Mr. Chairman, I do not want to take up the time which has been allotted for the discussion of this Vote, but I should just like to make one or two brief statements. I think they will be of interest for the general discussion.

Firstly I want to say that Admiral Biermann has informed me that he prefers to retire when he reaches the age of 60 years, at the end of August this year. The Cabinet took cognizance of this yesterday at its weekly meeting, and on this occasion I should like to put on record the Government’s and my own great appreciation for Admiral Biermann’s excellent services. He has been connected with navigation and the Navy for the whole of his adult life. After completing his training in the General Botha training ship, he joined the mercantile marine. During the Second World War he acquitted himself bravely of his task in the Mediterranean and in our own coastal waters. He was one of the architects of the S.A. Navy in its post-war set-up. After he had occupied various important command and staff positions with distinction, he was appointed head of the Navy in 1952. His is the unique distinction of having occupied this post for almost 20 years before he was appointed chief of the S.A. Defence Force in 1972. Admiral Biermann’s outstanding characteristics are his level-headedness and the particularly tactful and practical manner in which he deals with even the most junior rating. He led the S.A. Defence Force in an extremely competent manner and helped develop it into a formidable organization. He is a respected and popular colleague amongst the corps of departmental heads and in the Armaments organization. I pay tribute to Admiral Biermann and his wife for the great service which they have rendered to the country. It gives me great pleasure to be able to say that he will continue to be of service to the armaments set-up and that his knowledge and ability will remain at the disposal of the Minister as member of the Defence Advisory Board.

Furthermore, I wish to inform you that the Cabinet has decided to promote Lt.-Gen. Magnus Malan, at present Chief of the Army, to Chief of the S.A. Defence Force on Admiral Biermann’s retirement. I congratulate him and his family sincerely on the distinction and I wish him the best of luck.

Furthermore I should like to say that it has been decided to expand the rules for awarding the Pro Patria Medal, which was introduced for awarding to members of the S.A. Defence Force for services in connection with the prevention and combating of terrorism, to make provision, inter alia, for service beyond the country’s borders, as was recently the case in Angola. The qualifying period for the awarding of the medal and decorations has been reduced to 60 days. Certificates of thanks are issued to national servicemen who do not qualify for the medal.

†It naturally took some time to do the preparatory work, but we shall almost immediately start with the issuing of the certificates and the award of medals and decorations. Recommendations have been called for and the citations are being prepared.

*Then I should like to inform you that, in consultation with all the interested parties, the warrants, rules and regulations have been formulated for awarding a Civil Defence Medal for Bravery and a Civil Defence Medal for Outstanding Service. These medals will be awarded to members of the fire brigade, the Noodhulpliga, St. John’s Ambulance Association, the S.A. Red Cross Society and members of municipalities and local authorities, as well as other people who provide service within the meaning of the Civil Defence Act of 1966 and who distinguish themselves by bravery or exceptionally outstanding service.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the privilege of the half-hour. I would like immediately to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. the Minister in regard to the pending retirement of Admiral Biermann. I am very sorry that we will lose his services as head of our forces, because I believe that he has made a major contribution to welding the three arms of the service into the cohesive force which it is today. It is the first time that we have ever had a naval officer at the head of our services, and I think there were many who looked perhaps with some trepidation at the situation which could arise when numerically the smallest arm of the service would be in command. However, the way in which Admiral Biermann has done the job has earned him the support not only of the services themselves but also, I believe, of all the people of South Africa. We wish him luck in his retirement. I would like to congratulate his successor, Gen. Malan, very sincerely. He is a man whom we have come to know very well over recent years, a man who I believe will carry the high responsibility of this post with distinction in the interests of our country and I wish him well. We are convinced that the Defence Force will be in good hands.

The announcement of the hon. the Minister in regard to the award for operational service is a welcome one. In fact, it was the first point of the speech I had prepared to make, but the Minister beat me to it. So instead of asking for it, I will express our appreciation of the fact that it had been decided to do this.

May I also at the outset express our welcome to the hon. the Minister after his unfortunate accident. We are pleased that he did not suffer serious injury. We welcome him back.

Before I turn to the Vote, Mr. Chairman, I want to refer to an event which happened yesterday, an event which I believe has serious implications for the very subject of this debate. This is that a majority of ordinary English-speaking South Africans, and I believe normal patriotic South Africans, elected to represent them in this House a member of the Progressive Party. He joins a party which, for different motives, by different methods, and by absolutely legitimate means—through the ballot box—has nevertheless the same political objective as those who are the enemies of South Africa.

That is a gross lie.

On a point of order Mr. Chairman: Is the hon. member allowed to accuse the hon. member for Durban Point of telling a gross lie?

Order! Did the hon. member say that?

I said it was a lie.

The hon. member must withdraw it.

Sir, it is not true and therefore I am afraid I cannot withdraw.

Order! If the hon. member is not prepared to withdraw it, I must order him to leave the Chamber.

Sir, with every respect to your ruling, I am afraid I cannot oblige by obeying your ruling.

Order! I order the hon. member to withdraw from the House for the remainder of the day’s sitting for having disregarded the authority of the chair.

Whereupon Mr. R. J. Lorimer withdrew.

Sir, I raise as a point of order the question whether an hon. member is entitled to say in this House that a political party, and the members of that party who are here, have the same object as people who are enemies of South Africa. Is that in order?

Order! Will the hon. member for Durban Point please explain what he actually meant by that?

I was about to do so when I was interrupted. I was about to say that the objective of majority rule in South Africa is the objective of that political party. I have emphasized by legitimate means through the ballot box, and for totally different motives. But nevertheless the end objective is early or immediate majority rule in South Africa. That is what I was about to say. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member may proceed, but I want to remind him that he must come back to this Vote.

I am dealing with the implications of the situation for the defence, the security of South Africa. [Interjections.] I want to say that it remains an inescapable fact that is the declared objective of that party. It is their declared objective and the outcome of their policy. [Interjections.] One of the essential elements in the security of South Africa is the support of all the people for its security and defence. [Interjections.] I believe this has happened because of the frustration

Why not tell them about your behaviour last night at the polls? [Interjections.]

… and despair of many people over the failure of the Government to come to grips with South Africa’s problems. This removes the essential motivation for a united people.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Sea Point entitled to refer to us as a lot of cowards? [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon. member for Sea Point use those words?

I used them in relation to the members of the United Party represented here.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw them.

An essential motivating factor is the support and backing of all the people, Black and White, for the defence effort of South Africa. That is why I said—and I said it seriously—that when a section of the South African people ceases to be motivated because of frustration, thus turning to policies which I believe endanger the security of South Africa, this becomes a matter of concern in relation to the defence of our country. Another aspect which is of concern is that elements of the Press are making it increasingly difficult for those who support the freedom of the Press to justify their attitude. [Interjections.] I draw a fine distinction between the freedom and the licence of the Press, and this, too, I believe

Order! I have already asked the hon. member for Durban Point to come back to this Vote. I am now giving him a final warning in this regard.

I was about to say that the security of South Africa requires that the public be fully informed and correctly informed, and I wish to relate this to other matters I wish to raise under this Vote.

Before turning to the Vote itself, I want to … [Interjections.] Before turning to the details of the Vote, I want to say that there is one matter I do not intend to raise, a matter which I hope will not be debated today. I am referring to the matter which the Press has forecast would be raised, i.e. the matter of Cuban and South African prisoners. I believe this is an extremely delicate matter involving the lives and freedom of young South Africans. I hope we will not raise this matter in the House and that we will not allow an issue like this to be used to play politics. This is something which I do not believe South Africa can afford.

During this session we have debated defence policy, the border issue and the Angolan issue at some length and I do not intend to repeat what was said in those debates or to repeat where this side of the House stands.

But there are certain issues which arise from those events, and the history of the last nine months has, I believe, shown the wisdom of the repeated proposals and offers by this side of the House to have a defence council or select committee or some sort of body where the Government and the Opposition can work together in order to weld, at the top, at the highest point of authority, our people solidly together behind our defence effort. I do not want to raise it again; I merely want to restate that offer from the United Party still stands. We are committed, out of sincerity and a desire to strengthen our security, to offer our services in co-operation with the Government, and I believe that there should be some formal machinery for that to take place.

A second lesson of the last nine months is that I believe that our criticism over the excessive secrecy surrounding the events in Angola has been justified and strengthened. The country should, I believe, have been told the full story. That story is now leaking out in bits and pieces, as incomplete parts of a puzzle. For instance, there was a recent reference to a United States Senate inquiry into the CIA from which it seems quite clear that there was covert para-military involvement in Angola by the CIA. This is a matter of interest to the people of South Africa. It has been released in an official report by an American Senate investigating committee. I believe that there would have been and that there will be a much better understanding and a much better motivation if South Africa can be told the full story of what went on there. I take it no further than to say that I hope the Minister will take the opportunity during this Vote to do so.

Another matter flowing from the events there, to which I want to refer, is the television film Die Slag van Brug 14. I am afraid I do not share the fulsome praise which has been given. I believe it was artificial and contrived and that some of the re-enactment—unless war has changed an awful lot—gave to many people a feeling of unreality. I hope that this will not be widely distributed overseas because I do not believe it does justice to our troops, to how they are reported to have behaved and to their training and their behaviour in action. I think, too, that it is unfortunate that it should have given the impression that this was a unilingual war. I realize that this is because of SATV’s policy of unilingual programmes, but I believe that too detracted from the presentation of what was a national effort.

Another matter arising from events there, which is of more recent consequence, is disturbing reports that servicemen who have been called up for three months have been victimized by losing their jobs for other reasons given than the fact that they were called up. There is legislation to deal with this, and I hope that action will be taken to apply that legislation to unscrupulous employers who have dismissed people for contrived reasons when in fact it was because of their service.

Another matter, arising from this, to which I want to refer in passing, is the birth of a new publication, the Army’s newspaper Uniform, the little brother to Paratus. I think it is an excellent little publication which deserves wider circulation. In fact, as a communication medium, I think it is even more effective than its glossy elder brother, because Paratus, I feel, has become too much the mouthpiece of the “Brass”. If you take the Minister and the generals out of Paratus, there is very little left, whereas the Army’s Uniform is about men, their deeds and about what is going on. I think Paratus has become a form of official communication rather than a publication which belongs to and is part of the service itself. I am not only referring to the “10-year service” edition in respect of which this, of course, applies even more.

In the time at my disposal I cannot deal in detail with expenditure involving R1 350 million. We support that expenditure in principle, but it is our task to criticize, as I intend doing, the way in which some of that money is being applied. Although we all accept that our forces acted in the highest military tradition of South Africa, unfortunately some of the administration did so too. There were some monumental military mess-ups involved. I want to refer to the two most serious ones, viz. post and pay. These two issues are most vital to the morale of men who cannot have their minds on their tasks if they are worried about what is going on at home. The mail shambles was terrible. There is no excuse for it. All the assurances, promises and explanations cannot get past the fact that it was purely a case of “finger trouble.” I can quote example after example which contradicts the explanations given. Apart from telegrams—I quote one—“pos aan dienspligtiges nou eers treurig”, I have two specific examples I should like to refer to official communications to parents in which the parents are given the address to which to write. I also have here the envelopes used, which show that the letters were correctly addressed. In one particular case there are nine such envelopes. I also have many other examples of this nature before me. In all these cases the envelopes were correctly addressed but were not received. It requires only a simple administrative card system to locate a man and his unit. Such a system can be used in any organization. Surely it is possible to establish where a man is? When a movement order is issued, one need simply notify the Post Office of that movement.

Then there is the question of pay. In this instance, again, the explanations and excuses are not acceptable. Here I have another telegram I received recently. It says: “Maartmaand—geld nie ontvang”. The details follow. The message continues: “Wat staan my te doen? Moet ek steel?” One I received yesterday states: “Despite the Daily News story of army paymaster’s claim, … (So-and-so) … still unpaid. Service ended 16 April”. These reports are coming in daily and there is no excuse for this sort of thing. If there is the administrative machinery to call a man up, there can also be the administrative machinery to pay his dependants. It is all wrong that the Southern Cross Organization, which has done a great job, should have to sustain dependants as a matter of charity when those dependants are paid by the Army.

This is only one of dozens of matters in respect of which details have been taken up departmentally. The matter of military pensions needs review, and there are many more things with which my time does not allow me to deal. Some of these may be small things, but they are things which affect the morale of people. For instance, there is the question of the refusal to allow women’s organizations to serve refreshments to troops passing through Windhoek station. There is no restaurant or cafeteria on that station. There is nothing there. A four and a half day journey is involved and there is a long stop at Windhoek. Since many people see the troop trains going through and all the Railwaymen involved know about this troop movement, surely the secrecy of troop movements will not be affected if voluntary organizations are allowed to supply food and refreshments to troops passing through? It is this sort of thing which makes people fed up.

I now refer to the question of field kitchens, the non-existence of field kitchens in base camps in the field—not in permanent camps. These are all unimportant and minor things in themselves, which cause a feeling of criticism to be built up against the Force itself.

On the home front there are many anomalies. For instance, an Air Force Citizen Force officer can only rise to a major, whereas an Army Citizen Force officer can rise to a major-general. People want to know what is wrong with the Air Force that it should not have the same right to promotion higher than the rank of major. There is the question of university students and the July call-up, and the question of immigrants evading military service. This is a bitter complaint amongst parents. If their permanent residence permits cannot be withdrawn if they refuse to render military service, why can a tax not be imposed to make up the pay of soldiers who lose through serving? Let those who do not serve, make up the salaries of those who are called up.

Because of the time factor I shall not be able to deal with other matters with which I wanted to deal in detail. Other hon. members, however, will raise some of those matters. Before my time runs out, I nevertheless want to refer briefly to our preparedness. General Webster has said that we are in a state of medium intensity war. I believe South Africa has the right to know how well we are prepared. I appreciate the information given to members of the defence groups but I believe the public should be told more, because, unless they are told more, those questions will go on being asked as to how well we are prepared. I ask the hon. the Minister to lift the curtain on our material resources. For instance to what extent is the military industrial capacity of the country geared, or converted, or planned to be converted for an emergency situation? Is our military industrial organization not top-heavy, more like an egg timer than the triangle one would expect? I believe, too, that there would be more willingness to vote the money which we have been asked to vote if, for instance, the public knew the cost of some of the military hardware. They do not understand what it costs to buy an aircraft or a tank, and when they hear of a sum of R1 350 000, it sounds like a vast sum. We would get more public support if the public could be told more of the reality of equipping a force.

As to our human resources, I believe that attention must be given to improving our training. We have often pleaded for a permanent force brigade. Others have taken it up recently, but for years we have suggested the introduction of a permanent force brigade. The alternative to that is our two-year servicemen. These men, who are in for two years, should, I believe, be trained to the same sort of peak to which a permanent force brigade would be trained. We can learn a lesson from Rhodesia in this respect. The quality of their training in anti-guerrilla warfare is praised by everyone who has seen it. I do not believe that we are bringing our semi-permanent two-year troops up to the peak of training and the peak of capacity which would be possible if we paid more attention to it.

Then there is also the question of Black operational troops. I believe we are fiddling with the question. We are making the gesture, but we are not making use of the potential which is there. I believe there will be no problem in getting volunteers. This, the question of the defence of South Africa, is a matter vital to all our 25 million people. It is wrong that only a small section of the people should have to bear the whole of the burden of defence. I believe it would strengthen our forces if the principle which has been accepted, the principle of Black troops, were applied more vigorously and more effectively so that we can have troops that can be used operationally in the defence of our country.

Then there is the question of the optimum utilization of our manpower. There are still numerous complaints of idle time, of men called up and taken out of their jobs, even for the three months’ service, who do not go to the border or do not go there for the whole period and come back feeling that they have wasted their time. I have heard reports of a unit which was given its normal training for about three weeks, sent up to the border, brought back about four weeks later and then kept on strength in the Republic. If we need forces we have to call them up. If we have to make the demand on people then that demand must be met. However, there is no justification for making demands on men to give up their civilian occupations for three months unless they are going to be fully utilized and are necessary for our defence. The question of the optimum utilization of manpower applies also to the allocation of people according to their training. This is a matter we have raised over and over again. There are people with specialist qualifications, but whose qualifications are not being applied in fields where they could be very useful. There is, for instance, the problem of the delay in people’s pay. This happens because the paymaster’s office cannot deal with it. Yet there are dozens of accountants and paymasters, clerks and pay-officers in service at the present time who are walking a beat or doing some ordinary job which anyone else could do. Why do we not use the specialist skills of people like these in specialist positions in the same way that a postal unit was called up comprising members of the Post Office staff? Not that they solved the problem, but at least the right principle was applied, that is of utilizing a man in the job for which he is trained. This applies in numerous fields in the forces. In the Auditor-General’s report one reads of problems in respect of inspections and the checking of stores. This is the sort of job an auditor is trained to do. This is the sort of thing which his whole career is based on, that is to check and verify records, accounts and stores. This is the sort of field where I believe accountants, for instance, should be utilized instead of being employed as ordinary riflemen or troopers in ordinary units.

There is also the question of motivation. I am afraid that unless we remove some of the problems I have referred to, we are going to not only not get enough, but we are going to lose some of our Citizen Force volunteers. One hears the men who have come back saying: “I am not going to stay in this if I have to worry about my wife being paid and if I am not going to receive a letter for three months while I am away.” I hope they do not mean it seriously and I appeal to them not to mean it seriously. We need these volunteers. They are the essence, the heart of the Citizen Force. It is motivation and efficiency and looking after their welfare which will bring them in and build up an esprit de corps, making them feel that they are part of a unit … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, to begin with, I should like to tell the hon. the Minister of Defence that I am delighted that he recovered so quickly and is with us once again. The same applies to Rozanne, the Minister’s daughter, and Mrs. Botha. We are delighted that they have recovered to such an extent that they can be with us once again and that South Africa can once again rely on their energies. I should like to tell Admiral Biermann that we have come to know him as a man of sterling character, a man who was not to be deterred by great responsibilities. He carried out his task, despite it being such an exacting one, and rendered a service to the S. A. Defence Force for which he will go down in the history of the Defence Force as a man who was a binding factor. He also upheld the name of the Navy in the particular commanding position which he held.

I should also like to avail myself of this opportunity to welcome Gen. Malan. We know what we have in him and therefore we also know that the highest position of command in South Africa’s defence is in safe hands.

I should also like briefly to congratulate Senator Worrall for the break-through which he brought about on behalf of the NP during the by-election in Durban North. I should like to convey my sympathy to the hon. member for Durban Point. I am doing so for two reasons. The first is that hon. member gave Dr. Kissinger an instruction, but it seems he has not carried it out, for he is still with us.

Order! The hon. member must not take that point too far.

The second reason why I have sympathy for that hon. member, is the lack of effect which the UP has had so far with their message to the people of South Africa in connection with security. They paid special attention, in their particular constituencies, to issuing a warning against the PRP. It seems as if we should take over that task.

The hon. member for Durban Point raised quite a number of administrative matters on which I should like to reply. The hon. member referred, inter alia, to the postal service and at the same time to the postal unit’s field post offices which have been formed under section leaders to carry out certain services. The hon. member complained that the postal service is not what it should be. I want to tell the hon. member that we visited that section’s unit together at a certain point and were impressed by the fact that this service is rendered by the Citizen Force members. I understand that in places this is done on a voluntary basis. What is more, the service provided by this postal unit, is of the highest quality. It seems, according to Paratus, that even pensions and postal savings book deposits are handled in the field by those sections. I think it is an absolutely outstanding service, a service on which we should congratulate the Defence Force. However, when postal items do not reach the national servicemen, we must ask ourselves what our priorities are. If a large amount of parcels are sent by post, it occupies a great deal more transport facilities. We must now ask ourselves the question what our boys should receive first: The weapon, the hand grenade or their post? I think that our men in the front line would much rather be equipped with a hand grenade than with an apple. We must not allow any illusions about this to develop amongst our people. By not considering this matter in perspective, we are doing exactly what the hon. member says we must not do, namely causing the motivation of our people to be lacking. I want to ask the hon. member to put this clearly into perspective, namely that priorities must be determined when these services are provided. When our facilities are such that preference must be given to matters of greater importance, it must be accepted as such. This is my first answer to the hon. member.

As far as the question of food rations is concerned, I am very pleased that the hon. member did not complain about food rations in the field. If he had complained about that, I would have given him an appropriate answer. However, the hon. member complains about the fact that there was no opportunity for certain national servicemen and other people who had to be transported somewhere, to enjoy the refreshments prepared for them by women’s organizations. The hon. member asked a question in this connection in the House and the hon. the Minister answered very adequately and fully. The hon. the Minister said that the movement of troops must be considered to be confidential. I ask the hon. member to accept the standpoint of the hon. the Minister so that we will not have a repetition of such an argument. The hon. member must accept that when troops are transported by train or in any other way, sufficient provisions and rations are provided. There are dining saloons on all troop trains.

No, not on all.

It happens from time to time that troops accompany goods trains or are involved with goods trains in another way. If this happens, they are provided with dry rations. I really do not believe that we should give our troops the idea that they are involved in an outing. When they are engaged in troop movements, they are occupied with a very important task which may be the start of military action. The hon. member would further the performance and motivation of his own task if he put this matter in perspective as well.

The hon. member also referred to late payments, etc. However, this is also a matter which was referred to already on a previous occasion. I think the hon. member received a conclusive answer to that in a previous debate and I do not know why he has raised this matter here again.

But it is now happening again.

The hon. member asked that a “Defence Council” be set up on which the Opposition should also have representation. After he has told us what we can expect from the PRP, I ask him which Opposition should serve on the “Defence Council”. [Interjections.]

The hon. member complained that Paratus only prints reports relating to officers, etc. and is otherwise an official paper. I made a note to remind myself to praise this paper for the fact that its publications are of the highest calibre. The information which is presented in the paper, is information which is requested from time to time by the hon. member about matters concerning, for example Angola. Recently a series of two very enlightening articles was published in Paratus by Commandant Kaas de Waal. I am convinced that we shall in due course receive more articles from that source. In connection with the hon. member’s complaints that the ordinary ranks are not written about in Paratus, I want to ask him why he does not read the supplement to Paratus. The supplement contains a great deal of news about the Defence Force and I want to encourage him to read it. If it is perhaps not delivered to him, the necessary arrangements could be made so that he will receive it.

The hon. member turned himself once again to the old argument about a permanent brigade. Previously we have already argued with the hon. member about this and pointed out to him that the whole philosophy of our national service system is aimed at making it unnecessary for us to have a large, impressive permanent brigade. Our economic conditions come under discussion with the maintenance of such a brigade. Our whole system is aimed at a maximal utilization of our available young manpower. For that reason I want to suggest that the hon. member would benefit by looking at the previous arguments once again. As far as the utilization of manpower is concerned, I want to point out that we are now making use of women to a larger extent.

Order! The hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I rise merely to allow the hon. member an opportunity to continue with his speech.

I therefore continue. I would just like to conclude my argument. Sir, today women are admitted to every section of the Defence Force. Very recently we received an interesting notice from the Chief of the Air Force, General Rodgers. It occurred to me to ask the hon. the Minister to give us an indication whether it would be possible for a woman to become a general in the Defence Force for example. We note that this happened recently in France. What would the position be here? I merely ask in passing whether there would be any limitation placed upon women.

The hon. member ended with Brug 14, and this brings me to the next round of his argument. The hon. member presented it here in very fair terms. His idiom was understandable and reasonable, and I do not want to become involved in an argument with him about the quality of this film. What I would like to say, is that some newspapers described it as a hazardous undertaking, but as a very good attempt. I think that we should see it in this light. It is also very important to take note of the fact that this film was made after the SABC had approached the Defence Force for a theme for a documentary film, a television film, and they were offered the facts of the battle at Bridge 14. We must take into consideration that we are dealing with a documentary film which does not profess to spell out reality down to the smallest details. However, the criticism which we received from another source, for example from the Rand Daily Mail, was much more serious. The Rand Daily Mail dragged in a lot of other factors, inter alia, the fact that English-speaking citizens took offence because too little English was spoken. But what are the facts of the matter? The facts of the matter is that this programme was compiled by the Afrikaans section of the television service and presented in the Afrikaans time on the television service. I believe that at present the SABC’s television team is preparing an English programme on the Navy. In that case it would probably be chiefly in English. Nobody will complain about that. What are these people trying to do? If there was ever an example of criticism of a very great achievement, then this is it. I also want to make use of the opportunity to congratulate the Army on the battle of Bridge 14, the factual situation which is not only apparent to us from this, but also from the statements which we received from the Minster and from the highest command echelons.

In conclusion I want to say something about strategy. Over the past few years, we saw how the Russian bear has been tightening its grip on the arteries of the Western world and also to a degree upon those of the East. Vietnam’s artery was closed, and after that Angola followed. What happened as a result of this? The balance of power in Europe which was maintained between Russia and America between the Warsaw members and the Nato members, has been disturbed. Now the question arises: To what degree can the fact that a foothold was obtained in Angola, disturb this delicate balance? Mere superiority of weapons is not necessarily the only factor in the determination of the balance of power, but also matters such as who controls what, whether there is stability, etc. It is then when South Africa occupies such an important position because, although much smaller as far as military striking power is concerned, as far as its control of the southern routes of the Indian and Atlantic Oceans are concerned it exercises a very important, balanced and balancing influence. Now my question is the following: If this is the case, should we not look very penetratingly at our budget and make sure that when we arm ourselves, we take this factor into consideration too, that when we spend R1 350 million on our defence, we should ask ourselves which factors could disturb this balance of power?

In respect of conventional warfare, there is no doubt that we are striving towards the maximum goal and have maximum preparation as far as human material and weapons are concerned. Here our Defence Force is in control of the situation because here the issue is army against army, defence force against defence force. From the observations of militarists, it is obvious that the situation for South Africa, as far as Africa is concerned, does not hold an immediate threat. As far as terrorists are concerned, I just want to say that this balance of power can be disturbed by a variety of factors. One of these factors is that sort of publicity which plays directly into the hands of those who want to achieve a certain objective. I now want to quote a passage from Conflict Studies, a very well-known publication—

Here it refers to terrorists—

As a result of this I want to refer to the fact that we had a report about occurrences in South West Africa in two different daily newspapers. The one caption reads—

In another report it was said—

As a result of this, the balance of power which is being brought about by our Defence Force by means of the confidence which they inspire and their ability to hit the terrorists hard, is being criticized in the eyes of the public. Therefore if we allow our news media to deal with this matter in such a way that they become as it were a component of our Defence Budget, our expenditure on defence—as impressive as it is—will still be inadequate. Therefore, in my opinion, it is fitting to appeal to everyone who can make a contribution to oppose this terrorist point of view, namely the unnerving of the public. Every piece of reporting must be carefully considered to determine whether it may not perhaps have the same result as that which the terrorists are aiming at.

Mr. Chairman, may I start off by saying to the hon. the Minister that we in these benches are pleased to see that he has recovered and is back in the House. May I also join in the remarks concerning Admiral Biermann. I do hope that Admiral Biermann’s services will be available to South Africa in many capacities for many years to come. I really do not think we can afford to lose the services of people of such great talent in various spheres. Although he is leaving us in one capacity, I think his services could be very valuable to South Africa in many other spheres.

We would like to congratulate General Malan on his appointment. He takes on this job at a tremendously challenging time in South Africa’s history. We in these benches want to say that we will endeavour to assist him, in every measure possible to see that the morale of men and the duty he has to defend South Africa can be aided in every way possible. I want to make it very clear that we do not believe that servicemen should be regarded as belonging to different political parties. They are all servicemen and they are all there in the service of their country. I want to say here and now that as far as we are concerned, we believe that anybody who seeks to divide the Army by reason of the politics of any serviceman is committing an act which is disloyal to South Africa. I want to go further. Those who cast doubt on the loyalty of others to South Africa for a political motive are committing acts which South Africa will not allow and will in fact show its disapproval of. One of those disapprovals, if I may say so, was shown yesterday of a particular party who indulged in that particular kind of tactic to the disgrace of themselves and to the harm of South Africa.

Is this your patriotic day today?

I do not have to stick my bubble-chest out to show my patriotism. I think that we are getting a little bit tired of that sort of patriotism. Coming back to the subject of the Army, I think that one of the things that needs to be said again, and needs to be said again in this debate, is that the action which the Army took in respect of the refugee situation which arose on the Angolan border is one of which people of good heart and people who look at the matter objectively can only speak in the highest praise. I think that our Army and our troops have set an example not only to the people of South Africa, but to the world, of how you help people when they are in trouble, irrespective of their politics, irrespective of their colour, irrespective of their race, knowing that they are merely human beings who are in trouble. I think that it is necessary again to pay tribute to the action taken by the Army in respect of the refugees.

I think we need to look at the situation on our borders in a realistic fashion. I do not believe that anybody can say that the troubles which we are in are not long-term troubles. They are in fact long-term troubles beyond question. It is also clear that in so far as our economy is concerned it must be disrupted as little as possible. In these circumstances I really cannot understand why we do not take steps in order to have a larger professional Army, why in fact we do not have brigades of full-time soldiers who are there permanently as bush-fighter brigades which are highly mobile and which can deal with this type of activity at very short notice with far less disruption of the economy than is caused by the call-up system. I am not saying that everybody should not play their part. I am not saying that we should not have people in reserve who can be called up in emergencies, but I want to make a plea for a larger professional Army, and in the same context I believe that our professional Army should contain people of all races and that we should embark upon a campaign immediately in order to recruit on a large scale Black people in South Africa. I have in mind that we should set a target immediately of recruiting some 10 000 Black people to participate in the Army on a full-time professional basis, on the basis of equal pay, equal opportunity and no discrimination whatsoever. Nothing can be better for the defence of South Africa than to show to the world that all the people of South Africa are involved and to show that our Army is one in which there is certainly no discrimination.

May I deal with one other matter in relation to the way in which the Army is being projected. Here I think a disservice is being done to the Army. I have seen on a number of occasions that when photographs are taken of our troops in position, of our troops holding a certain position, we show them sitting behind a First World War Vickers machine gun. Admittedly, it may have been brought up to date, but that Vickers machine gun has been seen so often that it is really coming out of our ears, if one can use that metaphor, Sir. I believe that there is in fact a tremendous injustice being done to South Africa in that the modern equipment which the army obviously must have, is not being displayed but only light armoured vehicles and artillery of a limited measure. We should show the world that we are in fact well armed and that we have the military hardware that is necessary. I should like to see some of the rockets, long-range guns and heavy armour being shown so that we can demonstrate that we are in fact fully equipped with all the hardware we need. I have appealed to the hon. the Minister that we should have a massive display of arms in order to show our strength, because I believe that if you can show that you are strong, that is the best means of defence.

Let me touch on one other matter. It is with some sadness that one looks upon the spectacle of the hon. member for Durban Point today, because in the battle for Durban Point, I mean, Durban North—perhaps Durban Point will be next—he was the general. We saw here today the fallen, bitter, crestfallen general pouring out his bile and pouring out his anger.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the words “pouring out his bile”.

Sir, I withdraw them. What the hon. member for Durban Point must understand, is that in order to go into battle—this is why he lost the battle for Durban North—one needs troops who have the will to fight, one needs a cause to fight for, one needs people who are dedicated, one needs the military hardware in the form of policy and, above all, one needs the general. That is why this gentleman-general, the hon. member, comes here today as a fallen, bitter general who has to admit his defeat but who has not the grace to admit that he has been soundly beaten because he has no policy and no leadership and because his party is falling apart.

Order! I hope the hon. member will not take that point too far.

Sir, the battle for Durban North has been won and it is finished. We will now go on to the next battle.

May I just make one point clear arising out of the speech of the hon. member for Durban Point so that there will be no misunderstanding as regards our attitude. As far as this party is concerned and those of us who sit on these benches, we believe in a South Africa that is strong and that is able to defend itself. We believe that changes must be made from a position of strength and that there must be no question of outside interference, but that South Africa must solve its own problems and find its own solutions. We believe also—I have made this point clear before—that for the defence of South Africa to succeed, arms and armies are not enough; there must be the will to defend by reason of people having something to defend. The best way of defending South Africa is to have the arms on the border and, behind, people who are contented. I believe that, in the defence of South Africa itself, all the people must participate, but that they must have a reason to fight, that they must have a stake in society. That is why we have no difficulty in wishing Gen. Malan and all the other generals well, because we believe we have the men to lead South Africa, men who have the right ideas about defence. However, the politicians must not let them down. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention at all to participate in this debate on gall bladders and intestines which is being conducted between the PRP and the UP. I find myself in the strange situation, however, of agreeing with many of the things which the hon. member for Yeoville said. Although I find many of the things which he said, reasonable, I nevertheless want to point out that what the hon. member has just said, is in a sharp contrast to statements made from those benches in other debates this session. The hon. member will forgive me for not reacting to his arguments any further. Other hon. members on this side of the House, however, will reply to those arguments in due course.

For the present the war in Angola is over. Our involvement in that area is something of the past and at this stage one may rightfully ask who was the winner and who was the loser in that war. I believe it needs to be said that the Defence Force of South Africa, with one hand behind its back, succeeded in writing a glorious page in the history of the battle of Angola. With its limited involvement the Defence Force achieved its limited objectives in the area and very definitely emerged with honour from the fray. But another question arises. Who is going to win the peace of Angola? The answer can only be that it is not going to be Angola that is going to win the peace of Angola, nor Africa, nor Southern Africa, and most definitely not the Western democracies either. There can be one conqueror only. That conqueror is the Marxist orientated powers occupying that part of Africa. We should realize that an entirely new dimension has arisen in the military-strategic realities of Southern Africa through the occupation of Angola by Russian and Cuban troops. When we consider that there are between 9 000 and 12 000 Cuban troops in Angola at the present time, troops which are supported by a mighty power with an inexhaustible supply of arms, and that force can be used as and where Russia deems it necessary—no matter where in Africa—we realize that force can be a decisive factor in any possible confrontation in Africa. Having regard to the laxity displayed by the Western democracies in abstaining from becoming involved in events in Angola, one wonders whether the West does realize what a source of danger this force in Angola is to world peace and to democracy everywhere in the world.

Now a person like Dr. Kissinger makes a very belated attempt to regain the friendship and goodwill of countries in Africa. In his efforts to succeed in this, he passes judgments which are definitely not characterized by objectivity or even by objective observation. What is more, his judgements may fan the flames in Africa and serve as further encouragement to the Russians and the Cubans in their endeavour to achieve their expansionistc objectives.

Now, against this background, and having regard to the fact that the Western democracies shamefully neglected their duty when Angola was in her hour of need, we must take cognizance of the present attitude of the USA and of the Western democracies. They allow the Security Council to brand South Africa as the aggressor in Angola, and they do this without referring to the flagrant participation of the Russian-Cuban force in the military operations in Angola.

In the second place Dr. Kissinger addressed a mild warning to the Russians that the USA would not tolerate the Russians or the Cubans entering into the struggle in Rhodesia. In that we find poor comfort, especially in the light of the lack of action against the same forces on the same principles at the time of the Angolan episode.

In the third instance the USA donated $11 million to Mozambique as so-called compensation for the losses allegedly suffered by that country as a result of its boycotts and the closure of its border with Rhodesia. The USA did this, while it was general knowledge that President Samora Machel was in Moscow at the time to negotiate the purchase of Russian arms. In his Lusaka speech, on 27 April, Dr. Kissinger said, inter alia, the following—

He went on to say—

In his speech he was obviously referring to Swapo, an organization based on Marxist ideology which is carrying out raids on innocent citizens of South West Africa at the present time, which is murdering men, women and children and which has as its first objective the destruction of the Kunene project which was constructed for the benefit of all the people of South West. It should be remembered that Swapo, because of its Marxist orientation, is in a position to bring very strong pressure to bear on the MPLA. The MPLA owes its very existence to Russian-Cuban intervention in Angola. Only a very small amount of pressure will be needed to persuade the MPLA to allow Swapo to achieve its objectives, were Russia to decide that in order to “liberate” South West, the Kunene project would have to be sacrificed.

Dr. Kissinger’s criticism of South Africa’s efforts to create an orderly scheme of things for all the inhabitants of South West Africa at the Turnhalle conference, can only serve to encourage Russia to achieve its stated objective, i.e. the “liberation” of South West Africa. We should remember that Mr. Malik said as recently as last year—

Is this pressure not being put on us already?

We should remember that Cuba is reviewing its Constitution at the present time and is including the specific provision that it is Cuba’s “international duty to render assistance to people who are fighting for their freedom”. The point I want to make is that in its struggle for survival and the accompanying struggle against communist infiltration into Southern Africa, there is small comfort for the RSA in the attitude of the Western democracies and little prospect of its receiving assistance from those quarters. If the somberness of this reality which is confronting us, were to give rise to panic, pessimism and dejection, then we would lose the struggle. What is required, is a calm and sober evaluation of the situation, a dedicated acceptance of the responsibility which flows from this and responsible and purposeful action by every citizen of South Africa to support the South African Defence Force in its great, praiseworthy and virtually superhuman task of defending and securing the RSA. The will to survive and faith in the future is the clarion call at the moment.

Mr. Chairman, in Africa it is the lesson of history that it is rash not to provide for the totally unforeseen. As the Romans said, “ex Africa semper aliquid novi”. Therefore, as we are part of sub-Saharan Africa, we must not consider this defence budget in isolation; it must be considered in the context of this region of Africa. We must bear in mind what has taken place in the politico-military field in this region, and that we are now receiving the attention of the super-powers of the world. Therefore, the following facts are relevant in our considerations: Firstly, the Russian economy is geared to a war-time economy. Their production provides the arms and tools of war instead of the necessities of life. We must bear in mind, too, that this economy is geared to escalating conflict and that their obsolete weapons must be dumped and sold somewhere. This is one reason why we have grave difficulty in keeping and holding the peace in this sub-continent. It must also be borne in mind that the following was said in the book World Armaments and Disarmament—

Let us illustrate the point of the arms race in this region more closely by looking at the distribution of world military expenditure over the last couple of years. I would refer to the year 1960 and point out that the United States spent 45,5% of the world’s military expenditure in 1960, while in 1974 they spent only 31,5%. That represents a decrease of 14%. In 1960 Soviet Russia spent 25% and in 1974 they spent 29,4% which is an increase of 4,4%. The Third World, of which we form part, had an expenditure, percentage-wise, of 4,6% of military expenditure in the world in 1960, while in 1974 it spent 10,8% which is an increase of 6,2%. This represents a higher percentage increase than that of Soviet Russia. This forcefully brings home to us the fact that Russia considers southern Africa as part of its sphere of influence and that they therefore may legitimately, in their own minds, endeavour to influence the battles for power in the sub-continent and to monitor and to initiate conflict in this region.

*What I have said here, underlines two very important facts in particular, facts of which the people of South Africa must undoubtedly take cognizance. The first is that Southern Africa may experience a very long and protracted struggle, which is going to be maintained by Russia, a country which will employ any ally and slogan so as to establish a Marxist ideology here. A second aspect of which we must obviously take cognizance, is that this onslaught is directed not only at the Defence Force, but also at the civilians of this country. If we are to identify at this stage what this struggle is in fact directed at, then we find that it is directed at the determination of the people of South Africa to survive. Therefore, the Defence Budget is intended to underline and stress the military component of our determination to survive. In this way approximately 50% of the Defence Budget is allocated to landward defence, the directive being to undertake the defence of land terrain by means of combined ground and air forces.

To be able to defend our long borders effectively and to establish an ability to strike back at an aggressor, we need to pay close attention to the effective utilization of our manpower and our armaments. An intense effort must be made so as to rationalize the military utilization of our manpower. This rationalization should be perpetrated, and I want to use a small example by way of illustration. Iscor is situated in my constituency, Pretoria West. If a person is drafted into the Iscor commando while he is resident in my constituency, a few advantages flow from this. One of the advantages is that when he has to defend Iscor in his capacity as a commando member, he has intimate knowledge of the circumstances of Iscor and knows exactly where the vulnerable points are. The second advantage is that he may actively help to defend the country with the trowel in one hand and the sword in the other. He may even take his rifle to work with him, because it may very easily happen that he may be used as a commando member there. Moreover, from an economic point of view, the position is that it is much easier for the employer to pay his employee, because his employee will definitely do some work for him.

To my mind it is imperative for us to continue purchasing the best available armaments. I also believe that we should consider training our men in more than one technical direction. We should consider arming them not only with rifles, but also with multipurpose weapons. I have in mind, for example, weapons capable of firing grenades and missiles as well as signal flares. In the rapidly-changing circumstances in times of insurgency operations, we should make provision for more weapons per man, since the objectives change rapidly.

When it comes to the lessons we have learnt from Angola, it is clear that we may rely completely on our young men and young commanders. They are militarily, mentally and physically motivated people. When we look at our country as a whole, we see that our civilian population is motivated as well. In my opinion, however, the position is that a fifth column is obviously emerging at the present time. The question is whether we can afford having a fifth column in our country undermining the preparedness of our soldiers. I say that South Africa cannot afford this. It makes no difference whether the person indulging in such reprehensible conduct is a public figure, a politician or a clergyman, because no person’s point of view is more important than the security of our country. For this reason I am of the opinion that we should continue on the road we have taken. We must prepare ourselves and our men must be effective, but we must also guard against a fifth column undoing all our good work. Under these circumstances I say that the survival of our people is the highest objective of us all.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to state a standpoint, but before doing so, there is a personal matter I want to set straight. In the past it has been suggested on various occasions from the opposite side of this House that I was supposed to have said that we must not spend money on defence. This is not so at all. I cannot understand why a party which, as far as numbers are concerned, is so strong, should find it necessary to follow tactics of this kind.

You did say it.

Any one interested in doing so, can check on what I said. This is what I said, according to Hansard—

If this is not the correct thing to say, I have to point out that, during this session, a highly respected member on the opposite side, the hon. member for Johannesburg West, also referred to defence expenditure. What did he say? I quote—

Now, in which way does this differ from what I said? The hon. member for Johannesburg West said precisely what I had said; he just formulated it better than I did. Three years ago, when our defence expenditure amounted to R450 million, I said it would double within two years, and this is precisely what happened. Sir, in this way I can also make an estimate of what our expenditure will be for the next three years, but I shall rather leave that for another time. The trouble is that there are too many hon. members on that side who think that one’s patriotism is measured by the amount of money one spends on defence. If this is the case, there will, of course, be many patriots in this country, but many unwise patriots. The best defence we can get in South Africa, is to maintain a balance between defence expenditure and other revenue producing expenditure, and this is all I was trying to say.

To take this argument a little further, let us presume that it is decided tomorrow that we should spend an additional R1 000 million per year on defence. I ask where that money is to come from. There will be those experts who will say that income tax should be increased, but as it is, our marginal rate in this country is 72%, and everybody knows that if one exceeds 60%, it is no longer productive. If we express the income tax we are paying for defence in terms of taxpayers in this country, it amounts to R900 per year per taxpayer. As it is, this is extremely high. Of the 1,6 million taxpayers we have in this country, half earn less than R3 000 per year. In other words, in terms of income tax, their contribution is so insignificant that one may just as well leave them out of the reckoning. Therefore, what is going to happen? It is easy to say that income tax should be increased, but then we would be finding ourselves in the same predicament we are in at present. What possibly happen under those circumstances, is that the Government would set the printing works to work to increase the money supply of the country. Under certain circumstances we have to do this, of course, but unfortunately one would have to pay the price for doing that. Sir, I think that what we should appreciate, is that a country’s military effort is a function of its economic ability. If one does not appreciate this, one has not even learned the most elementary lesson of warfare.

On various occasions it has been suggested here—and especially from the Opposition side—that we should have a bigger Permanent Force in South Africa and that the Citizen Force element should be relatively smaller. It has always been said in the past that such a step would be very expensive; that it would cost far more money. But I want to suggest that the situation has changed radically in the meantime and that we are experiencing a situation in South Africa today, where the Government should reconsider this matter. I should like to motivate this.

Sir, we should aim to obtain the greatest efficiency possible with the least expenditure possible. What are the considerations? If one studies this budget, one will see that staff expenditure, the staff element, amounts to altogether R195 million. This is only 14% of the total budget. Since all the other elements are constant, inter alia, arms and ammunition, it would increase the total budget by only 12% even if one were to double the staff expenditure. If we study the budget, we shall also find that training costs, the visible part, amount to approximately R95 million, and, of course, the bigger the permanent force the more one will be able to accept that a saving will be likely under this item as well. But in the Navy and in the Air Force we have today such a large measure of specialization that there should be permanence of staff. An aircraft costing between R5 million and R10 million requires a skill which can, in time of peace only be rendered by the professional pilot.

However, I maintain that the present system has a considerable draining effect on the economy. Economically it would be far better for us to set aside 100 men permanently for a whole year, to take them out of our economy and to keep them in Defence rather than take 100 men from our economy every three or four months and bring them back again.

But there is another important element. A complete revolution is taking place in warfare today. What is being emphasized is quality and not so much quantity of staff. In the past we thought in terms of terrorists who were relatively unsophisticated. However, with the intrusion of the Cubans we now have a completely different element here. Their arms are of a far more sophisticated nature, and we shall have to take note of this. We are living in a time of a complete revolution in arms. In the past the principle of the saturation weapon was accepted. One used to fire dozens of shots, hoping one of them would hit the mark. Today we are developing weapons of the one-shot-and-hit type. This is the greatest forward step in defence since the Hittites introduced the iron sword centuries ago.

Just consider the ICBM, the intercontinental missile. This is one of the wonder weapons of our time. One can fire it over a distance of 6 000 miles and cause it to land within half a mile of one’s target, but one nevertheless has to fire 20 of them to get one shot on target. However, today there is a completely different approach. By using the laser principle and the electro-optic missile, the whole world is in the process of developing missiles which home in on the target; the missile then follows the target until it strikes. One can hit the target within 12 inches from the spot at which one aimed. Just think of the tremendous consequences that flow from this.

Firstly, if one acquires these advanced weapons—something one has to do—there have to be people who are able to operate those weapons on a permanent basis. This is not something which can be done on a part-time basis. Secondly, the days of the large military forces are numbered, because now a few men can have the same striking power as a battalion had before. Thirdly, accuracy is no longer a function of distance. Because one has such accurate weapons, one’s expense is reduced in a relative sense. One no longer needs dozens of missiles to hit one target. One needs only one missile. Of course, when one takes this idea even further, one will find that accurate weapons of this kind will render even nuclear weapons unnecessary. Owing to a lack of time I, unfortunately, cannot take this argument any further, but there are numerous new developments. We are dealing with a new situation and there are numerous considerations which indicate that the time has arrived for the Government to pay real attention to increasing the permanent element of the defence force. I am not suggesting that the citizen force should be abolished; I am merely suggesting that the permanent section of our defence force should be developed considerably.

Mr. Chairman, this afternoon the hon. member for Hillbrow tried in a very skilful manner to manoeuvre himself out of the statement he had talked himself into a year or so ago. He referred to the hon. member for Johannesburg West who had made a remark which was allegedly consistent with his statement. The difference is, of course, the sense in which those words were used. If I remember correctly, the hon. member for Hillbrow suggested at the time that the money for defence should rather be spent on schools, etc., for Black people. As I have said, the sense in which those words were used, was very different, and it is no use the hon. member for Hillbrow trying to manoeuvre himself out of what I want to call that scandalous statement.

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

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the word. The hon. member also asserted that we should have a larger Permanent Force, which would result in our having to withdraw fewer people from the economy. How that assertion can be reconciled with our limited manpower and the need to train everyone who is physically capable of being trained, I do not know, because this simply reflects his ignorance as regards the military set-up of today. The fact remains that when one has destroyed the enemy and one does not have the troops to occupy that territory, that territory is worthless to one. This simply reveals the hon. member’s absolute ignorance as regards military action and the maximum advantage to be taken from military action. The rest of the hon. member’s argument was quite technical, and I do not want to react to that part of his speech.

Today there is a growing realization in South Africa, in Africa and in the world that South Africa is a permanent, integral part of the African set-up. This is being accepted to an ever-increasing extent. It is also no more than logical that South Africa’s preparedness will be modelled on an African pattern and on African requirements. It is also true that in Africa, especially Africa south of the Sahara, South Africa represents a giant, a giant economically speaking, undoubtedly, but in the military sense, too, South Africa is a giant in Africa, especially south of the Sahara. When we look at the statements in Military Balance, we come to realize that especially as far as armaments are concerned, South Africa is a giant. Also as regards trained men, South Africa still is a giant at this stage, although we know that Africa has a tremendous potential in this regard, and now I am referring to the militant part of Africa, the hawks and not the doves. I repeat that South Africa is definitely a giant. Our point of departure should be, as previous speakers said, that the greatest asset of South Africa in the past with regard to its manpower, was not quantity, but the quality of her men. If one’s point of departure is that the quality of one’s men is higher that the average of world standards, there are a few rules which should be followed. One of these rules is that one should make maximum use, in contradistinction to the plea of the hon. member for Hillbrow, of the manpower at one’s disposal. Allow me to mention a few figures only. In 1967 we introduced compulsory military service, and a few years earlier, i.e. in 1963, prior to the introduction of compulsory military service, 11 700 men were called up for military training; in 1966, the last year before compulsory military service, 19 500 men; in 1967, 23 000 and in 1974, 33 500. Now, if we take it that the men who did not undergo compulsory military service in 1966 as a result of the ballot system, are 28 years old today, and that a man is able-bodied up to and including his fiftieth year, there is a tremendous reserve of men, spread over 22 years, who have no military training or background or experience whatsoever, and, who, in a military sense, is therefore no asset to us.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister this afternoon—because I have to assume that legislation will have to be passed to bring back this reserve force of men back for military service—whether he does not want to consider introducing legislation for utilizing this large reserve of manpower—my estimate is 100 000 men or more—where and when necessary. We have quite a number of commandos which are below strength. Our civil defence service is experiencing a shortage of manpower in many cases. In this particular regard it is possible to utilize the services of the men to good effect, although I want to concede that, today many of them, because of their age and the years they have been in employment, may be occupying key positions. But with a large section this will not be the case. I want to advocate that these men be made truly useful to South Africa in the military sense in future.

Mention has also been made here of Russian intervention having created a completely different dimension in Southern Africa. This is so. We have learned a few things from the Angola involvement. One of these is that it has been proved beyond any doubt that our men, as far as quality is concerned, are far above Africa as well as world standards, as the South African has proved himself to be throughout history in the military sense. We want our point of departure to be that if one has a man of quality—and in this regard I want to associate myself with other hon. members who made the same plea—one must have the best possible weapon in that man’s hand when he becomes involved in a confrontation.

Now the position is seen not in the light of our Angolan involvement—this I want to state very clearly—but of the Russian interest in and active entry into the Southern African military scene and especially of the massive arms supply which Russia undertakes when it comes to its satellites in the Middle East, that I want to request the Treasury and the Government, and I am grateful for the fact that there has already been a substantial increase in defence expenditure, that expenditure be increased further so as to enable us to place the best weapons possible in the hands of our men. I also want to address a plea to the public outside, and that is that when the military bonds become available, their reaction must be so overwhelming that the preliminary estimates of the Minister of Finance will be proved to be much too conservative. At the same time I want to ask that the minimum amount which may be invested in these bonds, should not be made too high, so that, figuratively speaking, the widow’s farthing may also qualify, because I am convinced that all levels of the population of South Africa are prepared to contribute their share in the sphere of our military preparedness in the form of money for arms and training. After all, it is true that an investment in the defence of South Africa represents an investment for our survival and that of our descendants in this country.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with everything which the hon. member who spoke before me, said. I just want to return to the hon. member for Hillbrow for a moment. I want to tell him that he need not be so concerned about the preparedness of our Defence Force because there are people in the Defence Force with a high technical training. I think that the hon. member would be amazed if he could determine how advanced modern technological thoughts are in our Defence Force. He was involved in a Defence Force years ago and he knew the old weapons. I think that, as far as technology is concerned, we can rest assured that, with the capital and manpower available to us and with our overseas connections, we are not far behind other Western defence force units. I also say this because this year I had the privilege and made a point of looking at our Navy in a fairly penetrating way with respect to its logistic organization—i.e. equipment, its engineering and its works—and in respect of the application and operational preparedness of the Navy and the maritime forces. I also looked at the training which the Defence Force and the Navy in particular offer regarding facilities, standards and achievements. I considered it my duty to consider these things and I was privileged to be able to do so.

I gained the impression that, since the policy makers in the Navy—I want to apply myself to the Navy today because I have a particular interest in that section of the Defence Force—believe together with the Minister and uphold the philosphy that a reliable military ability still remains a prerequisite for the safe and continued existence of the South African national community, and that they continually strive within their financial and manpower abilities to be as prepared as possible, both on an organizational and operational level. I say “strive”, because, to reach the ideal, will cost a great deal of money due to the fact that the things with which the Navy works, for example the submarines and projectiles, cost a great deal of money. Therefore I say that they strive to be as well prepared as possible within the limits of their finances, both organizationally and operationally. As far as the organizational aspect is concerned, I would like to put the question, for the consideration of the hon. the Minister, whether consideration could not be given to the possibility of moving the Navy headquarters to the Defence headquarters in Pretoria which is also the seat of the Government. When I speak of the Navy headquarters, I mean the eight or nine or ten top men in the Navy structure. In my opinion it is not possible

Please motivate your proposal.

No, I do not want to discredit Simonstown. Not at all. I am not going to try and motivate my request now either. There is indeed a very good motivation in favour of this suggestion. I do not want to make politics of it. My good friend of Simonstown must please not become excited. If we examine this suggestion penetratingly and objectively, and take into consideration the possibilities thereof, there are, from a military point of view, very good reasons why we want the top structure, the eight or nine or ten chief policy makers of the Navy, at the Defence headquarters in Pretoria. I am only asking that, should the hon. the Minister and his advisers be willing to consider it, an objective study be made of this. The management systems of the Director-General could be used. The hon. the Minister could use people of his own department, or an independent commission, to inquire into this matter. In my opinion a step like this would definitely have advantages, especially strategic and financial. It would also be time saving.

I do not want to fill Pretoria even more with officials. Not at all. I do not want to discredit Simonstown. However, I believe that very good arguments exist in favour of this idea.

Pretoria rules the waves!

I believe that it would be a good thing if the top structure of the Navy could be integrated in the most effective way with the top structure of the Defence headquarters in Pretoria. Therefore, I am making this appeal.

In the second place, I want to refer to the operational preparedness of our Navy. I consulted the White Paper of 1975 on this matter. Here it is mentioned that there are certain ideals the Navy strives to achieve, certain things the Navy is considering and would like to put into operation. I am grateful that in the study which I made, I could find that what was mentioned in the White Paper of 1965, has already been put into operation or is in an advanced stage of being put into operation. In this respect I am, for instance, thinking of the acquisition of more submarines, the fast projectile-carrying ships, a new generation of mine combating vessels. I am also thinking of the re-establishment of Salisbury Island as a naval base. I am very grateful for this. This was one of the ideals of our Navy. With respect to this aspect a great deal has already been achieved. I am also thinking of the extension and modernization of the operational, the maintenance and the repair facilities at Simonstown. The hon. member for Simonstown recently put a question on the Order Paper. An answer was furnished him in connection with the preparedness of the Navy and the use of the quays at Simonstown. I want to refer the hon. member to the White Paper of 1975. In paragraph 66 the hon. the Minister gives a very clear explanation of this.

I am also thinking of the specialized training facilities which are available to us. Therefore I am so pleased and grateful that today we can tell the people of South Africa, as far as our Navy is concerned, as far as the eight training centres are concerned, where between 4 500 and 5 000 people are trained annually— officers, midshipmen, technicians, etc.—that we can tell our people that they have reason to be proud of the achievements of our Navy and the achievements of those people who lay down and implement policy there. We can tell our people that they may be proud of the task which those men are occupied with every day.

Another interesting matter which I came upon in my study, is the fact that the Navy follows the policy which is referred to as the “acceptance of the user maintainer policy”. That policy is followed, especially as far as the nature of the new ships which the Navy acquires and the crew principles connected to this, are concerned. The user is more involved in the maintenance and the maintainer learns how to use the equipment operationally. This is the kind of military training which may and will have very positive results. There are no problems at all with superficialization of training. The submarine branch already uses this process, and I am pleased that the rest of the Navy is also moving in this direction.

In conclusion I want to point out that I have become aware of the shortage of manpower and of the fact that a large number of outside contractors are used in the Navy. I wonder whether it is not perhaps possible for the hon. the Minister to tell us what the possibility is of the technicians in the Navy working overtime and being paid for this. In my opinion, they are prepared to work overtime in the interest of the great task in which they are involved.

When Britain unilaterally terminated the Simonstown Agreement, the hon. the Minister said on 17 June 1975: “This is not a tragedy, but a challenge.” As a result of the little which I have seen and learned, it is my opinion that the Navy, those who support the hon. the Minister and the staff—administrative as well as executive—are doing what the hon. the Minister said. They do not see the termination of the Simonstown Agreement as a tragedy, but as a challenge and they are accepting the challenge and making great achievements.

I am grateful—and I believe that everyone shares my gratitude—that there are so many of our Coloureds who are interested in the Navy and add their weight to the Defence Force, but especially to the Navy. I am proud to know that these people who love South Africa just as much as I do, are so loyal and eager to provide a responsible and respectful service in the interest of South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Worcester must please forgive me for not reacting to his remarks.

†I would like to refer to a speech concerning civil defence made by the hon. the Minister in the House last year. He then said—

We agree with this very laudible sentiment of the hon. the Minister. However, it is apparent that this objective has not been attained. I come to this conclusion merely on the basis of what the hon. the Minister himself answered to questions put to him. The hon. the Minister said that out of 627 possible local authorities who should do something about civil defence, only about 40% reacted and took action as required. This is the good part of it, but the alarming part is that nearly 40% of them have done absolutely nothing or very little about civil defence to date, particularly as far as trying to get volunteers to do the work is concerned. There has been very little response in this regard. We would like to know from the hon. the Minister what the reason for this is.

We know that civil defence is very necessary, but I wonder how many people really understand what is meant by civil defence. Some people say civil defence is a system whereby every citizen should be able to render help and assistance to others in cases of national emergencies or disaster. This may be fairly correct, but I think the hon. the Minister was much closer to the truth in his definition of the requirements of civil defence when he said—

These are the important words: “The will to survive and resist in each and every citizen.” The question arises whether the will to survive and resist is present in every citizen. It would not seem to be the case if one goes by the result of the by-election we had a little while ago. On the part of the population there seems to be a growing fear of the future, and they just seem prepared to lie down and accept what is coming. This is particularly working us of the older generation. We wonder what the cause of this could be.

We are now experiencing the very educational and instructive series on television, namely “The World at War”, in which we see how modern warfare involves every citizen, whether he is rich or poor, powerful or weak. The king in his palace is as vulnerable as the pauper in his slum to modern warfare. None of us is exempt from the effects of war. This fact has come as a shock for most South Africans, because this country has not experienced war itself for over 75 years. Last week we saw the episode “Holland at War” in that television series. I think it was most instructive and educational, because we saw a nation that was not prepared for war. We saw that the people of that nation, who are very closely allied to us, did not have the will to resist and in the majority of cases they were even prepared to collaborate with the evil oppressor. In shame the Dutch themselves gave the reason for this as being that Holland never experienced an attack, an invasion or an enemy since the time of Napoleon. This is the reason why the will to survive did not exist amongst the Dutch people. We must be careful that this will to survive does not disappear from amongst the people of this country. While I am saying this, the first thing that arises in my mind is the state of mind of the non-White people in this country. Are they, for instance, prepared to cope with the type of emergency that is now facing Rhodesia? Such a situation may arise in South Africa—we hope it does not—as it already has in South West Africa. Are our non-Whites in any state to cope with such a state of emergency and are we doing anything towards preparing them for it?

The hon. member for Sasolburg very rightly referred to the thousands of South Africans who have had no military training and who have not been motivated. It is not their own fault, but due to the fact that they fall in the age group between 30 and 50 years who did not have military training. Has anything been done to motivate them out of this attitude which most of them have today, namely that “it cannot happen to us here” in South Africa? Many of them believe that we shall never be at war and they live a selfish and insulated life thinking that they will never become involved. That is the reason why we never get volunteers from their ranks to help with our civil defence. Once again, I want to ask the hon. the Minister what is being done in order to motivate these people.

We welcome the increased amounts which have been voted in the budget for civil defence, particularly for publicity and advertising. This is very necessary and I hope the hon. the Minister is going to make use of TV to bring home to people the need for civil defence. We should like to thank the hon. the Minister for what has been done by Gen. Bosman, as well as the Department of Defence, in motivating people and local authorities in helping to organize our civil defence. In the rural areas, particularly, the response has been very good and these people are taking an interest. I also want to thank the hon. the Minister for the help commandos are giving to civil defence. Is the hon. the Minister sure that all the commandos are properly equipped to help with this type of work? I have heard that it is not the case. Has the hon. the Minister inquired into the need for insurance for people who get injured while doing civil defence duties? I should also like to thank the hon. the Minister for the help he has given to voluntary organizations such as the Noodhulp-liga and the Red Cross. I think every ex-soldier will agree that not enough money can be spent on Red Cross for the wonderful work they do.

In conclusion I should like to remind the hon. the Minister that he said last year in this House that he expects every member of this House to accept the responsibility to see that the people in their areas become involved in civil defence. I wonder if hon. members are in fact taking this active interest which the hon. the Minister asked them to do. I want to challenge the hon. the Minister and ask him why he does not see that all the members in this House become involved. Why does he not give a directive to his Director of Civil Defence that he should involve every member of Parliament, every member of the Provincial Council, all the heads of local authorities, all the heads of the service organizations, the heads of schools, the heads of churches and the heads of business and industrial organizations? Everybody who is something in local society should be involved in this, whether he is active or retired. If we can get these people involved, the machine will get moving and something will be achieved.

This should not be limited on race or colour lines; everybody should be involved. I ask the hon. the Minister to see to it that hon. members themselves become involved. I am sure that if we become involved, we will accept the responsibility. I know that the members of this party will do so without reservation. [Interjections.] They will accept responsibility to see that their local authorities do their work and pull their weight. There is a job to be done. If the hon. the Minister were an ex-soldier, he would have known that you do not wait on volunteers; you just grab people. If there is a job to be done, they do not mind being grabbed and commandeered to do that job. This job must be done and it is urgent. I ask the hon. the Minister to help us in this regard.

In the last place I should like to refer to the hon. member for Durban Point who has been slated today. No matter what is said about the hon. member for Durban Point, the fact remains that a lot of people in South Africa do appreciate what he is doing for the ex-soldier. He is doing a wonderful job and he is constantly being praised. I should just like to read an excerpt from a letter to the hon. member. In the letter the hon. member is told how much his efforts are appreciated—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for South Coast asked quite a few questions about civil defence, something in which I am also very interested. Civil defence is undoubtedly essential in every country, but in a country such as South Africa which is being threatened by various dangers, the need is naturally so much greater and a great deal of attention must be paid to this. I believe that the hon. the Minister will answer the questions which were put to him. I did not like the hon. member for South Coast trying to create the impression that there was a “growing fear” and a “lying down” in the country. I think that precisely the opposite is happening. Our people are waking up and realizing the dangers which are threatening our country. They are becoming more and more interested in civil defence. If one thinks of civil defence, one asks oneself in the first place whether the public is aware of the fact that it is essential to have civil defence. I think that the second question which one would ask, is what is being done about this. I want to refer briefly to an article which appeared in To the Point. In my opinion it was a very timely article, an article which pointed out the realities of the situation. The degree in which local authorities are already participating in civil defence was pointed out. I think it is a good thing that so much publicity is given to this matter now. I believe that the necessity of civil defence is something on which we all agree. Civil defence is not only the task of armed soldiers, but is rather a question of a state of mind which the nation should acquire. I believe that the TV films which are shown to us, contribute towards our people being made aware of our problem to a large extent. If a nation is spiritually prepared it can withstand much greater attacks from outside as well as from within. We read that Field-marshall Montgomery said—

The Swiss say—

After all this is what we are too.

We find that in modern warfare the war affects the civil population to an increasing extent. In the First World War 5% of those killed were civilians. In the Second World War the number killed increased to 48% and to 84% in the Korean war. What would the position be here in South Africa? I think one should look at the situation very realistically. If we think of the possibilities of conventional warfare in South Africa, we immediately think of the bombing of and attacks on our cities. This would mean the destruction of the civil population and of our cities and towns. If, on the other hand, we think of unconventional warfare, we think of murder and terrorism and the destruction of property and innocent civilians. It is the duty of civil defence to watch against panic and chaos. Civil defence has already been tested in South Africa and has already dealt with various emergencies. Now one asks oneself what civil defence actually is and who should take part in it. I should say, in the first instance, that it is the local authorities who should take the lead, under the leadership of the Defence Force, and people like the fire brigade, the Police, traffic departments, first-aid, doctors and health services, but in the last instance it is the private person who should participate in civil defence, who offers his services voluntarily. They are the people who must be mobilized and co-ordinated by the authorities I mentioned. Therefore I can agree with the hon. member for South Coast that we were disappointed with the answer which the hon. the Minister gave to the question of the hon. member for Sasolburg, when he told us that of the 627 local authorities only 39%, or 244, have their plans more or less in order. “More or less in order” does not sound too good to us. He said that 21% are at an advanced stage, 20% are still in the initial stage and that there are 87 local authorities which have actually done nothing about this very important matter yet.

Sir, I think that the time has come for these bodies to get matters in order. If we approach this matter correctly, we must ask whether the Defence Force is correct and does its duty. To this I want to say that the Defence Force is indeed prepared. We have the Civil Defence Act, No. 39 of 1966, which expounds the aims and gives the Defence Force its task. We have a Director-General, Brig. Bosman, at the head. He issued various directives, regularly holds talks and assists these local authorities. I am also pleased to see there was a 23% increase in expenditure on civil defence in the budget. It will be R800 000 this year, a handsome amount to help with this important task. The work which the Commandos do in the rural areas, is also very important, because we can also expect terrorist attacks in the rural areas. I am very pleased to be able to say that there has been a great revival in the commando in my constituency, a far greater interest in the work of the commando. I see the commandos as the traditional defenders of our rural areas. I also see them as a very important link in civil defence, and I think that in the future they will fulfil their duty there. There are so many spheres in which volunteers from the private sector can help with civil defence. People often ask what they can do. What can our VLV do, or what can the Rapportryers or this or that body do to promote civil defence? Sir, the people are keen. I think that it must be pointed out to them that there are many services which can be provided. In the article in To the Point, to which I referred, high praise is conveyed for what is being done in the Johannesburg area, Sandton. I think it is very praiseworthy and I should like to see this example being followed.

There are so many things which can be done, for example fire brigade services, radio operator services, vehicle operator services which can be organized, dispatch services, pharmacy services and nursing auxiliary services. The women can become ambulance drivers, voluntary nurses, first-aid nurses, telephonists, fire fighters and soup kitchen workers. The services which can be provided, are legion. These voluntary workers are keen, but they must receive the necessary training. In the first instance we must try to give greater recognition to the voluntary organizations. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, unfortunately I do not have time to react fully to both speeches of the previous two speakers, but I should like to react to a few points raised by the hon. member for Worcester. He said he believed six or eight top men of the Navy should be permanently based in Pretoria. I can understand the argument that there should be a larger degree of centralization. Indeed, he mentioned the saving of time and costs as two factors. However, I should like to draw his attention to the fact that there is such a thing as over-centralization. For example, in the case of the development of Simonstown over the past ten years, there has in fact been over-centralization on the part of Pretoria in certain respects and consequently there has been a retarding effect on the operations and the expansion of naval facilities at Simonstown.

Another point raised by him concerned outside contractors. He asked whether it was not possible to pay local employees longer hours for the work done by them—in order to replace outside contractors.

Technical people.

Yes, technical people. There is, of course, a shortage of skilled labour throughout the Navy and the shipyard at Simonstown. There is another retarding factor, and that is the fact that there is insufficient housing for the people working in Simonstown. So they have to come in from outside.

The last point of the hon. member was in regard to the Simonstown Agreement. I want to agree with him that the old Simonstown Agreement had a limited practical value only and that our Navy has taken up the challenge following on Britain’s termination of the agreement. However, one of the difficulties that we as a country are experiencing at the moment, is that we, because of the termination of the Simonstown Agreement, find ourselves virtually alone without any ally in the sense that we do not have an agreement with any other country.

But that is not South Africa’s fault.

This is one of the difficulties with regard to the termination of the Simonstown Agreement.

†I now want to refer briefly to the retirement of Admiral Biermann and the appointment of Lt.-Gen. Malan. I have written to both of those gentlemen, with whom I have had close dealings for some time, to wish them well.

I want specifically to bring to the hon. the Minister’s attention this afternoon the position that obtains in Simonstown. We have a serious situation there, a situation that does not redound to the credit of either the municipality or the Navy in the sense that it is a situation that is not working out satisfactorily in practice. In the past year we have had the appointment of two members of the Navy as councillors in Simonstown. For years and years I have complained—and the hon. the Minister is aware of the fact—that there has been a lack of co-operation between the municipality and the Navy. I would go so far as to say that there was a state of ignorance in respect of their mutual activities and that one hand did not know what the other was doing. To a large extent, however, this has now been remedied by the appointment of two naval officers as councillors in Simonstown, and I think this will herald an era of greater co-operation to the mutual benefit of both the municipality and the Navy. The town, however, experiences tremendous problems at the moment, particularly financial problems. It is affecting not only the municipal efficiency but also the services that are rendered for the Navy.

Let me deal briefly with the defence interests at Simonstown. There is a vast amount of defence property in Simonstown which is not rateable. For that, as the hon. the Minister knows, there is an adjustable grant in lieu of rates paid to the municipality, but the municipality, which is performing services for the Navy, is not performing a service as in the case of Oudtshoorn, for example, for a unit, it is in fact performing municipal services of one kind or another for a whole arm of the Defence Force, one independent arm of the Defence Force. This, frankly, is beyond the capacity of the municipality as it is at present constituted. Daily a total of approximately 5 000 cars go in and out of Simonstown. People come from all over the Peninsula, and just to give one example, the roads and parking areas in the municipality, which have to be maintained by the municipal services, as well as the sidewalks, are put to much greater use than is the case in other areas where there are only units that are based there. The Simonstown municipality is having a burden thrust upon it which is far beyond its own capacity.

In the case of housing, this has a bearing on municipal services as well. Over the years the Coloured people have been moved out of Simonstown and the properties vacated by them have been taken over by the Department of Community Development. There are municipal blocks of flats there, such as the enormous complex called the Waterfall Road Flats, which has been standing in disrepair for the last seven or eight years, as far as I can remember. Their windows have been broken and their doors have been broken. They are broken down and taken out. It is the happy hunting ground of all the “skollies” and vagrants in the southern Peninsula. Although municipally financed with Government assistance and built by the municipality, the flats are standing vacant and derelict. The same applies to a large number of houses vacated by Coloured people in Simonstown. Again doors and windows have been taken out and the buildings are derelict and the home only of “skollies”. From those properties—excluding the flats, which were municipally-owned— previously owned by the Coloured people, there are no rates accruing to the municipality at all.

So the municipality has been deprived of that rate income. There has been an appalling waste of money as a result of the destruction of these properties and we have difficulty in that the new townships that either the Navy or the municipality wishes to plan, and to go ahead with, have not got off the ground because one cannot obtain the necessary permission. In the case of the naval township that they want to put on the top of Red Hill, there is an objection at the moment from the Department of Planning. In the case of Dido Valley, there seems to be some reluctance on the part of the Defence Department and on the part of the Department of Community Development to let the municipality go ahead with the very much needed housing scheme. In addition to that, because of the uncertainty as to what the Navy requires in Simonstown, and therefore what the municipality cannot make use of, municipal housing schemes are just not being undertaken. No municipal building is taking place at the moment as far as I am aware. Therefore the municipality is unable to increase its own rates income. I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister that it should be made known, and made known to the municipality, what I think to be the position, namely that the Navy’s interests do not extend above the Main Road in Simonstown. In other words, the Navy’s interests are mainly along the line of the Main Road from Seaforth to Glencairn, below the Main Road. In the case of the other properties owned by the Department of Community Development above the Main Road, they can well be made over to the municipality for development which will obviously be to the benefit of both the dockyard and the Navy.

The municipality only has very few ratepayers. There are very few people able to qualify as councillors for the municipality. The removal of the domestic service, which has affected both the Navy and the municipality, has resulted in greater transport costs for the municipality, greater transport costs for the people who live in Simonstown and a loss of purchasing power to the shops to the extent that many of them have had to close down.

In so far as services are concerned, the small and financially hard-up municipality is having to provide sewerage services for a large arm of the Defence Force, like the Navy. It is having to provide water storage, to lay pipelines and it is having to provide enormous fire-fighting services as well as local amenities. There is a very high municipal rate burden on the people of Simonstown and what is worse is that much of the money that is earned in Simonstown is taken out of Simonstown each evening by the people who are leaving Simonstown for the places where they live. I am asking the hon. the Minister to try to bring some relief to the municipality of Simonstown by way of an increase in this grant. I should like him to look at the picture as a whole, because the present position is beneficial neither to the municipality and the ratepayers, nor to the Navy itself. I think that if the hon. the Minister gives special attention to a better use of Simonstown by both the Navy and the municipality, it will be to the credit and benefit of both those bodies.

Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to reply at any length now—I shall go into greater detail at a later stage. But to prevent having to speak for too long on one occasion, I want to reply at this early stage to a few of the matters that have been raised up to now.

†First of all, let me convey my deep appreciation to the hon. members on all sides of the House for expressing their sympathy with my family and myself. I can assure hon. members that it is much appreciated.

*The hon. member for Durban Point made the statement here, a statement with which I agree, that the S.A. Defence Force in its full strength must be representative of the national will of the entire country, i.e. of all population groups in the country. I think that if the hon. member wants to be reasonable, he will agree with me that over the past 14 or 15 years that I have been taking an intense interest in this matter, and especially over the past 10 years, during which I have been directly concerned with it, it has been my consistent policy, as it was the consistent policy of my predecessor, to remove the S.A. Defence Force from the party-political sphere and to make it representative of the will, firstly, to prevent outside interference in South Africa’s domestic affairs and to say that South Africa will deal with its own domestic problems constitutionally in the way it thinks fit and refuses to be told by any outside party how it should do this. That is what the Defence Force is there for. In the second place, the Defence Force is there to ensure and to help ensure that orderly constitutional government is maintained in this country. In the third place, the S.A. Defence Force is there to prevent subversive elements from endangering the continued orderly existence of the population groups of South Africa. I think we are all agreed on these statements. However, in recent times a new creature has appeared on the South African scene …

The Progs!

… and this creature is encouraged, partly by subversive elements in the country, partly by overseas propaganda and partly by hypocritical people who pretend to be terribly interested in a “just society”.

The Progs!

No, I am not pointing out persons at the moment; I am making a statement. If one makes a very thorough study of the situation, one finds that there is a calculated attempt, from various quarters, to get at the S.A. Defence Force as well, because the S.A. Defence Force has hitherto been unassailable as far as all good South Africans are concerned. But in recent times there have been cunning attempts to discredit the S.A. Defence Force. One of the arguments advanced is the following one: “How can you expect people to fight for an unjust society like South Africa?” However, when we examine this matter closely, the question arises: Where in the world is there a more just society today than South Africa? Is it a just society behind the Iron Curtain which subjects a hundred million people to tyranny at the point of bayonets?

They murdered more than a million in Vietnam!

Is it a just society which allows foreign aggressive and militaristic imperialists to subject nations on our borders, while those nations are starving? Where are the people who seek the just society, but who fail to condemn the unjust societies that are performing iniquitous acts all over the globe today, while fingers are pointed at South Africa?

To what extent do the South African Defence Force and the Government—the Government which adopts the standpoint that the South African Defence Force must be a bulwark of stability—enjoy the support of all population groups in the country? In the first place I may say that the vast majority of Afrikaans-and English-speaking people in South Africa have a positive attitude towards the South African Defence Force. The best proof I can adduce for this is the fact that when an appeal was made on people recently to come forward and to serve on our borders and beyond our borders, and when certain units experienced a shortage of manpower, when certain people were prevented from serving by their circumstances at work, such a spontaneous enthusiasm developed that some units had more than their required number of members on their departure. This is proof of the fact that Afrikaans-and English-speaking people in South Africa have the right attitude towards the South African Defence Force. In addition, the Black leaders in South Africa have no doubts about their position in regard to this fundamental matter. I have several statements here which have been made available to me, statements in which prominent Black leaders in South Africa have not failed to express themselves very clearly on their standpoint in regard to this struggle. I shall read a few of them. The first comes from Die Volksblad of 6 March 1976—

That was in a speech made at Welkom. I quote Chief Minister Matanzima—

That was what the Chief Minister of the Transkei said on 13 February this year. He went on to say—

He rejects this onslaught very categorically. I have here a speech he made on 27 February and in which he expressed himself in the strongest language. He said—

Chief Minister Mangope said on 13 March this year—

Chief Minister Ndjoba of the Ovambo said—

He said this on 11 February 1976. I could also quote the Chief Minister of Kavango when he used the same language recently and expressly stated that he associated himself with the struggle against communism. So the Black leaders—there are others as well whom I could quote—adopt the obviously friendly standpoint that South Africa must not put up with the interference of communist powers from Russia, from Cuba or from anywhere else. The point I want to make is that those who adopt an accusing attitude towards us and who say that we cannot ask people to fight for a so-called unjust society are carrying on a hypocritical campaign. In actual fact, all people in South Africa—Black and White— are prepared to join forces and to say that they do not want communist interference. So it is a false accusation, a false argument which is advanced in an attempt to denigrate South Africa as being an unjust society which should not be defended. I want to appeal to hon. members of this House, in the serious times in which we live and in which Southern Africa finds itself, in these times in which there is large-scale penetration of the Indian Ocean, to be careful in making any public statements, so as not to play into the hands of those who want to give South Africa out to be a country that has to be destroyed.

I agree with the hon. member for Durban Point that we have reason for seeking cooperation on the scale on which we are in fact doing so. I want to go further. The hon. member for Yeoville waxed lyrical about the necessity for employing non-Whites. It is very easy to speak in poetical terms in this House of 10 000 people who should be employed for fighting, but who began in an orderly manner to afford the non-Whites a proper place in the defence of South Africa? Surely it was this Government. So the hon. member is reading his lecture to the wrong people. I want to tell the hon. member that one cannot just pronounce the magic word “abracadabra” and instantly have 10 000 trained people at one’s disposal. Facilities and instructors are necessary for that training.

You had years in which to provide them.

Yes, we did, and we are still providing them. That is why we have already had a unit of more than 400 non-Whites who fought along with our White boys during the engagements in the operational area. They are still under arms today. I have already told this House that some of them died in action as well. They fought as volunteers; they were not told to do so. There were two units who numbered more than 400 men in all, and they are still under arms today. I am prepared to show the hon. member for Durban Point how effective they are. I am even prepared to prove it to the hon. member for Yeoville. I shall tell hon. members why. The hon. member for Yeoville, I believe, is a friend of the Defence Force at heart. I want to ask the hon. member for Yeoville—and he must be quite frank with me; we owe this to each other—to say whether he belongs to a party that has published a certain pamphlet which is now being distributed from house to house in Cape Town. The hon. member for Yeoville made a positive speech here this afternoon, and I want to thank him for that. It was in accordance with what he has said in private conversations with me up to now, and as an honourable person I took his word. Is the hon. member for Yeoville aware of the distribution of the pamphlet “Angola and its consequences”?

I want to know from the hon. member whether he approves of it. If the hon. member does not approve of it, will he get up in this House and say that it is an objectionable pamphlet? Because it is a base and vile attempt to disparage the Defence Force and to create mistrust about a matter on which the greater part of the population is absolutely unanimous, i.e. the resistance offered by South Africa to Cuban and Russian penetration of Southern Africa. This pamphlet describes the action in Angola as “a disastrous blunder”. I want to say to the hon. member—I do not suppose he will blame me for doing so—that he did not think so, for after the hon. member had been properly informed, he asked why we had not taken Luanda as well. This pamphlet goes on to say the following—

It is a blatant lie which is told by this man, N. D. Ross, of the sixth storey of Garmor House. This man is telling a public lie in saying such things. It is a well-known fact—I have the evidence here, and if it is doubted, I shall disclose further facts to Parliament—that the Cubans, under Russian direction, began their infiltration there early last year. The Russians had begun a gradual build-up of the MPLA in Angola as far back as 1956. Since the beginning of 1975, armaments and ammunition were conveyed on a large scale to Angola. Large depots were also erected in Angola. This gentleman alleges that the Russian-Cuban intervention took place as a result of our participation there. But this is a lie. I want the hon. member for Yeoville, as an honourable man, to take steps in his party to put an end to this kind of unprincipled behaviour. The pamphlet goes on to say—

Imagine, the Government now has to take the blame for the fact that Swapo has taken refuge, as far as its foreign branch is concerned, with the Cubans and the Russians. These are the stories that are spread by a hireling of that party. I want to appeal to the hon. member for Yeoville, as an honourable man and as a friend of the S. A. Defence Force, to keep their house free of cockroaches of this kind. I expect a reply from the hon. member. I expect him as a responsible man, as a friend of the Defence Force, to get up in public and to dissociate himself from this kind of behaviour. If he does so, I shall believe him when he says that all servicemen should have only one loyalty, a loyalty to South Africa.

I said at the beginning that there was a tendency to characterize South Africa as an “unjust society”, no matter what it does. There are two newspapers in particular which are guilty of this, and I am going to mention them by name this afternoon. One of those newspapers, The Cape Times, allows a man such as Gerald Shaw to write one subversive article after another on its pages. He goes on so far as to attack the Chief of the Air Force for speaking with pride of his men’s achievements. He goes so far as to speak of a fifth column which will exist in this country when we have to face a crisis one day. Mr. Gerald Shaw will be a part of that fifth column. The other newspaper is the Rand Daily Mail.

Mr. Gerald Shaw cannot defend himself in this House. [Interjections.]

Order!

He defends himself very well every Saturday with the rubbish he writes.

But he cannot defend himself in this House.

I was elected to this House to be able to say here what I think of such behaviour and I am saying it now.

But you should say it outside this House.

The hon. member must not rush to Mr. Shaw’s defence now; he does not stand for fifth columns after all.

But you may not say that someone else is a fifth columnist.

He said in one of his articles that there would be a fifth column and I say he is defending it.

No, that is not what you said.

And I also say that he will be one of them. Furthermore I say that a man who attacks the Chief of the Air Force for having taken up the cudgels for his men is a fifth columnist.

The second newspaper is the Rand Daily Mail. When the hon. the Prime Minister came back from Israel and announced that an agreement had been entered into with a view to co-operating with Israel in the economic and other spheres, what did the Rand Daily Mail do? I have the editorial here in which the newspaper told the world that Israel was being used to whitewash our domestic policy. These two newspapers are the kind of friends the hon. member has. He must dissociate himself from them if he wants us to believe him. I deliberately raised this matter this afternoon because I wanted to give the hon. member the opportunity of replying to it in the course of this debate.

I hope you will give me the time to do so.

Oh yes, there is plenty of time. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Durban Point suggested again, as he has been doing for years, that we establish a Council of Defence. There has been a provision in the Defence Act since 1912 in terms of which the Minister may establish a Council of Defence. Not a single Minister of Defence has established a Council of Defence. There must be a reason for this and I believe that reason still exists. Gen. Smuts was not prepared to establish such a council and he served two terms as Minister of Defence.

He had one.

No, Gen. Smuts did not have a Council of Defence. There has never been a statutory Council of Defence in South Africa. None of Gen. Smuts’s successors established such a council. Surely it is obvious that no Minister of Defence really knows what to do with such a council. What is one to do with such a council? Let us look at the position of the Minister of Defence. In the first place I have an Armaments Board consisting of the most distinguished people who can be found in the country. There are authorities on various subject fields serving on the board. There is also the board of directors of Armscor, and the two are now virtually becoming one as a result of steps we have taken. Those people are available to me, but I also have a staff council consisting of the most competent officers one could wish for. However, I have gone even further. As I have pointed out before, I also have an advisory council out of which a small executive has been formed whose members include the president of the Armaments Board and the Chief of the Defence Force. I have asked Admiral Biermann to remain a member of the Defence Advisory Council so that I will have his advice available to me and he has agreed to do so. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Durban Point also knows that when I have wanted to take steps concerning Defence matters in the past, I have even called him in to meet the members of the Advisory Council or its executive in my company. I openly admit that I have called in the hon. member on several occasions and that he has given me good advice. Why should I not admit this? I have also called in the chairman of the Defence group on the Government side and he has attended discussions from time to time. The hon. member knows this, after all, I am not afraid of consulting other people. The door of my office is open to every hon. member who takes an interest in the S.A. Defence Force. I shall certainly co-opt people to the advisory council if it proves to be necessary and if they can advise me in respect of specific matters. However, I do not want to be bound by a statutory council consisting of a few old people who have to be called together from time to time, while most of the time they do not know what it is all about. We had two typical remarks in the Press recently. The Rand Daily Mail unearthed two elderly officers who had retired years ago and they were then required to give their opinions on the events in Angola. Shame, the poor people! They do not know what is going on, but they are dragged into the limelight and asked to give an opinion. I do not need people of that kind. I am even prepared to use some of our leading industrialists to advise me by way of the advisory council. I tell the hon. member for Durban Point quite frankly that I shall make use of his advice again—if he is still there. [Interjections.]

This is the spirit in which I was prepared to co-operate with the PRP as well. I say it is the spirit in which I was prepared to co-operate, because the PRP disappointed me at the beginning of the year and it will take a long time before they regain the access to the inner circle they used to have. They will first have to mend their ways; I am still pinning my hopes on the hon. member for Yeoville.

Arrogant bully!

I hear a tiny voice again. [Interjections.] You may be sure that the hon. member is always ready to make her little voice heard. For shame! I hope the French general they have appointed is not as troublesome as this hon. member.

Order! The hon. member for Houghton must withdraw the words “arrogant bully”.

Well, that is what he is, anyway.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw them, but only because I have to.

The hon. member for Durban Point referred to the question of the dismissal of Citizen Force members who had been called up for the four months’ service. I agree with the hon. member. The Act is very clear. However, the hon. member knows what the weakness in the Act is and he also knows the problem in making the Act watertight. But I want to tell the hon. member that I am encouraged by the attitude of the employers all over the country. I am encouraged by the behaviour of large and smaller employers in recent months, and I think we should rather convey our thanks to these hundreds of employers who have enabled thousands of men in this way to fulfil this part of their obligations to their country. But if there have been cases of unscrupulous behaviour towards members of the Citizen Force, we shall have to take stringent action. I agree with the hon. member that where such cases are brought to our attention, we have to probe them thoroughly. I just want to say that I think Gen. Webster did a splendid job in this connection because he concentrated on motivating people, and I think that to a large extent he succeeded. I should like to mention his name today because he devoted a great deal of his time to making South Africans aware of the attitudes they should display towards members of the Defence Force. I think we owe Gen. Webster a debt of gratitude for this.

Then the hon. member also referred to the problems in the Air Force. I think this was referred to by the hon. member for Bloemfontein East as well, i.e. that you do not have the same opportunities for promotion in the Citizen Force Arm of the Air Force. The answer, of course, is that the Citizen Force Arm of the Air Force is much smaller than the Citizen Force Arm of the Army. The Chief of the Air Force is looking into the position at the moment to see what steps can be taken to make improvements. However, the one major difference is the fact that the Air Force, as someone has alleged here, is to a large extent a permanent force element and that the Citizen Force element is very small compared to the one of the Army. In any case, the matter is receiving attention.

The hon. member also referred to the South African prisoners of war. You know, Sir, I have asked the Press please to stop writing about the prisoners of war. It is an emotional matter, a sensitive matter, and the less we say about it the better. It is a very delicate matter, one which cannot be solved by means of speeches. I want to appeal to people at this stage to stop referring to the small number of South African prisoners of war. It is true that on occasion, South Africa took Cuban prisoners of war. The healthy ones we handed over to the provisional Government of Southern Angola when a Government was formed there. Those who needed medical care were brought to South Africa and enjoyed hospital services of the highest quality here. I want to go further and to say that the international Red Cross had access to these people and were able to see at all times how they were being treated.

Then the hon. member also commented here on Brug 14. Well, I did not make the film. All I know is that the officers who were present during the filming of Brug 14 furnished first-hand knowledge. I think it was a very successful film, in spite of what some newspaper columnists had to say about it. However, they were not present at the battle of Bridge 14, so they had better ask the officers what it was like. I can only repeat what I have said in this House before, is that where we took part in engagements with a limited objective, and with a limited number of men, with a limited number of armoured vehicles and limited artillery units, we did not lose a single battle. I say this again. In fact, the entire conduct of our South African units beyond our border was a heroic chapter in our history.

The hon. member spoke of monumental mess-ups. The hon. member can be such a good adviser at times, but then he sometimes turns round and makes such uncalled-for remarks. He spoke of monumental mess-ups, and he referred, amongst other things, to the postal services.

†The hon. member knows, as well as I do, that we had some difficulties on account of the vast territory and the mobility of different units. One day they were here and the next day they were there, but eventually a postal unit was called up from the Citizen Force and properly established at Grootfontein. The hon. member was there and we showed him what they were doing.

These are after that happened.

Yes, but I am sure that if the hon. member were to go to an ordinary post office in Cape Town, he would find that post forwarded to him a few days ago in Bellville, may reach him only a week later. It happens in any human organization. I am satisfied that this Citizen Force unit who are doing their utmost at Grootfontein and who are working under very difficult conditions have been doing a fine job of work.

*Mistakes were made, but most of the people got their mail. The complaints were made by isolated individuals, and I have more to say on this subject to the Defence Force itself than the hon. member, except that I address my criticism to the Force itself and try to protect my Defence Force in relation to the outside world. [Interjections.] The position will never be satisfactory under the conditions prevailing there. The hon. member for Simonstown is a sensible man, after all. He knows the conditions which prevail there and he knows how much rain they had. He knows the distances that have to be covered, and he knows that eventually, vehicles had to be used under dangerous circumstances to deliver mail. The hon. member knows the circumstances there, after all.

But it is really not difficult to deliver mail at Rundu.

Yes, but we are not delivering mail at Rundu all the time. I do not want to take up too much time this afternoon, but the hon. member also raised the question of payment. I just want to say that as far as the payment is concerned, mistakes were made. I admit this, but the fact is that time caught up with us. I am satisfied that the department worked overtime to rectify this position, and it seems to me that the paymaster has succeeded reasonably well in bringing the situation under control. The department reports to me that the problems in connection with the payment of those Citizen Force members who were called up for three months were caused by the fact that a new pay system had to be designed for them within a very short period of time. The new system could only be explained to them when the first units reported.

At that stage there were still deficiencies in the system itself, deficiencies which only became apparent during its practical implementation. However, all the problems have now been sorted out and when members receive their call-up instructions, the system is explained to them by means of a brochure. So they now receive a brochure which tells them what to do. Since January 1976, 38 236 Treasury orders to the value of R4 271 000 were issued to dependants of members. In addition, 57 650 payments amounting to R997 300 were made to members themselves in the operational area. It may also be mentioned that all the members of units who have been relieved of their obligations have already been paid in full. The last Treasury orders in this connection were mailed on 27 April 1976. So the paymaster is quite right in saying that the position is now under control. Let us rather emphasize the very great success I have mentioned here. Why concentrate on a few bad spots? After all, the hon. member can simply deal with them through my office.

The hon. member also said that we would not allow the soldiers on the trains at Windhoek to be fed. However, there is a reason for this. The people at the station showed such goodwill to the soldiers that they came to the trains with all kinds of things and also gave food to the soldiers. This had to be stopped, because some of the soldiers developed serious health problems because of the different kinds of foods they had been given. I have made inquiries myself. My own daughter was one of the people who complained because she was not allowed to take parcels to the trains in South West Africa. In reply to my inquiries I was told that the people had fallen ill because of all the delicacies they had been given.

You can’t be serious?

Yes, but I have this on the highest authority. The hon. member joined me here in paying the highest tribute to Admiral Biermann. However, now he wants me not to accept Admiral Biermann’s word.

No, it is not his report.

In any case, we cannot allow the soldiers to be fed just anything on the trains. [Interjections.] Then we would end up by having to send a train with doctors and nurses after them.

The hon. member also asked: “What is the state of our preparedness in these serious circumstances?” South Africa is a middle-ranking power; therefore it can never defend itself against the whole world. South Africa can establish a balanced Defence Force to defend itself, firstly against terrorism—and this we are fully able to do. We produce in South Africa everything we need to deal with terrorists. In the second place we must have a deterrent to be able to resist a fairly heavy conventional attack on South Africa. We have been preparing ourselves for this over a period of years.

What I am going to say now I say with the utmost responsibility. If this country thinks that it can meet its needs in these times with the money which is being spent on defence, it making a great mistake. No Government can spend more on a matter such as this unless the population is prepared to contribute its share. It is no use making speeches and saying that Defence expenditure is not productive. This is not quite correct. Defence expenditure is not completely unproductive. Defence expenditure is a very important injection for the engineering industry and for the electronic industry in modern times, and in this field South Africa can derive tremendous benefit from its defence effort, as far as its engineering and electronic industries are concerned, if it spends what we are spending and what we intend to spend in this field. In the second place: If we look at the position of France, we see that to a large extent France gained its independence after the Second World War because of the fact that it was prepared to spend money on establishing its own defence industry. Even a man such as General Eisenhower said that the contribution made by the defence effort of the United States to the development of its industries could not be overestimated.

In other words, it is wrong to propagate this hackneyed old story that defence expenditure is unproductive. This is not correct. In the third place: The manpower one trains today in the Army, the Air Force and the Navy, as well as the manpower trained by the Armaments Board and Armscor, is a positive asset to the country. Now it is interesting to look at a few of these matters. At Armscor alone, 784 apprentices are being trained, 659 of them in the aircraft industry, 86 in the ammunition industry and 39 in the armaments industry—a total of 784. The armaments organization has available to it the services of 1 645 Coloured operators in the following disciplines; the aircraft industry, 170; the armaments industry, 194; the ammunition industry, 1 281—a total of 1 645. The management training we provide and all these things are a positive asset to the country and should not be seen as completely unproductive. I hope this is the end of this story we have had to listen to all day in this Parliament.

The hon. member also asked—he actually began with this in his Third Reading speech on the Part Appropriation and he said quite a few irresponsible things even then. I do not want to quarrel with him on that score today. I do not want to quarrel with the hon. member under these circumstances. Besides, the hon. member is feeling sleepy as well. However, I want to refer to one thing he said. The hon. member said in his Third Reading speech on the Part Appropriation that I had made the troops wait for four days at Grootfontein so that I could come and address them. But that is not true. Why did the hon. member not verify his facts? He normally verifies his facts. The fact is that I asked the Defence Force chiefs to tell me when I should come and thank the people at Grootfontein. They told me “Sir, we first have to issue new uniforms and shoes to them and have them shaved. We must have them examined medically. We must first allow the chaplains and the welfare officers to speak to those people. This will take us three or four days and we shall ask you to come at the end of that period, just before they leave by train.” So I acted on the recommendation of the Defence Force chiefs. They did not wait for me. Why does the hon. member tell such stories here in this House? The hon. member also said that I had said on occasion that we were unable to resist the Russian weapons. That is not correct. During this much debated newspaper interview which I granted to a newspaperman, he asked me whether we had weapons to counter all Russian and Cuban weapons. My reply to him was: “Naturally not!” because we do not have an answer to every Russian weapon. Nor does the West; the West is still looking for answers in certain important fields. So there is nothing wrong with such a statement. However, I added to that: “But we succeeded in holding our own.” This the hon. member did not quote.

I simply read the report.

Yes, but the report was not correct. The hon. member must not read newspapers like the Rand Daily Mail—he must read Die Burger. The older he gets, the more he will realize this.

The hon. member asked me: “What is the state of our preparedness?” I want to repeat that our action was a limited action. The hon. member knows this. We used our Air Force only in a supporting capacity, i.e. in a transport capacity. We used our Navy only in a guarding capacity. But the Defence Force as a whole learned a great deal. Militarily speaking, we learned very much indeed from what we did there. However, we certainly did not use all the means at our disposal, because we were not conducting a full-scale war. We had a limited objective, and we achieved it. In the pamphlet issued by the friend of the hon. member for Yeoville—I referred to this a short while ago—the question is asked: Who are the people who left us in the lurch? The hon. member asked again this afternoon whether I would be prepared to make this known. I need not do so, because it is no secret. President Ford himself said that the American Congress had taken a disastrous decision. The hon. member knows this, after all. He also knows that disastrous decision had completely the wrong effect in Africa, not only as far as South Africa is concerned, but also as far as America is concerned. The hon. member further knows that the countries which sat looking on when South Africa was condemned had given their tacit approval to South Africa’s action. This is true, isn’t it? I hope that the period of hypocrisy will pass in the West and that a better era will dawn.

The hon. member also asked what we were doing to promote our preparedness. I cannot go into detail, but I want to say that we have succeeded, since our latest experiences, in becoming more efficient than we used to be as far as heavy artillery is concerned. This is not something we are merely holding out the prospect of—the goods are already here. As far as armoured cars are concerned, we are modernizing and converting. I may say today that we have developed an armoured battle vehicle of our own in South Africa and that we are presently engaged in producing it. This vehicle will lend greater effectiveness to our infantry, as well as much greater firing power than we have had up to now. This armoured vehicle is not yet available for display, but when it is made available, people will be able to look at it. We are also strengthening our modern anti-aircraft equipment. We have succeeded in obtaining large numbers of anti-tank projectiles. These are already available. We are strengthening our helicopter fleet and improving and strengthening our air-to-air projectiles. As far as the Navy is concerned, we are purchasing attack vehicles. As I announced some time ago, they are already being used. I do not want to say any more about these matters.

Allow me to say in the hearing of the Press that it is no use asking us whom we buy from and to whom we sell. It is South Africa’s policy not to say from whom it buys or to whom it sells. With the aid of that policy we have achieved tremendous successes. As long as we are able to maintain this position of confidence, I believe we should do so.

As far as I am concerned, I have given thorough replies to the hon. member’s questions for the time being. I shall reply to other hon. members on a later occasion. I just want to refer to the hon. member for Bloemfontein West. I have already replied in part to his question about the utilization of the strength of our Army. However, I want to tell him that we have launched a special recruiting campaign and that we have opened new recruiting offices in Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, Johannesburg and all the major centres. Compared to the previous year, we have made tremendous progress in recruiting Defence Force staff.

I shall discuss this again tomorrow. The hon. member also wanted to know what the position of women in the Defence Force was and whether a general could also be appointed from their ranks. A few colonels and brigadiers have already been appointed, ladies who pull their weight in several divisions of the Defence Force. In all three divisions of the Defence Force, the service of women is used on a large scale, a service which has been very fruitful up to now.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to leave things at that for the time being.

Mr. Chairman, in this House the hon. the Minister of Defence made certain statements and allegations which I believe require immediate answers. I want to say one thing to him at the very outset. The game of singling out a specific individual and saying that individual is better than other members of his party, is not a game I am prepared to play because I believe, and I think there is proof of this, that every one of the people sitting in these benches is just as patriotic as the hon. the Minister, and perhaps a lot more. I say that because of what these members have to sacrifice and because of the abuse they have to be subjected to as a result of being prepared to speak up when they believe it is right. [Interjections.] This game of trying to say that one is better than the other is a game we are not prepared to play. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister has gone a little bit too far today. [Interjections.]

Order!

Today the hon. the Minister decided to refer to a conversation which took place between us in the number one military area, in the presence of a number of senior military officials. The hon. the Minister knows as well as I do that those discussions, that briefing and everything that took place there were regarded as being confidential. He does not have the right to break that confidentiality at will. [Interjections.] He does not have that right. I want to tell him now—in case he has any great fears on that score—that although he is prepared to break confidentiality, I am not prepared to broadcast here things which I was told and which I regard as being in the national interest. That is not the way I believe I should behave. However, the hon. the Minister has no difficulty whatsoever in breaking confidentiality in regard to a conversation we were told not to repeat, a conversation held under the cloak of secrecy. The hon. the Minister, however, tells the whole story. [Interjections.] Allow me to tell this hon. House what, in fact, the conversation was about when I discussed Luanda. I indicated to the hon. the Minister— and there are very senior people who were present and who can testify to this—that I believed we should not have gone into Angola except to protect the dam. I want the hon. the Minister to say whether that is true or not. Indeed, I told him that if we entered into something we should see to it that a proper job was done. If he was going into Angola and he would boast of the fact that he was able to go into Luanda, I asked him why he had not done so, and why he had not taken the airfields and the ports in order to stop Russians and Cubans from being poured into them. I asked him why he had stopped. I want to say that I am sufficiently responsible not to give the answer to the House unless I am authorized by the hon. the Minister to say why he had to stop. I do not believe it is in the interest …

Do so.

Should I do so? Does the hon. the Minister want me to say why he had to stop?

Did I not say, do so?

The hon. the Minister told me that the Americans told him to stop.

Did I not say that a moment ago?

The hon. the Minister also told me that the Americans told him to stop and that you did it in co-operation with them. I do not believe the hon. the Minister is entitled to stand up in the House and say that I said we should also take Luanda without giving the true facts in the context of what took place and when you breach confidentiality and your own rules of secrecy. Those are the facts. I believe that if there had not been a political decision—one cannot blame the generals for political decisions— and if you did not do a thing halfheartedly once you were in it, it would have been done properly. This is the tragedy, and this is my complaint. My complaint, as the hon. the Minister well knows, is that I do not believe in doing a job halfheartedly. [Interjections.] Hon. members can laugh; it may be a joke to their minds. When it comes to the best example in the world as to what happens when a country does something halfheartedly, it is what America did in Vietnam. Look at the consequences of it. One either does not undertake something, or one makes a good job of it. That was my complaint. I never told the hon. the Minister that one should go into Angola and go to Luanda. The hon. the Minister should tell the true facts. He should not make the kind of statement in the House through which he tries to sow dissension, break confidentiality and the secrecy he imposes in respect of military matters, for a political purpose. I think it has become time that the South African public knew that, as far as we are concerned, we made it clear—the hon. the Minister and other senior people knew it—that we were fundamentally concerned about the presence and activities of Russian imperialism, assisted by the Cubans. We told the hon. the Minister that if he wanted the service of any of the people here who many have connections in Africa in order to bring home the dangers of communist imperialism, these services were available to him if it could be used in order to help to get the Russians and the Cubans out of Angola. This offer was made to the hon. the Minister. But we kept it to ourselves and did not disclose it.

This was our attitude: To the extent that we had some way of assisting the hon. the Minister, we offered it, but the hon. the Minister did not take up the offer. We decided not to make it public, because we did not think it was in the public interest. But now the hon. the Minister has disclosed all these things. Let the truth be told that the connections some people have, in Africa through which they can at least communicate with people, were put at the Minister’s disposal. Let it be made public that this was put at the Minister’s disposal in order to try to get rid of Russian imperialism and in order to try to convince the Black people that they have to get rid of Russian imperialism. The hon. the Minister did not want to take advantage of the offer that was made to him. I now come to the pamphlet. This pamphlet is available to any member of the House who wants to see it. The hon. the Minister tries to create the impression that we said in the pamphlet that our intervention was a reason for the Russians entering Angola. That is not what the pamphlet says. The pamphlet says that—

[Interjections.] That is what the pamphlet says. Nobody said that the Russians and the Cubans were not there first. The hon. the Minister should know that he must not lead the House by the nose for a political purpose and in order to indulge in a smear. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that, as far as I am concerned, I have never breached anything I was told in confidence. If the hon. the Minister does not want to take me into his confidence and show me things which are of concern to the Defence Force, then it will be his loss and not mine. I believe people on this side of the House, including myself, can assist. [Interjections.]

Order!

I challenge the hon. the Minister to produce one Army man who says that one cannot trust people who keep confidences. It is only the hon. the Minister who indulges in political gains. I have confidence in the Army men and I think they respect confidences. I respect the fact that they stand by their word. They are able, but the difficulty that their job is being hindered by a man who wants to play politics. The hon. the Minister is playing politics with the interests of South Africa and with our young people. When a man plays this kind of game, then South Africa needs to look very carefully at the man who boasts that he is in charge of our defence, because the defence of South Africa is not a political football. It is the concern of everybody in the House. Let me return to the pamphlet. What does he the pamphlet say? It says—

The hon. the Minister did not read that. These are the ways in which he plays politics under the Defence Vote. I want to tell hon. members, with great respect to the hon. the Minister, that he may not be feeling very well, but he has a responsibility to South Africa not to play political football when it comes to defending us. I am utterly shocked that he should breach confidences and that he should disclose matters that were said in secrecy. Lastly, the hon. the Minister knows very well he said that if I would repeat that our people should not be out-gunned and out-ranged and that we should vote the money in this regard that he—this he promised me in the presence of senior officers—would take the Defence Force out from under the Public Service Commission. Is he going to honour that? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Yeoville must answer my questions. He should not be making a fuss. My question to him is: Does he agree with what this pamphlet says? It says—

Does the hon. member agree with this? The hon. member must answer my questions. What this pamphlet says is a blatant lie. It also says—

I say that this is a blatant lie. I have appealed to the hon. member’s integrity to dissociate himself from this, but he has not done so. He is afraid; he will not do it, because he is under the whip of these people; he has a new master. The pamphlet goes on to say—

Does the hon. member agree with this allegation in the pamphlet? I say that these are a lot of blatant lies which are being laid at the Government’s door. The man who wrote this pamphlet, is guilty of telling blatant lies.

The hon. member referred to a so-called “break of confidence” of which I am allegedly guilty. Oh no, the hon. member must not become so serious. That afternoon when hon. members were informed in confidence, I was not present.

And where were you that evening?

The hon. member met me that evening at a social function for the first time that day. [Interjections.] But when hon. members were being informed in confidence, I was not present, and I was not present on purpose; I absented myself. I told my officers that they could inform hon. members and that it would be considered as something which had taken place between them and the hon. members. The hon. member made this remark afterwards at a social function. I do not consider it as a breach of confidence, because he did it in the presence of many people. [Interjections.] I now want to tell the hon. member that I did not try to effect a breach between him and his party. Why should I want to do something like that? Does the hon. member think that he and his party are so important that they could constitute a threat to this party here in any way? The only thing they can do, is to besmirch South Africa’s name. The sort of propaganda which they are making is calculated to break down the morale of the South African Defence Force, and is having that effect. The hon. member for Yeoville must practise what he preaches; he must call this type of person to order. If there were to be one man in my party who would dare to do such things, I would call him to order. Why does the hon. member for Yeoville not do so? He will not do so because his masters will not allow him to do so. There are elements in that party who must occupy themselves with this type of propaganda. It is these elements, to which I referred this afternoon, who want to try to have South Africa crucified as an “unjust society”. They want to defend everything directed at our country from foreign parts.

[Inaudible.]

Oh no, the hon. member must take his punishment now. If the hon. member for Yeoville wants to speak on defence matters, he must know his facts. I shall not allow him to shout me down if he does not know his facts. The hon. member owes, me an answer, namely whether he is going to repudiate this pamphlet or not. Until the hon. member has answered this, he stands condemned.

Mr. Chairman, I think all of us, particularly the members on this side of the House, are extremely glad to see that the hon. the Minister of Defence did not sustain any lasting injuries from the accident he was involved in recently. We are quite sure that he has recovered completely and we share his gratitude in this respect. I am unable to try to improve on what the hon. the Minister said this afternoon; this would be quite impossible. I think he gave the PRP over there a splendid opportunity to stand up and be counted when the stabbing in the back of South Africa and the South African Defence Force is being condemned. He afforded the hon. member for Yeoville a special opportunity to stand up and be counted in his opposition to that. The hon. member for Yeoville, by implication, refused to be counted, together with his party, when the derogatory criticism and undermining of the South African Defence Force in the best interests of South Africa are made public and condemned. I do not think the hon. the Minister suggested in his first speech that the hon. member for Yeoville was better than any other member of that party. Perhaps all the hon. the Minister did was merely hoping that hon. member would be prepared to get up and be counted on the side of the Defence Force and South Africa. However, the hon. member for Yeoville referred to hide behind excitement and alarm. The hon. the Minister gave him and his party the opportunity to improve their public image, but this the hon. member ignored, and he refused to avail himself of the opportunity. I now want to know whether another hon. member of that party will get up and try and reply to the challenge and questions the hon. the Minister posed to them. The only deduction I can make from this episode, is that the ideology and the message of that party have not really penetrated to the voters of Durban North. That was why the result was in their favour.

Order! The hon. member must not discuss the result in Durban North.

Very well, Sir, I shall not take it any further; I am really discussing that party.

A discussion of the Navy in this year may possibly be somewhat unpopular, because it is more popular to discuss the Army and the Air Force which were jointly responsible for magnificent achievements in Angola. The newspapers were full of the things they did there, and this publicity was well deserved. Although the Navy was also involved there, some people may say that their task was an insignificant one and that there was even no need for them to be there. In the few minutes at my disposal I should like to highlight certain aspects in respect of our Navy.

The day may come when the threat to our fatherland may come from the sea. We have already noticed that the communists took over in the Indian Ocean, and that they are spilling over into the Atlantic Ocean. We see that they are becoming increasingly bold. They act more and more openly and are becoming increasingly impudent. We emphasize regularly the importance of the sea route around the Cape, probably more so now than before the events in Angola. When we think of oil, the sea route around the Cape is the lifeline of Europe. It is a fact that we are situated between the East and the West, the communist block on the one hand and the capitalistic bloc on the other.

Fortunately, it is being realized to an increasing extent that South Africa and the maritime facilities she can offer the West, are the key to the safeguarding of the southern seas. It even seems as though America is becoming interested.

Although the task of our Navy may seem insignificant in the time in which we are living, the presence and the preparedness of the Navy are essential to deter aspirant aggressors, to patrol and to protect the South African coast, to prevent a blockade of our ports, to protect our fishing waters and our territorial integrity, to carry out rescue work at sea, to combat oil pollution, to map our coast-line and to render hydrographical services to friendly nations. These are the basic tasks of our Navy in peace time. In time of war the functions of the Navy increase and far higher demands are made upon the Navy. I hope the necessary means will be found to acquire manpower and equipment needed to carry out these important tasks.

The Navy differs in certain important aspects from other elements of the South African Defence Force. I want to deal for a few moments with the human being in the Navy. Perhaps we do not think about it every day, but the people serving on our ships do so under particular circumstances. They work under unnatural circumstances. By nature man is a land dweller, but these people become, to a large extent, sea dwellers. They are dependent upon their own skill and that of their colleagues for their survival. High demands are made upon the adaptability of people under these unnatural circumstances. These are demands which are made physically and mentally and which lead to exhaustion. They are constantly in danger, because when a ship is at sea, she is always operational. Therefore, they are in danger as a result of the elements, enemies or because of accidents which are likely to occur. Such a life at sea demands biological adjustments. These people have to learn to write while the ship is in motion, they have to learn to walk while the ship is in motion, they have to live while the ship is in motion. They go out to sea for three or four weeks at a time. There are certain social adjustments which are not easy to make. For instance, I have in mind the abnormal family life. The wives and children of these people are often left alone. Colleagues are crowded together in unnatural conditions, conditions one would not have under normal circumstances. The result is that the Navy is one large family with a common destiny. The pilot in his fighter plane is alone, while the commander of a ship, and the crew, are dealing with mass emotion as well. As an example we may mention the class 12 fregate which can have a crew of between 230 and 250 on board. In this way a mine-sweeper has a crew of 40 and a submarine a crew of 50. These people are dependent upon one another for those periods which may vary from three to four weeks at a time.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.