa there will be no reason for the rest of the world, or the free world anyway, not to co-operate with us. But if we fail in Africa and fail to achieve consensus and relations with States in Africa, I think we must expect that our relations with our traditional friends will deteriorate as time goes on until eventually we find ourselves totally isolated. In time to be our door to the world will prove to be Africa. This is why the Government, and particularly the hon. the Minister, has such an important responsibility in this regard. I do not believe that even the most enthusiastic and avid supporter of this Government would claim that the success of this Government in this field has been remarkable. By the hon. the Minister’s own admission, contact is both minimal and tenuous. The hon. the Minister referred to contact with 12 countries, but for the sake of secrecy, he could give us no details. We on this side of the House consider this situation as both disappointing and unsatisfactory. When one considers how essential a successful Africa policy is for us, it is clear that something is indeed wrong, and that something must be done. I do not want to suggest that all the problems are not difficult for us to overcome. I also do not want to suggest that the blame lies totally with this Government, but when a goal is vital, as is the case with a successful Africa policy, and especially when the problems which make it difficult to achieve are very real,—and no one underestimates the problems we have—it is important that a very special effort should in fact be made. I think that we in South Africa are entitled to see the hon. the Minister tackle this job not only with enthusiasm but also with imagination and flair. It is on these issues that we believe the Government has in fact failed.

If we take enthusiasm, this Government has not really shown any real enthusiasm for this very difficult challenge. In fact, I would say exactly the opposite. The Government’s attitude at times has even gone to the extent of calling contact with the vast majority of Black leaders in independent Africa “unpatriotic”. Let us take imagination. The Government shows, I think, very little imagination in tackling this very tricky problem. In fact, it has proved itself to be singularly insensitive at times to the feelings of Black Africa. When we consider flair I think the Government certainly has shown no flair. In fact, the Government’s performance in this area has been totally uninspiring. If Government were enthusiastic about promoting its outward policy, we would not have Ministers of State branding contact with Black leaders as unpatriotic. We would not have the hon. the Minister of Defence—supported by the whole of the Nationalist caucus opposite, the whole of the Nationalist Press, and even the specific endorsement of the hon. the Prime Minister—launching a major onslaught on hon. members of the Progressive Party because they made contact with certain Black leaders. What is this onslaught all about? What is the reason for the rage of the hon. the Minister of Defence? The answer is in his Hansard, there for all to see. I quote—

He is referring to the Progressive Party—

That, in fact, is what his case is all about. Who are these friends of terrorists that the hon. the Minister of Defence objects to negotiating with? President Kaunda or Gen. Gowon? Surely, Sir, these and similar leaders are the very people the Government must negotiate with. I will even go further. Never mind the “friends of terrorists”, the Government is going to have to negotiate with the actual terrorists, such as the expected Frelimo government in Mozambique.

But whilst Ministers of State advocate openly that to do this is “unpatriotic”, I think we can expect very little success in the Government’s own Africa policy. It is useless for the Government to deny that they are failing to tackle this outward policy with the necessary enthusiasm and determination. A change of heart is required and not excuses. If the Government were showing the imagination which this task of launching our Africa policy demands, they would be more sensitive to the stumbling blocks which make it difficult for Black leaders to talk to us. They would realize that the biggest political swear-words in Africa today are “racialism” and “colonialism”. They would realize that this Government is seen by these people as the last bastion of racialism and colonialism in Africa and they would take steps to prove that they are not racists and colonialists. They would do this by phasing out the negative aspects of their policy which we call petty apartheid. I refer, for example, to the unnecessary and offensive signs on Government buildings which read “Whites Only” and “Non-Whites only”.

I want to shatter a few illusions this Government seems to have. No self-respecting independent Black leader will hold any truck with a Government which expounds its racialism in such an open and petty manner.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.