Sir, may I have the privilege of the half hour?

Tell that to Jacobs.

There is no disagreement as far as we are concerned. I now come to the second antidote. If the loyalty of our people is lost, one cannot buy that loyalty with money and one cannot replace it with guns. There is no argument about this. We know—and we believe it should be known to our Defence Leadership— the effect of tension and of friction within and between the peoples of South Africa on the strategy and the effectiveness of our security. The difference is that we debate that when we are dealing with the Government’s maladministration, the civil maladministration of South Africa. [Interjection.] The point I want to make now, if that hon. friend could just catch, up with 1975, with his own Prime Minister and with the policy of his own Government, is that one cannot measure the amount which, one spends on security by the degree of failure or of success which the Government has achieved in its civil administration. We believe that peaceful change can only come about in South Africa on a basis of law and order and of stability. In both these fields of external détente and internal détente law and order and stability are prerequisites for success. If peaceful change is to be achieved we must have as backing for that peaceful change, a deterrent and a preparedness matching the threats of violence against us. We must match them with an effective deterrent against external adventurers or against internal anarchists. Thus, facing the reality as it is and the facts as they are and not as we would like them to be and not as hon. members like the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark think that they are or dream that they are in their euphoria, we have accepted this expenditure in principle, evaluated against the realities of the possibilities—the threats —facing South Africa as a country. Luckily on this issue both sides of the House are at one, and despite members like the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark we will keep South Africa safe. We will defend South Africa while that hon. member is playing politics with the defence of his own country and while he is undermining the views, the policy and the direction which the Cabinet follows. I hope that he will be properly put in his place by the responsible leaders of that party.

When we measure this threat we must remember that China and Russia do not use their own troops to achieve conquest. They use the troops of other countries as they have used them in Korea, Vietnam and in other parts of the world. It is clear that our defence must be a sufficiently strong deterrent to let those who might become the potential tools of this strategy know just what they would face if they should attack us.

This then brings us to the second responsibility of this House. Having accepted the principle of this expenditure, this House must determine how it is spent, how productive that expenditure is in the returns in security—i.e. the effectiveness of the defence which it provides—and also how it is controlled. The only parliamentary safeguard we have is the report of the Controller and Auditor-General. That is the only parliamentary control …

Do not ask for another special committee.

… which we have available to us. I suggest that the hon. Whip who is making so much noise there should refer to this report.

He cannot read.

Well, we can draw pictures for him if he so desires. Each picture would show a strong criticism of the control of stores in the Department of Defence. Every paragraph, in the report refers in one way or another to the lack of control. That is all Parliament has before it. There is nothing else. All the rest is veiled in secrecy.

Let me deal with just this one aspect, the question of stock control. In every case the answer of the Department of Defence is one of staff problems—either the department does not have sufficient staff or it does not have sufficiently trained staff. Every year, however, there are called up for service qualified auditors and accountants and dozens of article clerks. These are persons whose job in “civvy” life is to audit and control stock and accounts. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has ever considered using these qualified people instead of having them go off to camp to do square-bashing for three weeks, as teams of audit inspectors to spend the three-week camp doing an inspection of the stores. I mention this now because later other members on this side are going to deal with the proper use of the qualifications of qualified persons in the force. I know, and everyone must know, of many examples of auditors and article clerks who in fact are operating as cooks, waiters and riflemen. They could instead be helping to solve this problem of the control of stocks and stores in camps. This would help internally within the Defence Force to bring their house in order. Then, when the Auditor General does his inspections, he might be able to make a rosier report. For the rest, however, we have no control.

The Minister promised us an insight into the Armaments Board and Armscor. I am sorry to say this, but what we attended turned out to be a well-run public relations exercise. The Press was present, the briefing was well done and well documented. In fact, it was a public relations exercise justifying the operations, existence and activity of those two boards. We received globular breakdowns, but the curtain was not lifted. One reads in the Press about what is going on. I read a report only this weekend of things that we have certainly not heard about officially.

Another leak.

I must say that my colleagues and I have also learnt nothing which reduces our concern, for instance at the wholesale purge of top officials and qualified people last year. When there is a wholesale dismissal of senior people, and I am talking now of 40 or 50 people, it shows that something was wrong. The hon. the Minister is looking at me quizzically. Yes, the figure was announced as 40 in one firm alone, Atlas, last September. I have seen two of the letters whereby the people were instantly dismissed. No reason was given except to say that their services were terminated with immediate effect. They received pay benefits and so on afterwards, but their duties were terminated immediately. As I say, I have seen two of them and the reports indicated that some 40 people were dismissed in that one purge. When that sort of thing has to happen, it gives grounds for concern. I believe that we are entitled to know more about the inner workings of an organization to which we are voting hundreds of millions of rands. The Special Defence Fund gets some R600 million this year and I believe that Parliament is entitled to a greater control than we have.

Then in the material field too there are things that worry us. Let me mention one example. On 15 April I asked a question about the Naval supply ship Tafelberg, which was bought in 1965 for an amount of R1 100 000. It was converted at a cost of R1 400 000 and since then it had a refit in 1968 because of mechanical, electrical and hull defects, amounting to R42 000. In 1969 it had the same defects and the repairs then amounted to R50 000. In 1970 it had a major refit at a cost of R500 000. In 1971 major repairs were carried out at a cost of R170 000. In 1972 repairs amounted to R740 000, in 1973 minor repairs amounted to R110 000 and in 1974 it amounted to R3 000. At the moment a tender is out for repairs which, according to my information, will amount to something like R1½ million. And this ship cost us R1 100 000! I do not have time to deal with it but Lloyds Journal of 8 April this year referred to the tanker depression at the moment and said the following:

In another report in Marine Week we find the same story. In other words, according to these reports the sort of tanker which we can use is sold at far below its value. We are spending big money and I believe that Parliament is entitled to query this sort of expenditure and to ask whether we should not have bought a new ship long ago and cut our losses, especially knowing of the weaknesses and hull deficiencies of this ship.

These are material things and in the few minutes left I want to turn to what is the key to the ultimate effectiveness of our forces. Sophisticated hardware requires skilled and trained operators. We are spending a total amount of R227 million on manpower and approximately R750 million on hardware and administration. This means that we have a ratio of three to one when we compare the figures spent on materials and the figures spent on manpower. Yet, people are the key. I want to plead with the hon. the Minister to remove completely the control of the Defence Force from the Public Service Commission. It is creating anomalies which are not good for defence. When we look at the fact that we have on our establishment 143 generals today, with the rank of Brigadier upwards, then one accepts that this has to be done, that the only way in which you can keep people is by paying them enough for their qualifications. But then one is cheapening the rank. People are being promoted to the higher rank because they cannot be paid enough in the lower ranks. So the whole rank structure goes out of balance. I hope the hon. the Minister follows me but if not, I shall deal with it on a later occasion. If one cannot raise the salaries because the Public Service Commission sits on them, another way will have to be found. So they are promoted instead of being paid more in the same rank. There should be flexibility in a Defence Force. It is not like sitting in an office from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. It demands the kind of duty and responsibility that needs flexibility which should be controlled by the department and not by the Public Service Commission.

Will you kindly explain to me what the Public Service Commission has to do with the number of senior officers in the force?

It has nothing to do with the number of officers, but it does determine the rate of pay for the rank. It equates a rank with a secretary, an undersecretary or a deputy secretary. It equates the pay for a particular rank with the pay for an equivalent civilian post. That is the position. [Interjections.] If it does not do so, I have heard a lot of ungrounded complaints because that is the standard complaint I receive, i.e. that the rank is lifted rather than that more is paid within the rank.

Speaking of men, I want to say that the Citizen Force and the Commandos are the operational backbone of our force. In this regard I want to express appreciation for the concessions made in respect of ceremonial uniforms. However, I would like to plead that, rather than turning out one-dimensional pawns and producing dull, souless conformity in the army, we should seek to encourage initiative and individualism. Conformity is necessary to a point, but in our sort of army, in our sort of war and considering our tradition as a nation, individualism and initiative are vital. That is why we were able to second 3 000 officers to other forces during the last war. We had a surplus of 3 000 officers because our people had initiative and leadership qualities. I do not believe we are at the present moment drawing the best initiative out of people because we are trying too hard to create total conformity and not enough to create individualism and initiative. Do you remember, Mr. Chairman, how Montgomery turned defeat into victory not by standardization but in fact with what was probably the most crazily dressed army ever? Yet that army engendered a spirit and pride that turned gloom and despondency into determination and victory. I believe therefore that we should encourage initiative and individualism in our forces as far as we can.

Mr. Chairman, one has so little time to deal with the many things one wants to deal with. I refer to the “orphan Annies” of Defence. First Military Intelligence. The White Paper stresses the importance of Military Intelligence and information but we are spending a miserable R410 000 on Military Intelligence whereas the Bureau for State Security—Boss—gets R14 million. Military Intelligence is, I believe, something which requires at least a larger responsibility to be controlled by Defence itself. Secondly, less than R750 000 is being spent on civil defence. A colleague of mine will deal with that aspect. These are what I call the “orphan Annies” of the Defence Force.

There are other things we welcome, such as the corps structure, e.g. the building up of a corps with brigades and divisions. Again I hope that we shall instil a sense of pride and identity in the different units. I also welcome the navy expenditure. The navy has been left out of the draw for a long time as far as hardware is concerned. I hope that now that we are getting missile boats, it does not mean that the corvettes have been put into the ice-box for good. I believe we need both and that the navy requires a bigger slice of the hardware allocation.

We also welcome the increasing use of all the non-White Race groups. Again, this is a belated step. We should be doing more in this regard, not only 60 or 200. We should be bringing in all our people to participate in our defence. In that field I hope the hon. the Minister of Defence will have a quiet talk with the Prime Minister about the basis on which the Transkeian and Okavango armies will ultimately operate.

I want to express appreciation for the full dental treatment now being given to the men. This is something I asked for in this debate some four years ago. It has now been operating for over a year. It shows that one can sometimes do good by raising matters which may seem piffling but which are in fact important to the people concerned.

So there are many other aspects which affect people. For instance, I want to refer to a small matter like the uniform allowances for warrant officers which have been stopped. I wrote about it and I was told that there was now going to be no warrant officer uniform allowance. The warrant officer is the key—I often think he is more important than the commanding officer—of a unit because the warrant officer is the man who determines basic discipline and down-to-earth control of the men. It is from him that the spirit goes out to the NCO’s. There are little things like that, costing a fractional amount of money, for instance to give Citizen Force warrant officers a uniform allowance so that they can wear blues when they go to an official function like a mess function, dinner or dance. The allowance should be made so that they can afford to buy their blues which cost R70 or R80 today. Most of these warrant officers are youngsters and they need some sort of assistance in this field. I am thinking of the little things that affect morale; they can bring big results because these are key people, people who can influence the morale, who can build up the spirit and who can differentiate between preparedness and success or disgruntlement and failure of a Defence Force.

I want to conclude by saying again that it is no use having sophisticated equipment if we do not have the men with sophisticated training to make it work. I hope that this ratio will be looked at again and that, small or large, attention to men as well as machines will be one of the guiding principles of the Defence Force.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban Point has made quite a number of points with which I am in agreement. For instance, he has asked for more money for civil defence and for the navy and I support him in that. But surely he realizes that such a request, if granted, would entail a larger defence expenditure. I suppose he is preparing his side of the House for the Defence Vote next year. The hon. member has furthermore made the point that there were inevitable antidotes for the threat against us. He accepts as one of the inevitable antidotes our military preparedness, and I support him here too. By accepting that premise, the hon. member differed vastly in his speech, as far as form and spirit are concerned, from the speeches made by other Opposition speakers on that side of the House. It is clear to me that what really concerns the hon. member is the here and now, the present. He is merely critical of some aspects of our policy but being so is his own right and although I may differ from him when he criticizes on particular premises, I have appreciation for the fact that he honoured the spirit of consensus which he himself had introduced into these debates a number of years ago. To my mind consensus serves a two-fold purpose. Firstly, it presents to the outside world a picture of solidarity which discourages the would-be aggressor and disheartens the revolutionaries who thrive on division. Secondly, it supports the morale of our men and women who are full-time members of our Citizen Force and Defence Force, our national servicemen and the members of the civil defence. One cannot expect these men and women to render their utmost by telling them that they are defending an unjust cause. If time permits me, I will return to this aspect.

This brings me to our state of preparedness and the Vote itself. A well-known author, Colonel Norman R. Dodd, came to the following conclusion after having analysed our defence system and our ability to mobilize; he said—

Another author, Lewis H. Gann, says—

The same author concludes—

*Sir, these quoted viewpoints were aired before the present Budget, and I want to make the point that in the light of our Budget, we are in a much stronger position today than we were at the time when those gentlemen came to those conclusions. Our ability, our preparedness, has been much, increased in the meantime. The Vote of the Minister of Defence, Sir, bears witness to determination and planning. The White Paper, read in conjunction with the Budget, can be seen as a programme in terms of which the department wishes to run its affairs on the long-term. It also sets out the following quite clearly: The evaluation or appreciation, by the department, of the present military situation in the first place, and in the second place the priorities in terms of which the Minister and his High Command wish to carry out their task. According to this, if one analyses it, the greater emphasis still falls on landward defence, because the expenditure on this item as a whole, constitutes 40% of the total expenditure, viz. R383 million. This increase comes at the same time as the establishment of the South African Army’s corps organization which is subdivided again into two divisions and a number of brigades. Furthermore, we notice a re-organization which amounts to a Commandment Commanding Officer being placed at the head of a anti-insurgency unit. On the other hand, the planned expenditure in respect of maritime defence, shows an increase of almost 100% for the financial year 1975-’76 as against a 20% increase in expenditure for air defence and a 30% increase for landward defence. These increase expenditures bear witness to our awareness of our situation on the route from the Indian Ocean, the life line, the main artery, of the free-world. Sir, it coincides with the Russian occupation of the Indian Ocean. A visit to Simonstown shows one the great activity there, and we want to wish the Command and its officers every success with what they are doing.

Sir, as far as the utility of Simonstown and our maritime defence in general is concerned, it is important to notice that we can link up quite easily with any defence network in the free world. That is a point which is made by an increasing number of influential visitors. Another aspect of our defence expenditure which should be underlined here, is training, to which the hon. member for Durban Point asked that special attention be given. The expenditure on training constitutes 12% of the total expenditure, but the increase itself represents 50% on the expenditure of the previous year. Sir, I provide here for the increase in the cost of living and I provide for the rate of inflation. Nevertheless it is very clear, Sir, that the Supreme Command underlines this aspect of training in particular. I venture to say that our Defence Budget is the smallest possible premium for the maximum security which we can enjoy as a result thereof. It is the largest and best policy we can take out for the economy of our country, for the foreign investor and in particular for the entrepreneur who wanted to launch a business enterprise here in South Africa. But our Defence Force makes a contribution to our economy in another sense as well. In this respect I have examined the matter more closely and considered those aspects which were raised by the Opposition on the other side, especially by the Progressive Party, which amount to the viewpoint that this is futile expenditure, a total loss. I want to point out. Sir, that the money which is spent on defence is to a great extent, not spent on hardware, not only on tanks and guns, and so on. Of the total appropriation, expenditure other than armaments expenditure amounts to R414 million. That represents 44% of the total expenditure, in other words, only 56% is for hardware, as the hon. member put it. If we analyse further the amount spent on armaments, i.e. R534 million, we find that a large portion of that amount, is spent locally, viz. R184 million. The local expenditure, therefore, of our armament expenditure amounts to 35%—a considerable amount of which, i.e. R59 million, is ploughed back into the private sector. We can divide the local expenditure into two groups. We have Armscor on the one hand, with its subsidiaries, and we have the private sector on the other hand, the private sector which is not only geared to defence material, but to diversity. They might perhaps manufacture a component of a component. That explains why 3 200 contracts were concluded in the year 1974, 340 of which were of a value of more than R100 000 each—a considerable amount which therefore, goes to the private sector. Last but not least, I want to tell you that Armscor and its subsidiaries are a considerable employer and make a substantial contribution, also as far as our Black and Brown workers are concerned. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I have no quarrel with what the hon. member who has just sat down said. We have no quarrel with expenditure on defence. We also agree that South Africa at this stage is far more prepared than we were in 1939, but I would like to point out that in our opinion it is a completely different picture. In 1939 we were one of a very large allied force. Against that, I think, if trouble comes to South Africa in future we would be very isolated. We would be in a position similar to that of Israel today, or perhaps in a worse position in that we would not get the help which. Israel gets from America. So when we voice any criticism here, it is meant to be constructive and not destructive. Because we are fully aware of what the Department of Defence is doing for South Africa. I should also like to point out that we, like Israel, have a very limited work force. We have men who have to be utilized in the army for military skills and those same people also have to be utilized in civilian life as well, for their civilian skills. It makes one think of a great institution like the engineering corps in the U.S.A., where they have a permanent engineering corps which does some of the greatest engineering works in America. They are actually an army unit. When war comes, of course, they already have a unit which is completely ready to tackle the machinery of war.

Now, we keep on hearing certain things, and I do not know whether this is familiar to the Government as well, but it certainly is to the Opposition. We hear from trainees that there is a lot of wasted time in their training. They come back from or during their military training and say that they are having a glorious loaf in the base camps; they are not doing anything and are bored to tears. This does not apply to the first couple of months after the start of their military training. I would say the first five or six months they are busy and intensely interested in their work. They enjoy it and they do not get the chance to be bored. The time on the border is also one of great activity and interest and do not get bored.

The trouble starts when they come back to the base camps where they have to wait around and sit about. They do guard duties but they have lots of time to be idle, non-active and non-productive periods. This has been discussed in this House before and the hon. the Minister has said that this was investigated. There does not, however, appear to be any tangible result. I have information from people who are intimately involved in the training of our youth, not only parents, but also school-teachers, university teachers and employers, to the effect that the young man who comes back today after a year, years or two years of training, is not the same as the young man who came back after a shorter period of training. There is a vast difference. After a shorter period of training there was no difficulty in the switch over from military duties to civilian work. These young men were used to work; they were used to being busy and they were used to discipline. There was no problem at all. Today, however, it is a different story. The boys come back and they no longer want to work or study. They no longer even want to go back to the jobs they had before.

Absolute nonsense.

This is absolutely correct.

Absolute nonsense.

I have it on information from people connected with those boys.

This problem of inactivity after intense duties is natural and it happens to any boy. He cannot but be different. When a person is involved in very intense and dangerous work, sometimes exciting work and he then returns to a state of inactivity there is a complete change. It is then very difficult for these boys to adjust themselves. I fear that this is where the problem lies. Here we should be liaising with educational authorities to try to keep these boys busy and to interest them. The devil finds work for idle hands; there is no doubt about this. When I say “idle hands” I do not only mean learning to play klawerjas. These boys come back and they pick up all sorts of bad habits. They meet boys who teach them gambling, smoking and other habits which could lead to drug addiction. When a person is idle these things are easily picked up.

You are being irresponsible to say that.

No, realistic.

I would now like to refer to the chances we now have of educating these boys. I am not only referring to technical education, but also to commercial and academic education. This can easily be done in this period. Today our educational system is orientated towards differentiation where it is established during the school period what a boy’s aptitudes are and in which way he is inclined to go in future life. These aptitudes can be pursued further during his military training. We have the people, the time and the ability. The opportunity should be afforded for these boys to continue assimilating knowledge while they are busy with their military duties. I am not presuming that all boys who are technically trained are taken into the army and put into technical units. This would, of course, be desirable, viz. that a boy who is in an engineering trade would go into an engineering corps. Similarly a boy involved in post office work should actually go into a signal corps. I presume this is normally done wherever possible. This theoretical knowledge can be added to even if such a person has the knowledge which he acquired in his civilian job. It could be added to in the army. There is no doubt about this.

The method is very easy. When the last war broke out we were faced with a similar problem. There were a lot of unskilled men and the technical colleges were called in to assist in the training of these men. A director of technical manpower was appointed. I think it was a headmaster at Pretoria College.

They had the Cott scheme.

This director got the whole thing going. No, not the Cott scheme. The Cott scheme was for the training of technicians. At Lyttleton the air force established a training school and we have the same thing in Cape Town now in respect of the navy and the Cape Technical College. This sort of thing can be enlarged upon and encouraged. The knowledge obtained there can be supplemented. There is a shortage of those entering the trade and specialized professions today. Boys go into the army straight from school and this should be the place to prepare them and to develop the wish to go into specialized trades. How many boys today, after their army training, are going into the trades or into specialized professions? Very few. The majority orientate into office jobs, salesmen, etc. But if they were given a bit of encouragement and preparatory training and tuition, we could persuade them to lake up this sort of work. I wonder how many men, when war comes, will be found to be equipped to go into an engineering corps with full military engineering knowledge. I wonder how many with signal experience we will be able to put into the signal corps. During the last war we saw people in charge of military transport who were hearse drivers in civilian life. We had veterinarians who became army doctors. It would not surprise me if, during the next war, we have Members of Parliament becoming military policemen. For this reason I would like to ask the hon. the Minister if he would consider going into this matter and to appoint someone or a committee to see whether there cannot be a closer liaison between the army, the navy and the air force and our technical colleges. Here you have men and equipment on the one hand who are willing and able to impart their knowledge to the boys and on the other hand you have the boys who are ready and willing to assimilate that knowledge. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for South Coast came along once again with the old, old story that sufficient care is not taken of our national servicemen, in the sense that once they have completed the basic training period, they become bored. He also asked that these people be given the opportunity to undertake further studies during their period of training. We have had this complaint since the national service system was introduced. The hon. member ascribes it to the fact that national servicemen now have to serve a longer training period. But surely it is a fact that these boys are called up in the first place to be trained as soldiers. For this they give up a year of their lives. In so far as it is possible to fit it in with their training programme, there is more than enough opportunity for those boys who have the desire and the ability to do a little extra study in their leisure time. This matter has been brought to our attention so often that it is really not worthwhile arguing about it any longer.

In sharp contrast to the responsible attitude adopted by the hon. member for Durban Point this afternoon in certain specific aspects, I have to accuse the Opposition today of having people in their ranks who are totally indifferent to the needs of the Defence Force of this country.

Which members?

Who are they?

I shall come to who they are. One can simply not escape from this conclusion after one has listened to the criticism we had to listen to during the Second Reading debate of this Budget. Nobody is denying the Opposition the right to criticize expenditure on defence. But this has to be positive at least. To over-emphasize the size of the amount without referring to the necessity thereof in today’s circumstances, to question the amount without making alternative proposals which will ensure that the Defence Force maintains its maximum degree of preparedness and to allege that the money should rather be used for other purposes, shows a negativism which is not to the advantage of the morale of our young people in the Defence Force. One of the major tasks of our Defence Force staff is to motivate our young people, and utterances such as those which we have heard in recent times in this House, are not conducive to the success of that aim of the Defence Force. In passing, I want to refer to the hon. member for Hillbrow. He has acquired the habit of referring in a cynical way to our Defence budget every year. It has become a habit of his, as well as of other hon. members of the Opposition, to accuse this side of the House, timeously and untimeously, of not doing its duty during the Second World War. We are now sick and tired of that reproach. With reference to the Opposition, I want to ask the hon. member for Durban Point especially to tell his people to refrain from making reproaches of this nature because this sort of thing will boomerang against them.

Then the hon. members opposite must stop doubting our patriotism.

I have great respect for those people who felt that they should take up arms in the Second World War. However, one conclusion we cannot escape from, and that is that the chaos, disorder and terrorism which prevail in the world today, and the progress communism has made since the Second World War, is a direct consequence of that world war. If I were one of the people who took part in that war, I would have celebrated my participation in that war on a far lower note than is being done.

Would you rather have seen a victory for Germany?

Germany has nothing to do with it. I am speaking about the consequences of that war. Our faces are continually rubbed into the fact that we did not participate in it. [Interjections.]

Order!

We can no longer talk in terms of idioms which applied 30 years ago. We are involved in a new struggle in this country, and to reproach each other in this way does not bring us any closer to a solution. The hon. member for Yeoville can put that in his pipe and smoke it too.

Who is accusing you of that?

Do not question our patriotism then.

The hon. member will get a chance to make his own speech. To reproach us, as the hon. member for Hillbrow did, that we should not really be spending this increased amount on defence in this time of détente, shows very bad judgment.

He did not say so.

He did say so. I can quote from his Hansard. With reference to that, I just want to say one thing. We are not seeking détente with communists. We are seeking peace with Africa. The fact that we want to bring about détente with Africa, does not take away the threat of Communism. The communists threaten us with their policy of world domination. We have to provide for that threat, and for that threat we have to make greater provision than for the threat which can possibly arise from confrontation with other States. In the light of this threat, does the hon. member for Hillbrow now really expect that we should reduce our appropriation in respect of defence?

He did not say so.

The hon. member for Maitland was either not here or he did not listen. Here is the hon. member for Hillbrow’s Hansard. I invite the hon. member to read the speech. The reasons for the increase of defence expenditure is so obvious that they hardly require an argument. The days are past when a country could regard itself as being prepared when it had sufficient rifles, machine guns, cannons and a few armoured cars and tanks in its possession. Highly sophisticated electronic equipment is a requirement of a modern defence force today. Research on the basic level, as well as applied research, is the order of the day in keeping the Defence Force as prepared as possible. Sophisticated weaponry systems have to be adjusted and maintained continually, and consideration must be given to technological development in that sphere. As there are shifts of emphasis in the strategy against us, so the Defence Force has to adjust its priorities to cope with the changed situation. These things cost money, and in many cases the money has to be available immediately.

The Defence Force realized several years ago that it has to plan on the long term. Therefore it switched over to the system of programme planning. At the basis of programme planning lies the fact that when one has said A, one also has to say B and C in the following years and then one must take note of the escalation of costs. That which was planned and ordered as long ago as in 1970 and which only now has to be delivered, modified or expanded, costs three to four times as much as it did in 1970. We have to take the modern tendencies and technological development into account and we have to incorporate this into our Defence Force. That is the reason for this increased amount, apart from the increased salaries, as was clearly apparent from the White Paper. In the light of our strategic position in the Indian Ocean, the expansion of our maritime defence system is of the greatest importance. There we face the problem that we, as Whites, can simply no longer man that system. For that reason it was essential—I want to commend this, because it was the right step—that we accommodate Coloureds and Indians in our navy as well. I should very much like to hear from the hon. the Minister to what extent his efforts in this connection have succeeded.

This amount of approximately one milliard rands we want to spend on our Defence Force, is an insurance premium for our future. Let us then accept the burden happily, and in this way give our youth the assurance once again that we want to leave them this beautiful country unravaged and free.

Mr. Chairman, whenever our Defence Force is being discussed, a simple question always presents itself to us: Why a Defence Force? The question really is why so many millions and millions of rand have to spent on a Defence Force. As is suggested by the Opposition parties—even if they want to deny it— the question whether we cannot put the money to better use by buying tractors or, as the Progressive Party says, for the upliftment of the Coloured and other non-White peoples is asked. Among our older generation there was a brief, matter-of-fact and simple reply to this question, viz. to defend and protect hearth and home. Hearth and home symbolized their country for the old people and should symbolize for us today our fatherland and everything which it has for us as a people. For us, it is South Africa, our own beloved fatherland, our beautiful country with its blue skies, our rich country with its fertile soil, our country with its wealth of minerals, our wonderful country with its excellent human material which is capable of developing it into an economic giant and a force in Africa. It is this country which is already able to be the scientific and technological brain and the political leader and partner of other Africa States. The other Africa States, if they are willing to accent détente and co-operate with us, can find in us a partner which will make it possible for us to develop together and to make Southern Africa the most beautiful, the richest and most pleasant part of the world to live in.

However, South Africa’s borders are wide, long and extensive. The coastline from the Kunene to Oranjemund is 1 550 km long and from Oranjemund to Kosi Bay, 2 705 —a total of 4 255 km. That is a tremendously long coastline. Our national borders are extensive. From Oranjemund to Union’s End, is a distance of 1 100 km; our Botswana border is 1 610 km; our Rhodesian border is 227 km and our Mozambique border, 508 km—a total of 3 445 km. Together with the border around Lesotho, which is 812 km, and the Swaziland border of 439 km, our coast and national borders are in aggregate 8 951 km, almost 9 000 km. To undertake the protection and the defence of our fatherland within these borders, is a mighty and almost impossible task. We must defend ourselves landwards against the insurgency and the threat from the north, and seawards against the Soviet sea power which is already making an appearance around our coasts and observing us through the periscopes of its submarines. Our numbers are small—barely 4 million Whites—and our enemies are legion, hostile, militant and bloodthirsty and enjoy moral, economic, financial and physical support from the West, from our kindred countries. They enjoy direct support from the East as well, which encourages them to act towards us in a more militant and provocative way. Our friends in the Western world and the kindred countries with whom we share our civilization are few. They are indifferent to the value and significance of South Africa and of the sea route around the Cape as a strategic bulmark against penetration from the East. Twenty-five thousand boats sail around the south coast of South Africa each year, and 12 000 call at the various harbours along our southern coast. Nevertheless, Great Britain is at this very moment withdrawing from the Simonstown agreement while the actual assessment up to now of the significance of this sea route for the entire Western defence against the East has also been feeble.

A new dimension has been created in the military balance of power in the East, in the Indian and the Pacific Oceans and in the countries which have coastlines adjoining these oceans. The proud Western eagle’s wines have already been clipped and the awe-inspiring strokes of its wings are no longer heard, feared and respected in Africa and in the East as was the case previously. What happens now? The Western powers are withdrawing from the East. That has been happening for decades. The French are out of Further-India and the Dutch are out of Indonesia. The British are not only out of the Indian Ocean, but show a completely disinterested attitude to the maintenance of any base or foothold in the East or in Africa. Alas, we now know that the Americans seem to be finally out of Vietnam and out of Indo-China. It is a regrettable situation that the Western eagle is now being replaced by the Eastern vulture. This is already happening. The communist vultures are no longer merely hovering and watching from the heights, but have already found many perches from which they can prey. The vacuum is being rapidly and subtly filled. These are the facts which make our long coast-line and our national borders so important and so vulnerable, because those posts which were previously manned by the Western powers, were in reality our furthest defence posts for South Africa because we fit into the whole strategy. If I listen to threats in the council chambers of the world today, and especially to the militant African States with their cry of Black majority rule in the whole of Africa at all costs, even bloodshed, then it is clear that South Africa stands alone and will have to rely on its own abilities. For this the most effective Defence Force is necessary, a Defence Force which is prepared and mobile for land, air and maritime defence. For this it is also necessary that the most effective armaments be manufactured in South Africa itself. We need the most highly trained, best instructed and strongly motivated manpower. For this we definitely need more than the R948 million which was appropriated this year. For this we need more than 3,7% of the gross national product; for this we need at least 5% and more. I say this without fear of an opposition and I know that the people of South Africa will be willing to contribute this by means of taxation. We are a small nation. We must be correctly adjusted to and motivated for this large task of the defence of the tremendously long borders of this beautiful country of ours which must be defended against any onslaught from the north, the east, or from whatever direction this may come. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in the first instance I do not think that I should react in any way to the hysterical outburst of the hon. member for Cradock because I wish to establish détente here this afternoon with the hon. the Minister of Defence. I think that if I had to react to that onslaught we would only have another war on our hands. I am sure that the hon. the Minister does not join that hon. member in his feeling that we on this side of the House are in any way unpatriotic.

He did not say it.

He suggested it more than adequately. The hon. member for Marico asked: Why an army? To him I would say that I hope he does not think that we on this side of the House do not believe that there is any need for an army. I hope that he does not imagine that we do not share his sentiments because we do. Our concern is to be critical—and I hope, objectively so—of the fact that there could be a wastage and that if we are to spend enormous sums of money on the Defence Force of this country, if we are to spend about R1 010 million we would like to know that every cent of it is being spent effectively and is being put to the best possible use.

I feel it is incumbent upon me to draw the attention of this House to the position in respect of the young man who has obtained his academic qualifications but who still needs to spend a prescribed period of time on practical work so as to obtain his final qualifications; that is to say, before he is entitled to put up his plate. I am referring here mainly to university graduates. I am also referring to all the professions that are enumerated in this excellent little booklet that is sent out to all young men before they are called up for their national service. The booklet is entitled “Your National Service Explained”. I should like to comment on a few of the paragraphs contained in this booklet.

In the first instance, I should like to refer to paragraph 3 under the reasons for national service where it is stated—

I should like to suggest that after I have finished my address this afternoon, it might be agreed that this could possibly read—

Sir, I should like to look now at paragraph 7, where they say that if you serve tor either 18 or 24 months, you will not be called upon to attend any camps. Here I feel that the suitably academically trained young man, who hopes to be able to put up his plate as soon as he possibly can, would be foolish not to avail himself of the opportunity to do a minimum period of service of at least 18 months, because he would then obviate the difficulties that would arise if he had to attend five 19-day camps after only 12 months of voluntary service. Sir, in reply to the self-imposed question, “Should I go to varsity or tech, before or after national service?”, paragraph 52 says inter alia—

That speaks for itself. With your indulgence, Sir, I will now go back to paragraph 50 and read it in toto—

Sir, let us deal with a cross-section of these professions. Time, unfortunately, precludes us from a detailed study of them all, but I think a fair sample would be doctors, pharmacists, engineers, lawyers and—one that is not mentioned in the list—accountants. In the case of doctors, it is well known that the medical man spends six years at university attaining his M.B., Ch.B., before spending a year in a hospital for his housemanship. The pharmacist has to study for four years at one of the two universities in this country equipped for the training of pharmacists to obtain the degree of Bachelor of Science in Pharmacy, or for four years at a suitably equipped technical college before doing a year of practical work in the field of pharmacy. The engineer studies for four years for a Bachelor of Science (Engineering) degree, and then has to do three years’ practical work before he gets his Pr. Eng. Certificate and is considered to be a professional engineer. A lawyer has to study for five years for his B.A., L.L.B. and serve articles for two years before he can practise as an attorney. The accountant attains the degree of Bachelor of Commerce after three years at university and then has to serve articles for two years, and this is followed by an examination before he qualifies as a chartered accountant. As you can see, Sir, each of these professions requires practical experience of anything from one to four years before the young man concerned can claim to be fully qualified in the profession of his choice, and it is here that I wish to make an appeal to the Minister. I appeal to him to initiate discussions with the various professional councils in order that agreement may be reached that at least some, if not all, of the time spent by the degreed national servicemen actively engaged in the practical field of his chosen profession is credited towards the requirements of that profession. At the moment a doctor is only accepted into the armed forces after he has served his housemanship. I submit, Sir, that it would be fairer to accept him after he has completed his university education and to put him into an army hospital. Sir, if that hon. member over there has finished, I would like to complete my address to the Minister. The young man could then go into an army hospital and do his training there. If there is no room for him in the army hospitals, he could then, in terms of recent legislation, be seconded to provincial or other hospitals near a military camp, where he could not only serve the army but where he could certainly serve his country very effectively. The same applies to the pharmacist, but there appears to be some confusion about the pharmacist. I understand that there is the possibility that the pharmacist’s year in an army dispensary may be considered as acceptable as the year required to give him his MPS.

In regard to the engineers, I would like to isolate the civil engineer for the purposes of this discussion. He has to obtain a Pr. Eng. certificate before he is basically able to go out in on his own account as a suitably qualified professional engineer. This entails three years’ practical experience after his university career is completed. It cannot be denied that there must be more than enough scope in all the three arms of the service for these young men to put their university training to practical use and I feel that some of this period should be credited to the period required under the Pr. Eng. certificate regulations. The lawyers have a similar problem. One of my colleagues has suggested that as far as the lawyers are concerned, it is best to put them on the square, but I think that that would be grossly unkind. In the legal arm of the army we can use the lawyer who has to serve his two years’ articles, and during this time he could surely contribute his services meaningfully. The hon. member for Durban Point referred to the use of accountants for stock control. He made the point more than adequately.

I would like to add three thoughts for the Minister’s consideration in the hope that it will further encourage him to start negotiations along the lines that I have suggested.

I believe that the degreed man who goes in for his national service would be far happier doing so in the knowledge that his career will benefit from the practical experience he will gain and from the time he will save, and that he will therefore approach his period of service with enthusiasm, and, Sir, it is a truism that enthusiasm breeds success. I believe, secondly, that we will effect a better utilization of manpower, coupled with a saving of manpower hours, without any loss of efficiency or competence; and finally, I believe sincerely that by negotiation between the Ministry of Defence and the various professional councils in South Africa, we will achieve something from which only good can flow, good for the armed forces, good for the professions and good for South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Umhlanga dealt with training for the most part. I just want to say that the policy of the Defence Force to allow students first to complete their post-school training before commencing their national service, is generally welcomed. I do not want to comment any further on the hon. member’s speech. I am glad he did not deal with the Anglo-Boer War all over again, and I do not intend doing it either.

During the past year important strategic changes took place in the policies of certain African states as well as of countries elsewhere in the world. With the wise policy of détente the hon. the Prime Minister and his Government achieved a major breakthrough for greater tolerance, greater respect and greater understanding in Africa.

It is true that South Africa is being placed in the international limelight to an increasing extent. Cognizance is being taken of the real value the Republic of South, Africa has for the free world, and this is being appreciated to an increasing extent. Furthermore, there is our policy of separate development which, along the road of evolution, is in the process of succeeding internally and is enjoying wide interest in Africa and in the Western world. It also commands to an increasing extent the respect of many people in Africa. The progress which South Africa has made and the role it is playing in Africa, is of course not only noticed by the friends of South Africa, but as can be understood, also by the enemies of South Africa and for that reason it is to be expected that hostile action by communists or communist inspired elements will be intensified. The communist does not like to see change taking place through the process of evolution. In any evolusionary progress which takes place in South Africa and Africa he sees a threat to his ideal to bring about change by means of violent revolution. The enemies of South Africa are jealous of the progress which has been made and therefore intensified onslaughts from this quarter can be expected on every imaginable terrain in South Africa.

The hon. the Prime Minister launched a peace offensive in Africa, not out of fear, but from a position of power. To strengthen his hands, we must see to it that our Defence Force is kept strong. There are people in the world who understand only one language and that is the language of force and power. Therefore I say that it is important that the Defence Force of South Africa is kept strong. To be able to act efficiently, we always have to bear in mind three requisites, i.e. the acquisition and provision of equipment, the question of manpower and then, of course, a high standard of training for those men. In a climate of weapon boycotts the hon. the Minister of Defence and his department has seen to it that we are largely self-sufficient today as far as armaments are concerned. We are indeed proud of the achievements of our local armament industry in this regard. South Africa today possesses the most modern weapons in the world. We are grateful that we are living in a country that can afford to appropriate almost R1 000 million for defence. If we consider 1973-’74 in retrospect, we find that we spent R472 million on defence in that year, in other words, 2,6% of the gross national product. In 1974-75 the amount was R692 million, or 3,2% of our gross national product. Now, in 1975-76 it is R948 million, or 3,7% of our gross national product. It was mentioned previously that if we add the functions of other bodies such as Armaments Board, Armscor, the Department of Public Works and Community Development, we arrive at an amount of R989 million. The hon. member for Durban Point differs in this respect because he arrives at an amount of R1 010 million. However, I do not want to split hairs about the matter.

You are reading from the White Paper and I am reading from the Budget.

I had a look at both. After we have adjourned, we can make some calculations together. The point I want to make is that we are spending 4,1% of our gross national product here. I trust that, at the next Budget, we will be able to spend considerably more than 4% of our gross national product on the safety of all the people of South Africa. It is no use developing a country, and it is no use there being enormous growth, and industrial development in that country if that country is destroyed. Therefore, it is important that we should display this power and have a powerful Defence Force. However, we can have the best weapons one could have, but if we do not have the people to handle them, it serves no purpose. Therefore one is pleased that our men in the Defence Force are particularly well trained. When one comes into contact with these men one is particularly impressed by the enormously high, standard laid down for all the sections of the Defence Force. The potential of the manpower of our Defence Force is increased by the positive motivation of our soldiers. I found it quite striking yesterday when I asked a young man in the State President’s guard where they were off to this week and he replied: “You know, Sir, we are the first company to have the privilege of doing border service”. May it be that all our people are similarly motivated. I would like to ask our parents to decide today that they are also going to make a contribution by imbuing their sons and daughters with, the proper attitude. I am referring now to a willingness to serve South Africa, also in regard to their responsibility concerning the defence of the country. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I believe the hon. member for De Aar will not take it amiss of me if I do not react to his arguments, seeing that most of what he said was of a non-contentious nature.

As I understood the hon. the Minister of Defence, on different occasions in public and also last year in this House, he laid special emphasis on the fact that we should not make a party political football of defence. In fact, I recall what the previous Minister of Finance, now the State President, said last year when he referred to the fables of Aesop in his Budget Speech, to the story that one should not be too busy working in the field not to attend to the hedge. He used this story to explain that the Defence Force of a country, especially a country like South Africa, should be above suspicion as far as party politics are concerned. I, too, adopt this point of view. It is important that political parties should not try to make petty political capital out of the Defence Force or from Defence Force matters. More important still is that the Defence Force itself, the Defence Force as a whole and even in its smallest subdivision, should not be seen as being involved in party politics. If the Defence Force, even its smallest subdivision, is seen as being involved in party politics, it can have nothing but a dividing effect on our society, on the White society as well as on the White/Black society in South Africa.

I read the White Paper of the hon. the Minister with great interest and must say in all sincerity that it is an excellent piece of work. On the whole one gets a very good impression of the modernization which is taking place in the Defence Force and of the development which is taking place there. An interesting paragraph to me personally is paragraph 87, “Civic Guidance” under the heading “Personnel”, where the following is said—

Now, this paragraph in particular interested me. I then made enquiries at the department to find out what civic guidance entailed. I must say that they reacted to my request with great courtesy and speed. The instructional guide in connection with civic guidance was made available to me. The guide consists of two volumes compiled by the directorate of Civic Guidance and Leisure Time Utilization. It consists of lectures. I devoted a great deal of time to working through these two volumes and I must say in all sincerity that on the surface the subjects which are covered are ones which one expects people who undergo civic guidance will have to study. In general they are subjects which deal with people’s attitude towards citizenship. They are lectures on the preamble to the Constitution Act, on the code of honour of the soldier, on education and citizenship, codes of conduct at flying our national flag, patriotism, our national holidays, etc. In addition there are lectures on ecology, on the Bantu of South Africa, the Coloureds, a bird’s-eye view of the world, the necessity of nature conservation, etc., in other words more or less the same as what was mentioned by the hon. member for Umhlanga as aspects of national service and what it all meant. There is also a chapter on the State as political organization, on political parties and elections and by-elections in which the structure of the State is explained. On the surface it looks as though these are essential subjects in a study of civic guidance. However, I regret, having to say that I cannot but draw the conclusion that there is an enormous lack of objectivity, especially in respect of certain subjects. Indeed, it would be possible for me to go so far as to say that the way in which certain subjects are dealt with, especially subjects in connection with the political parties, the Bantu in South Africa and the Coloured population, leaves one no alternative but to draw the conclusion that this guide is prejudiced and, to a certain extent propagandists in favour of the Nationalist Party. [Interjections.] In order to prove this statement I shall read out a few quotations from these documents. If hon. members are of the opinion that I am quoting out of context they may come and read this for themselves. Under the title “Political Parties and Policies” the following is said on page 50 (paragraph 27)—

This issue is the issue of race relations and multi-nationality—

What page?

Page 50, volume 2.I continue—

And then in paragraph 29—

[Interjections.] Now we come to the other parties. I read further (paragraph 30)—

Then the following is said in paragraph 31—

Then it becomes a bit more sinister and the following is said in paragraph 32—

Then, however, the following is said—

There is a very clear distinction in the approach which is expressed here in respect of the Nationalist Party as a political party and that in respect of the Opposition parties in this House. That is not all. The implication is further that the point of view which is put in favour of the Nationalist Party, is not only the point of view of the Nationalist Party but the point of view of South Africa. I say this, because a little later, on page 62, the following question is put. Under the heading “Policies in respect of the Bantu” the question is put—

They say there are only two. One, they say, is assimilation and the other is integration. In respect of another little question which seems quite innocent and which reads (page 63)—

the following answer is given—

The next question is: “How will this happen?” The answer is—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Rondebosch paid us the compliment of saying that we have done outstanding work in respect of civic guidance. I can just tell him that experts are being used and that I have no objection to the statements which are made in this document. What is more, as long as I am the Minister concerned, this will be continued. That is the truth. If Bantu, Coloureds and Whites are grouped together in one society and attain equal rights—whether gradually or immediately—it must lead to one common State.

That is not the policy of the United Party.

It will avail the hon. member nothing to try to create mistrust in respect of these lectures, because the youth who come to the army to do national service, have all the newspapers at their disposal. They get the Progressive Party’s newspapers as well, because these are also in the reading rooms. They are quite intelligent enough to make their own choice. In the discussion of these matters, they are completely prepared to express an opinion themselves on what is true and what is not true. That is an objective view and I say that a soldier who is not motivated to fight for South Africa and a soldier who is not purposeful, does not have a hope of helping to establish an effective Defence Force. The hon. member can decide which one of the two he wants. He can decide whether he wants to adhere to his first congratulation or whether he wants to question our methods. As long as this Government is in office, we shall continue with these methods.

The hon. member for Umhlanga made an outstanding speech in this House and I want to congratulate him on it.

†I want to tell him that I shall go into the matter and that I shall see what can be done to carry out his suggestions, if they have not been carried out already. I am informed that in respect of certain categories of professions, such as the engineering profession, the practice is already being applied.

*I have been informed that in 1974, 19 engineers with B.Sc. degrees and one with a diploma reported for national service. In the July intake, there were ten with degrees and one with a diploma. In 1975, there were 16 with degrees as against six with diplomas and in the July intake 11 with degrees as against nine with diplomas. They are being used in a professional capacity and the S.A. Council for Professional Engineers is already giving recognition to such people. If this does not happen in respect of other professions, I think it is something that ought to happen. I want to thank the hon. member for his positive approach.

Perhaps I should begin with a few general statements. Before I come to these, there are two matters which I want to rectify immediately. I have much appreciation for the hon. member for Durban Point when he philosophizes as he did on defence policy. I like listening to him. But he can never resist the temptation to call the administration of the Department of Defence in question or express misgivings in regard to it. Let me mention two examples. Apparently the hon. member has suddenly heard somewhere about the ship Tafelberg and that there is something which ought to be investigated.

I put a question about it as long ago as 1972.

The fact of the matter is that the Tafelberg was bought at a price of R1 100 000. Then there were conversion costs of R1 290 000. The cost of the major repair work which had to be done, was R1 780 000, while the cost of anticorrosion maintenance came to R450 000. That gives a total of R4 625 000 which the Tafelberg has cost us so far.

However, the Tafelberg is not just a tanker as the hon. member alleges. It is far more than a tanker. It has been converted so that it can serve as a supply ship. Therefore, it is far more than just a tanker. The Tafelberg transports fuel and diesel oil, carries ammunition, provisions and water. In this way there are various services which it renders. If we were to buy a new ship of the size of the Tafelberg today, it would cost us R31,5 million, according to our latest calculations. That is what it would cost us to replace the Tafelberg with a new ship. It is true that we do have a new Tafelberg in mind for which we have included in our future programme, but now is not the right time for that. Since we have been able to buy, convert and maintained the Tafelberg up till now for R4,5 million, I think this was a far better business transaction than it would have been to have spent R31,5 million on a new ship, as my hon. friend has suggested.

How much would it cost to buy a good secondhand tanker and convert it?

You have heard what it costs. We now have such a ship which we can maintain. Even if we spend another R2 million on it, this would only give a total of R6 million, which is far from R31,5 million. I do not know why we should buy another tanker if we already have one which we have converted. The hon. member should not pay any attention to gossip. He should obtain his information either at my office or at the office of the Chief of the Defence Force. Then he will not fall into such traps.

I want to give a second example of the sort of thing he is now saying. The hon. member says he has heard of large scale resignations of senior staff members at Atlas. What are the facts? Atlas was a private industry. Then the State decided to make Atlas a subsidiary of the Armaments Development Corporation by means of shares. Of course, like any aircraft industry, Atlas had its growing pains. Through the services of people which we have obtained for the management and the board of directors, we have, however, succeeded in getting a board of directors and a management in charge of Atlas which is amongt the best in the country. I want to mention two examples in this connection. I want to mention the chairman of Atlas, namely Dr. Wim de Villiers, whose competence will surely not be doubted by any hon. member in this House. There is also Dr. Knoll, who is a member of the board of directors. He plays a major role in Seifsa. He is one of our major industrialists. We also have a general manager of outstanding calibre at Atlas. As a result of efficiency studies made on Atlas’s instructions and effectivity processes which it introduced and with which I was involved and concerning which I have been fully informed by these prominent people, Atlas reached a point where they were able to attain greater efficiency and productivity while reducing their staff. Now is that wrong? In the second place, they found positions in the Armscor group for those of their staff whom they could use elsewhere. They also got rid of the incompetent people in a fair way. That is only right.

How many were there?

We discharged far more than 43. I want to tell the hon. member that this parliament passed an Act in which certain provisions were laid down unanimously by this Parliament. Those provisions which we laid down, stipulated how a person who felt that he had been unjustly treated in Atlas’s services, should deal with the situation. Under those provisions, he could take steps in terms of the Act to obtain justice. He need not run to the hon. member for Durban Point. Those provisions were laid down in that Act by this Parliament. I am surprised that the hon. member pays any heed to one or two people who tattle to him. He should have advised them to make use of the machinery which this Parliament has created. The hon. member helped to create that machinery. Today Atlas is an efficient organization. I am not saying this on the basis of my own observations. I am saying this on the basis of the opinions of experts whom we have brought here from abroad. I do not want to mention any names. They are distinguished experts who hold positions of leadership in the aircraft industry of various countries. They congratulated us on the efficiency at Atlas. We would not have been able to succeed in speeding up the programme and building the Impala II, which we now have in the air—which the Chief of the Air Force was able to announce the other day—and in reaching this ad-advanced stage, unless there was efficiency at Atlas. Nor would we have been able to conclude other contracts with other manufacturers which will result in even more sophisticated aircraft for South Africa. The hon. member must not make statements of this kind which are not based on facts. I do not take offence if he has real criticism. It is his right. However, he must not make statements prejudicial to establishments of this nature. Atlas’s reputation, in particular, should be treated very carefully, because Atlas has to negotiate with foreign bodies. If the hon. member creates this impression through irresponsible statements which he makes here, then he harms Atlas and South Africa. What the hon. member said there is not true and I have to reprimand him. Such behaviour does not become him.

Sir, the hon. member for South Coast apparently did not read what was stated in the White Paper at all. He did not read what was in the brochure of the Armaments Board at all. According to him, there is no training in the defence Force context or in the defence set-up. Sir, we are spending R500 000 annually on class fees for higher technical training at technical colleges, but this hon. member states here that no training is taking place. We should send him to a technical college.

Or a preparatory school.

Or to a preparatory school. What is more. Sir, we have agreements. Special measures are adopted for training people for the Air Force. We are giving people special training for the Army and for the Navy. Hon. members should go and see what we are doing here at Wingfield, then they need not have day dreams like the hon. member for South Coast. Sir, at Atlas we are training at least between 800 and 1 000 young men every year. We have wonderful hostels there; we have wonderful training establishments there. We are busy rendering a service to South Africa, for not all those people remain there. Why do we not emphasize these positive things, instead of standing here and unburdening themselves of trivialities which have neither sense nor direction. In spite of the fact that we all profess to agree to the amount which is being made available for the defence of South Africa, I regret to say that false notes have been heard in South Africa from individuals and from certain bodies who wanted to kick up a tremendous fuss about the billion rands which is being spent on defence. If we look at the latest summary, viz. that of 1973, of the Military Balance, a U.S.A. publication, then we find that Israel spends $1 310 per capita of the population on defence, the U.S.A. $377, Russia $134, the United Kingdom $155, the Netherlands $156, Australia $144, France $162, and the Republic of South Africa $28. In the light of these figures it is surely not right to try to create the impression that such a tremendous amount is being spent on defence in South Africa. The defence expenditure in South Africa as a percentage of the total State budget, places South Africa virtually at the bottom of this list. In other words, there is no truth in the allegation that South Africa spends excessively on its defence.

What is the figure?

Twenty-eight. That is the latest figure which is available. It might be a little higher now, but not much.

The hon. member for Durban Point presented us once again with a story he has raised here before: Is there control? Why do we not use these people, instead of sending them to camps for 19 days, to do auditing work or to maintain our stores for us? Oh, Sir, surely it is not as easy as all that. Surely the hon. member knows that it is not all that easy. Surely the hon. member knows, because he went with me to all these places, and he also knows because he is constantly receiving information, that we are establishing a properly programmed system of control over everything in the Defence Force.

But can’t you use them for that?

I shall come in a moment to the use of national servicemen. But in the first place, I want to say that there is proper control. The person who says that there is no proper control in the Defence Force, is talking nonsense. In a large organization such as the Defence Force, mistakes may creep in, and the Controller and Auditor-General may point out a slight discrepancy here or there, but in general, there is complete control over the utilization of funds and supplies. That is a statement which the hon. member cannot dispute. It is wrong to bring the country under the impression that there is no control. I say it is wrong, because proper control measures in the Defence Force are placed under close scrutiny. I want to point out one aspect of the defence Budget, viz. the large increase under item R as compared to item S. I should like to say a word about this, because there should be no misunderstanding about this, about the enormous amount which now appears under R, in contrast to what it was previously under S. In terms of Act No. 8 of 1952, an account for the purchase of special defence equipment was established. The aim of the account was basically to make funds available for the purchase of principal arms equipment as needed and when available. The allocation of funds for this purpose appeared under item R. With the establishment of the Armaments Board in 1964, the funds were systematically provided under item S to enable this board to carry out its functions, and funds were placed on item R for maintenance purposes. With the view to greater efficiency and more effective financial control, the Treasury recommended that the funds be centralized into one account, viz. the Special Defence Account. At the same time an authorizing committee was established which consists of the Minister of Defence, the Minister of Finance, the Chief of the S.A. Defence Force, the president of the Armaments Board and the Controller of the S.A. Defence Force, who, with his whole staff, maintains control over this matter and who is subject to continual auditing to control expenditure from the Special Defence Account in terms of the provisions of the Act. In other words, there is efficiency as a result of legislation which was passed here in 1974, and steps have been taken to see that there is control on the part of the Treasury, the Defence Force and the Armaments Board.

The hon. member went further and referred to the question of salaries. Sir, I have the figures here and I am prepared to let the hon. members have them. I should not like to make salaries of members of the Defence Force known in public. However, I want to say this, that fantastic improvements have been made in all ranks as far as salaries and remuneration are concerned. The hon. member has a large part of the information on the Citizen Force and the commandos before him, and he knows that we do not like publishing this, but that there have been tremendous improvements. He knows that in the Permanent Force we have not only introduced large scale improvements in the salaries, but large scale improvements in the (pension benefits as well. We have decided recently to effect parity between the Defence Force and the Police from 1 April of this year in respect of pension benefits. I think it is wrong to create the impression the hon. member tried to create, viz. that we do look after the interests of these people.

That was not my argument.

If the hon. member will look at the Defence Budget, he will see that the increase in salaries and wages amounts to R27 million, rations and clothes are R35 million and labour saving devices R2½ million. Therefore the individual and his interests are being looked after. I have here a long summary of what we are doing to acquire single and married quarters. Therefore we are looking after people’s interests. Although we cannot do everything overnight, nevertheless I think that we have already made great progress.

In this connection, I should like to raise another point as well. Among some members of the public, the impression exists that, if the Government endeavours to bring about détente and relaxation of tension, as the Government is in fact doing now under the effective leadership of the Prime Minister, they can now sit back and almost neglect the country’s defence. However, I want to make the statement today that there is no contradiction in a policy of relaxation of tension, on the one hand, and the establishment of deterrents in the defence of one’s country, on the other hand. The ratio and relationship between all these things is sound. That is why the State President said in his opening address to Parliament at the beginning of the year—

I should like to quote another witness, and I do not think that anyone can doubt the importance of this witness. I refer to the speech made by the Secretary for Defence of the United States of America on 5 February 1975. It provides one with much insight to read what he said in this connection. He refers to falacious arguments which people have previously employed in connection with defence in America, and said—

I offer that for the consideration of hon. members. What applies here and what is the judgment of Mr. Schlesinger—speaking for the particular position of the United States—can be applied to South Africa in much the same way, although on a smaller scale, viz. that détente, the ability to establish deterrents, and the defence of one’s country are very closely connected with one another in an equilibrium in regard to other states. I am quoting this because I can think of nothing better as an answer to those people who want to sit back and abolish the Defence Force the moment the peace bells ring. In the world of today, that is foolish.

I should like to refer to a few other matters. The hon. member for Durban Point asked what we are doing to overcome the manpower shortage. Surely there is no organization in South Africa today which does not have a shortage of trained manpower. What have we done in this regard? In the first place, we have begun to use women on a large scale in posts where we were able to dispense with men. We have begun to train women as officers in various directions where they could replace men— in the Navy, in the Air Force and in the Army. There are a few hundred of them today who are filling posts which would otherwise had to be filled by men, and we are continuing with this. In the second place, we have begun, to a greater extent to make use of the Coloured population on a voluntary basis. We have been successful in this. The training ship S.A.S Protea is manned by Coloureds. The crew was trained in Scotland. They behaved themselves so well that the commander of the ship told me that he could not have expected better behaviour from anybody. Furthermore, we also restored the Cape Coloured Corps to its full status. I have held out the prospect that our minesweepers should be manned by Coloureds. Consequently we have also made a start with that. The minesweeper Walvis Bay has recently been provided with a crew of which a large proportion are Coloureds. They are doing excellent work.

That brings me to the matter about which I also want to say a few words this afternoon before I give hon. members another chance. I want to make the position very clear so that there should be no doubt as to how we are going to utilize our non-Whites, i.e. Coloureds, Indians and Bantu, in a defence force context. If there is one thing through which we can cause unrest to be unleashed in this country, it is the start the starting of agitations in regard to this matter. I amended the Schedule to the Defence Act recently, with the help of other hon. members, and I am grateful for that. In one of the Sunday newspapers I notice that some stupid little girl or other decided to write something about that. She knows absolutely nothing about defence, but now she has to blow her own trumpet about this thing which is being removed from our Defence Act for the first time now. So what? It has been removed. In regard to matters such as these we should be careful. Members of the Coloured community are being trained by means of a system of voluntary national service within the content of the Cape Corps. They can advance to the rank of non-commissioned officer, to warrant officer, and at present a number of officers are also being trained, who will receive their commissions soon. As I have said, some of them are already in service on the Protea and on the Walvis Bay. The same, we hope, will eventually apply to the Indian Corps with which a start has been made. As far as Bantu are concerned, I want to say that one cannot decide today that one is going to use Bantu in the Defence Force and find tomorrow that one no longer has them, in exactly the same way as one cannot do this with any other population group. First of all a start has to be made with the training of instructors, with which we have accordingly begun. We are doing this thoroughly. Within the Defence Force content in the territory of White South Africa a support service corps will be established in which Bantu will be able to advance to the rank of warrant officer. They will be used for guard duties and other auxiliary duties. The present casual utilization of Bantu will take shape more clearly within this support service corps. Bantu sections will be added to certain commandos—and I am not prepared to say which commandos—with the help of those commandos. This has been approved by the Cabinet, and therefore, what I am announcing here, is Government policy.

Then the homelands remain. There must not be any doubt about them either. To begin a Defence Force for any country and to maintain it, is an expensive transaction. It would be wrong of the homelands to spend all their money or utilize it arbitrarily for the establishment or maintenance of Defence Forces. This should happen gradually. There are some of our homeland leaders who are eager to let their peoples play a part in the safeguarding of South Africa’s borders, and that should be appreciated. Therefore a start will be made with a home guard in the homelands concerned, after proper consultations with, them have taken place. The idea which I have— it can still be changed—is that we should begin with small units which, are used at ceremonial occasions and can serve as small infantry units. At the same time they can be trained to perform military engineering operations. In other words, they can make a positive contribution to development. For some time, this will have to be done under White officers, because it is not child’s play to train non-White officers. In this regard I also want to say that proper agreements will have to be concluded when these Black states become independent, agreements in connection with fundamental matters such as overflying rights, anti-communistic action and protection of their own territories against offering possible access to South Africa for hostiles. These will be laid down when those homelands become independent. I am happy to be able to say that as far as the Transkei is concerned, consultations have already taken place between the Chief Minister and the Chief of the Defence Force and the Chief of the Army. In this connection I should like to read a letter which the Chief Minister wrote to the Commissioner-General as recently as 10.4.74. In this letter, the following is said:

In other words, we are liaising with this Government in a responsible way. This must take place gradually, and I am stating here in public that it is my firm conviction that when these homelands are established in their full character, it will be imperative for Southern Africa that they will occupy a position within the military milieu of the Republic of South Africa and not outside the military milieu of the Republic of South Africa. These are the things which are causing us to move in this direction. I hope that in this regard we shall convey a spirit of unanimity throughout the country, and that party-political capital will not be made from this, because these matters are delicate. I do not say that it will be done by members of this House, but there are people in this country who will take advantage of anything. We can do this in a responsible, sensible and gradual way and we can do so in such a way that we shall give added strength to the security of the whole of Southern Africa. I hope that we will obtain co-operation. Finally, I want to advocate that the implementation of this matter—except for the principles which I have laid down—should rather be left in the hands of experienced Defence Force people themselves because they are people who know how to apply it without causing friction and tension. I think that I have said enough as far as this matter is concerned.

Then I come to another question. I think that it was the hon. member for Cradock who put questions to me on this specific matter. In the past, tremendously high discharge fees have applied to members of the Permanent Force who wanted to buy their discharges. As hon. members know, I cannot give the full particulars here. I have a long list here and it would bore hon. members. The amounts which certain members of the Permanent Force had to pay to be able to resign, were in some cases as much as R4 400. The Rieckert Committee, which investigated this matter at the special request of the Cabinet, recommended certain changes. It gives me great pleasure to announce that the Cabinet has approved the recommendations of the Rieckert Committee. Consequently, the different and diverse scales of discharge fees which are applicable at the moment, are being done away with. The highest scale will now be R200. Compared with the discharge fee for privates at the moment, the proposed amendments will create a far more realistic state of affairs, which will be comparable with the position of members of the S.A. Police. It is expected that the new scale will stimulate the recruitment campaign of the Defence Force to a very great extent and will also result in apprentices and artisans who are deterred by the present high discharge fees, will be more inclined to join the Defence Force.

What of the highly trained technicians?

This applies to everyone. All the discharge fees have been reduced. I should prefer to make a complete scale available to the hon. member on a subsequent occasion.

†In conclusion I want to say, that there are other points with which I shall deal later. We went out of our way to provide hon. members with the White Paper and with the brochure on the Armaments Board which appeared after the 10th, birthday of the board. I believe that with that information which we have made available, we have replied to a great extent to most of the questions in hon. members’ minds. After this debate has been concluded tomorrow, I shall also have every hon. member’s speech scrutinized and if there are any questions to which, I have not replied, I shall do so—as I usually do—by writing to the hon. members concerned.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the attitude of the hon. the Minister that he will furnish written replies at the end of the discussion of his Vote to any outstanding questions. But I want to say that I found the initial reaction of the hon. the Minister to the various extracts I quoted here disturbing, to say the least. The implication of what the hon. Minister said, i.e., that he accepted every word I quoted as the truth, is simply that there is no need for party politics and political quarrels in South, Africa. The implication is that that side of the House has already furnished the full answer and that we on this side are merely an addendum which is here for the pleasure of hon. members. I presume that this is the implication of the hon. Minister’s point of view. But then I want to go further and ask the hon. Minister whether he also agrees with these lectures in which it is said that democratic opposition is really part of undermining and subversion.

The hon. member for Mooi River said so the other day.

Does the hon. Minister agree that democratic opposition in party politics, where it opposes the policy of the Government, forms part of subversion?

Read again what it says there.

I do so with pleasure. Under the heading “Subversion” , it says—this is on page 34 of volume 2—

With regard to the organization level it is stated—

With regard to Government level it is stated—

And also—

I can appreciate that this is part of the tactics, but if this is not explained, it means that what I am doing at the moment, can be regarded as subversion.

Oh, come now!

But that is exactly what it says here. I can go further and quote various extracts where the impression is created deliberately that opposition political parties are quite illogic, that they pursue quite a wrong policy.

That is so.

… and that their policy will lead to bloodshed. It is a question of party political differences. It is a question of political persuasion and not a fact. I want to say that I have no objection in principle to civic guidance. I have no objection either to people being given lectures or that lectures on various aspects of the social sciences are given on rather delicate subjects such as racial relationships, or the Bantu or Coloureds. As a matter of fact, I have attended lectures at the military academy at Saldanha myself and I was impressed by the variety of people who went there to give lectures. But where it is made the ideal to “motivate every person in uniform, especially the young serviceman, to cultivate a positive approach towards citizenship” and this is the information he is furnished with, what must a young man whose sympathies lie with the Opposition, feel like when he enters the Defence Force and this kind of information is furnished to him as factual? What must he feel like when he is told that the policies in which, he believes and which he practises in a peaceful and quite legal, democratic way in the political life of South Africa, are nonsensical and may lead to bloodshed? What must he feel like when he is blatantly told that the Government has the right or a realistic policy, that the Government should be supported and that criticism of the Government may in effect also mean that one takes part in subversion and undermining? I can well believe that the hon. Minister himself has said that he does not accept it either. He has even said in this House that he appreciates criticism, and that he appreciates it when the Opposition puts its point of view, but now the hon. Minister says that is not so, and that one is not allowed to put one’s point of view.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question? Would you just tell the House what the heading of the lecture is you are referring to?

With pleasure. I have quoted various chapters …

The one on page 34 of volume 2.

The heading there is “The threat to spiritual preparedness with special reference to subversion”.

Is anything said there about the Progressive Party?

Is the Progressive Party an opposition party in South Africa which criticizes the policy of the Government? Is the Progressive Party a party which adopts the attitude in the South African politics that we do not support separate development and that we do not believe that a solution can be found for the political problems of South Africa, by establishing separate states as is being envisaged by the Government? If so, we and our children and our young people have the right to participate in an unbiased manner in the Defence Force of South Africa. We should not be subject to a situation where we have to accept that what is being advocated is the truth, and that no criticism may be expressed. Therefore I say again that I am not against the principle of civic guidance. As a matter of fact, I think the hon. Minister can make use of a wide variety of experts to assist with the compilation of lectures of this nature. I say this because I am aware of the problems of objectivity especially in the social sciences and because I am aware that it may arouse feelings, that it may excite and annoy people if they have to read about or listen to delicate human matters from only one point of view. Therefore I say that if there has to be civic guidance, there should be control in some way or other as regards the kind of lectures given about race relationships or group relationships in South Africa. I want to say in passing that hon. members can also read what is said about the Bantu. Not one word is said about the urban Bantu. What is being said about the Bantu, seems to me to be rather old fashioned. As far as the Coloureds are concerned, all that is said is that it is the ideal to work for one’s own people, that the Coloureds are a people in the making that will eventually have to become a nation. That is what is being said about the Coloureds. But that is a political controversy and not a fact. As I have said, I want to prevent at all costs that it be suggested that political controversies become part of the training in the Defence Force. If this happens, it will be impossible to discuss defence matters in this House on a basis of consensus, as has been said by the hon. member for Bloemfontein West.

Mr. Chairman, it was too good to be true that the hon. member for Rondebosch should have started his first speech in this discussion by saying that he agreed with the hon. the Minister’s approach and that we should keep politics out of the Defence Force. He saw fit to raise two aspects of civic guidance here today and, in fact, to display his entire party’s negative approach to national preparedness with regard to this matter.

The first issue he seized on was the fact that the National Party Government is dealt with in detail in this instructional guide. I say “National Party Government” because the National Party governs this country. The National Party Government’s policy has been dealt with in detail. I want to ask the hon. member whether he can tell me what the United Party’s Bantu policy is? Does he know what it is?

Yes.

Can he spell it out?

Yes.

But it changes from day to day! He himself is revising his own party’s policy at the moment. Is that not true? Has the hon. member completed his revision of his party’s colour policy? [Interjections.] The Slabbert Commission is still sitting and it may be that the recommendations of the Slabbert Commission will be changed on the basis of negotiations with the Reformists. In other words, he does not know what his policy is. But that does not matter. On the one hand one has a party that has been governing the country for 27 years and that is giving specific content to a way of life in this country. That is Government policy. The Government of the day may expound it in this way. [Interjections.] I challenge that hon. member to show us one instance of incorrect reporting of Government policy in-this document. We are giving content to it in such a way that any other upstart party such as the one sitting before me, if they were ever to come to power, would not, in any event, change the position.

There is another aspect. I refer to the second matter he raised in regard to subversion. I must honestly say that I do not understand his argument.

That does not surprise us in the least.

The hon. member himself knows that their arguments are so confused that they themselves cannot understand them. Where is Helen Suzman? Why does she not take a part in this policy? She disagrees entirely with the Defence budget.

On page 34 of this instructional guide we find the heading “The Threat to Spiritual Preparedness with special reference to Subversion”. The “subversion” is defined as follows—

What is wrong with that? There are other headings, too, but the specific heading to which the hon. member for Rondebosch referred appears on page 34. In paragraph 6 on page 34 they state—

Is there anything wrong with that? Surely that is penetration; that is what subversion is. It is infiltration and penetration, to such an extent that they are able to undermine at a later stage. The guide continues—

Is that not correct? However that is not to say that it is necessarily the Progressive Party’s policy. These are general statements. However, the analogy and the statement inferred from this by the hon. member for Rondebosch, viz. that democracy is subversive, are not in here. Where are they in this book? They are not here. Will the hon. member show me where this is stated in this guide? It is a well-known modus operandi of Communism to penetrate existing organizations and parties and undermine them from within, and not only parties, but churches and University Christian Movements, etc., as well. That is not a secret in this country. If the hon. members of that party think we are so naïve as to be unable to see this or not to have analysed this in the finest detail at this stage, then they should rather make way for others in this Parliament.

Who is penetrating you?

No, we are strong enough. I see that hon. member is back in the House. On Saturday he lost his way somewhere between the church and the Parade, but fortunately one of the other hon. members assisted him in time. Probably he fell out of his “pram”. This guide goes on to state—

That is one of the acknowledged methods of Communism. What is wrong with what is stated on page 34 in regard to the Government plan? There is nothing wrong with that.

I had wanted to discuss other matters in the short time I have to speak under this Vote, but now I have virtually no time left for that. I want to tell the hon. member for Rondebosch that my knowledge of Communism—I, too, know a little about it—and my knowledge of subversion, the training I have had in this regard and the research I have carried out, compel me to say that I can find no fault whatsoever with any of these statements.

You believe your own propaganda.

You don’t, of course. That is the difference.

Mr. Chairman, that party as it sits there has a negative outlook towards the Nationalist Government’s entire defence programme. It does not want South Africa to have a Defence Force that can defend it at all times and at all places against any attacker. [Interjections.]

In the last few minutes at my disposal I should like to discuss the involvement of our people in our national defence programme as a whole, in our national preparedness as a whole. If a people thinks that it can leave the defence of its country to its Minister of Defence, to the Chief of the Defence Force and to the soldiers and the national servicemen, then that people’s cause is already lost. It has been proved on innumerable occasions that an army must have a people behind it, a people with the will that that army should win and which is with that army in spirit in pursuing the struggle. Sir, it has been proved on innumerable occasions that a passive, unmotivated people that is weary of life is unable to inspire an army in any way. I think that in the week that is past we were able to take cognizance of this once again. I want to plead that in our approach to national service—those of us who have completed our national service and those of us who will probably not become involved in national service again, and here I have in mind parents, teachers and clergymen and politicians, too—should at all times positively motivate our national servicemen or those who are still to perform their national service, those who are undergoing training and those who are doing border service. I think that in the first place, we should consider staying in constant contact with the men in the camps and on the border, or wherever they may be, through correspondence, through gift parcels and through radio messages. In the second place, if one has a chance meeting with a national serviceman in uniform one can tell him, “Man, I am proud of you; I am proud to see you wearing this uniform.” Or we can give them a friendly wave as we drive past, or we could even give him a lift if we feel that we can take him safely to his destination. I wonder whether it is not time for our existing women’s organizations to consider forming a section in their respective organizations to see to this aspect and in particular, too, to see to the families and particularly the wives and children of men doing border service.

Sir, I think the hon. member for Waterkloof reacted very effectively to the statements and allegations made here by the hon. member for Rondebosch. I want to add that the hon. member for Durban Point should stop being so sensitive now when the word “patriotism” is used. Last week I used the word in another debate and tried to provide him with a definition of what we understand by the word “patriotism”. It has a much broader meaning than just the one meaning of taking up arms for one’s country. The hon. member had better go and read that definition again and be less sensitive when we use the word. Sir, a short time ago the hon. the Minister rightly said that there are people in this country who say that this money that is being spent on defence could have been used to much better effect. The hon. member for Hillbrow said this too. Sir, it is true. We could have used the money to better effect if there had only been doves in the world and not hawks as well. Unfortunately, there are people who look without seeing and who hear without listening and who do not want to see the hawks that are looking at South Africa with avaricious eyes. I could not emphasize this better than by quoting just one short sentence from page 4 of the White Paper, in which we are told—

That is why it has been necessary for us to spend large sums on defence in recent years and that, too, is why we are requesting a large sum for defence this year, because a strong defence force is a guarantee of security, security for those of us who live within the borders of our country, but security and peace for Southern Africa too, because I am sure that if South Africa had not built up a strong defence force over the years, then we should undoubtedly have found in the past that some militant political adventurer would have tried to carry out some kind of raid on South Africa. In the second place, Sir, it was also stated here very clearly, yesterday and the day before, that our defence force is a vital factor in the effort of our Government to normalize the situation in Southern Africa, because with this strong defence force we tell the world, with the hon. the Prime Minister, that what he is trying to do, he is not doing from a position of weakness or of fear, but from a position of strength.

Sir, whereas Parliament is being asked to vote an amount of almost R1 000 million for defence, permit me, too, to discuss for a moment the man who heads this organization, the man on whom rests the final and ultimate responsibility for the secure protection of South Africa against outside enemies. Sir, I am not going to use flattery. When I discuss the political head of this department, then I do so with sincerity because he has been at the head of this department for nine years already, and I think it is time for South Africa to take note with gratitude of his share in establishing the Defence Force as we know it today Sir, in the political head of our Defence Force we have a balanced man of integrity, a disciplined, religious South African and in addition, a man who does not know the meaning of fear. For years, Sir, a task of persuasion has been performed by this head of the Defence Force, or by the military chiefs in consultation with the political head of this department. To convince South Africa, and they have succeeded in convincing everyone in South Africa that for the purposes of our defence we must stand together in what he describes as a total strategy.

In this regard we were also grateful to hear yesterday, through the hon. member for Piketberg and other hon. members, of the partnership that exists between the State and the private sector. Sir, the hon. member for Rondebosch dealt the department a backhanded blow and maintained, indirectly perhaps, that politics had been dragged into the Defence Force. I think we can say that the political head of our Defence Force has never introduced party politics into the Defence Force, but that through his objectives, ideals and loyal actions he has made the Defence Force in South Africa a unifying force, rather than a divisive factor. Consequently I think we owe him our sincere thanks. Large sums of money are being requested here, Sir, but this, too, I want to say of this man: He has never been alarmist. He has often told us that we should be aware of danger; that we should not sit back and think that there are no problems, but he has never yet sounded the alarm. He has never yet misled his voters. He has never yet tried to present to us a false picture of security, but nor has he ever hesitated to talk to us frankly and emphatically when it has been necessary to do so.

Sir, I was on the Parade last Saturday when soldiers of the various population groups were marching there. The hon. the Minister has been as good as his word in that he wants to involve the other population groups, too, in our Defence Force in order to give them, too, a chance to assist in the defence of South Africa. I am grateful to be able to support this. I am pleased that he is involving the various population groups in our national security in a dynamic and meaningful way.

Earlier this afternoon, Sir, reference was made to the conditions of service of our Defence Force. Why, Sir, do we have a happy Defence Force? In my opinion one of the major causes, apart from others I have mentioned, is that the political head of this department has played his part through the years in improving the conditions of service and housing and other facilities of our men in the defence force.

There is another point which I find important and I should be much obliged if the hon. the Minister could say something more about this in his reply to us tomorrow. It concerns civil defence. The idea of civil defence originated with him. I really think that it is time for an appeal to be made to all our local authorities to display a greater degree of motivation in this regard because civil defence is very important in these times we are living in. Sir, we know the national service system. It was not his creation, but this fine section of our defence force has been developed under his guidance and initiative. During his national service, every young man is not only given military training and trained to deal with an emergency, should one arise, but may also learn true citizenship, even though the hon. member for Rondebosch thinks that we are expounding party politics to the young man.

To conclude, I want to say that in the Armaments Organization we have a fine organization. What would we in South Africa have done without that organization and its subsidiaries? Again I want to say that in my opinion, South Africa can also say to this political head of our defence force that we are grateful and proud of what he has done in this regard and of what that organization is today. To conclude, therefore, I want to say this. I think that we, as the House of Assembly, will unanimously say to the hon. the Minister: Take this money you are asking, use it, and by so doing give South Africa a steadily growing security policy. It is the prayer of all of us that this war machine that is being built up will never have to be set in operation, but we also want to say that the world must know, and our enemies must know, that if our security were to be threatened, if there were to be anyone so foolish as to seek military confrontation with us, South Africa stands united to fight to the last drop of blood for the security of its children.

Mr. Chairman, there has been a lot of talk about what a Defence Force does in times of emergency and what is required of it in order to defend us, but right at the outset I would like to express thanks to the services for what they have done when South Africa has been faced with natural disasters in times of peace and when they have contributed in order to make our lot an easier one. I think that contribution should not be overlooked, even though obviously it is not the major function of our defence forces.

Sir, those of us who sit in these benches often talk about bringing about changes in South Africa, but we believe that change in South Africa must be brought about by peaceful means and constitutional means, and we also believe that you can only bring about changes in South Africa if actually you are strong and you are able to control the situation and to bring about changes at a time when you are speaking and operating from strength. For that reason we have no difficulty whatsoever in saying not only that we believe in the defence of South Africa from the point of view of ordinary South Africans who want their country to be defended, but that it is absolutely vital to the future of South Africa, not only for the protection of our physical being, but to enable us to change our society into the form in which we want it, for us to be militarily strong. One of the factors which I think is overlooked is that if you wish to enjoy the benefits of your society and if you wish to enjoy the benefits of peace which a defence force of strength gives to you, then you are also obliged to help to maintain that peace and to help in the defence of your country.

I think that is a factor which perhaps should be pointed out, that you cannot just enjoy the benefits of peace and of protection; you must also in fact help to maintain it and make your contribution towards it. Whereas we have due regard for the religious and other conscientious problems in regard to killing that certain individuals may have, we have no doubt that there is an obligation on every citizen who wishes to enjoy peace in South Africa to contribute towards its continuance. We also believe that all races should, participate in the defence of South Africa, and we are obviously pleased to hear some of the things which the hon. the Minister has said. We have a difficulty with him, which is a political difficulty and which I think affects us in so far as the structure of defence is concerned, because we believe that if you have a common South Africanism as opposed to the concept of different nations in South Africa, the feeling of belonging and the feeling of wishing to defend your country would be much easier to engender in all the races in South Africa.

This is a political difference we have, but I think it is one which is real and which arises by reason of the philosophical beliefs of the Nationalist Party. I think also that one must accept that defence of one’s country, as has been demonstrated around the world, is not just a question of military force, but that you must have a situation in the community where people have a stake in the community and where they are willing to defend and have something to defend. That is often as vital as arms themselves. If anything has demonstrated that recently, it has been the war in South Vietnam, where it was quite clearly demonstrated that unless your people and your troops have morale, unless you have a local population that feels strongly about your cause, you cannot wage a successful modern type of war against the type of activity which might be launched against us in Southern Africa

Lastly, on this issue I should like to raise the point which has been raised across the floor of this House often, and that is that defence should not be a matter upon which the community is divided. Remarks which tend to show that one or other political party is less willing to defend South Africa, is less willing to contribute, and is in fact less loyal, not only harm that political party in the eyes of those who believe those remarks, but actually do harm to South Africa in that it tends to portray a divided people in respect of an issue where we have to demonstrate that we are in fact not divided. Sir, I think this is fundamental; it is not a matter on which we can afford to be divided.

One of the issues on which there is criticism, and very real criticism, in this House is the amount expended on defence. Anybody who queries that amount is criticised. Let me say that as far as I am concerned, I believe that you must spend money on defence, as I think I have indicated clearly in my speech, but I believe that everyone in this House agrees that we would all prefer not to spend this money on defence. We would prefer not to have to do it, but the question is whether we have a choice. Unfortunately I have come to the conclusion, as no doubt the hon. the Minister and other people have, that we have no choice but to spend it, and this is the tragedy of the situation in which we find ourselves. But I think we must know what are the implications of spending this large sum of money on defence, as we are obliged to do. Sir, defence in itself is not an object. Defence is a mechanism which is designed to protect our existence and our way of life and our society. It is designed to protect something; it is not an object in itself. It is purely designed to protect what we have. Sir, guns before butter is not an acceptable philosophy of life. What is necessary is guns to protect our butter, to protect our way of life. Rut the gun in itself is not an aim or an object. It is the preservation and the advancement of our society, the preservation of our economy and of our way of life, which is the priority and not, as the hon. the Minister of Finance said, defence in itself. Defence is merely something to protect the priorities that we should have. The other implication we cannot avoid is that expenditure on defence is, unfortunately, inflationary. We only need to look at the Middle East for example, to show what happens when you have to spend too much money on defence. If defence expenditure is not productive, in the economic sense of the word it is, in fact, inflationary and, when the State is obliged to spend money on non-productive activities, one is obliged to produce more in other respects to counter inflation. The challenge to South Africa as a result of this need for high defence expenditure, is that we have to become more productive. We have to compensate for this if inflation is not to become a serious problem. We need only look at the situation in Israel where the high defence expenditure is accompanied by a high rate of inflation. We, however, do not have the advantage of money and aid flowing into our country as happens there. The lesson we must learn is that we must in fact produce more in other fields if we are not going to find ourselves in a serious inflationary position.

Many of us—I think all of us—would prefer not to spend this money in a way which is non-productive. However, we have to do. We must also remember that the day will come when we no longer will have to spend this money. Then we can look back on the fact that this year’s expenditure alone would have paid for Sasol 2. Interest alone at ordinary rates on this amount would have paid for the whole of the Bantu Education Vote. We know that we have to pay a tremendous price for our protection and for the need that we have to be vigilant. What we have to do, in addition to spending money, is that we have to create a situation, not only in South Africa but in Africa as such, where in the years that lie ahead, this expenditure will become unnecessary and can be avoided. One of the things we must do here is to look at the relationship between ourselves and the other African States in order to endeavour, through negotiations and discussions, to create a situation where none of us in Africa, particularly in Southern Africa, need to arm at the rate at which we are now obliged to arm. Certainly we should agree that foreign military presences must be excluded from Africa by consent. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I have no fault to find with the statement of the hon. member for Yeoville that “people cannot enjoy the benefits of peace unless they contribute to it”. Actually I think it is a laudable statement the hon. member made. He referred to the question of the homelands where there seems to be some kind of understanding between his party and the homelands that those homelands, when they have no part in the defence of our country, would be hostile towards the Republic of South Africa. The very statement I want to make is that these people will in fact have a part in the defence of the country, as the hon. Prime Minister, too has clearly stated here. After all, they are part of the community of Southern Africa.

The hon. member referred to the situation in Vietnam. I think Vietnam has taught us in South Africa that we should not rely on the possible or potential aid of the Great Powers. The Opposition always kicks up a row about the question that we apparently have nobody in the world who supports us. There we now have conclusive proof of the fact that we cannot rely on any nation in rest of the world, for here a fine country and a fine people have been left in the lurch. I do not know whether the statement the hon. member made with regard to the large amounts in respect of the expenditure on defence and with regard to inflation, is correct. The hon. member apparently meant that the heavy expenditure on defence would supposedly contribute to the inflationary trend in our economy. I want to ask the hon. member whether he does not want to see that the amounts reflected in the Budget for defence boost and stimulate our industries at a time when there is a slumping trend in our economy. One must take into account the stimulating effect expenditure on defence has on our industries. It does have an effect, for I read somewhere in our English-language Press of “the nourishing effect of the Budget, especially with regard to defence”. With these words I want to drop the hon. member’s speech.

I now come to the hon. member for Durban Point. He made certain statements on a previous occasion, and repeated them in this debate, with regard to the armaments Board. The hon. member referred to the visit we had paid to the Castle. On such occasions one can hardly fail to notice the hon. member, for he is big to look at and he talks of big things. He described the visit as a “public relations exercise”. He wanted “some lifting of the blanket”.

†I cannot understand what the hon. member means. What does he want to see under the blanket? Does he want the Armaments Board to reveal its secrets? To me personally, this visit was an education, and I was hoping to hear some constructive criticism from that hon. member this afternoon. The hon. member for Rondebosch in referring to criticism said that the governing party did not like criticism.

*If there is one thing which is appreciated by the governing party and the hon. the Minister of Defence, it is constructive criticism. The criticism of hon. members on the opposite side, however, is always of a kind which has a destructive effect. It is under the blanket. On a previous occasion the hon. member for Durban Point raised objections to the army unit established in the Transkei. I wish to quote the hon. member correctly. He spoke of a “foreign military force”. He also referred to the “vast stretch of coastline” of the Transkei. He had all sorts of misgivings about the training of soldiers in the Transkei. He said they had to be integrated with our own “uniform force” and that we should have a “unified defence system”. A small Defence Force is being established for the Transkei on a small scale, as was explained here by the hon. the Minister. This forms part of and is one of the consequences of the policy of the National Party for the development of the homelands. Does the hon. member have any objection to a Defence Force of Lesotho, Swaziland or Botswana, which one can almost say form part of our South African household?

You have not been listening. I have no objection to a force or the Transkei. I spoke of its being integrated with …

Surely it is very clear that there will be integration. However, I do not want to go into this matter any further.

Now I should like to confine myself to a certain matter in consequence of a speech made by the hon. the Minister of Defence at the opening of the Legislative Assembly in Kavango, in which he gave us an indication of what the plan was specifically with regard to the foundations which had been laid for the establishment of a local Defence Force in Kavango. I should just like to refer to certain aspects to which the hon. the Minister referred. He referred to the education of the young people there, and he inspired the people to send their children to the schools. This is another of the splendid results of the policy of the Government; educational matters in Kavango have been stimulated and the parents take an intense interest in the training of their children. There is, of course, no comparison whatsoever between the amounts which are being spent on education today and which were spent on it when the United Party was in power. Today this is the foundation we are laying with future development in mind, for without education, the expansion of the intellectual scope of the non-White populations, one cannot make any headway. After all, this is the basis of our access to the intellectual world of the non-White populations in Southern Africa.

Now we come to what the hon. the Minister said about the integration of certain aspects of the army with the agricultural activities of Kavango. I want to express my sincere appreciation of the attitude adopted by the hon. the Minister in this regard. The Defence Force is accommodated in the local economy and this is a splendid example of the further development of a spirit of goodwill towards that non-White population. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Etosha mentioned that it appeared as if the Opposition was keen on looking underneath the blanket, but I do not think that he should blame the Opposition for looking underneath the blanket. It is quite surprising to see some of the things that we have discovered underneath the blanket. I say this not in the sense that these things have been tucked away deliberately, but in the sense that there are things underneath the blanket which do need exposing. Many of the things that the Opposition has exposed from time to time, have been rectified by this Government in turn. We therefore have a duty to look underneath the blanket.

I want to come to the speech which was made by the hon. member for Cradock this afternoon. As I understood him, he stated approximately the following: “Problems that this country is facing now, are partly as a result of this country’s participation in the last war …”

I never said anything of the sort.

“… and those who took part in that war should talk in softer tones of their part in it.” Is that correct or not? The hon. member denies it.

I never said anything of the sort.

That is certainly the impression which he gave to this House and I am glad that he has denied that he said that, because I believe that if that is what he said, then it was a disgraceful statement.

I have just said that I never said so.

Order!

The hon. member must accept the statement of the hon. member for Cradock.

I accept his statement unreservedly and I am very happy that he has withdrawn it, because it worried me considerably and now my heart is at rest. [Interjections.] I accept that he did not say it. The matter that I want to deal with on this Vote is the question of the Commandos. If one looks at the Estimates of Expenditure, under sub-head P on page 19, one will find that the subsidy or other financial assistance for the ensuing year which will be granted to Commando units, far from being increased, has in fact been decreased for this financial year from the sum of R760 500 down to the sum of R696 500.

Which item are you referring to?

I am referring to the item “Commandos” under sub-head P which, appears on page 19 of the Estimates of Expenditure. This sub-head refers to subsidies, grants-in-aid and financial assistance. In respect of the Commandos the amount which is asked for totals R696 500. Related expenditure under the items “Citizen Force” and “Air Commandos”, which appears under the same sub-head, shows an increase on the amount which was voted last year. I believe that some form of explanation should be forthcoming from the hon. the Minister because this gives the impression that the Commando units are being discriminated against. The hon. the Minister shakes his head. I hope that this is not the case.

The White Paper on Defence which was tabled recently stressed the necessity for particular attention to be given to vigilance and readiness. I quote from page 7 of the White Paper—

The pre-positioning of adequate forces includes the maintaining and the building up of an effective, highly-trained and resolute Commando force, a structure which, is in being throughout the length and breadth of the Republic at present. Commando units together with specially allocated Citizen Force units form a part of our counterinsurgency force and they function also as support and back-up units to the S.A. Police. They are geared to take an active role in regard to the assistance to local authorities when necessary in the event of a disaster. I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me that this role is vital to the whole concept of civil defence. According to the White Paper the Commando units still consist of a large percentage of volunteers. The hope is expressed that these volunteers will continue to stay on in these units and it is stated that people who have completed their national service in Commando units will be encouraged to continue in those units. It is also interesting to learn that the department has a desire to extend the membership of the Commando units to include women in a non-combatant capacity. I believe that these fervent hopes of the Department of Defence will prove a dream if proper and adequate financial provision is not made to enable such dreams to become realities. It is in the sphere of finance, I believe, that this Government has not given proper consideration to Commando units. Take for instance the provision of accommodation for Commando units. From the very nature of the function of these Commando units and their formation, the members of these units are drawn from large geographical areas, making them dissimilar from Citizen Force units which in the main are drawn from urban areas. Frequently the companies which form the Commando units are themselves drawn from geographically circumscribed areas. A centrally situated headquarters is established for the Commando units because it is vital that the operation of the units be given some form of cohesion. I want to ask the hon. the Minister what arrangements have been made at the various headquarters of Commando units for suitable accommodation.

I know that most of the Citizen Force units have suitable accommodation such as parade grounds, proper office accommodation, orderly rooms, equipment stores and mess facilities, but I believe that in many cases the Commando units have to share the accommodation at the discretion of the Citizen Force units. To my mind this is a very unfortunate situation. It is unfortunate because it gives a feeling of inferiority to the Commando units and it does little to engender a spirit of individuality and the esprit de corps which it is so necessary to build up in these units. Furthermore, I believe that far-flung companies of Commando units which are sometimes more than 100 km away from their headquarters should receive special consideration. Frequently they have to operate under the most difficult circumstances. They invariably have to use accommodation which is made available to them from peculiar sources, accommodation such as houses and so on which they then have to use for training, lectures and paper exercises. Very often they have to borrow halls for this purpose. I believe it is unthinkable for us to expect those company units to go to their Commando unit headquarters for this type of exercise. I believe that the proper provision of permanent accommodation for such company activity under these special circumstances—I emphasize that these are special circumstances—should be provided by the department or otherwise by the Minister prevailing upon those colleagues of his in the Cabinet who are able to provide such accommodation. I am aware of the fact that the hon. the Minister has called upon local authorities to assist in this regard but I honestly do not believe that that request for assistance has been met. I believe we all understand that local authorities have financial difficulties, particularly in this tight economic period we are going through, and I do not believe that they have been successful in providing the necessary accommodation. Suitable ground in local areas is invariably available and I believe that proper accommodation can be erected at a minimum of expense. It is in such surroundings that I believe a proper esprit de corps amongst the members of the Commando units can be built up. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in his speech here the hon. member for Yeoville made the statement that it would be to no-one’s benefit to imply or maintain that the Opposition parties were not co-operating with the Government in regard to defence matters. In the course of my speech I shall deal forcefully with that statement. Permit me to say that in South Africa, it is in the interests of all the people in the country that this Government should continue to act from a position of strength. The hon. member for Yeoville, too, referred to this. This position of strength is based on a strong economy, on military preparedness and on political stability based on sound race relations, racial peace and race harmony in South Africa.

And a strong National Party.

Yes, it is also based on a strong National Party that gives effect to everything I have mentioned.

In the nature of the circumstances, the South African Defence Force plays a key role in the military situation. The high degree of preparedness that exists in regard to training, discipline and morale is thanks to the dedication of those outstanding men who wear the uniform of the Defence Force of the Republic of South Africa with such dignity and loyalty, and I am referring to all the members of the Defence Force, from the humblest private right up to the highest officer. I should like to take this opportunity of felling them that we praise them for that and that we love them and that we should like to give them the assurance that we pray for them too.

As regards the striking power of the Defence Force itself, which depends on its being provided constantly with the most modern and effective armament, Armscor and the Armaments Board and their subsidiaries play a key role too. The members of these organizations perform their task without fuss or bother, virtually unnoticed and in silence, so that for the most part, the public is not even aware of the existence of these organizations, that have the mighty task of keeping the wheels of the Defence Force rolling. Consequently we should like to convey our sincere gratitude to Prof. Samuels, director of Armscor, to his general manager, Mr. Dekker, and to the general manager of the Armaments Board, Mr. Lutsch, for their dedication and zeal in the interests of South Africa and its people.

At the start I said that the basis on which our stability rests is the sound ethnic relationships throughout the structure of our society in South Africa. Racial peace and harmony are at the heart of it. It is of no avail for the Opposition to say that they co-operate with the Government in regard to defence affairs when they are, in fact, undermining the basis of our position of strength. In this regard I am not referring to the references made to our Defence Budget by the hon. member for Hillbrow. Nor am I referring to the utterances of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout two years ago concerning the so-called budget of fear. No, I am drawing attention to the fact that our entire relationship with Africa, and the averting of confrontation and war, will, in the final analysis, determine the course of history in Africa and that this is intimately bound up with racial peace and harmony in South Africa. It is in regard to this very point that one gets the impression that the Opposition wants to make things as difficult as possible for the Government in this field. There is an almost obscene urge among certain propagandists of the Opposition to create a feeling of unhappiness, oppression and injustice among the non-Whites in the important field of human relationships.

What is also important for the maintenance of peace is sensitive relations situations where attitudes are of immeasurable importance. It can also mean the difference between peace with Africa on the one hand, or war with Africa on the other.

Here, too, the Opposition creates the impression that they regard this as a suitable sphere in which they may carry out their destructive actions most effectively.

At this stage I do not want to put it more strongly than that, except to say that in contrast to what would be the case in more favourable and safer times, this behaviour on the part of the Opposition is becoming ever more dangerous and injurious to the security of the country. However, this still does not afford the Opposition any hope that they will thereby boost their prestige among the electorate. Let me say that co-operation in regard to peace also signifies co-operation in the hope that it will never be necessary to mobilize the Defence Force. It is therefore rather meaningless to say that one assists in maintaining and even enhancing the preparedness of the Defence Force when one is not assisting in promoting the basic elements of peace, particularly if one’s aim is peace and not war. This is precisely what South Africa’s aim is as regards its Defence Force, viz. to ensure peace for South Africa and its people.

We may now consider the many issues which today—in conjunction with the Government’s détente politics, with the aim, inter alia, of averting confrontation and war in Africa—are a subject of discussion between the Central Government and the emergent administrative institutions that are being created for the Black and Brown people under this Government. As I have said, these issues are being dealt with in conjunction with the Government’s détente politics in Africa, with the aim, inter alia, of averting war and confrontation. Where, and in what respect, have the Opposition parties played a significant role in these processes? Where have they made a contribution? If such instances exist, they are totally insignificant or minor as opposed to the situation in which opportunities, discussions and negotiations are constantly bedevilled and poisoned by virtue of propaganda wars waged by the Opposition which could be the precursor of an eventual shooting war in Africa.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.