Mr. Speaker, I shall give notice as soon as possible of certain motions, the effect of which will be that as from Monday, 17 May, we shall sit from 20h00 to 22h30 on Monday evenings as well. As from next week we shall sit from 20h00 on Wednesday evenings too, instead of meeting only at 20h15 after the dinner adjournment. This will enable us to utilize an additional quarter of an hour.

†On Saturday, 12 June, we shall sit in the morning and in the afternoon to make up for the day we are taking as a holiday over the long weekend.

*After the Defence Vote has been disposed of today, precedence will be given to the Second Reading speech on the Promotion of State Security Bill, i.e. Order of the Day No. 2. The debate will then be adjourned. We shall then proceed to Order of the Day No. 3 and all stages of the Companies Amendment Bill will be taken. If there is any time left, we shall proceed to Order of the Day No. 5, the resumption of the Second Reading debate on the Bantu Employees’ In-Service Training Bill.

Next Monday we shall proceed with Order of the Day No. 5 and Order of the Day No. 7, viz. the Second Reading of the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Amendment Bill.

†If possible, on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, we shall proceed with Orders of the Day Nos. 2, 6, 15, 16, 11 and 13 as printed on today’s Order Paper.

Mr. Chairman, I was speaking about the conditions under which sailors have to live at sea. They sleep on and among ammunition, their elbow-room is extremely limited, especially in submarines, and they brave the fury and storms of the open sea, knowing that the vultures of the sea, the man-eating sharks, will probably be first on the scene in the case of an accident. Communication is sometimes very difficult. I do not know whether the sailors receive adequate remuneration for this way of life, which involves so much sacrifice. I do not think there are many people who would like this sort of life. Let us look at the responsibilities of the commander of a boat. Let us look at the frigate. This is an important defence weapon with sophisticated equipment. A frigate costs approximately R60 million. There are 250 lives in the care of such a commander, most of whom are very highly qualified and therefore, in fact, irreplaceable, as the hon. member for Worcester indicated yesterday.

The sailor—both officer and rating—is dependent upon the three fundamentals upon which the Navy operates: firstly, the seaworthiness of the vessel. The hull must be of a quality capable of withstanding the sea at its worst for long periods and over vast distances. Secondly, there is the habitability of the vessel. These boats are not built for the comfort of the crew. They are warships and therefore the people live on machines for long periods. Thirdly, there is the striking power of the vessel, viz. its weapons and its communications systems. These three aspects largely determine the degree to which the crew will be happy, whether they will have self-confidence and faith and whether they will be motivated. Indeed, it determines the level of the crew’s morale. The man himself—his ability, his preparedness, his will—is the greatest single factor and the most valuable factor in any defence organization.

Sir, it has been suggested in the past that the Defence Force does not belong under the jurisdiction of Public Service Commission. I wonder whether the time has not come to consider this suggestion once again. The Defence Force is professional. They have their own code and their own legal system. At present salaries are compared, and not responsibilities. The custom of the Public Service, to promote according to seniority rather than on merit, does not suit the Defence Force, for several good reasons, among which the working conditions of these people and their working hours. In Australia and Canada a distinction is even drawn between the Navy and the rest of the Defence Force in respect of salaries and benefits. Let me mention only one example. Our vessels visit foreign harbours from time to time. The commander is sometimes required to entertain people on board. He does not receive any entertainment allowance for this, owing to the fact that the Defence Force falls under the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, while one of the great world giants, the Soviet Union, is leaving no stone unturned to sow division in the West, create chaos and cast suspicion on Western institutions, and while it is using the communications media of the world to advertise its actions as a philanthropic rescue effort aimed at liberating nations, the other great giant, the USA, is hamstringing its executive. While the Soviet Union, in spite of the clumsiness and ineffectiveness of its economic system, is tightening its stranglehold on certain leaders in Africa and is taking subversive action against surrounding states, the USA is occupied with a witchhunt about the commission paid by Lockheed and some of its other large corporations. Furthermore, witchhunt is still being perpetuated with regard to its own secret service. While Russia is manufacturing and distributing weapons and expanding its influence in Africa, the USA is providing it with food to enable it to continue its programme of action unhindered. Sir, in such a world, with such a friend and such an enemy, South Africa must maintain itself. In such a world the continued existence of a nation depends on its will to survive. The will to survive has been particularly noticeable amongst our own soldiers over the past year. I should like to praise every man and woman in our Defence Force, from the lowest to the highest rank, people who have served South Africa so faithfully through their exceptional sense of service. I am also grateful that members of the public facilitate the task of the soldier. At De Aar a few thousand soldiers were entertained by the community. The soldiers who are waiting for train connections there, are entertained in the De Aar town hall by the community. All the churches there co-operate; there are also 12 women’s organizations who co-operate. There is outstanding co-operation, and the letters from the soldiers who were there testify to the highest praise for that community.

South Africa is also proud of its national servicemen. When one converses with our young soldiers, one realises that these young soldiers of ours are very well motivated. Unfortunately there are, of course, the exceptions, too. A study of the training methods of the Defence Force shows that our national servicemen are among the best-trained soldiers in the world. They are soldiers who are not only prepared in the military sense; they are also spiritually prepared. Since our national servicemen represent a cross section of our present South African society, the Defence Force has to start really motivating some of them during their training period.

Therefore I am particularly pleased to hear that the theological students who have completed their studies and not yet done their national service will be referred to the chaplain service as from next year. These young theological officers can then be used to provide their fellows with religious guidance. In this way a very important contribution can be made towards the spiritual preparedness of our national servicemen. In order to help motivate our national servicemen, civil training is also included in their programme. I am particularly pleased that, over the past year in particular, civil leadership has been stressed. In this way an effort is made to breed citizens with inner strength and integrity, citizens who will have the right sense of values in life and who will have the right technical and spiritual schooling, citizens who will eventually be able to serve their country and fellow citizens to the best of their ability.

The fact that it is necessary for so much of our programme of spiritual preparedness to be left to the Defence Force to carry out is in my opinion an indictment of our whole community. I think that the time has come for us as parents and senior citizens to make a larger contribution towards the preparedness of our sons and daughters. We and our children have become too soft and easy-going. A spirit of lack of interest and lack of patriotism prevails among a section of our population. Perhaps it has been too long since we shed blood to preserve our fatherland. It seems to me that with us comfort comes first. We as senior citizens owe it to South Africa to be prepared ourselves. However, we must also see to it that our children are spiritually prepared. Let us, as the senior citizens, destroy root and branch the communal enemy, the spirit of decadence which gnaws at the heart of our nation’s soul like a cancer. We as parents must not expect the Defence Force to make our boys into men. A parent must not expect that, since he is a problem parent, and is possibly sending a problem son to the Defence Force, the Defence Force should set him on the right track. We as parents must make our contribution. A parent must give his son to the Defence Force and South Africa in this knowledge: Here is my son, he is a motivated man and prepared to fight for what belongs to him by tradition. With a total spiritual preparedness like this South Africa will be able to maintain itself through its determination and the will to fight for what is his.

Mr. Chairman, in the time available to me, I want to deal with a number of aspects of defence effectiveness. However, before doing that, I should like to extend my thanks to Admiral Biermann for his achievements in the Defence. Force and wish him a happy retirement. At the same time I should like to congratulate his successor, Lt.-Gen. Malan and to wish him and his chiefs of staff good hunting in the future. Further we express our concern at the fate of Major “Horse” Carter and Capt. Rossouw missing on an Albatross patrol. We hope that the search for them is successful and we convey our sympathy to their wives and families.

Firstly, I want to refer to the effectiveness of cadet training. The latest figure I received from the Department of Defence shows that only 58 of the 625 South African schools are without cadet detachments. This, I feel, is a very good record. The hon. the Minister indicated last year when his Vote was under discussion that he hoped to introduce from 1 January this year an improved and more effective cadet system in the schools. He added that the plan would depend on consultations with the Department of National Education. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister concluded those consultations and if he would give us an appropriate report. From the number of cadet detachments existing we can see that teachers are certainly pulling their weight in this respect, but we must not ignore the fact that there is a shortage of male teachers and that the position is not improving. We feel that this will restrict whatever plans the hon. the Minister has in mind to improve cadet training. I should like to suggest to him to consider linking school cadets with the civil defence programme. I refer to first-aid classes and instruction in the use of fire-fighting equipment, radio and small arms. I feel that the people who as trained personnel are already providing the service, could provide it in the schools and at the same time remove the load from teachers who are already overloaded in their extramural responsibilities. In this way one can reduce the parade ground drill and one can broaden the scope of cadet training to more useful civilian skills. From conversations I had with Rhodesian people during the recess, I understand that the Rhodesian military planners are cutting back on cadet detachments. They find that army recruits very soon make up the experience which they did not have in the form of cadet training at school. They also save on the cost of uniforms and band instruments. In the final instance they are not very sure that there is much scope for utilization of schoolboys as cadets. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister what the annual cost is to supply cadet detachments in South Africa and what effectiveness rating he places on this training.

When these boys leave school, they go into the Army, do their national training and very soon learn that any army marches on its stomach. This, of course, was the great adage of Napoleon and was one of the reasons why his troops loved him. He always kept them well fed and happy. I have had reports concerning the chaps in the operational area that they would be happier if a couple of other brands of beer and cigarettes were more readily available to them.

There should be a field kitchen out there.

I hope that the South African Defence Force institute that does the buying for the troops in the operational area will spread the range of supplies. I feel that this will give a greater variety to the troops and that it will also avoid monopolies between competing business firms. I realize that these are small touches, but I am sure that the troops, which are already effective, will become more effective if they are content in their off-duty hours.

I should like to raise three cases that have been brought to my attention by the people in my constituency. I am sorry that these cases do not fit in with my theme of effectiveness, but I raise them in the hope that this will result in measures being taken to try to prevent their recurrence. The first case concerns the refusal by the exemption board to grant a deferment to a soldier in order that he might write his final examination. The man concerned is a branch manager and he is considered by his employers to be a key member of the personnel. He was called up in February for his three months’ training and the firm agreed to pay him his full salary during his absence. The firm put in a written request to the exemption board for his deferment in view of his final examination for the Institute of Administration and Commerce which is being written on 19 May. However, no deferment or study leave was granted, nor were reasons given when an official of the Defence Force phoned me last month to tell me of the board’s decision. I find this very difficult to understand or to accept due to the fact that this man’s future career will be placed in jeopardy by his not sitting for this examination.

The second case is one of death and injury through apparent negligence. I refer to troops that were being convoyed in northern Natal on 29 November 1975. These troops had earlier refused to get into the transport provided because the particular vehicle was unroadworthy in that the tyres were smooth and the vehicle had no brakes. Another vehicle was found and this was loaded with 32 instead of the regulation 21 troops. It was a rainy day; the road was muddy; the vehicle was going fast and it overturned. The result was that 12 were injured, 4 were seriously injured and one was killed. He was killed, incidentally, by a spare wheel which had been placed on the back of the truck—it should have been placed underneath the truck, but the catch was broken. One boy had both legs shattered and might not walk again. Another trainee had a crushed spine and a third suffered a split liver. Worst of all, no compensation can make up for the life of the trainee who was killed. The accident, as I have indicated, occurred in November 1975. It is now May 1976, but to date I have seen no report of an inquiry into this accident. I feel that a reassurance is desperately sought by the bereaved mother. She is on her own since her surviving son is now doing his national service. I do feel, too, that the public is entitled to be informed of any steps that are being taken to avoid a repetition of this case of fatal negligence. I should like clarification from the hon. the Minister in this regard.

A third case I should like to raise, is that of the treatment of soldiers wounded in Angola. I refer to one case in particular. It concerns a 26 year old married soldier who in clashes with Swapo lost a finger, his right ear and a portion of his left ear and whose back was sprayed with shrapnel. He was treated in hospital for three weeks and was then discharged, but his wound still worried him and he reported to a doctor, who examined him and made an appointment for him with a specialist. At that time the specialist was busy, but two days later he saw him and agreed to operate when a bed was available. The specialist said he would be telephoned. Two weeks later a sister telephoned him and said that a bed was ready. He reported to hospital but they would not admit him until they had received permission from Pretoria to operate. He was then informed that he should appear before the Pensions and Medical Board. If he passed, he would receive a medical card which would entitle him to free hospitalization and medical treatment and compensation for loss of pay. The man concerned went on to say in his letter—

I should like the hon. the Minister to explain what the procedure is for medical treatment, why there are these delays and what compensation is provided for soldiers who have been wounded in service?

In conclusion I wish to refer to reports on the front page of The Cape Times this morning concerning the incident that occurred in this House yesterday. I do feel that the hon. the Minister should be more responsible than to place temptation in the way of the hon. member for Yeoville. We all know he finds it difficult to control himself when he is provoked. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North must forgive me for not replying to his speech. However, I want to return to the speech which the hon. member for Yeoville made here last night. I believe that it is necessary, for the sake of the record, that certain things be set right. At the end of January 1976, the hon. member for Bloemfontein West, the hon. member for Cradock, the hon. member for Sea Point, the hon. member for Yeoville, the hon. member for Rondebosch and myself, as well as three members of the UP, made a visit to the military area at the invitation of the Chief of the Army. On our arrival there we were briefed by high-ranking military officers. At that briefing session that afternoon, only people who were concerned with the defence and security set-up in northern South West Africa were present. The hon. the Minister of Defence did not attend the information session. On that occasion, on the very clear understanding that it was secret, extensive and penetrating information was given to the members of the group. There was an opportunity to ask questions, and questions were asked. The same evening the members of the group, together with a number of other people— civilians, officials of the Department of Bantu Administration and others; probably about a hundred people—attended a reception. On that occasion the hon. the Minister of Defence was present. The hon. member for Yeoville was also present there. During that conversation, and in the hearing of whoever wanted to listen, the hon. member for Yeoville asked the question with which he was confronted yesterday. I can confirm that when we left the reception that night, it was already common knowledge to at least 50 people what question the hon. member had asked, what his standpoint was and what the attitude was with which he approached the action of the Government. Who is therefore the man who committed a breach of faith?

The Minister!

Who is the man who committed a breach of faith?

The Minister! [Interjections.]

Is this the man who, for the sake of petty, short-sighted and momentary political gain, a minor point which he can win, links the ambivalence and the double talk of his party concerning the defence of the country with a secret and confidential briefing conference which he attended? This is the question which must be asked. Now I want to call attention to his double talk in connection with his patriotism. To begin with, I should like to tell him that avowals of patriotism are fine-sounding when they roll off one’s lips in the form of lip-service. However, it is when one must start practising what one preaches that one’s true patriotism comes to the fore. I want to tell the hon. member for Yeoville two things. In the first place, I want to tell him that one does not measure patriotism on a gold balance. In the second place I want to tell him that in my opinion, patriotism and party loyalty are of equal value.

I can visualize him, less than two years ago, testifying to his devotion, his loyalty and his patriotism towards the UP just as liberally, faithfully and self-confidently, as he now does towards South Africa. I do not question his patriotism.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Vote under discussion. I cannot allow him to continue in this way.

Mr. Chairman, with respect, I am referring to what the hon. member said about patriotism.

I want to deal with another point and want the hon. member for Rondebosch to tell us today what the position in his party is. The hon. member for Rondebosch is known as the PRP’s chief spokesman on defence matters. This is what he is known for, and he is also quoted as such in the Press. The hon. member for Yeoville has already spoken twice during this debate. Now I want to know from him or from the hon. member for Rondebosch whether the standpoints which he expounded in the House yesterday, are those of his party or his own. I also want to know who is the PRP’s official chief spokesman on matters of defence from now on, because there is a very important and subtle difference between the standpoints of the hon. member for Rondebosch and the hon. member for Yeoville. The hon. member for Yeoville asked in Owambo why Luanda was not taken too; he was angry because this was not done. Therefore, in principle, he has no objection to the action of the Government in the military area in South West Africa. The hon. member for Rondebosch, however, said that nothing which he had seen or heard up there had changed the standpoint which he maintained before the time, namely that South Africa should not have become involved in Angola. How does one reconcile these two standpoints? This is what I want to know.

What is more: The leader of the hon. member for Yeoville left from there that Sunday night in our company. That Monday, or else on the Tuesday, he travelled by air to Gaberone to receive orders or something there. After he had returned from there, he, too, said that South Africa should withdraw from Angola. We now want to know who the official chief spokesman of the PRP is on defence matters. It is very important that we should know this.

One can discuss the PRP at great length, but I want to dispose of them by saying one more thing. The PRP’s standpoint with respect to the defence of the country, a standpoint for the sake of propaganda and not a matter of conviction, has changed completely since the beginning of the year. At the beginning of the year they voted against the hon. the Prime Minister’s motion of thanks to the S.A. Defence Force. I know why they changed their standpoint. They saw the reaction of the English-speaking students of the University of the Witwatersrand to Nusas. They also became aware of the reaction against the Student’s Representative Council when it did not want to contribute towards the defence funds for the members of the Defence Force who were defending the country. This is where the PRP has been exposed and will be exposed as long as there is a Nationalist in the country. [Interjections.]

Order!

I want to deal for a moment with what the hon. member for Durban Point said about the dissatisfaction which supposedly prevails among voluntary members of the Defence Force as a result of the treatment which they received up North and that, after they returned, they considered resigning from the Citizen Force. I had the privilege of attending a function by one of the Citizen Force units in the Cape which returned from the border. I do not share the standpoint of the hon. member for Durban Point. The spirit of those men was a fine one. Their spirit was the spirit of the Defence Force as we observed it in the military zone when we were there. What is that spirit? It is a spirit of which one can be proud, a spirit of men of whom one may be proud: Fine, clean Afrikaners, and South Africans, English as well as Afrikaans speaking, who have only one thing in mind, namely service to their country. I should like the PRP to put their “beardies and weirdies” in the Defence Force for a while. Then they would sing a different tune.

We are proud of what the Defence Force has done in the military zone, not only in respect of the defence of the country, but also in respect of race relations and in respect of the manner in which they made themselves available for service in civilian matters. I have no fear that any of the members of the Citizen Force will resign as a result of the hardships they had to endure up in Angola. War and the defence of the country are not five-star hotel games. They are accompanied by hardships and loss of life. We should also always remember those men who gave up their lives on the border. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am very grateful that the hon. the Minister is back with us again, that he is reasonably healthy and that all parts are in good working condition. To Admiral Biermann I want to say “thank you very much”, and to Lt. Gen. Malan I want to say: “Hearty congratulations and all of the best.”

Today I should like to draw attention to the role played by the South African Medical Service, or the Medical Corps. I should also like to refer to a few hitches which could perhaps be attended to. In view of the hermaphroditic tirade launched by the hon. member for Yeoville yesterday, I shall come back to the role played by the PRP and its influence on our defence at the end of my speech. I shall only devote a little time to this, because I do not think they are worth any more.

It would be ridiculous to argue about which division of the Defence Force is really the most important. The fact is that they are all important and that they are all essential. One important and essential division of the Defence Force is the Medical Corps. Not only does this corps play a vital role with regard to the health and physical preparedness of our men, but also with regard to the services it provides to the dependants, its welfare work and its role in regard to the wounded in wartime. It therefore plays an important role in building up the confidence and the morale of our people. Let me mention a few examples to hon. members. This service provides the members of the Permanent Force and their dependants with a comprehensive service. I do not have the time at present to deal with their service to the Citizen Force. This service includes the following: Hospitalization, house doctors, specialists, X-rays, laboratory tests, blood, maternity services, dental services, welfare services, psychiatric services, and so on. This costs our soldiers absolutely nothing, apart from the 50 cents per month which they contribute towards continuation services should such a member retire or die. These services are of high quality. For example, there are the three outstandingly equipped military hospitals. We are building two new ones in the place of two old ones at a cost of about R35 million. A very highly respected and prominent South African, Lt. Col. Robertson, who was the commander of the No. 1 military hospital during the previous war, said the following last month—

A service of this kind creates a high morale and it builds up the confidence of a people and its soldiers. Another example I want to mention is the fact that a wounded man receives immediate emergency treatment on the spot, with intravenal feeding, haemostasis and pain killers if necessary. The wounded man is then taken to a waiting helicopter by ambulance without delay and receives further treatment in the field hospital if necessary. He is then conveyed further by helicopter and within four to eight hours those wounded men are already in a military hospital at Voortrekkerhoogte where their next of kin can be with them. This is what builds up morale and confidence.

I could continue in this vein and refer, too, to the Central Medical Stores which provides drugs to 11 900 points: Provincial hospitals—not only military—sick bays and even forestry stations throughout the country. I may point out to hon. members that the cost per patient in our military hospitals is about R10 per day or less in comparison with a comparable provincial hospital, at which the amount is R30 to R40. This testifies to sound central control and outstanding administration. We are grateful for this and we wish to express our gratitude for the South African Medical Service.

However, there are a few hitches. The first I want to mention is that of the salaries of nurses. The principle in the Defence Force is that male and female receive the same salary for the same rank. However, there is an exception in the case of nurses. Then one gets less. I know that there are problems in this regard but I am of the opinion that these people carry out their work with dedication and a sense of vocation, but dedication, love and a sense of vocation cannot buy bread or clothing. I know that it is argued that the nursing staff must earn less than their equals in rank so that they may earn the same as provincial nurses in the Public Service. That argument does not hold water. It is now being maintained that if this were not so, there would be a drain of nurses from the other hospitals to the Defence Force. This is not so because the Defence Force as a whole has barely as many nurses as a large hospital like H. F. Verwoerd or the General Hospital in Johannesburg. Consequently there is no possibility of a drain occurring. Furthermore, the Defence Force trains its own nurses to a large extent, and when the new hospitals are established, it will probably be so to an even greater extent. However, my argument is that if the nursing staff in the Defence Force should receive less than, say, a welfare officer of the same rank merely because she is performing nursing work, it proves, not only that the nurse, the sister in the military hospital, is earning comparatively too little, but that this is so throughout the country. Let us, then rather rectify the matter throughout the country than prejudice the interests of that nursing staff in this way. I am not asking for better or preferential treatment; we are only asking for equal rights, and Heaven knows, they are worth it.

There is another point I want to mention briefly, namely the shortage of medical orderlies. We simply do not get sufficient medical orderlies from among the national servicemen and that is why I want to ask that our women be taken up into the Citizen Force to be trained for that purpose. There is a vast amount of administrative work, even such work as driving ambulances, and so on, which could be carried out by the female staff while the male orderly is in the front line. Then there is the housing problem, but flats are rented for other purposes. Therefore a flat can be rented to accommodate these women, too. For the moment I shall leave it at that. I have too little time to talk about this subject because I want to deal with the PRP.

They had their “moment of truth” as far back as 30 January this year, when the hon. the Prime Minister introduced his amendment. He made his amendment independent of politics, just as we want to make the Defence Force independent of politics. At that time the hon. the Prime Minister said: “I do not want to ask for confidence in a party or the Government only; I ask that South Africa should speak.” And in his five-point amendment he moved, inter alia, the following—(col. 356, Hansard)—

He went on to say—

Without batting an eyelid, the PRP voted against it. When I say “without batting an eyelid”, perhaps that does not apply to the hon. member for Yeoville. Not only did he bat an eyelid; he also “battered” his own soul. They act in that way to satisfy the leftists and the liberal elements in their party. No-one can tell me that was an unthought-out tactical measure, because three days later, after the weekend, we again conducted a defence debate in this House. The hon. member for—I almost said Pietermaritzburg, but it has been many years since he was still such a person—Rondebosch said that he could perhaps have voted for the amendment before, but he said (Hansard, col. 427)—

Those were his words, Sir. Where could one wish to find a better basis for such an argument than patriotism? I know how I felt when my good friend Johan Holm died on the border. My feelings on the matter prompted me to apply to the Minister and the Surgeon-General to go and do border duty. The Prime Minister said: “Let us stand up and be counted.” However, that hon. member states: “If I ever plan to put my hand up in the future in support of such a motion”—which was based on patriotism and the death of our people—“in such circumstances I hope it will shrivel up and dry up in front of me”. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, before we begin to fight I just want to say that I am pleased that the hon. the Minister of Defence is back in the House and that he has recovered. Considering the way in which he attacked us yesterday, it seems to me that he has recovered fully. I also want to convey my best wishes to the Chief of the Defence Force who is going to retire shortly. I hope that he will enjoy a very pleasant retirement. I also want to express my personal pleasure at the appointment of Gen. Malan as our new Defence Chief. I have a very high regard for his personal qualities, and in the difficult times we are living in we can look forward to his leadership of the Defence Force with the greatest confidence.

Sir, we were rather surprised yesterday by the fact that the hon. the Minister of Defence chose to reopen the whole Angola debate again. What was not surprising was the way in which he did it. He again coupled South Africa and the Defence Force with the NP and then said that it was South Africa that had spoken. It was the Government’s action, but South Africa and the Defence Force were then coupled to it without further ado. It is an old technique to couple it in such a way that any criticism is then nipped in the bud. Of course, the important point which is overlooked is that it is in fact possible for a Defence Force, and our Defence Force in particular, to act 100% correctly in the military sphere and to do exceptionally well in the execution of a political decision which could have extremely harmful consequences in the long run. This is the crux of the argument. At no stage have we ever expressed criticism of the conduct of the Defence Force and the way in which they perform their task and I challenge any hon. member of the House to prove the contrary. However, we have questioned the consequences and the wisdom of the political judgment on which it was based. We reserve that right for ourselves. We shall continue to question the wisdom and the political consequences of that decision because, as we have said from the outset, we as a party consider the political decision—seen in the overall context and in terms of what preceded our involvement in Angola—to have been a mistake. This is the background of the pamphlet to which the hon. the Minister referred yesterday as a basis for his attack on us.

What does that pamphlet say? Basically, the point to which the hon. the Minister took exception was the fact that we said that the policy of non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries had been violated. We stand by that. We are not going to run away from it. In fact, there is a long report in this morning’s Burger in this connection, and I wonder whether they, too, are now among the political cockroaches of South Africa. In this morning’s Burger the heading appears “S.A. in Angola ’n fout, sê verslag.” Where does this report emanate from? It emanates from the International Institute for Strategic Studies. This particular organization has referred to our hon. Prime Minister as a great statesman, but what do they say here? Let me quote from the report—

It is not Die Burger that says that.

Well and good. It is a research organization which has in the past expressed very objective opinions on South Africa. But if that is not good enough, I want to quote what was reported in The Argus last night. The hon. the Prime Minister may deny it, but last night’s Argus states—

It is not we who say so, Sir. According to the report, it is the Prime Minister himself who said so. What, then, in such a blatant lie? This is our opinion in regard to what the consequences of our involvement in Angola were. The second point is that we did not say that it was the cause of the Russian and Cuban presence there, we said that it led to its escalation. According to last night’s paper there are now not only 15 000, but 2 000 additional people there, and there are also references to satellite bases they have constructed there. Sir, I do think one can at least conduct a reasonable debate on the political consequences. After all, we are a political party that can say what the consequences are of political decisions which have preceded military action, without thereby expressing criticism of the Defence Force and the military service in general. We are not going to run away from a debate about this.

Do you agree with the pamphlet you published?

I have just dealt with the specific points touched on by the hon. the Minister. I agree that there was an escalation and this did influence our détente policy, whether we like it or not. [Interjections.] We say that this was a mistake. But let me come back to the hon. member for Waterkloof, who tried to make a point of the fact that the hon. member for Yeoville spoke first whereas I am only speaking now. The reason is very simple. The hon. member for Yeoville kindly agreed to speak yesterday in case I had not returned from a very important event which took place in Durban North. That is the simple explanation for this. The point which the hon. member for Waterkloof made is that there is now supposedly a dispute with regard to the Luanda story. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Brakpan and the hon. member for Waterkloof must please make fewer interjections.

I did not interrupt the hon. member for Waterkloof. I am replying to him. The hon. member for Yeoville said that, seen in the overall context, it was a mistake to enter Angola. He said that yesterday, but he added that when they went in, they should have made a good job of it. He and I do not differ on that score, but as to whether it was a mistake for us to have gone in the first place, in view of the consequences that confront us, we are 100% in agreement. I shall come back to the so-called arguments advanced by the hon. member for Krugersdorp. Sir, it is simple. Our objection to the Prime Minister’s amendment was just that it was an amendment which was calculated to smother responsible political debate on Angola. We could not discuss the consequences and we believed that the consequences had to be debated. We believed—and this was subsequently proved—that it was an attempt on the part of the Government to smother criticism, and I can furnish a very cynical illustration of this. Senator Worrall launched his campaign in Durban North by saying: “We knocked hell out of the Cubans”, and he was rapped over the knuckles by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and, I should think, by the caucus, too, because subsequently he changed his tune. This has been denied, but the campaign in Durban North was concluded by a television production which showed “how we knocked the hell out of the Cubans”. Why could we not discuss that from the outset? That is precisely what the issue was as far as we were concerned, viz. that we did not want to permit this kind of double-talk. We refused to remain silent about this in the interests of South Africa because we believed that the people had to be informed with regard to the consequences of the political decision of the kind taken in Angola.

I want to conclude by saying that as far as I am concerned—I said that it was surprising that the hon. the Minister of Defence saw fit to reopen the Angola debate—we shall argue about this if the Government wishes. I think we should leave Angola and learn from it. The most important lesson we have learned from Angola and our involvement, is how vital it is in South Africa for our effective preparedness to be based on the loyalty of all our people. To me this is the most important thing which Angola has taught us, and this is what the debate should really be about, and not personal attacks or the sowing of suspicion or the questioning of loyalty. This does not work. People do not believe it because they know that it is not true and the best proof of this is the fact that we have now taken over that seat, too, in spite of the most sustained campaign against us by other members of the House. In spite of that campaign against our loyalty and our patriotism, the people have perceived that we were prepared to discuss what we believed to be in the interests of the whole of South Africa, and we intend to continue to do so.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Rondebosch referred here to certain news reports and based his speech on them. Once again this just goes to show how dangerous it can be when certain reports appear in our news media which are really of more danger than benefit to our country. This being so, I think it is necessary for us to bear in mind the agreement between the S. A. Defence Force and the news media as far as reporting is concerned.

Section 118 of the Defence Act lays down what the media may and may not publish. Basically, what it amounts to that nothing can be published about our Defence Force unless it has been approved by the hon. the Minister of Defence or his authorized representative. I should very much have liked to quote from this Act but it would take up too much of my time. However, I very much want to request the news media to study this Act once again. Owing to the fact that this Act is very strict and covers a very wide sphere, the news media take care not to get into trouble by contravening the Act. Therefore, to facilitate the task of the news media the Minister of Defence has concluded an agreement with the National Press Union. This agreement includes certain arrangements, and I therefore want to suggest that the news media attend to this.

The hon. the Minister undertook, among other things, to establish a Directorate of Public Relations to serve as a link between the S.A. Defence Force and the news media. This link has been in operation for eight years now. Apart from this, the activities of the directorate have developed to such an extent that the three arms of the Defence Force, viz. the Army, the Air Force and the Navy, each employs liaison officers, too, in order to serve the media. I understand that these services are going to be expanded further in order to be of further assistance to the news media. I should appreciate it if the hon. the Minister could inform us how far this matter has progressed. I am told that with a few exceptions, relations between the Defence Force and the news media have been fairly good over the past eight years. However, during the Angolan episode, the relationship gave rise to tension between the Defence Force and sections of the news media for the first time. The hon. the Minister referred to this during the no-confidence debate. I do not want to repeat everything now because time does not permit.

However, what the problem amounts to, basically, is that in the nature of the matter, the news media want to publish as much as possible whereas the Defence Force, on the other hand, wants to release as little information as possible. Both parties realize that a compromise between these two extreme standpoints must be found. I believe that the majority of our news media are satisfied with the basis of co-operation that does exist. At this point I want to convey my thanks to this majority, which has made a positive contribution to our country by way of sound reporting. However, there are certain newspapers—as mentioned by the hon. the Minister—which did not want to co-operate. They must realize that we are living at a time at which it is not in the interests of the security of our country to release too much information concerning military matters and our involvement. By doing so we could only play into the hands of our enemies. Our media must take care that they do not become the tool of the Marxist propaganda machine. The cry should not have been “What are our soldiers doing in Angola?” It should have been: “What are Cuba and Russia doing there?”

But the hon. member opposite does not object to that.

Our news media should have hammered on this theme day in and day out. Just as they have been criticizing our authorities ceaselessly, they should rather have devoted all their time and ability to exposing Russia and Cuba. They should have drawn the attention of the world to those two countries’ unholy and unlawful Angolan ploy. Why do some of our news media want to lay such extreme emphasis on the splinter in South Africa’s eye, while the beam in the eye of our enemies is ignored? There is a tendency to call all our actions into question and this can only be to the benefit of our enemies. There are sections of our news media which have what could be called “the death-wish” for our country. Is their hate of this Government so deeply rooted that they want to subvert and eliminate South Africa and its security?

The statement has been made by certain newspapers—this includes certain Afrikaans-language newspapers—that we should not publish military information which may assist the enemy. They state—

I ask how these people want this to be done. The hon. the Minister and his department have made various considered statements. Various considered statements by other spokesmen, too, have been permitted. There was even a mission of prominent businessmen and newsmen on the border. Now, apparently, they are asking that we furnish the newspapers with secret information and tell them: Publish it in the newspapers, but see to it that the enemy does not get hold of it. Apparently we must tell the SABC: Talk to our people on the radio, but please just ask them to close their doors and their windows so that no one outside can hear what is going on inside.

I say that we must have more confidence in our leaders. We can differ on many things, but when it comes to the security of the country, we must or ought all to stand together as one man. Every word that is said or published has a meaning, and a misplaced word here or there could allow valuable strategic information to get through to the enemy and this could cost thousands of soldiers their lives. It is our people whose lives are at stake and who are in danger. We must accept that the news media can strengthen or subvert the morale of a people. We must take care that confusion and distrust is not sown. The news media have a major responsibility to motivate our people positively. Irrespective or our political differences, South Africa remains our country; we have no other home. We must say nothing and write nothing which could harm our security. The threat to our Republic is not going to disappear and we shall have to learn to live with it, because it could last for years. Because modern warfare is concerned with the morale of the people and its motivation to fight or to capitulate, it is necessary for our news media to search their own hearts and ask themselves: Have I, in all honesty, done everything in my power to support South Africa and assist in defeating the enemy, or have my motives been “publish and be damned” because sensation and circulation statistics are of more importance than my country and my people? To conclude, I want to appeal to our news media to proffer their full co-operation to our Defence Force at all times, as in the past, because this can only be to their own benefit and to the benefit of every man, woman and child living in this country.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Ladybrand raised the question of the news media, their motivation and the whole question of their relationship with the Defence Force. I think the hon. member is correct in referring to this, but when one looks at the recent past, one must also take into account that the media are also dependent upon sources of information. One of the tragedies of the Angolan situation was that reliable information was not available. Indeed, as I will show in the course of my few comments, there was total confusion in the statements which came from members of the South African Cabinet. In those circumstances it was understandable that the media would have great difficulty in finding the correct picture to present to the South African public.

The evidence that the hon. the Prime Minister’s amendment—it never was a motion; it was an amendment to the motion of no confidence—was a political trick, lies in the number of occasions on which the hon. members refer to this. If it was not a political trick, then they would have forgotten about it long ago. Let us for the sake of the record say that three days before that trick amendment was moved and long before the rest of the debate had taken place, I on behalf of the members of this side of the House spoke in the debate. I said (Hansard, 26 January 1976, cols. 97-98)—

I went on to say—

That is our attitude and it will not change. We will certainly not become involved in the trick amendments we have heard; they were heard, as it turns out, for party-political reasons. Immediately after that, Die Burger, for instance, said that the amendment of the Prime Minister was an indication of total approval of what the Government did in Angola. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central went off to Magogong where he said that the United Party, in supporting this amendment, was giving its total support to the Government in its involvement in Angola. He said that in spite of the fact that it was in direct contradiction with what the hon. member …

You are not quoting him correctly.

Well, then the hon. member can get up and quote it correctly. It was support for the Government and it was in direct contradiction with what was said by his bench mates on either side of him. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has certainly recovered. He has shown himself to be his old self again and, regrettably, the situation still obtains that this hon. Minister, try as he might to keep politics out of army matters or defence force matters, finds it an irresistible temptation to play party politics with military matters in South Africa. I want to say that I share the personal sense of shock expressed by the hon. member for Yeoville at the breach of confidentiality which took place in this House yesterday. When one reads Hansard, one sees that it was purely to score a political debating point off this hon. member. It had nothing to do with the merits of the case or of the argument—it was plain party politics. I am totally unimpressed by the hon. the Minister’s explanation or by the explanation given by the hon. member for Waterkloof. Whilst a part of that journey to the north consisted of a briefing session, I think that others who have any appreciation of military matters will agree with me—perhaps my brief training as an intelligence corporal in a war taught me this—what I saw at Ruacana and at Runtu, what I heard during the discussions I had with the generals and others, and the people I saw at Runtu and elsewhere, I accept as confidential. I am absolutely shocked that the hon. the Minister now says that whatever one saw or heard during that two-day visit to the north, including the discussions we had with South African military personnel, was not confidential. I am shocked that the hon. the Minister took a single statement, made by the hon. member, out of the confidential area purely in order to score political debating points across the floor of the House.

This is not the first time it has happened. I can recall that, two years ago when the hon. the Prime Minister started his détente exercise and when the hon. member for Rondebosch and I returned to South Africa after seeing Pres. Sir Seretse Khama, Pres. Kaunda and Gen. Gowon, this hon. Minister said that we were the people who were prostrating ourselves at the feet of those who were the friends of murderers and the rapists of our women. He has embarrassed the foreign ministry and the hon. the Prime Minister and I believe that with his statement yesterday he has embarrassed our defence forces. I say: Thank heaven for all of us in South Africa that we have gentlemen of the nature of Admirals Biermann and Johnson and Generals Rogers, Magnus Malan and others who, I believe, are trying desperately and, I think, correctly and successfully to keep party politics out of the South African defence forces. However, when the hon. the Minister reopens the Angola situation, when he complains that he has been misunderstood, that people are telling untruths and so on, I want to say to him that this Government has only itself to blame because to this very day the Government has not told the truth about Angola. I think it is a disgrace that, six months after our youngsters were involved in heroic battles, only now are we starting to hear the story. Fancy entering into a war secretly. Fancy it that youngsters who, having been engaged in a battle, are not allowed to tell the story and talk about the circumstances in which we became involved in this. I say it is a disgrace. I think the Government made a blunder in getting us involved in the civil war in Angola and not telling the people of South Africa, the parents and the voters, what was taking place.

There are three points that emerge very clearly, and this hon. Minister, having reopened the issue, has not yet told the truth. The first one is the nature of our involvement in Angola. According to all the evidence before us, we were involved in the civil war in Angola. The hon. the Minister can go on arguing, but until he can give the facts, until he tells the whole story, we have to believe that we were involved, that we did intervene, that we did break our consistent attitude of non-intervention in the domestic affairs of other countries. We did become involved in Angola.

Secondly I want to mention the constant reference to the United States. Yesterday the hon. the Minister again did not come clean. He suggested that it was the United States that had given us certain assurances. He suggested it by a reference to President Ford and his criticism of the Senate, when it declined to pass legislation or give support to legislation for further involvement in Angola. I believe that the hon. the Minister owes it to South Africa, to the whole détente exercise and to our relationships with the Western world, to tell the truth about whether we had been promised military aid or not. I say this, because the only definitive statement made so far in this matter has not come from the South African Government. There has been a definitive statement from the U.S. Embassy in which it said in very clear and categorical terms, that what the hon. the Minister is suggesting is untrue. I believe this has to be resolved. I do not want a South African Government—even if it is a nationalist Government—to live on with a cloud of mistrust hanging over it. The American Embassy statement said quite categorically “South Africa entered the Angola war on its own accord and to protect its own interests. This involvement was undertaken without either consultation with, or any kind of assurance from the USA.” [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister should deal with this question. He should have done so yesterday. He alluded once again to President Ford and to the decision by the U.S. Congress. However, Ambassador Pik Botha surely told him repeatedly during that period that he could not expect any support from the United States Congress. I cannot believe that a competent ambassador sitting in the United States, could not have told this Government that, although it may be relying on support from the USA, it should know that Congress, the Senate and the House of Representatives would not approve it.

The last question that I want to deal with is the question of whether we have achieved our objectives. One of the objectives was to prevent a MPLA take-over. The hon. the Prime Minister stated that it was to see that there were no Russians or Cubans there. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether—if that was one of our objectives—we succeeded in that objective. I have no doubt that as an operational exercise our military men acquitted themselves with distinction. However, I believe that as a political exercise this Government has committed a disastrous blunder. This is going to have an effect on détente and also on the defence of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, this morning the hon. Leader of the PRP once again tried to overwhelm us with a torrent of words. However, what South Africa asks of that party is not just words. It is asking for deeds from that party. However, I now want to leave it at that because I should prefer to say something more positive about the S.A. Defence Force. However, I want to refer in passing to what the hon. member for Rondebosch had to say. He wants us to forget about the Angolan episode. At the same time, however, his party is dragging in the Angolan issue here in Cape Town by distributing a pamphlet about it. I believe that there is no longer place for double-talk of this kind in South Africa.

While the conflict in Angola was taking place, we made use of two categories of soldier. There were the career soldiers, and also national servicemen and volunteers from the commandos and the citizen force. In any future conflict here in Southern Africa we shall, for the most part, have to make use of those categories again. According to all the evidence those men, from both categories, acquitted themselves of their task with distinction. We are justly very proud of them. That, too, is why it was gratifying to be able to hear yesterday that consideration is apparently to be given to awarding medals to some of those men. I trust that the units involved in the fighting in Angola will also be permitted to display their battle distinctions on their colours. In both cases, however, sacrifices had to be made so that we in South Africa could be free today.

There is an important obligation on us today. There is an obligation on us to look after the companions as well as the next-of-kin of those who have perished. It is the least we can do. Looking at the dispensation as regards remuneration or general conditions of service of our permanent force staff, what do we see? Taking everything into account this remuneration is reasonably comparable with the salaries in the rest of the Public Service. However, we are continuing to lose people to the private sector. Why is this so? Money and salary do play a part, but in my opinion another very important consideration also applies. Nowadays our Defence Force men are very much sought after owing to the training they have received, but also, for the most part, owing to the discipline of the people in the Defence Force. They are very much sought after in the private sector. The private sector is prepared to pay good salaries to disciplined people. The initial salaries and benefits of permanent force staff could perhaps be improved. In my opinion we are losing too many people and getting too few.

Another aspect I want to refer to is the housing scheme of the Defence Force. Although it is very good at the moment, I do not think it is adequate. This is one of the most important advantages of a career in the Defence Force, enabling us to recruit and retain people for the Defence Force. I am aware of the problems in this regard but nevertheless I want to request the Government to make more money available for housing for members of the permanent force, if possible.

Today the permanent force really offers an adventurous and challenging career to any young person, a career in which any young man and any young woman can realize themselves to the full. We were happy to take cognizance yesterday of the promotion of a young man to the highest place in the Defence Force. I am convinced that there are few callings today in which a greater spirit of comradeship exists than in the South African Defence Force, where one really gets the feeling that one can physically serve one’s country and one’s people and where one can really express one’s patriotism in practice in a tangible way, through deeds. Our young men will be very much at home and welcome in the Defence Force.

I also want to dwell for a moment on the care of the next-of-kin of soldiers who have been injured or have perished in the execution of their duties. As a typical example I want to refer hon. members to a 28-year-old member of the permanent force who is discharged from service or retired after 10 years because he is 100% disabled as a result of injuries sustained while on duty. This person earned R4 800 per annum. By virtue of the fact that he contributes to the Government Pension Fund, he will receive an annuity of R4 461 and a cash gratuity of R15 000. In my opinion this will never be quite enough, but it is fair and adequate to live on. The widow of a member of the permanent force who has perished will receive an amount of R2 000 as an annuity, by virtue of the fact that her spouse had contributed to a pension fund, whereas in terms of the regulations applicable in his case, an amount of about R35 000 would be paid out to her.

Looking at the position of citizen force and commando soldiers who sustain injuries, one notes that their benefits are regulated by the War Pensions Act, No. 82 of 1967, as amended. I do not have time to give hon. members the full details, but a married person with one dependant who is 100% disabled will receive a maximum benefit of R313 a month. In most cases, however, it will be far less. Hon. members will agree with me that an improvement ought to be effected here. However, the spouse and next-of-kin of a member of the citizen force or the commandos who perishes, are far worse off. The highest pension benefits a widow can receive in such a case are R149 per month and a gratuity of R264. I am convinced that in this case improvements must be effected as speedily as possible for our people. Although the War Pensions Act is administered and handled by a different hon. Minister and department, I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Defence to assist in improving the position of our soldiers and their next-of-kin in the circumstances mentioned. I do this in the interests of our soldiers who will have to do duty on the border again in the future, if necessary. In this connection I also want to mention the contributions made by the public to the various funds established to assist the dependants of soldiers—this is really most deeply appreciated.

To conclude, I want to make one remark about the behaviour of our insurance companies. In spite of the clause in most of the policies taken out by our people to the effect that in the case of injury, no money would be paid if the injury was sustained in the course of war service, in all cases our South African insurance companies paid the full sum assured to the people. I think we can only take note of this with the deepest gratitude. It is with gratitude and appreciation, too, that we take cognizance of the new kind of insurance policies which are now being made available for this purpose.

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to follow up the hon. member for Verwoerdburg’s plea for compensation to dependants of injured members of the Permanent Force, except to say that I support his plea wholeheartedly. I believe it is extremely necessary that a review of the system be undertaken. I also want to express the hope that our missing airmen will survive and that they will be found. I wish to express my sympathy with their families. I want to convey our good wishes to Admiral Biermann on his retirement and to Lt. Gen. Malan on his new appointment. I should also like to express the appreciation of this side of the House for the fact that Admiral Biermann has accepted an appointment to the hon. the Minister’s Advisory Committee. In this way his services and long experience will not be lost to South Africa. We are therefore extremely grateful to him for accepting that appointment. We would like to thank both these gentlemen and their senior staff for the excellent co-operation and assistance which we have, at all times, received from the Department of Defence. I want to thank them particularly for the trip we undertook to a military area earlier this year. We were extremely impressed by the quality of leadership and by the excellent morale of our troops. We regret that this visit has been abused by the PRP for its own political purposes. The hon. member for Sea Point was totally wrong when he said that the hon. the Minister had said that the information received during that trip was free and open. What the hon. the Minister said was that discussions at a public reception was free and open. I did not hear him say that all the information we received there was free and open. If one reads the publications of this party, one would think that the sole strategists of the whole Angolan operation were Genls. Schwarz, Eglin and Slabbert. If their behaviour is such as we see it now, after a military limited operation in Angola, I hate to think what their reaction would be if this country was suddenly involved in total war. There is no doubt that they would have absolute hysterics. I should also like to thank members of the Defence Force for their very frank briefing on the overall strategic situation which we received earlier this year. I want to give the assurance to the hon. the Minister and his senior officers that this side of the House will never use the information that we have received, for personal political gain. We would regard such action as a breach of good faith and, as such, not fitting an hon. member of this party.

We are also pleased that the hon. the Minister has given us information about some of the advances that we have made in modern conventional weaponry. I believe that this is something which the public wanted to know for a long time and we do not, in this dangerous world, expect him to divulge information about all our weapons. It would be foolhardy to make everything known to our enemies. As for the massive military display requested by the hon. member for Yeoville, what a foolhardy request! Can you imagine what the liberal Press of the world would say if we had to start with massive military displays in South Africa? That would merely add to all the insulting words already being used against this country. They would merely add the word “militaristic”. I believe that we should avoid this at all costs. Let us develop our Defence Force, expand our weaponry, train our men, but do not let us put it on show for all the world to see. I believe that would be totally wrong. The hon. the Minister has, during this debate, described our military capability as that of a medium military power. The controversial Secretary of State of the United States has recently said that we have enormous potential for chaos with the growth of the emerging nations who are full of resentment. The proliferation of nuclear weapons, the expansion of Soviet military strength—all this has great danger. The former U.S. Secretary of Defence, James R. Schlesinger, in a recent article in Fortune said the following, and I quote—

Against this background I wish to make a suggestion, a suggestion to which the hon. the Minister need not reply of he feels it is not in the public interest to do so, but it is a suggestion that could at least take us to the status of being a mini super power.

We have some of the largest deposits of uranium in the world. Our scientists have evolved the world’s cheapest method to enriching uranium. The plans for our first nuclear power station are well under way. We have the material and the capability to develop a nuclear capability. I believe that the time has come for us to devote time, money and manpower to the development of that capability, not to use it in the conquest of Africa, but as a deterrent to possible aggression in the dangerous world in which we live and as a protection for the peaceful and prosperous co-existence in Southern Africa. I believe that we should move in this direction, and I express the thought here. I believe also that we should move out with propaganda into the world and get the real South Africa to the outside world. I was grateful to see a cutting of The Times of Gloucester County, New Jersey, the other day. It states—

In this article—it is a long one and I cannot quote everything—Paul Johnston, a British socialist, is quoted as listing Soviet Russia as the world’s most efficient tyranny. Then he goes on to say—

Then he concludes by saying—

Sir, I believe that we should avoid that heart of darkness by taking our South African image into the world in our defence.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, must pardon me if I do not comment on what he said. I am going to occupy my time a little with lofty and winged subjects. Before provision was made in the Defence Act of 1912 for the establishment of the South African Flying Corps, Gen. Smuts, who was at the time Minister of Defence, sent Lt.-Gen. Beyers abroad to England and Europe to attend army manoeuvres there. He was given specific instructions to ascertain what role the aircraft could play in future military actions. His second instruction, given to him by Gen Smuts, was also to obtain information in order to establish a military flying school in South Africa. Gen. Beyers returned and reported to Gen. Smuts in the following words: “The aircraft is undoubtedly going to play an important part in future warfare.”

Sir, the limited time at my disposal does not allow me to relate the interesting events which I came across in the course of my reference work, but I do feel that I should like to mention the name of Compton Paterson, who at that time had a flying school at Alexander-fontein in Kimberley. He was instructed to train the first ten members of the South African Flying Corps. The First World War broke out afterwards, and when it was over the South African S.A. Air Force was established, with the then Col. Pierre van Ryneveld, later the well-known Sir Pierre van Ryneveld, as its first commander-in-chief. It is this Air Force which I should like to consider for a while, with, as the film has it, its “magnificent men in their flying machines”. Since its establishment the South African Air Force has grown into the most important military air force in the air space over the continent of Africa, and has definitely made a significant contribution to the stability of our country. During this time we have seen aircraft develop from the primitive bi-plane to the sleek, supersonic jets of today. The S.A. Air Force has kept pace with this, and its organization and nature, coupled with the proud achievements in times of war and peace, has truly justified the decision to allow the Air Force to exist as a separate Defence Force unit.

The battle honours of our Defence Force include place names over the entire continent of Africa, the Mediterranean area, deep into Europe, and in far-off Korea. Our country can boast of air crews of exceptionally high calibre, which may be attributed to their quick reactions, their ability to think fast, their courage and firmness of character, men inspired by an unequalled cameraderie and an imposing valour. In every sphere—its aircraft, its training methods, its techniques and skill—the S.A. Air Force is the equal of the best in the world, and it truly forms a mighty shield over the air space of Southern Africa.

Sir, let us for a while take a closer look at the Air Force. The training of air crews as well as ground staff is a lengthy and extremely expensive process for our modern high-performance aircraft. It is calculated that in order to train a Mirage or Buccaneer pilot it can easily take three years and cost an amount, in indirect and direct expenditure, of up to R1 million. In addition, then, he has to participate regularly in complicated flying exercises in order to retain his skill. It is therefore clear that a strong defence force of pilots should be maintained and that our pilots should be drawn from that pool. Our air crews are also subjected to strict physical and psychological tests, and it is imperative that they should be and should remain absolutely fit. They, too, receive training in the technical and administrative sections. In this way members of our Air Force undergo training and acquire proficiency in patrolling the borders of our country, in tracking down, identifying and pursuing foreign objects in good time. Through knowledge and experience our pilots are capable of becoming airborne within a few seconds, attacking calmly and purposefully, and destroying an enemy mercilessly. Reconnaisance work is done with patience and perseverance and by means of visual equipment and cameras. In this way enemy positions are quickly located and subsequent operational action is successfully carried out. In addition, I should just like to mention the role of our S.A. Air Force in interdictory operations, closer air support and maritime operations. In conclusion I should just like to mention the logistical organization of all these matters.

Sir, we must bear in mind, however, that a supersonic jet, diving and rolling gracefully without protest in the hands of a skilled pilot, is the culmination of a team effort, on the part of the ground staff as well, who have to carry out so much assembly and maintenance work and who have to ensure that radio and radar equipment is regularly serviced. Theirs is the honour of truly keeping our Air Force airborne.

I said last year during the discussion of this Vote that I would be the last person to object if the hon. the Minister of Defence asked for twice the amount of his budget. I want to repeat that sentence here today. We here in South Africa have grown accustomed to living in peace and quiet. We do not bear in mind that this is the result of a vigilant Government. But now that hostile eyes close to our borders are fixing their greedy gaze at our country, hoping to take it away from us, I feel that it is the duty of all of us, of every member of our population to give what they have now, and to make sacrifices and also to pay for the efficient defence of our country.

Sir, what is our duty to our country with a view to the future and particularly as far as the Air Force is concerned? Just this, that our Air Force must become bigger, stronger and even better equipped, and that we must extend the Atlas factory and equip it in such a way that more and more aircraft will roll off the assembly line—literally roll off—in that factory. South Africa has the competent, skilled and resourceful manpower. We have the necessary raw materials and the material, and new, sophisticated aircraft can be manufactured by us. I believe that we are in fact able to do so, aircraft which are better and faster than any others in the world. South Africa has already shown its strength in the past and we shall do so again in future. Our Air Force is already extremely well equipped with the fastest aircraft in the world, but “extremely good” must never for us become “good enough”. We must strive only for the best.

That, then, is the S.A. Air Force of today, an air force which through development and achievements has engraved its name indelibly on the pages of the military history of the world, and which in future, as in the past, will continue to guard inexorably over what is near and dear to us. Sir, I conclude by saying: Together with the S.A. Air Force we soar with faith and confidence into the blue unknown of the future, true to its motto: “Per aspera ad astra”—through adversity to the stars.

Mr. Chairman, to begin with I want to associate myself with the words of appreciation conveyed to Admiral Biermann and the words of congratulation conveyed to Lt.-Gen. Malan. I should also like to avail myself of this opportunity to congratulate our hon. the Minister sincerely on the great honour which befell him of becoming probably the only person in Africa and definitely the only person in South Africa on whom the highest honour in military science was conferred by one of our universities. I think we are all very proud of the fact that a man such as this can be at the head of our Defence Force.

May I also be allowed to express just a single idea on the PRP. Every ounce of loyalty in me rebels utterly against the mere idea of in any way debating defence matters with those hon. members. I shall let that suffice.

I should like to express a few thoughts on the Special Defence Account, and the particular bottlenecks in regard to that account. The manufacture of armaments—and I am referring now to modern armaments—is probably the most difficult task one can find in the engineering industry. Apart from hand weapons all armaments—tanks, ships, aircraft, missiles and rockets—are today equipped with the most sophisticated electronic components imaginable. Let us make no mistake about this either; without these components a Mirage, for example, is worth almost as much as an ordinary, old-fashioned Piper Moth of 1910. With the acquisition of armaments there are two cardinal problems with which the Government and we in this House can be of assistance. These two problems are the problem of money and the problem of the time scale.

The great problem which we have at present in our entire defence set-up is that of time scales. The smaller a country and the more restricted its means for the purchase of armaments, the more important it is that the size, distribution and the time scale of those estimates should be watched very carefully. To be able to do this, there is one very important requirement, and that is the flexibility of financial arrangements.

Consequently we may justifiably ask: How flexible is this Special Defence Account of R897 million? Firstly we must consider Act No. 6 of 1974. In contrast to previous years, that Act now provides that any credits on that account, for whatever reason, may be carried over for spending in the next year. We also see that the concept of item budgeting, which requires Treasury approval for the transference of sums from one armament requirements item to another, has now fallen away. Therefore, we see now that within our defence forces there is an exceptional flexibility in respect of the distribution of funds. Since the purchase of virtually all armaments is a long-term project, which could extend over years, a long-term budgeting programme, as is at present being followed by the Department of Defence, is imperative because orders placed this year already impose a heavy burden on any budget which may be introduced the next year and in following years. In this way one can, by means of a budgeting programme, also control the size of one’s budget reasonably effectively.

But such a long-term programme has two term legs. The first leg is in connection with the delivery period after the order has been placed. The second leg is in connection with the preparatory term before the orders are placed, in other words the period required to make studies and evaluations, which can take months and sometimes years. To carry out a study and make an evaluation in the same year in which the armaments funds are made available, is actually an impossible task. This means that studies and evaluations have to be commenced years before the time; to tell the truth, even long before any funds for the acquisition of such armaments can be appropriated. This creates two problems. Since men with the necessary knowledge of armaments manufacture are tremendously scarce throughout the world, the manufacturers are disinclined to allow such people to undertake study and evaluation if the possibility of a tender or eventual order does not exist. This is the first problem, and the second concerns the orders. To make effective deliveries possible, orders placed with manufacturers have to fit in with their production programmes. If an order is placed in such a way that it does fit in, the delivery of armaments can be brought forward by months. The fact that an order can only be placed when the necessary funds are available, makes it virtually impossible for orders to fit in with the production programmes of overseas manufacturers. If time allowed, I would have liked to have quoted a few examples from the past of cases where the delivery of armaments was delayed by many months.

In my opinion this problem can however be solved if the amount which is required for new armaments has already been approved for the ensuing financial year. Let me explain this. The funds which are required during the 1977-’78 financial year, should already have been approved in our present estimates—i.e. for the 1976-’77 financial year—but without the total appropriation for armaments being affected. The one exception should be that in this year’s estimates authorization is only being granted for orders to be placed on the estimates for the ensuing financial year. The benefits which can flow from this, is that it will be far more convenient to cause orders to fit in with the production programmes. In view of the time problem which we are already experiencing at present, I should like to ascertain whether the hon. the Minister will be prepared to obtain approval during the present year already of an amount of approximately R150 million for spending on new armaments in 1977-’78. Such an arrangement could obviate the limitations on the preparatory time for the studying and the placing of orders for new projects to a great extent. My plea is that, if it is not possible to obtain approval in the present year already for an additional amount in the 1977-’78 estimates, he should consider the principle of all armaments estimates in respect of the Special Defence Account extending over two years in future, and that in the estimates for the current year an amount will be approved which may be spent on new armaments during the ensuing financial year. If this is done, the placing of orders over a longer period will be possible.

Mr. Chairman, if there were ever a time when the spotlight was clearly focused on our Defence Force, it is now. The Angolan situation clearly emphasized the essentialness of total Defence Force preparedness. In the time at my disposal I want to refer briefly to two aspects of the S.A. Defence Force. The Angolan situation brought the reality of conventional warfare on South African soil to our attention in very clear language. In fact, conventional warfare is being regarded, to an ever increasing extent, even by the Big Powers such as France, as still being the power-determining factor in the modern world. Therefore it is necessary in these times of threats and rumours of war, for us to look with critical eyes at aspects of even the S.A. Air Force, for example. I want to refer in particular to the Fighter Command Headquarters with its base at Pietersburg, which is the seat of the 85th Advanced Flying School. I can state without fear of contradiction that at this school, Air Force men are being trained, shaped and moulded in the best traditions of a famous Air Force, which compelled respect from friend and foe alike in the Second World War and in Korea, for example. I make so bold as to say that anyone who has had the opportunity of witnessing the real competence, the experience and the true mastery of our young pilots who are being trained there, will realize that we are dealing here with a young generation of Air Force men who are better than the best in the entire world today. These men are not only being equipped with the highest technical skills, but if one speaks to them, one gains the impression that they are inspired with such a measure of inspiring motivation that it puts one involuntarily in mind of a leopard lying in wait for its prey. The hands of these young men are itching to accomplish the object for which they joined the Air Force.

The hon. member for Aliwal pointed out the tremendous expense involved in training a pilot at the present time. If one takes this into consideration one can form some idea of the tremendous task resting on the shoulders of our training officers in the Air Force. Therefore it is good to see that, according to the particulars published in the 1976-’77 building programme of the Department of Public Works, an amount of R1 165 000 has been provided for improvements to the Air Force base at Pietersburg. I want to tell the people of little faith and the faint-hearted in the far Northern Transvaal—there are a few of them there, as there are learned people who wish to flee the country—that this action on the part of the Government undoubtedly underlines the permanence of the lebensraum also of those of us in the far Northern Transvaal. As a result of the tremendous expense connected with the Air Force, it is therefore clear that we are dealing here with a highly sophisticated weapon for which highly sophisticated training is required, and that these men will, in the nature of things, be drawn primarily from the Permanent Force. Now, it is true that some of these men are being lost to the Air Force. I want to join the hon. member for False Bay in asking the hon. the Minister to give consideration in depth to the salary structure of the Defence Force, particularly when we are dealing with a Permanent Force element such as the one at Pietersburg where, on the same base, there are also members of an organization such as the Atlas Aircraft Corporation. These people mingle socially and as a result it is essential to eliminate any inequality in wages and other benefits completely. We should far rather make these professions so attractive that we draw only the best human material among our people to them. Even our enemies must realize that our Air Force is not only powerful for the moment only, but that there is also the necessary depth in our Air Force.

In the second place I want to refer briefly to the South African Medical Service. If there is one aspect of the South African Defence Force of which the support service is probably the most precious to it, then it is in fact the medical service. A soldier can only give of his best when he realizes that his welfare is being effectively looked after on the battlefield. Just the mere knowledge that there is a medical practitioner or a medical orderly in the vicinity has a calming influence on the soldier and enables him to offer greater resistance to battle fatigue. Experience has also shown that soldiers who are better motivated can offer greater resistance to battle fatigue or “wound shock” as it is popularly known. Therefore I also want to tell the parents of our young soldiers that those soldiers of whom the parents are also inspired with patriotism and encourage their sons and who are proud of their achievements on our borders, are undoubtedly more spiritually resilient than the others. They are far more positively orientated to war service. Our parents therefore have a bounden duty in this regard, a duty to contribute their share, in this respect as well, to the welfare, to the correct psychological orientation of our young soldiers who are issued with every possible item of equipment to be able to give of their best for their country.

However, I want to come to what I regard as the greatest achievement of the South African Medical Service. We are a small nation, but in spite of that we also have our quota of drug addicts among our young people, young people whose lives are being mercilessly shattered in order to destroy and demolish the spiritual and moral resilience of our people as a prelude to a calculated hostile take-over. It is alarming to hear that the vast majority of servicemen had acquired their problem at school. At school they smoked their first dagga cigarette, swallowed their first drug tablet. This is the fact of which we must take cognizance. Ours is a small nation and therefore we cannot afford to lose these young men. Consequently the Defence Force, under the guidance of Gen. Cocroft, has devised a plan to reclaim those young men for our Defence Force. For that purpose a full-fledged combat company of 4th South African Infantry Battalion has been established in the heart of the Bushveld with Greeffswald as its base. There, at one of our country’s most beautiful natural bases, in the midst of the breathtaking natural beauty so unique to our Transvaal bushveld, great results are being achieved with the help of chaplains, psychologists and medical practitioners, which are unparalleled in the rest of the world. I say this without the least fear of contradiction. The success rate at that base is more than 60%, while the accepted success rate in the world at present is only between 6% and 7%. Here life gains a new meaning for young men who have been dragged down into the abyss of drug addiction. Here a new love for their fatherland reawakens and they realize fully once again their involvement in a country and in a people. They realize anew that they belong to a country and to a people, and that, as a result, they also have an obligation to that country and those people. There reawakens the willingness to sacrifice everything, even their lives, to protect and preserve what is dear to them. Those men of the 3rd Combat Company of 4th South African Infantry Battalion indeed have nothing to be ashamed of. They form part of a comprehensive programme to reclaim precious young lives in South Africa and the whole of South Africa is indeed proud of them.

I should like to quote a passage from a group discussion which recently occurred there. One of these servicemen said—

In my opinion what emanates from this is a new spirit of a will to live and a determination in life. At Greeffswald useful citizens are being reclaimed, useful citizens, not only for the Defence Force, but for our entire country. This great task of the South African Defence Force is something which is also worthy of our praise and gratitude in this House.

Mr. Chairman, there are some of the things that the hon. member has said with which I agree. However, I first want to deal with a number of specific issues before returning to a broader issue. The first aspect I would like to deal with, is the question of the multiplicity of funds which is presently in existence in order to provide assistance to servicemen and their families, and to ex-servicemen. I believe that this multiplicity of funds, though it stems from extremely good motives, is in fact causing additional administrative costs, is in fact causing a wastage of manpower and women-power. The question I would like to pose is whether it is not desirable that, in the present circumstances, there should be a consolidation of the various funds which are in existence, and whether the time has not come that we should have a similar fund …

Order! The hon. member must raise this point under the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions.

With respect, Sir, I am specifically dealing with a fund which is administered by the Defence Force.

It is administered by the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions.

What I am talking about has nothing to do with the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions.

Which fund is that?

The South African Army Fund.

That is not a Government fund.

No, but it is administered by Defence Force people; it is not administered by the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions.

It has nothing to do with us.

What I am saying is that there should be a national fund and a consolidation.

May I now deal with the second point which I want to raise? This is a point which I raised yesterday, but to which the hon. the Minister did not reply, namely the issue of the continued control of the Army and the other arms of the services by the Public Service Commission. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to deal specifically with this issue in the light of the undertakings which he has given, because it is quite illogical that the generals of the Army and the admirals of the Navy should be put on comparative scales with people in departments with whom there is no comparison whatsoever. I can see no reason why the Defence Force should continue to operate under the Public Service Commission.

A third point on which I should like to touch is the very large number of casualties which have occurred as a result of the action of mines which have been placed at various places on our borders. I would like the hon. the Minister to tell us a little bit more, within the ambit of what he is able to do and not affecting security, of the vehicles that are being developed and have been developed to deal with this matter, e.g. whether these are available in adequate numbers, because it has been made public that these vehicles have been developed. We have heard very little about them and we continue to have casualties as a result of mines. I am not suggesting, of course, that the vehicles would solve the mine problem.

Another point on which I should like to hear the hon. the Minister is to what extent research is being done, and substantial research, to deal with the problem of mines, both from the point of view of detection and from the point of view of methods to deal with them. I would specifically like to refer the hon. the Minister to the fact that I believe there is considerable scope for research when it comes to dealing with the condition of roads and how one can treat and deal with roads when it comes to the presence of mines.

The next point with which I should like to deal is with regard to the exploitation of the situation in which South Africa finds itself, militarily for political purposes, the exploitation which takes place of the fact that South Africans must serve in the Forces and, thirdly, the exploitation that takes place with regard to the worries of parents—all of this exploitation for political purposes. There is no better example of this than the poster which was put up all over Durban North and the pamphlet which was issued by the NP in terms of which it was said in so many words that “There is someone’s son somewhere on the border. Support him. Worrall Will”. This is designed to exploit for political purposes the fact that we are all involved in this, that it is the sons of people in all political parties who are involved in this and it is being exploited for a petty party political purpose of which the hon. the Minister should be ashamed. I believe that the sooner people realize that the defence of South Africa is not something to turn into a political football, the better it will be for South Africa.

I want to return to the subject which was dealt with yesterday, a very serious one, namely the subject of the breach of confidentiality by the hon. the Minister. In this particular context I want to …

When do you answer my question?

I shall deal with the hon. the Minister, and deal with him very effectively, because he has to learn that he cannot breach confidentiality. South Africa cannot afford to have blabbermouths in charge of security matters, people who when they get emotional, when they are the people who have got the button to press …

On a point of order: Is the hon. member entitled to use the word “blabbermouth” in respect of the hon. the Minister?

The hon. member must withdraw that word.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the word. One cannot afford to have a man who speaks without thinking and who allows his emotions to carry him away when, in fact, he is the person who has his finger on the button and is the man who has to make the decisions. We all know that on the trip to No. 1 Military Area discussions were held at various times, and not just one briefing session, that people spoke at various times and showed various things. One cannot sort one little piece of this out and say that this is something one is entitled to disclose whilst other matters cannot be disclosed. But this is precisely what the hon. the Minister did. He knows, as well as everybody else who was there, that the confidential discussions during the trip were not restricted to the briefing session. The hon. the Minister knows it. He also knows that the discussion to which he referred yesterday was not a discussion which, as was alleged, was held in front of 50 or 100 people who had nothing to do with it.

You know it was held in public.

The hon. the Minister knows it was not held in public. The hon. the Minister knows that other things were discussed that evening, things which certainly nobody within his right mind would disclose publicly.

You are getting annoyed now because you know you are wrong.

No, I am angry because I find a situation where the hon. the Minister, who is in charge of security and defence in South Africa, talks without thinking. That is what the problem is. The hon. the Minister now finds himself in a predicament, but it is a predicament he himself created. He is the one who blabs out confidential information. And on my right we have the UP dragging along trying to cash in on the act as well. That is all they are able to do. To the hon. member for Newton Park, who accused the hon. member for Sea Point of misquoting, I would like to quote from Die Burger. Let him deny this—

It is a lie, an untruth, whoever said it.

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

I did not say that the hon. member lied. Whoever said this, told a lie.

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

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw it. But it was an untruth which was calculated to do harm to South Africa. That is what is was. That is the type of behaviour one gets from the hon. member for Newton Park. That is what takes place.

I should like to return to the Angola issue. At no stage can it be said that we did not tell the hon. the Minister that we should not have been there. I want to ask the hon. the Minister today how much better off we are because we went in there. What have we achieved as the result of it? We are out of Angola today, and what did we achieve?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Yeoville once gain indulged in an emotional attack on the hon. the Minister of Defence. However, in the process he failed to reply to the pertinent questions which were put to him yesterday. He hides behind an innocent pamphlet which the NP distributed in Durban. Is it such a terrible sin when a candidate declares in an election that he supports our sons on the borders and stands by them? It is, after all, the duty of all of us to do this, and it is the right of a candidate to express sentiments of this kind in an election. Will the hon. member for Yeoville get up and express the same sentiments? Why does he not get up and repudiate the allegations in the pamphlet distributed by his party? The hon. member has had a great deal of time in the debate to do this, but up to now he has not replied to the questions which the hon. the Minister put to him yesterday.

I should very much like to come back to another matter which is of great importance to me and to all of us. I think I can say that, in spite of criticism here and there, there is a very high regard for our Defence Force in South Africa today. However, the question arises whether we think sufficiently of the men forming part of the Defence Force. I am now referring to the man in uniform. Do we think about the fact that he is also a human being with needs peculiar to the human being? The hon. member for Pietersburg in his speech emphasized the auxiliary service rendered by the medical corps.

In the course of my speech I should like to stress another very important auxiliary service, i.e. the service rendered by chaplains.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Before the House adjourned for lunch, I said that I, in the course of my speech, should like to focus attention on the work which is done by our chaplains in the Defence Force. I am convinced of the fact that South Africa has brave men and we are assured that our young boys, in crisis situations, are among the best soldiers in the world. But in spite of the fact that one can handle weapons, is knowledgeable and ingenious, and wants very little militarily and physically, it is absolutely essential that there should exist a sound spirit from which must flow the will to fight and to be victorious. We are very grateful that the South African Defence Force appreciates this. This is endorsed by the fact that the chaplain corps, which was established in 1946 with only two posts, has since developed into a corps with more than 600 posts, 460 of which are occupied. In other words, the dispensation in our Defence Force is of such a nature that justice is done to religious and church matters. The chaplain service continues, everywhere where the South African Defence Force operates, to undertake the work of chaplain there and to provide our soldiers with religious guidance. The average South African is attached to his church and when the young serviceman leaves his home, it is the normal thing for him, as well as his parents, to ask how he can remain in contact with his church. We are pleased that the Defence Force replies to this question pertinently by telling the parents of those young men that no matter where they go, a full-time or part-time chaplain will be at their service. He will be able to see them at least once a week and the serviceman will have the right to consult his chaplain as often as may be necessary, by making use of the usual service channels. As far as tending the religious needs of the young serviceman is concerned, the parents need not have any concern whatsoever. On behalf of all the church denominations in South Africa and on behalf of the thousands of parents I should very much like to express our gratitude and appreciation in this respect towards the Defence Force this afternoon. We do not expect them to make angels of our sons, but we are very grateful that, on the part of the Defence Force, spiritual degeneration is also being counteracted. Approximately 92 religions are represented in the South African Defence Force. Through the co-operation of the Defence Force all church demonimations get the opportunity to maintain contact with their members. This is an opportunity the church is not so easily afforded by civilian life outside. Here the churches and chaplains have a wonderful opportunity every week to get together the servicemen for religious instruction. The chaplain is in a privilege position because he is able to participate in a purposeful and positive way in the spiritual preparedness of our men every week. We may pose the question: How do the chaplains perform their task? In the first place they perform this task through essential personal contact. During our involvement in Angola, the chaplains were there as well and they worked hard. I was told that they performed their work under the fine motto: “As close to the front as possible and as informal as possible”. Through its chaplains, the Church was in the trenches, in the tanks and in the battles and it remained there while the guns of the enemy were firing away. And there was no lack of evidence of the appreciation for this work. Where casualties occurred the chaplains had to convey this tragic news to the relatives and they shared in their sorrow.

Work is also done through the distribution of Bibles, religious literature and magazines as well as the showing of religious pictures. For this no money is voted, but the cost is borne by voluntary contributions from individuals and church denominations. It is our involvement in rendering our men spiritually prepared, and this is our share in the struggle which has to be waged. I also want to mention, with gratitude and appreciation, the performance of the church choir and concert group of the South African Defence Force. Their performances drew a flood of voluntary contributions. Our chaplains are trained and prepared through orientation courses and they know the place and the task of the chaplain in time of peace as well as under operational circumstances. The average South African comes from a religious home, and he is a person who places a high premium on the honour of his God and on his trust in the Almighty. The struggle in which we are engaged concerns the soil of South Africa and it concerns the survival of democracy in this country of ours. But, Sir, directly linked with that is also the faith in the Almighty and the public confession of that faith. Now, it is a fact that we have come up against the unholy and irreligious ideology and power of communism. What did we have to deal with in Angola, Sir? We had to deal with an unholy and a terrible Marxist threat there.

Military and physical preparedness, accompanied by spiritual preparedness, will enable us to be victorious. I say that this religious factor, this spiritual preparedness is the factor which binds the Church and the State in this country together in waging this struggle, because if the State is destroyed the Church is destroyed as well. It is this other mighty factor which will bring together White, Brown and Black in this country to be victorious in that struggle, because once the tide of communism engulfs this country, it is not only going to engulf the Whites; it is going to engulf Brown and Black and everyone’s belief and church denomination. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I want to pay tribute to our chaplains on an occasion such as this, and it is surely appropriate that we shall salute with gratitude and appreciation our chief chaplain, the Chaplain-General, and every individual chaplain. Let us say on this occasion that we know that they will persevere in this major task to prepare our men spiritually and, in this seemingly unequal struggle, to bring the message to our men we also find in those famous words of a great leader of the past, i.e. “Glo in jou God”. With this message they also convey the knowledge to our men, and to all of us, that this God reigns.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for Oudtshoorn with regard to the spiritual state of our men on the borders, and not only of our men on the borders, but also of the population as a whole. I also want to associate myself with what he said with regard to the mighty weapon we had in our hands in the form of the Christian faith. It is something which affords us the opportunity of causing that faith to revive and flourish anew in the Western world as a whole, so that we may continue the struggle against communism, something which is imperative and indispensable if we and the Western world want to retain our position in the world and do not want to yield to communism. I may come back to this point later in my speech.

†Mr. Chairman, I wish to deal with a matter which arose in my constituency about a year and a half ago when I, as the local member of Parliament, and my member of the Provincial Council, were approached by prominent people in the Military. These men brought to our attention the fact that in our area, which is a large slice of Natal, the availability of trained and armed men at any one time was worrying. They were worried that there were not enough people there at any one time to cope with any type of terrorist activity that might arise, by reason of the fact that the local forces were on the border or were based in Durban or Ladysmith. In other words, they were worried about the fact that the Natal Midlands area was not adequately protected against the sort of activity which the terrorists have been embarking upon in Rhodesia. We went about in our area among the people with the result that there has now come into being, throughout the whole of my constituency, a commando organization under the control of the military which, I believe, is absolutely essential. I say so for two reasons: Firstly it is for the protection of the area, and let us understand that if ever it should happen that there are terrorist activities among us on the isolated farms it is the women and children and the Black people who will suffer primarily from the depredations of terrorists. That was the first point that concerned me, that we should have available among our own local people a force which would be able to respond and react to any such attack upon our people immediately. The second reason is that there now can be a disciplined response under the control of the Military. The thing which I fear more than anything else is that there should be a spontaneous but undisciplined reaction from people, from the farmers, who might be inclined to run around the country and take reprisals against totally innocent people. We know our own people, we know the farmers and we know how readily available shotguns are, but if that gets out of hand you have lost the war. The day that sort of thing starts to happen in your community, without a disciplined response under the control of the military, you will have more trouble than you can cope with, so I want to say I am very pleased indeed that this organization has come into being. I have one problem in connection with it and I wish to raise it merely in passing with the hon. the Minister. People who are attached to the S.A. Railways have approached me, people who want to undertake this sort of training but who have not been able to get leave from the Railways in order to undergo periods of training. I leave that with the hon. the Minister. It is not my business. It is the Minister of Transport who will have to give this kind of leave, but I do ask the hon. the Minister to take this up with his colleague so that everybody in that area should be enabled to take part in an organization such as this. Sir, the real point of what I want to say is that my people took what I regarded as the essential next step. In the Karkloof area, where I farm, they called together the kraal heads of all the Black population, those who are essentially the leaders of the families in that area. They were addressed by two members of the commando who speak fluent Zulu and who are farmers in that area. The speeches were taped, so that we have a record of everything that was said there. Sir, the interesting thing was the reaction of the Black people. Firstly, they said: “This is the first time you people have ever come to us with your problems in regard to security. We understand—you have told us and we know it ourselves—that when trouble arises we will be the first people who will be intimidated and will be at the receiving end of a terrorist thrust into this area before you are.” I think it is vitally necessary for us to appreciate that this is what those people feel; they know that this will be the result. They said further that what they would not tolerate is people coming into the area—and they know about communism and the godlessness of communism, the point which the hon. member for Oudtshoorn made, that these are people who are set and intent on eliminating religion—to eliminate the religious feelings and the attachment they have to their churches. I think this bears out very strongly—from another aspect perhaps as that put forward by the hon. member for Oudtshoorn—the concern the Black people have, the attachment they show, to their religion and their spiritual values, something which I think is very vital indeed.

At that meeting we, in a small way, and in our own local area among our own local people, have been able to bring home to the Black people what I have always said in this House, viz. that the alternative to White Power in South Africa is not Black power, but Red power. This is something I think we have to go out of our way to explain to our Black people, and in fact we made a point of explaining it to them at this meeting, why White men are arming. We told them that they would see men arming, holding manoeuvres, going about in their trucks in an organized fashion and organizing concentration points for our wives and children, but it is not intended against the Black people of the area; it is intended as protection for them as well as for ourselves.

I merely put it to the hon. the Minister that this is the sort of extension work which—I cannot call them “private military people”, but people who are not in the armed forces on a regular basis, e.g. the paramilitary people— can get hold of the imagination of the Black people in that area. As the hon. the Minister has said many times and others also, the local population is to the guerrilla like water to the fish. If we can do this sort of thing and carry it further, I think we will be going a long way towards achieving what we want to achieve, i.e. securing the lives of both White people and Black people in this country. I believe that my people have there taken an initiative which I very much hope is going to be followed by other people in other areas. It is already being transferred to other areas in my constituency. We have five or six different units, and meetings on this same basis are being called in all those areas. I therefore hope this is going to be something that will spread. I am certainly far more confident and happy—about the security of our people in that area—this time this year than I was this time last year.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the hon. member for Mooi River for his positive contribution. I agree with him that we have the support of the vast majority of our Black and Brown people in South Africa and that they have a deep trust in the security forces of our country. We have no trouble in getting them to support our efforts to train them better. I mentioned yesterday that we a force of more than 500 Black soldiers voluntarily came forward to support us in the operational area. Hon. members are well aware of the steps we have taken in the Transkei and Okavango, and of the steps we are at present taking in Owambo to train Black soldiers.

Hon. members will also recollect that I announced a while ago that some of our commandos will be allowed to recruit a number of Black people for specific purposes in each commando area. I therefore fully agree with the hon. member, and am glad he made this positive contribution this afternoon.

I may also just mention that there had been a tendency, especially in the past few months, for the womenfolk of our country to join the commandos in very large numbers. I believe that a few thousand or more have already joined the commandos. In some areas we are even experiencing problems in coping with this large-scale enlistment.

Do you want any assistance?

Well, I could always call upon the hon. member for his assistance. He is, after all, a well-trained officer.

I regret to say that to date there has been no good news about the possible loss of our Albatross. I am informed that the search parties will continue their operations till late tonight and that they will start again tomorrow morning, if necessary. I regret having to tell hon. members this but I am sure I can express the sympathy of all of us with the families concerned.

Yesterday the hon. member for Durban Point asked me about the use of national servicemen in other capacities. We are using as many national servicemen as possible in the various categories of the services. For example, there are a few hundred national servicemen engaged in the anti-insurgency action at present taking place in Owambo and in Okavango, as the hon. member knows. Hundreds of national servicemen also serve as medical orderlies. They are well trained and have done good work over the past few months.

*Then there are the computer services in which—so I have been informed— approximately 300 national servicemen are engaged. A total of 23 of them are employed in the branches Finance, Audit and Administration. They are persons who have special qualifications enabling them to do this work. We are therefore trying to utilize these people in the fields in which they are qualified. In the Stores Administration Division there are almost 700, and they are doing good work. I think it is generally accepted that we are, as far as possible, using national servicemen who are suited to these purposes in specific directions within the Defence Force in positions for which we perhaps do not at this stage have the necessary permanent force members available.

†The hon. member for Durban Point also raised the question of a bigger Permanent Force. I want to assure the hon. member that I am inclined to support this idea as far as possible. The hon. member knows that I went out of my way to try to create better facilities for and to encourage the recruitment of Permanent Force members. What is more, we also established the special unit—“die Verkenningskommando”—which forms part of the Permanent Force. I hope we will be able to build it up and to expand it, because we do need that type of unit under present conditions. Because the factor of professional leadership is most important, as is the principle of continuity in the Defence Force, we need a higher percentage of Permanent Force personnel in relation to the Citizen Force and the Commandos. In the Army the Permanent Force members constitute approximately 3% while the rest of the personnel comprise Citizen Force and Commando members. I think that proportion is not satisfactory and we should have more Permanent Force members. However, if we do accept the principle that we should establish at least one brigade of Permanent Force members, then we must also accept the fact that it is going to cost the country between R50 million and R80 million per year extra. There is no question about it and because it was calculated a few years ago, I think it will now even cost more than that.

But at least there will be a saving as well.

There may be a saving, but there will not be a saving to such an extent. This does not mean to say, however, that I am not in favour of it.

This brings me at once to another matter which was raised, and which runs like a refrain through the speeches of hon. members, i.e. that I must remove the Defence Force from the control of the Public Service Commission. Let me state the facts at once. For inspection purposes and maintenance of the establishment strength, it is already the case that the Defence Force no longer falls under the Public Service Commission. The Defence Force only continues to fall under the Public Service Commission for the determination of conditions of service, i.e. the determination of salaries. As far as the Public Service Commission is concerned, a new dispensation is imminent and legislation will be introduced by the Minister of the Interior to give shape to it. I do not want to discuss that legislation. My standpoint is in any event that S.A. Defence Force members cannot be dealt with on the same basis as Public Servants when it comes to the determination of conditions of service. This has always been my standpoint, and in respect of certain matters we have already succeeded in having different bases applied. However, I am not prepared to anticipate the decisions of the Cabinet. In this regard I have a responsibility to my colleagues in the Cabinet. I shall state the case of the S.A. Defence Force, but then the case of the Police is at once relevant as well. I think that both services, as far as conditions of service are concerned, ought to be dealt with on a different basis. Whether this can happen all at once, time will have to tell. The financial implications of this must also be gone into properly. This is all I want to say in this regard. But I am in favour of the idea that the Police and the S.A. Defence Force should be dealt with on a different basis.

†I can also inform the hon. member for Durban Point that later this year we intend instituting an investigation into the question whether we should not alter our national service system. I can tell the hon. member that I am prepared to consult with him again on this matter. We have already altered the system, but I think that as far as certain categories are concerned, we shall have to institute longer periods of service. This may lead to the period being shortened in respect of other categories, but there are the questions of permanency, continuity and of proper leadership which will have to be considered. We shall have to look into the matter again in the second half of this year.

The hon. members for South Coast, Pietersburg and Cradock spoke about the question of motivation. The hon. member for South Coast even went so far as to say that I must tell hon. members to motivate the country. That is going too far. The hon. member already heard the other day that I was accused of being an arrogant person. I am not going to take this responsibility on my shoulders. It is the duty of every member of Parliament to go back to his constituents and motivate them as regards national service and to instill in them a positive attitude towards our Defence Force and our other security forces. It is their duty to do that.

You must involve them.

What is more, it is the duty of every member of Parliament and of every member of the provincial council to check up whether the local authorities in their constituencies are taking the necessary steps as far as our civil defence is concerned. Civil defence is not only a military matter. It also has to provide other urgent services during, for instance, floods, fires or earthquakes. There was the earthquake in Ceres a few years ago and also the Gamtoos catastrophe referred to by the hon. member for Humansdorp. It is absolutely essential that our civil defence organizations should be up to date. There should also be co-operation on the part of members of Parliament, the provincial councils and also local authorities with our commando organization, which is a good organization.

*The misconception has sprung up among some people that civil defence relates only to military matters. That is not correct. Civil defence can become important in military situations, because emergency services have then to be provided, but civil defence must at all times be there to provide assistance in all other states of emergency as well. People confuse civil defence with military training. This must not happen. There must be a greater measure of participation, on the part of the available men and women in the country, in the St. John’s Ambulance, the Red Cross, the Noodhulpliga and other women’s organizations which are at the disposal of local authorities to provide these services. There has to be a proper plan, not an overall plan, but a plan in terms of which leaders can take the lead in times of emergency to help the public to do what has to be done.

Are their problems as a result of shortages of money going to be solved? They do not even have money for stamps.

Well, at present we are having consultations with the provincial authorities. A report was published on certain aspects of civil defence, as the hon. member knows. We have again consulted with the Administrators to see whether amending legislation should be introduced. We are considering this question at present and, if necessary, we shall come forward with the necessary legislation next year. The provinces will also take steps to make the necessary adjustments to enable local authorities to deal with this matter on a better basis. This matter is, therefore, presently receiving attention.

Is it not possible to help them to send out notices to members?

The matter of financing has got nothing to do with my department. If local authorities have to take a greater responsibility for civil defence, arrangements have to be made by the Treasury with the provinces and local authorities. I cannot act as Santa Claus for every local authority in the country.

But the law does not allow it at present.

That is what we are intending to put right. We are at present negotiating with the Administrators in regard to the question of responsibility and with a view to amending the present legislation. I shall let the hon. member have all the particulars in due course.

*The hon. member for Humansdorp was speaking from experience when he quite rightly referred here yesterday to the need for closer co-operation in the sphere of civil defence. The constituency of the hon. member suffered great damages in states of emergency. He therefore knows how the Air Force, the commandos and local authorities there had to team up to carry out a civil defence programme. I am pleased that he was able to make such a positive contribution here, from his own experience.

Other hon. members discussed a variety of matters. Unfortunately, it will not be possible for me this afternoon to provide detailed replies to their questions. It is my intention to do what I have done in the past, i.e. to have hon. members’ speeches read through and, in cases where I have omitted to deal with all the details, furnish the hon. members with written replies. They know that it is my practice. If I should therefore fail to reply to certain questions, owing to a lack of time, hon. members must please not take it amiss of me.

I want to thank hon. members on both sides of the House for their positive contributions on the Defence Force. The Defence Force is today a very large and extensive organization. The Defence Force does not refer only to the Air Force, the Army and the Navy. The Defence Force also involves a tremendous administration, large-scale medical services, between 60 and 70 sick bays, four hospitals and in addition to that large-scale health services. The Defence Force also involves the combating of drug addiction, as was mentioned this morning. The Defence Force is also involved in ministering to young people spiritually. All church denominations in South Africa are officially represented in the Defence Force. The Defence Force is therefore a tremendously large organization with wide ramifications. The positive attitudes displayed by hon. members here must be a source of inspiration to every member of the Defence Force dealing with these matters. On their behalf I want to express my thanks to hon. members.

The hon. members for Worcester, False Bay and Simonstown referred to the Navy. The hon. member for Simonstown referred to the problems of the town of Simonstown. The hon. member knows that we have taken certain steps. Investigations have been carried out.

†I cannot say that I am satisfied with all the recommendations arising from the investigations that took place. I am fully aware of the problems of the local authority of Simonstown. There is the idea in some circles that, gradually, Simonstown should become a military base in the same sense that Voortrekkerhoogte is today. I do not know whether that can be done in a few years’ time. It will cost a lot of money. I think eventually the best solution would be to steer matters in the direction of Simonstown eventually becoming the same type of military base that Voortrekkerhoogte is at present. The problems that we have with the local authority today will then gradually peter out. Whether that is financially possible, I do not know. It is a matter for discussion and proper investigation. I would suggest that in due course we should, in co-operation with the other departments, see whether we cannot have a better and proper investigation made into all these difficulties in regard to Simonstown.

May I ask the hon. the Minister if he is aware that one of the biggest problems is the properties which belong to the Department of Community Development. If they can be released, the Municipality will be able to proceed with a housing scheme.

I am aware of that, and I also know that if housing schemes are established, it will be possible to alleviate the transportation problem in Simonstown to a considerable extent. We shall have to put our heads together again to see whether we cannot take further steps, as we have already done in the past…

Will you include my head as well?

Yes, I shall include your head as well; I shall not have it chopped off.

The hon. members for False Bay and Worcester referred to the Navy and spoke with great appreciation of the Navy. I thank them for doing so. Our Navy is not a very large one. Over the past few years, however, we have accomplished a great deal with the establishment of Silvermine, of modern communications and also of a new submarine base. Although our Navy is not a large one, it is respected in many countries of the world, inter alia, for the type of work which is being done in the workshops at Simonstown. I know what I am talking about when I say that there is great appreciation in many countries in the world for the type of work and services which are being rendered at Simonstown. Whether the headquarters of the Navy should be transferred to Pretoria is a question which I will probably not deal with in my lifetime as Minister. It is a task which my successor will have to deal with, if necessary. The idea has been expressed that the headquarters should be moved, but I do not think that it is practical. What I do think is practical is that there should be greater co-ordination, on a high level, between the headquarters at Voortrekkerhoogte or in Pretoria, Potgieter Street, and the headquarters of the Navy. We have already begun to move in this direction and in the central organization of the chief of the Defence Force, under the control of Chief of Staff, the Navy is already strongly represented. Perhaps we could solve many of the problems along these lines.

A South African “Pentagon”.

Well, we are close to that. In any case we are not as doubtful as some Pentagons are.

I want to say a few words this afternoon about the Defence budget. The hon. member for Durban Point, as well as other hon. members, raised this matter. The hon. member for Hillbrow pointed out yesterday that a country’s defence expenditure should be commensurate with its economic means. No one denies that, and therefore I agree with the hon. member. I have here a list of “Comparisons of Defence Expenditure, 1971-’75” to which I want to refer. In this list the defence expenditure of countries of the Warsaw treaty, Nato countries and countries such as Iran and Israel are compared. I want to refer to one figure only. The per capita defence expenditure of a country such as Iran is $314 per annum. In other countries the position is as follows: Israel, $1 043; West Germany, $260; and the Netherlands, $215. There are many other examples which I could mention, inter alia, the USA and France, but I do not want to do so now. In South Africa the Defence expenditure in respect of the Whites alone is R324 per capita per annum. In respect of the entire population it is only R54,53. With reference to this I say that South Africa is not spending disproportionately on defence. I should like to point out the increase in prices in respect of a few items only. The price of a 35 mm anti-aircraft cannon has in only ten years increased by 155%. The price of the R1 rifle has, over the same period, increased by 344%. The price of a Mandrag radio set has increased by 513%. The prices of certain types of aircraft used by the S.A. Defence Force have increased by 77%, 132% and 85%, respectively.

The costs involved in training Navy and Air Force officers have also increased tremendously. In the same way the costs involved in the training of a submarine officer have increased by 42% over a period of ten years. There has also been a tremendous increase in the price of ordinary military requirements. The price of tents, for example, has increased by 210%. If one, in addition to that, takes into consideration that the rand has been devalued, and that prices have escalated as a result of many other factors as well, then one comes to the conclusion that South Africa has in reality, with the leaps and bounds it has taken in regard to defence expenditure, not incurred an exceptional increase in expenditure. Only increased expenditure which is unavoidable in the new situation has been requested in order to be able to keep pace with this. Therefore if we want to build up and strengthen our reserves—and we must do this—we shall have to do it ourselves. I am one of the people who believe that South Africa should look after itself as far as its defence is concerned, for other people will not look after it. Therefore we must have sufficient reserves, and the ability to hold our own if anyone should venture to attack us in an irresponsible manner. I reiterate that Parliament will have to prepare itself to spend more money on defence. This is not only in the interests of the Whites, but also of the Coloureds and the Blacks.

†I said yesterday that all of them had said that they were against communism and that they did not want communist interference, i.e. Russian and Cuban interference in the affairs of Southern Africa. Whether we like it or not, they said the present order can only be improved by evolution and not by revolution. The first guarantee against revolution is a strong Defence Force and other security forces in South Africa.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North raised a few matters. In the first instance I want to tell him that the Defence Force takes the responsibility for all permanent force members if they are wounded or fall ill. That is an accepted principle. As far as commando and Citizen Force members are concerned, initially it is the responsibility of the Defence Force through its medical services, but after that they are handed over to the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. If the hon. member has problems in this connection, he must raise them with that department. My office, or the Admiral’s office, will be prepared to help him to get in touch with the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. He can make his own choice.

Choose the Admiral!

The hon. member for Green Point says that he must choose the Admiral. I do not care; he too is in the service of the Defence Force. The hon. member raised the matter of the accident which occurred on 29 November. There was an investigation by the defence authorities. They came to certain conclusions and the matter has now been handed over to the Department of Justice. It is at present in their hands. However, I am not prepared to take the matter further at this stage, because it has been handed over to the proper authorities.

*I think that I have now dealt with the matters which the hon. member raised in regard to the Budget. Only one or two other matters now remain. The hon. member for Rondebosch, who participated in the debate this morning, is an academic by profession. In other words, the hon. member must have the ability to be able to analyse a matter properly and to take the correct premises into consideration before he arrives at a conclusion. However, the hon. member comes to this House and says that Die Burger said this or that. When we exerted pressure on him it came out that it was simply a report which had appeared in Die Burger on what the Institute of Conflict Studies had said. He, as an academic, ought to know that there is a very big difference. However, I shall return in a moment to the hon. member and the Institute of Conflict Studies. The hon. member went further and said—or was it his leader who said this; in any case, one of them said it, and I do not think it really makes any difference whether it was he or his leader; it is still “His Master’s Voice”—that the hon. the Prime Minister had allegedly said that our actions in Angola had prejudiced the principle of détente. Surely that is not what the hon. the Prime Minister said. The hon. the Prime Minister never said that, and I have the precise words of the hon. the Prime Minister here. If the hon. member had wanted to look up the words of the Prime Minister, he could have found them in the Argus of 6 May. What did the hon. the Prime Minister say? He said—

He was referring to what had happened in Angola. What happened in Angola?

That is what we would like to know.

In the first place, the Portuguese left Angola without a government. In the second place, the Russians and the Cubans came in to fill the vacuum, made attacks on the representatives of the majority of the population and massacred people on a large scale.

But here is the report.

No, the hon. member must not meddle in this again now. The hon. member must listen to me now. The Prime Minister said that a new situation had arisen in Angola as a result of intervention by a force 6 000 miles away.

Read the whole report. [Interjections.]

I am not speaking to those people now who sang “We shall overcome” in Durban North. [Interjections.] The hon. the Prime Minister said it was true that this was a setback to normalization. Of course, but it was not our actions which led to that. We tried to retain normal conditions, so that the population of Angola could decide their own fate and not Russia and Cuba.

You did not do that.

I am coming to that hon. member in a moment. He should not always, like a parrot, hop onto the first available branch and cry “kwê-kwê”. In the second place, the Prime Minister said that this had been hampered by the Rhodesian issue. Of course that situation hampered it. The Prime Minister did not mean by that South Africa’s actions had created such a situation. Why does the hon. member try to create misconceptions in this House? He must present the truth when he deals with matters such as these. Sir, I now want to point out a strange thing and this applies to the entire Progressive Party. In recent months they have been waging a consistent campaign against me. I do not mind.

You are not all that important.

But that hon. member is even less important. [Interjections.] Sir, they have been waging a consistent campaign against me. Now, it is strange that I have been venomously attacked as Minister of Defence from five quarters. This is very strange. From time to time I have been venomously attacked by the Rand Daily Mail. From time to time I have been venomously attacked by The Cape Times, and this little Shaw fellow sitting up there. [Interjections.] All that this little Shaw has that is of any size, is that he hears the name of Bernard Shaw. In the third place I have been venomously attacked by the Hertzog Party. In the fourth place I have been venomously attacked by the Leader of the PRP, and a group of his minions.

And with success.

No, not with success. But, Sir, there is another quarter from which I have recently been subjected to terrible attacks. From that quarter I have also been raved at venomously. It is not only The Cape Times, it is not only the Rand Daily Mail, it is not only the Hertzogites, and it is not only the PRP.

Now comes the big smear.

It is interesting to see that from 4 to 10 April I have been repeatedly subjected to venomous attacks over Moscow Radio. [Interjections.] And it is interesting to note that the same attacks which are being made on me on South Africa are also being made on me by Moscow Radio. This brings me to the hon. member for Rondebosch with his Institute of Conflict Studies. Since he is so fond of quoting from it, I want to quote from Conflict Studies of January 1976 for his consideration. Here the problem of terrorism and guerrilla warfare in the world is discussed in the following vein—

That is why they avail themselves of certain tactics. Listen to this now—

I am quoting this and I make a present of it to the hon. member. He can put it in his big pipe and smoke it, and it will do him good if he does so. For what are the facts now? It is strange that while we are adopting a standpoint against Russian and Cuban intervention, it is I who am being attacked. We resist terrorists who commit murder on innocent women and children in Southern Africa, but nevertheless it is I who am being attacked. I am trying to keep the S.A. Defence Force above party politics, and I have succeeded in doing so for ten years, but now the Progs are trying to undermine this. Over the years I have had criticism from the official Opposition but despite this they always treated me decently. I have succeeded in involving all the churches of South Africa in the upliftment work in the S.A. Defence Force, but nevertheless it is I who am being attacked by the Progs.

I have succeeded advancing the best officers in South Africa in the S.A. Defence Force, but I am being attacked by the Progs. Whose game is the Progs playing, and who are their friends? [Interjections.] It was a strange thing we saw this morning, when some hon. members asked for extra time. Why? Because the Progs felt that they had something to hide. Something which has never happened here before is that two of their speakers participated, and suddenly their leader came forward and also wanted to participate, the astonished leader. Sir, he is astonished that people have not taken any notice of him yet. That is why he presents the appearance he does. Sir, I am now going to tell the entire story here. We invited the hon. member for Yeoville, on my initiative, to the northern areas of South West Africa. He was the only member of his party who was invited. The hon. member for Sea Point and the hon. member for Rondebosch invited themselves. [Interjections.] Yes, it is true. The hon. member for Yeoville went and disclosed to the hon. member for Sea Point and to the hon. member for Rondebosch that he had been invited. Then they said that they also wanted to go and I agreed to that. [Interjections.] However, they did not have the right to send three people. Surely that party does not have the numbers to justify that, not among the electorate and not in this House either. Nor do they have that value. When we arrived there, I withdrew and said that I would not participate in the meetings between the officers and those members of Parliament. I had evidence to the effect that this is what I did. I stayed away and left the officers alone with those gentlemen. Nor have I said a single word in public about what happened there.

Have we?

After our return there was a leak in the newspapers, and this leak did not come from the members of the United Party or the members of the National Party. Where did it come from, therefore? It came from the ranks of the PRP.

That is not true.

That is a blatant untruth.

Then it was probably a ghost that told it to The Cape Times.

The hon. member for Sea Point must know that he will not succeed in isolating me from the S.A. Defence Force, not he with his pettiness, not he with his petty, transparent little methods. He will not succeed in isolating me. He can continue to issue his gossip pamphlets and do what he pleases, but today the Defence Force is behind me all the way. [Interjections.]

†The hon. member challenged me to tell the whole story about America …

About time!

… and about the Free World.

You told half the story yesterday.

I told this House at the beginning of the year that South Africa went into Angola and in the first instance took possession of Calueque. We did so to protect our interests and the interests of the Ovambo people. I also told Parliament that we had discovered that big arsenals of weapons and ammunition were being built up on our borders. We cleared that up. I told Parliament about that. I went further and said that we went into Angola on a very limited scale, with limited numbers and with a limited objective. After having achieved that objective, we decided to come back. We came back on the advice of our own military leaders. But we did not run away; we came back in order. What is more, we commenced consultations and deliberations, and only after obtaining certain assurances did we withdraw our troops from Calueque and the other side of the border. We therefore did not run away, and that is the truth.

I went even further and said that because of diplomatic and other reasons it was not possible for me to furnish all the particulars. As Minister I have certain responsibilities. I went further and said that towards the end of November and early in December I had made statements indicating that South Africa was not prepared to fight the fight for the Western world alone, to the very last South African. I have reports here of the speeches and the statements I made. When it became clear to us that we would be left in the lurch, we decided we would not fight to the last South African on behalf of the Free World, if they themselves were not prepared to fight.

*That is the whole story. What more does the hon. member want to know? Does the hon. member want to know something which, if I were to reply to it, may force me to say things which could mar sound relations. However, I also said that some of the countries which were present at the last meeting of the Security Council knew about our actions in Angola, and tacitly approved of them. Not only did they do so tacitly, but at that stage they also adopted a standpoint against the Russians and the Cubans in theory as well as in practice. After the disastrous decision by the American Congress an about-face took place in Africa, not again South Africa, but in the first place against America because a disbelief in America’s ability to meet its obligations to the Free World arose. As far as I am concerned, three benefits have accrued to South Africa from its actions in Angola. The first benefit is of a military nature, for our young soldiers and officers were tried and were not found wanting. They also acquired valuable experience. The second benefit is that we proved in Africa that what we were prepared and capable of doing on a small scale, we would be able to do even more effectively on a larger scale. The third benefit was that we made friends in Africa who are still our friends today in spite of what is being said at public and international assemblies.

The hon. member attacked me for having said that people who protect terrorists are protecting murderers. Surely what I said is the truth. I did not only make that remark here; I also made it to African leaders to whom I have spoken. The hon. member is not the first person who has spoken to African leaders. They despise him and laugh at him behind his back because he comes to them wringing his hands, rubbing his hands together, and apologizing for what he is doing. He crawls around in Africa, but we drive around in Africa. [Interjections.] Long before he had even dreamt of going into Africa, I had already gone into Africa. However, I did not boast of it here in Parliament; I did my work as Minister of Defence, and I am still prepared to do so today. He is the last person I would allow to read me the Riot Act, he who is so astonished at his own presence in Parliament. [Interjections.] As far as the PRP is concerned, I want to content myself with the following: They, as a party, will have to reorientate themselves if they want to make progress in South Africa.

We are not doing so badly.

They may succeed temporarily, with hatred and prejudice, in getting a section of the public on their side, but they are an un-South African party. Inherently they are an un-South African party …

You are an anti-South African party.

… and that is why they enjoy the support of newspapers such as the Cape Times and the Rand Daily Mail, newspapers which brim over with disloyalty to South Africa. They will not make any progress. They may flare up temporarily, like a toadstool springs up, but the general public, South African patriots—Black, White and Brown—will not follow such a party of disaster.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

No, sit down! I am tired of that hon. member now. [Interjections.]

He is afraid!

Order! Which hon. member said, “He is afraid”?

I did.

I did, too.

So did I.

So did I. [Interjections.]

Order! The four hon. members must withdraw those words.

I withdraw them, Mr. Chairman.

I also withdraw them, Sir.

I too, Sir.

So do I, Sir.

A question was put to me—and with that I want to conclude—in regard to mineproof vehicles. The cost of the programme we have launched to produce mineproof vehicles amounts to R13,9 million. For 1967-’77 it amounts to R2,6 million. The research in this regard is continuing. It is costing us a great deal of money. I am not prepared to furnish the particulars of the vehicles. I only want to say that these vehicles, which are earmarked for the Defence Force and also for the Police, are in full production and that some of them are already in use. The hon. member who put the question is not listening now. He is not interested in it. He was never interested in anything like this.

He asked it merely for the “show”.

I want to conclude by saying, by way of summary, that we are defending our country and are building up a defence against unjustified interference from outside. In the second place we are defending our country because it is a country in which the greatest socio-economic project in the world in respect of Black peoples is in progress. We are defending a country in which Black and Brown people are being given a voice and an instrument to make themselves heard without revolution. We are defending a country which, in the economic sphere, is growing and manifests a potential growth which could be to the well-being of Africa. We are defending a country which is of the greatest strategic value for a self-respecting Free World. I have no doubt that the Free World will regain its self-respect. Once it has dealt with the “woolly-minded liberals” among its number, it will recover. That same element which we have here on a small scale, the German measles which has broken out here and which is of an ephemeral nature …

Cuban measles!

Or Cuban measles. This ailment prevails in many Western countries. We shall have to eradicate it there; then the Free World will recover.

I want to say here today that a rediscovery of South Africa is in progress. There is a growing confidence in us in military and in political circles in the world. The patriots and the true South Africans in this country can, by standing together, lead South Africa through these troubled times. They can help it through all the storms so that it will stand out like a ray of light, like a beacon for the Free World in future.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

No, the hon. the Minister …

Mr. Chairman, the debate is not closed.

Order! The hon. the Minister has finished speaking. I put the question.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: You cannot close the Vote, Sir, when a member is still on his feet. I submit I am entitled to speak.

Order! The hon. the Minister has already resumed his seat. If the hon. member wishes to speak he may make a speech, but he may not ask the hon. the Minister a question.

In that case, Sir, I want to address you.

The hon. member for Yeoville may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, through you, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is prepared to comment on the report from the State Department of the United States denying the statement the hon. Minister confirmed yesterday that the Americans in fact asked us not to go further, not to go into Luanda.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member must please not pretend that he is asking a terribly difficult question. He is putting the question out of childishness. He spread a story here yesterday, something which I allowed him to do. After all, he said what he wanted to say. Why does he not solve his problem through the American State Department? After all, it was he who made the allegation.

[Inaudible.]

It was he who made the allegation; I did not do so.

[Inaudible.]

Why does the hon. member not rather quarrel with his friends in the American Embassy?

Are you denying that you confirmed it?

Mr. Chairman, I repeat that South Africa was not told by anyone to leave Angola. South Africa did not allow itself to be told by anyone to leave Angola. The Government decided, on the advice of the military leaders, to leave Angola. However, I want to add that we were left beautifully in the lurch by people who created other expectations among people who wanted to take action on behalf of the Free World in Angola.

Vote agreed to.

Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The provisions of this Bill may be classified into three groups. The first group all comprise amendments to the Suppression of Communism Act, 1950, and are aimed at effecting a shift of emphasis in this Act. The second group consists of a number of unrelated amendments to various Acts. The third group comprises the introduction of preventive detention measures which may be put into effect whenever necessary. I am going to deal with the three groups separately.

The provisions which fall into the first group are to be found in clauses 1, 2, 3, 4(a), 4(b) and 8 of the Bill. All contain amendments to the Suppression of Communism Act, which was placed on the Statute Book in 1950 to curb the activities of the Communist Party of South Africa and of communists themselves. It is not necessary to explain the communist ideology here, for it is a well-known fact that the principle of perpetual revolution is inherent in that ideology. In fact, on platforms throughout the entire world the communist powers themselves boast of their own revolutionary zeal. In 1950 it was necessary to counteract communist revolutionary activities in South Africa, and this is even more necessary today. Over the years which have elapsed in the meantime the Act has been adapted from time to time to keep pace with the changes in communist strategies and techniques. They did not remain static, and we could not remain static either. Other security laws were added to make provision for particular types of situation, but the Suppression of Communism Act continued to remain very important, particularly for administrative action in the interests of security in respect of persons and organizations, and to a certain extent in respect of publications as well. This was the case because the communists, as arch-subverters, use techniques which are readily imitated by other subverters; because the communists like using others to do their work for them; and because subverters, of whatever persuasion they may be, are fond of acting in collusion whenever they want to subvert and take over a particular State. The one furthers the aims of the other, sometimes knowingly and sometimes unknowingly, and in this way they all further the aims of the communists. This brings all of them within the provisions of the Suppression of Communism Act. In this way it was possible to take steps in terms of that Act, and steps were taken in terms of that Act against persons who were engaged in subversive activities, who were furthering the aims of communism without that necessarily being their own objective. Among them were people who were merely used as pawns and who were themselves unaware of the communist alliance and domination in which they had found themselves. Among them, too, were people who were in reality opponents of communism, but who, in striving to achieve their own revolutionary ideals, made common cause with the communists. This situation resulted in two kinds of problem cases. Firstly, steps were taken against people in terms of the Suppression of Communism Act on the grounds that they had furthered the aims of communism, while they themselves were absolutely convinced that although they were subverters, they were not communists. The second kind of problem case was those people who proclaimed themselves opposed to communism in public, or who, possible owing to their history and positions, were ostensibly not communists, but who participated in underground activities in partnership with the communists in order to achieve their immediate revolutionary aims. When steps were taken against them in terms of the Suppression of Communism Act, the man in the street was simply unable to understand this, and it also offered mischief-makers a very useful piece of propaganda material, material with which they were even able to reach and confuse our own people.

It is in an effort to eliminate these problems that the first group of provisions of this Bill has been drafted. An attempt is being made to shift the emphasis of the Suppression of Communism Act so that it will be clear that the Act does not simply deal with subversion by communists, but with subversion in general. All the existing provisions for the combating of communism are therefore being retained but with this Bill it is being made possible to take steps against subverters who do not necessarily have the furthering of communism as their ultimate object, without at the same time hanging a communist label around their necks. All communists are subverters, but all subverters are not communists and we should like to reflect this in the Act.

The first section of the principal Act which is affected is section 2(2) which empowers the State President to declare an organization to be an unlawful organization. The circumstances under which he may do so are set out in paragraphs (2)(a), (b) and (c). Paragraphs (d) and (e) deal with organizations which are associated with an organization that has already been declared unlawful, and are not relevant at the moment. All the circumstances under which the State President may take action, as set out in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) are related to the furtherance of the objects of communism, as defined in the Act. Therefore a new paragraph, paragraph (cA), is being inserted in the principal Act by clause 1(a) of the Bill. In this way the State President will also be empowered to declare an organization to be an unlawful organization if he is satisfied that organization is engaging in activities which endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order. Basically, this is precisely what communist organizations are engaged in doing. But there have been and are still other organizations which engage in activities of this kind, and if this amendment is passed, it will be possible to declare such an organization unlawful without such declaration being linked to communism.

Another section of the principal Act which becomes implicated, is section 6. While section 2 deals with organizations, section 6 deals with publications. Once again the relevant existing paragraphs, i.e. paragraphs (a) and (d) make a prohibition possible only under circumstances in which communism is involved. Once again a new paragraph, i.e. paragraph (dA), is being inserted so that it will be possible to take steps in respect of a publication as well, without that publication being linked to communism as such.

Clause 3 of the Bill seeks to achieve the same object as the one in respect of section 9 of the principal Act.

Section 10 of the principal Act relates to the restriction of persons. Here, too, all the circumstances under which the person may be restricted are linked to the achievement of the objects of communism. For that reason a new paragraph (iv) is being inserted in section 10(1)(a) by clauses 4(a) and (b) of the Bill. The contents are in line with those of the insertions to which I have already referred above.

The last section of the principal Act which has to be amended in order to complete the shift of emphasis is section 19. This section contains the short title; that is, the name of the principal Act. It will serve no purpose to phrase the grounds on which action may be taken in such a way that references to the achievement of the objects of communism may be avoided in appropriate cases, if steps still have to be taken in terms of the Suppression of Communism Act, and therefore that name still has to continue to appear on the documents. The name therefore has to be changed as well, and this is being done in clause 8 of the Bill. The principal Act is being given the new name of the State Security Act. Consequently, this is what the principal Act will already be to an even greater extent after the amendments as contemplated in this Bill have been effected.

This brings me to the second group of provisions of the Bill, viz. the unrelated amendments of various Acts. In the first place there is clause 6, which has to be read in conjunction with clauses 9, 11 and 15. At present section 215bis of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1955, makes provision for the detention of witnesses under certain circumstances. This may happen when certain offences referred to in Part IIbis of the Second Schedule of that Act are relevant. In part IIbis a number of ordinary offences, as well as offences against the security of the State are mentioned. However, a contravention of the Terrorism Act, 1967, has not yet been included therein. This leaves a deficiency because in recent years contravenes against the security of the State have for the most part been charged under that Act. To rectify the matter a reference to contraventions under the Terrorism Act, 1967, may be inserted in section 215bis of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, since the Suppression of Communism Act, 1950, is now being altered into a more general security law, it would be a step in the right direction to combine various security measures in that legislation. The provisions relating to the detention of witnesses in security cases is therefore being removed from the Criminal Procedure Act now and transferred to what will subsequently be called the State Security Act. At the same time a reference is being added to contraventions under the Terrorism Act. Because the same schedule in the Criminal Procedure Act also deals with release on bail in accordance with section 208bis of that Act, those provisions are also being transferred to the State Security Act in so far as they deal with security contraventions. At the same time, relevant provisions in the Terrorism Act are being deleted.

A further unrelated amendment is to be found in clause 10. In terms of section 3 of the Public Safety Act, 1953, the State President may in a state of emergency make regulations to provide for the safety of the public or the maintenance of public order. Section 3(3)(b), however, limits the penalty which may be prescribed in such regulations to a fine not exceeding R1 000 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding five years. In terms of section 2 of the Act, however, a state of emergency may in fact be proclaimed if it appears that the ordinary law of the land is inadequate to enable the Government to ensure the safety of the public or to maintain public order. Therefore section 3(3)(b) is really not in keeping with the spirit of the Act in terms of which heavier than normal penalties might in fact be indicated. Practical experience has also demonstrated that a fine of R1 000 or imprisonment for a period of five years is not adequate for contraventions requiring the promulgation of emergency regulations. In addition draft emergency regulations have to be kept in readiness at all times so that when the emergency threatens there will be no delay in their promulgation. These draft regulations have to be suitable for use in terms of the Public Safety Act, 1953, or the Defence Act, 1957, as the case may be. The latter Act contains no limitation on the penalty which may be prescribed. For these reasons section 3(3)(b) of the Public Safety Act, and with it the limitation on the penal provision which may be prescribed in regulations under it, is now being deleted.

The last unrelated amendments are contained in clauses 12, 13 and 14. These clauses make the Riotous Assemblies Act, 1956, applicable in South West Africa and repeal the Riotous Assemblies and Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance of 1930 of that Territory. In this way obsolete statutory provisions in regard to riotous gatherings in South West Africa are being replaced by a law which is kept up to date and which is for that reason more serviceable. A particular problem with the Ordinance was that in all cases a magistrate in South West Africa could, in terms of it, prohibit a gathering in his district only with the special authority of the Administrator. Owing to the operation of the South West Africa Affairs Act, 1969, the Minister of Justice of the Republic exercises the powers of the Administrator in this case. This means that a magistrate in South West Africa must at present obtain the authority of the Minister of Justice if he wishes to prohibit any particular gathering. In states of emergency this is entirely unpractical. In addition the Ordinance contains no provision in terms of which gatherings in respect of areas larger than a district may be prohibited. Both these deficiencies, and others as well, will be rectified by making the Act of the Republic applicable to South West Africa as well.

As far as South West Africa is concerned, I want to point out that the constitutional conference which is engaged in working out the constitutional future of the Territory, expressed its concern as long ago as at its first meeting during September 1975, at attempts at violence and intimidation, and requested the authorities to take effective steps to provide the necessary protection. On 16 March of this year the conference requested the Government of South Africa to maintain law and order in order to afford the leaders of the Territory “the opportunity to deliberate on the future of the inhabitants of South West Africa in a peaceful atmosphere”. This is in fact what the Government is now contemplating with the application of this legislation to South West Africa. Whether the peoples of the Territory wish to retain or repeal it after finally exercising their right of self-determination, is their affair. But in the meantime the Government has to take action. As the hon. the Prime Minister stated in this House on 23 April—

†The third group of provisions, those dealing with preventive detention, are to be found in clauses 4(c) to (f) and 5 of the Bill. The existing section 10(1)(a)bis of the Act empowers the Minister of Justice to prohibit a person, who has served a sentence imposed under certain Acts, from absenting himself from a prison, if the Minister is satisfied that person is likely to advise or defend the achievement of the objects of communism. The amendment of this provision introduced by clause 4(c) of the Bill will, when shed of its technical terms, empower the Minister to cause a person’s preventive detention if he is satisfied that person engages in activities which endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order. In such a case the person concerned will not necessarily already be in custody, as he must be under the existing provision. It is, therefore, necessary to introduce machinery for his arrest. This is done by clause 4(d) of the Bill which is being substituted for the existing section 10(1)(a)ter, thus introducing authority for a member of the South African Police force to arrest a person against whom the Minister has issued a notice and to hold him until the notice has been served on him, but for not more than seven days. This must be read with the existing section 10(3) authorizing the removal of a person found outside the area to which he has been restricted, back to that area. The operation of the existing provisions was subject to yearly extensions by Parliament. Under the amendments contained in clauses 4(d), (e) and (f) of the Bill, the preventive detention provisions now envisaged, will be dormant until brought into operation by way of proclamation for periods not exceeding one year at a time.

Clause 5 of the Bill makes preventive detentions subject to the supervision of a committee of three under the chairmanship of a judge or a magistrate or an ex-judge or ex-magistrate. This committee must examine the Minister’s action as soon as may be, but not later than two months after a person’s detention and thereafter it examines the detention itself at least once every six months. For this purpose the committee considers all the facts and representations submitted to it in writing and in its discretion it may also hear verbal evidence or representations. On every such occasion the committee makes a recommendation to the Minister who is not obliged to give effect thereto. Should the Minister however not give effect to a recommendation that the detainee be released, he must within one month report that fact to Parliament. The committee’s work is confidential and no court of law shall pronounce on the work or recommendations of the committee.

Preventive detention is used to deal with serious threats to the security of the State from within. But that does not mean that external factors are to be ignored when considering the introduction of measures such as these now before this House. It is unnecessary for me to describe in detail the constantly changing world political scene. We are obliged to take note of and prepare for the dangers inherent in an unstable Africa where recent events have again shown how swiftly threatening situations can arise and recede; how suddenly the international struggle for world domination can sweep right up to our doorstep. For many years big power violence has remained far from our shores, but the signs are there to show that no country, however far away it may be from the main scenes of international confrontation, can any longer assume that it will continue to escape the effects of armed intrusion into the area where it is situated. We have been compelled by events in Africa to give more attention to the defence of our borders. More men and more money will for the foreseeable future be tied up there. To keep our men there and to keep them well armed and provisioned, security at home and a stable economy become all the more necessary. Not only do we know this; our enemies know this too. We must expect them to intensify their efforts behind our backs and we must be prepared.

The fields in which we can expect more subversive activities if we should be confronted with an escalation of external threats are the same as those in which subversive activities are to be found now. Although we have great faith in the political good sense and stability of our students, our students will receive extra attention from those who would want to instill in them a revolutionary spirit and disloyalty to the South African cause. In particular activist politics will be stepped up on the campuses and the campaign against military service under the guise of conscientious objection will be intensified. In the labour area there have for some time been fully fledged underground political agitators and organizers in the field. There is in operation a centrally directed plan for the organization and the mobilization of the workers into a force to be used by underground politicians for the furthering of their own causes. Also in this area, the labour area, we must expect increased subversive activity in times of danger. It is an area particularly sensitive to large scale agitation and unrest and it is an area where much groundwork has already been done. Then there is also the exploitation of the multi-national situation in South Africa in the course of which national and language groups are incited against each other. This is done subtly and it is by no means confined to the Black Power Movement aimed at a Black-White confrontation. Xhosa is played off against Sotho, Zulu against Asian, English against Afrikaans.

There are common factors recognizable in many countries plagued by political upheavals, social unrest and blatant terrorism. These are movements towards independence or recently obtained independence; communist involvement; and the presence in a single political entity of different nationalities, races, tribes, languages or religions. When seeking to undermine a country and to create troubled waters in which to fish for their own ideological or political benefit, experts exploit such situations. In Northern Ireland the most serious difficulties have arisen between two Christian groups even though they have a common nationality and language. In Guyana Negroes and Indians were involved. Many countries in Africa are vulnerable because of tribal differences. Even a modern Western democracy like Canada had a serious problem on its hands when difficulties over Quebec were brought to the surface between the French and English. Numerous governments all over the world have asked for and used special powers to deal with the results of communist intervention and the blowing up of group differences. During 1968 Indonesia had to keep about 150 000 people in detention. Malaysia needed its 1960 Internal Security Act. Pakistan used the Security of Pakistan Act. In 1971 the Government of Singapore had to resort to the arrest of communists under its Internal Security Act. India still depends on extraordinary powers to maintain public order. There is hardly a country in Africa where special security provisions are not in force. British Governments were compelled to act under the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act of 1922 and in 1970 the Canadian Parliament was obliged to pass the Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act.

Whereas elsewhere only one or two of the common factors that I have mentioned were present, we have every one of them with us in this country. South Africa has nations in various stages of evolution towards self-rule. She has within her boundaries a number of peoples speaking a number of different languages; varying from primitive hunters and herdsmen in remote regions to sophisticated big city businessmen and scientists; and adhering to most of the known religions as well as to many pagan beliefs. With such a combination of circumstances, possibly found nowhere else on earth, the peoples of South Africa can offer themselves to the world as an example to show that peaceful co-existence is possible if there is mutual respect and a mutual recognition of each other’s human worth and of each other’s rights to self-development and self-determination. But for this to be so, we must be allowed to work out our own destinies. We cannot leave ourselves wide open to the shock waves of big power aspirations towards world domination; to subversion inspired and directed from abroad; and to the irresponsible actions of ideologically motivated revolutionaries. And as I have shown, our circumstances render us exceptionally vulnerable to all these things. That is why we have in the past found it necessary to protect our peoples during these delicate stages of our development with extraordinary security legislation but no more extraordinary than that used in other less vulnerable countries than ours. And that is also why I am now asking approval for these preventive detention provisions to be put on ice for use in case of need. They are not aimed at a full-scale emergency. We have the means to deal with that. They are not intended for, and are not suitable for large-scale internment. They are intended for use in times when uncertainty on our borders may require more attention and thus make it no longer possible for us to afford the luxury of allowing a small number of internationally connected activists to bedevil the peace and order at home.

Finally, I want to stress that a judicial review mechanism has been built into these provisions. This is something the official Opposition has asked for from time to time. One such occasion was on 21 May 1971, when the late hon. member for Pinelands referred in this House to two specific examples where preventive detention was coupled with review bodies, namely in Guyana and Rhodesia. Hon. members of the Opposition serving on the Commission of Inquiry into Certain Organizations also called for such a body in their minority report attached to the fourth interim report of that commission. I hope the Government will now be able to rely on the official Opposition’s support for these measures.

Mr. Speaker, I now wish to move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned last Friday, I had already explained that section 226 of the Act will, with certain exceptions, prohibit the making of loans and providing of security by a company to or on behalf of its directors or managers. In respect of these exceptions, it is now proposed that the annual financial statements of the company concerned shall disclose the amount and particulars of every loan made to, or security provided for, a director or manager during any particular financial year, whether or not the loan has been repaid or the security cancelled. If such a loan has not been repaid or the security involved has not been cancelled at the end of any particular financial year, the company concerned shall be required to furnish particulars in regard to the outstanding amount of any such loan or in regard to any such security not cancelled. If the company which had made such loan or provided such security is a subsidiary company, the said particulars shall also have to be reflected in the group annual financial statements of the holding company but when the loan or security refers to shares, debentures or other property, the said particulars may be furnished in the director’s report. It shall be the duty of the auditor of the company to report to its members if the proposed requirements have not been complied with. A director or manager or former director or manager of the company, its holding company or fellow subsidiary shall also be required to furnish, on the request of the company or of the auditor, particulars in regard to any such loan or any such security provided, as well as particulars relating to the nature of his control over any company or body corporate involved in any such transactions.

In clause 26 of the Bill the substitution for section 296 of the Act of a new section is proposed in order to apply the same disclosure requirements relating to directors and managers as are contemplated in the proposed section 295 to directors or managers before their appointment as such in the company or in its subsidiary if the loan or security was still in existence at the date of such appointment, or if such appointment was made at any time during the financial year concerned.

*Clause 27 of the Bill will amend section 365 of the Act in order to provide that when the liquidation of a company has been ordered by the court, a director or former director of that company or the sessionary of such director or former director will have no voting right in respect of the nomination of a liquidator merely because he is a creditor of the company concerned by virtue of any loan given by him to the company or of any arrear salary, travelling expenses, allowances due to him from the company or any claims paid by him on behalf of the company. This amendment is proposed because a liquidator has to examine the affairs of a company in liquidation and in terms of section 400 of the Act has to report to the Master of the Supreme Court on the actions and conduct of the directors. It is felt to be undesirable for the directors of a company to have a say in the appointment of someone who is to examine their affairs.

In clause 28 of the Bill, an amendment is proposed to section 423 of the Act in terms of which the words “or otherwise” are deleted from the section. The way this section reads at the moment, it can be interpreted to mean that a member of the company has the right to hold a director or an official of the company accountable, by way of appropriate proceedings, for losses suffered by the company, without any guarantee that if the director or official concerned is not guilty, such a member can be held responsible for the cost of the proceedings. The Permanent Advisory Committee on Company Law believes that sections 252 and 266 up to and including 268 of the Act already contain adequate provision for legal aid to members of a company if its directors or officials should be guilty of irregularities.

In terms of section 435(2) of the Act, permission by existing creditors of a company under judicial management for preferential payments to be made to future creditors in order to enable the business of the company to continue must be given at a meeting of creditors at which the voting rights in terms of the provisions of the Act relating to insolvency are applicable. This means that the provisional judicial management cannot call meetings of creditors. For certain purposes of the provisional judicial management of a company it is essential that permission for preference be speedily obtained, especially with regard to leases. Consequently, clause 29 of the Bill proposes that subsection (2) of section 435 be suitably amended to authorize the provisional judicial manager, with the consent of the Master of the Supreme Court or the Court, to call a meeting of creditors in order to obtain the required consent.

The proposed amendment to section 441(1)(b) of the Act in clause 30 of the Bill arises from the insertion into the Act of certain provisions for which provision is made in sections 145A and 146A.

Clause 31 of the Bill provides for a substantive provision in terms of which companies which complied with the provisions of section 288 of the Act before it was amended by the Companies Amendment Act on 20 November 1974—the date of commencement of the above-mentioned Amendment Act—shall be deemed to have complied with those provisions of the section after it was amended. This provision is necessary because the way the Act reads at the moment, it requires a large number of companies which drew up annual financial statements before 20 November 1974 to draw up such statements again. This requirement is considered to be superfluous.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House will support the Bill which is a highly technical one. In fact, it is a professional Bill. I think it is unfortunate that in the waning hours of a Friday afternoon debate in this House, the hon. the Minister should have been taxed with a Bill which has so much import to every sector of South Africa in so far as company law and the Companies Act itself are concerned.

I think we should view this Bill against the principal Act which was passed by this House in 1973. Perhaps we should go even further back because the 1973 Act was not only a most important piece of legislation, but was in fact heroic legislation. It was preceded by a decision of the Government as far back as 1962 to appoint a Commission of Inquiry into the Companies Act. The commission sat under Mr. Justice Van Wyk de Vries and it will be recalled that the commission carried out its work over a period of ten years. It resulted in the report of the commission, two further reports and also in the preparation and presentation of a draft Bill which was made available to all sectors of our economy whose interest were affected. I think that on the occasion of this debate one must pay special tribute to those professional people who must have spent many hours of tedious investigation and much arduous thought on the preparation of this Bill. I refer particularly to the officials of the department, the Registrar of Companies and his committee, and the special committee which has been delegated to give continuous attention to the requirements which necessitated the changes to be brought about in terms of this Bill. I refer also to the National Council of Chartered Accountants and Association of Law Societies. The Bill before us contains amendments to the Companies Act which were virtually foreseen when the original Act was introduced. In the many hours that were devoted to the original Act, it was foreseen that because the Act was so wide in its implications and application, professional difficulties would be experienced to which attention would have to be given by commerce and also at Government level.

In his introductory Second Reading speech, the hon. the Minister dealt at length with specific amendments to specific clauses. I want to pay tribute to him and to compliment him on having made the work of those of us on this side of the House that much easier. After all, we are dealing here with amendments to the Companies Act, which Act essentially affects every facet of our commercial life in South Africa. I has to do with the duties and responsibilities of the shareholders, the directors and the officers of companies. It also has to do with the responsibilities of the Registrar of Companies and with the Government itself. After all, the Government is perhaps the largest shareholder in every company in South Africa by virtue of the fact that it collects some 49% of the companies’ profits by way of taxation. I think we can pride ourselves on the fact that the improvements which were made to the Companies Act of 1973 led to changes being effected over the years since the advent of original Companies Act of 1963, an Act which in itself was based on the British Companies Act. The improvements have shown that in the sophisticated era into which we have moved—one can almost say that we have moved into the computer era, an era in which macro-economics play such an important role—company law in itself, and the application of company operations and principles, have become so important that it is necessary for the Association of Chartered Accountants and the S. A. Law Society to have before them an Act which is fool-proof if they are to interpret the requirements of the Act as fully as they should.

I think every member of this House should be aware of the tremendous additional responsibilities which have been placed on the directors, secretaries, managers and other officers and also on the auditors in the preparation and signing of company accounts. These onerous responsibilities are so severe today and the penalties involved are so severe that unless these people have an almost perfect Act to fall back on, the position can herald trouble not only for the directors of companies but also for the auditors. On the other hand, the people most concerned, viz. the shareholders and also the creditors, have to be protected and that is what the amendments contained in this Bill seek to do.

I want to refer particularly to one of the safety valves in the principal Act. I refer to section 18 of that Act which envisaged the appointment of a standing advisory committee to ensure that the Act is maintained in an up-to-date form from day to day. In the changing world of commerce in which we live, it is essential, that an Act which covers some 422 pages and some 435 sections must of necessity be revised periodically. This Bill represents a major revision of the principal Act. I think that the work of this committee is most praiseworthy. I think that all members of the House and that all the members of the legal and accounting professions owe a debt of gratitude to the standing advisory committee for their continuous work. We believe that this Act will never be perfect because from time to time, as it is applied and interpreted, various amendments will be required. The very fact that there will be changes in company procedure as a result of the increasing size of companies, their increasing involvement and the growing responsibilities companies have to face, indicates that we must accept that there will be further amendments.

Coming more specifically to the amendments before the House at the moment, I think one can say that essentially this is a Committee Stage Bill. Consequently we shall reserve most of our comments for that stage of the Bill. Clause 1 introduces an interesting new conception. Because we were moving so fast in the field of the keeping of company records on such a vast scale, we are now moving into the age of the microfilm. It is humanly impossible for members of the Registrar’s Office to maintain the volume of records for all companies in this big country of ours in sufficient detail and availability, unless we modernize the concept of how this should be done. As company accountants we are now working with the aid of computers, clause 1 introduces the concept that company records may now be kept by microfilm methods and that microfilm records will be admissible as evidence and, when necessary, for the interpretation of the Act. This is merely an indication of the times in which we are moving.

I close with the comment that we appreciate that the amendments that have been brought before us, are amendments of a technical nature, that they have been seen by the National Council of Chartered Accountants and by the Law Society, that they have received the serious and considered attention of the standing advisory committee on the Company Act matters. We therefore support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is gratifying to note that the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens …

The hon. cicada of Cape Town Gardens!

… supports this Bill on behalf of his party. As he correctly remarked, it is a technical Bill. We ought to thank the hon. the Minister as well for his very comprehensive Second Reading speech in which he explained all the clauses to us as clearly as possible. As the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens correctly remarked, the Permanent Advisory Committee definitely had a say in this Bill. The Bill contains clauses which are to a great extent a logical consequence of the recommendations made earlier by the Standing Advisory Committee. The general drift of this Bill is, of course, to facilitate the procedures in connection with miscellaneous matters, to cut down on the expense involved, and especially to protect the interests of shareholders vis-á-vis the management and the directors of a company to a more considerable degree.

In view of this I should like to take a closer look at a few of the clauses in this Bill and comment on the principle thereof. The first clause to which I shall refer, is clause 3. In terms of this clause it is no longer necessary to publish the former name of the company, together with the new name, for a period of a year. In this connection it is as well, therefore, to take note of the question whether sufficient protection is still afforded to creditors, for example, should it happen that the former name of the company be omitted. With respect to this question I should like to refer to section 44(3) of Act 61 of 1973. Here it is clearly expounded that the change of name has no influence at all upon the rights, privileges or claims of creditors.

A very important bottle-neck, a matter which has already caused many problems, is now being rectified in terms of clause 4, which provides that a further object may be added to the objects and powers contained in the memorandum of association. This corresponds, too, to the recommendations of the standing committee, which says the following on page 52 of its supplementary report—

An important aspect which must be noted, is found in clause 7 of the Bill. The issue here is the “rights offer” which is now being defined. This “rights offer” is described as an offer made to the members of a particular company. It is not an offer to the general public. Therefore, under these circumstances, sometimes only an abbreviated prospectus is needed. The debenture holders and shareholders concerned still have a say in the internal functioning of their company. If they do not have this, they may acquire it in any event.

We find that clause 8 gives an explanation of how section 144 of the principal Act is going to be amended. It is clear from this that by definition, “rights offer” is not an offer to the public. Should an offer be made to the general public by way of a “rights offer”, if the rights offer is offered to persons who are shareholders of another company, then in my opinion, this would detract from the provisions of clause 8. In that case a full prospectus would be required. The prospectus is nothing wonderful, but the following is said in a light vein in the South African Law Journal of 1963, in connection with the requirement that a prospectus must be provided—

One should therefore see the prospectus in this light.

In my opinion, an important principle is contained in clause 9, by means of which a new section 145A is inserted. It adds a new section to the Act and determines, inter alia, that no-one may distribute a letter of allocation unless such documents as are required and have been approved by the stock exchange concerned, accompany the letter. The question whether the provisions which are made by a stock exchange are in conflict with the content of some legal provision has always been a problem in the past, and this new section now seeks to clarify the matter. The problem is very well explained in the supplementary report of the standing advisory committee on page 133, which reads as follows—

Seen in this light, this section now being proposed disposes of any possible conflict and is most certainly to be recommended.

In connection with the protection which the shareholder must enjoy vis-á-vis the director and management of the company, very important steps are being proposed in clauses 19, 25, 26 and 27, inter alia that certain “loans”, which are defined in the Act, are forbidden to directors and managers in certain cases and must in all cases be published in the annual statement. It even goes so far as to provide that a loan made by a person even before he became director, must also be published. These aspects have been a cause of concern for a long time, and this, together with the fact that a director will now no longer have a voting right in respect of the nomination of a liquidator merely on the strength of the fact that he has a loan account with the company, now gives a great deal of protection to the shareholder. Since our people are becoming more and more active in commerce and are participating more and more in the business economy of the country by making use of companies, all these amendments are, in my opinion, very welcome, and it is high time that they should be added to the principal Act. Therefore I want to compliment the hon. the Minister and his department on this and give it my wholehearted support.

Mr. Speaker, we on these benches will support this legislation. My colleague, the hon. member for Yeoville, will deal with the clauses, further on in the Bill, in regard to auditors, liquidations and insolvencies. There are certain clauses in this Bill which are indeed welcome as an improvement on what has gone before. There are certain clauses on which we have no comment. But, as the hon. the Minister is no doubt aware, we have put two amendments on the Order Paper because we would like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the implications of what is in this legislation.

The first of these amendments deals with the exclusion of a method of making a rights offer or a rights issue, a method which has been used in the past, also in the comparatively recent past, and which has served a useful purpose both to the general public, to the Stock Exchange and to the companies involved. This is now to be excluded in terms of the Bill and we feel that this is to the detriment of the parties which I just named. What is more, we are not aware of any good reason having been put forward for excluding a practice which has been used in the past. We suspect that it is due to bad drafting or an oversight. However, I would like to come back to the matter at a later stage and reserve our argument for them.

Our second amendment concerns a much broader objection to the legislation which is before us. It concerns the powers and the responsibilities of the Stock Exchange, vis-á- vis the companies whose shares are listed on that exchange. So far we have been talking basically about clauses 7 to 11 of the Bill before us. These clauses are concerned with the practice of making rights offers to shareholders of companies listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange. Let me say straight away that in general we shall support them, as in effect they make it unnecessary, as has been mentioned, for a listed company to issue a prospectus when it makes a rights issue. That certainly in itself is to be welcomed. Clause 9 of the Bill provides for a new section 145A, reading inter alia—

This wording goes very far indeed and involves, as we see it, a matter of principle. The effect of the words “unless it is accompanied by such documents as are required and have been approved by the Stock Exchange concerned” is to give the judgments, the decisions and the rulings of the committee of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange the force of law. The hon. the Minister will be as well aware of it as I am that the composition of the committee of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, with the solitary exception to the appointment from the Government side— which I think is the Registrar of Companies— is comprised entirely of members of that Stock Exchange. Obviously, from time to time they change and are bound to change because there are electoral rules. Making every allowance one can for stockbrokers, they must as a section of opinion at times have a subjective approach, and there can be no guarantee that if this legislation is passed as it is now drafted before this House, that the interests of points of view of listed companies will be given the consideration they should when new requirements are introduced. There can be no guarantee either that they will be given the weight that they are given now.

Stockbrokers are no less infallible than the rest of us. The recent Fedmis case—to which my colleague, the hon. member for Yeoville referred—is sufficient proof of that. We find it hard to understand why the judgment of the committee of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange and their decisions are to be given the force of law. There is absolutely no restriction on the ambit of the wording which, as we have said, simply says “unless it is accompanied by such documents as are required and have been approved by the Stock Exchange concerned”. We should like to ask the hon. the Minister what is to happen if the Johannesburg Stock Exchange requires a company whose shares are listed on that exchange to give or publish information which in the opinion of the board of directors of the company would not be in the interests of the shareholders to have published. It is not difficult to visualize information which if published would be extremely useful to competitors. In this regard we are thinking of things such as costs, profitability, volume and the share on the market.

What is a company to do in such circumstances? Basically the board of directors has Hobson’s choice. It must either provide the information, so that it can be published in the circular of the stock exchange knowing that it will not be in, but that it will, indeed, be against the interests of its shareholders or, ultimately, it is faced with the choice of being delisted by the Stock Exchange if it refuses to publish the information. The alternative choice is much the same thing, i.e. where one could choose to be delisted. Delisting in these sort of circumstances is not going to help its shareholders, it is not going to help the public and, indeed, neither will it encourage more people to invest in shares on the Stock Exchange and, ultimately, it is not going to help the Johannesburg Stock Exchange itself. We think that all the things we have said are likely to flow from this are negative while it is the opposite that should be encouraged.

As we have said, it cannot be denied that there is nothing to stop the committee of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange in terms of the proposed section 145A(1), to demand more and more information from companies, demands against which the companies will have no defence or redress.

We know that representations have been made to the standing advisory committee on company law in regard to this question, more particularly representation on the question whether the decision of a body such as the Johannesburg Stock Exchange should have the force of law. What we want to ask the hon. the Minister is whether if he is not prepared to accept the amendment now, he give us an assurance that he will refer this provision with our proposed amendment back to the standing committee. Though it may not be possible, we should prefer that it be done before the hon. the Minister goes to the Other Place with this Bill. If it is not possible for the hon. the Minister to do this before he goes with it to the Other Place, it is going to be much more difficult in future, because then it is the law. This is not in any way to cast on the standing advisory committee; it is simply the way the thing will turn out.

What we find even more difficult is that in terms of the legislation all shares which will be subject to such an offer have to be listed. As things now stands, in terms of current practice the Johannesburg Stock Exchange lays down basic requirements which have to be met by all the listed companies which cover, inter alia, rights offers or issues and to which the committee of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange adhere very strongly. However, there have been occasions in the past where in particular or exceptional circumstances it has been possible to reach compromises or, after discussion, to devise a scheme which meets the points of view of both the parties concerned.

That to our mind is far preferable to what is proposed here. What is proposed here, basically, is to give the view of one side, namely the Johannesburg Stock Exchange or its committee, the force of law. We would much prefer the previous situation where there was flexibility in regard to meeting the news of the parties concerned. The circular and other documents which are presently required by the Johannesburg Stock Exchange and are required in terms of a rights issue, are such that they are more than adequate to give, in all normal cases, the shareholder enough information to consider a particular offer. Therefore we again find it very difficult the reason which underlies this particular amendment and what we cannot follow why it is not better to leave matters as they presently stand. If the reasoning escapes me and if the hon. the Minister will not refer this back to the standing advisory committee on company law, then we would like to ask the hon. the Minister in view of the fact that, and this amendment in effect gives the Johannesburg Stock Exchange’s decisions the force of law, at the very least to make it conditional on changes in the composition of the committee, because in all equity, surely then it should include representation of the companies whose shares are listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange. Furthermore, Sir, if you want to be equitable about it, before a decision of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange committee is given the force of law, it should be necessary to have the approval of the representatives of those companies whose shares are listed on the Stock Exchange. If the hon. the Minister would not contemplate referring this back to the standing committee, or if the standing advisory committee would not contemplate changing the first amendment, then I hope they will contemplate this, that if they are going to give this committee’s decision the force of law, then in all equity the companies whose shares are listed on the Stock Exchange should have representation on the committee. I would also be very interested to know what the reaction of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange would be to such a proposal. I do not know who has suggested to the standing committee that it introduces this amendment. I suspect, seeing that it is only in the interests of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, that it must have been that party. If so, it would be interesting to see which way they would go in relation to this second suggestion, because I do not think they should have everything for their own benefit, because if you start going down this road, as I am sure the members of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange will realize, it ends with the equivalent of the American Securities Exchange Commission.

Sir, there are only two other clauses on which I personally have comments to make. The hon. member for Yeoville, as I have said, will talk about the clauses which relate to auditors and to liquidation. The second clause I would like to refer to before I return to the question of rights issues, is clause 19, which completely redrafts what used to be the old section 2(2)(vi) of the Act. That section prohibits the granting of loans to directors or managers. There was an original draft, but this is not before us and we cannot, therefore, comment on it. However, we have no comments to make on this as it now presently stands, other than to welcome the additional exemption which allows the granting of loans to directors or managers for housing purposes.

The last clause on which we would like to comment at this stage is clause 7. Here we have an amendment on the Order Paper, an amendment which, by the way, must be one of the shortest amendments ever proposed in this House. However, it is not without significance, because what in essence this clause seeks to do is to define a rights issue. It says a “rights offer” means an offer for subscription, with a right to renounce in favour of other persons, to the members or debenture holders of a company, any of whose shares are listed on a stock exchange within the Republic or which is recognized by the Minister for the purposes of this definition by notice in the Gazette, of any shares (as defined in relation to a prospectus in section 1(1) of that company …” What it in effect says is that a rights offer covers an offer to the members or shareholders of a company. We have no objection to that in a sense, because it is by far the most normal practice. But what it does not cover, and what used to fall within the ambit of a rights offer and is now excluded by this definition, is the circumstances where an offer may be made to the shareholders of more than one company. The hon. the Minister will be as well aware as I am that in the early days of the Orange Free State goldfields a number of rights issues were made by new mining companies to the shareholders of other mining companies. But we need to go back to 1948 to the opening of the Orange Free State goldfields, or to other events that occurred in that year. Even more recently, in 1968, the East Driefontein Goldmining Company made a rights offer of its own shares to the members of the West Witwatersrand areas, to the Witwatersrand Deep, the Western Ultra Deep Levels and the West Driefontein Goldmining Company and in May last year Deelkraal, which is now a subsidiary of the Goldfields of South Africa, made a rights issue partly to Goldfields itself and partly to the members of Goldfields.

Similar offers have also been made in the case of Free State Saaiplaas last year and also in so far as Elandsrand is concerned. More particularly recently Greatermans made a similar offer. What we cannot understand is that the rationale of the present amendment is to exclude that. There is no difference to our mind. The shares are listed on the Stock Exchange and to simply say that you can only make a rights offer to the shareholders of your company, as opposed to making it to other companies at the same time when all other criteria are met, I hope the hon. the Minister will give us an explanation of why he wants to exclude something which we would have thought is to the benefit of all and certainly facilitates the raising of finance. It has proved of great benefit to the mining industry and, as I have said, also goes beyond the mining industry. I would have thought that, more particularly in these times, South Africa would want to have available to it, or would not willingly debar itself from any kind of method which in the past has proved itself and which meets the other criteria, to raise finance. Here again, if the hon. the Minister does not think it is possible to accept the amendment and on the assumption that he cannot convince me that it should not be excluded, we would hope that he would also agree to refer it to the standing advisory committee.

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague, the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, I welcome this Bill because I believe it makes a further contribution and is an improvement in many respects to the very excellent Act we have on the Statute Book today. The Bill follows very much the same theme which was presented to the House in 1974, namely that the public should be much more informed on what is taking place and that there should be as much protection for shareholders as possible. The Bill also goes further and tries to bring about a certain amount of streamlining and assistance to the activities in the registrar’s office as well as making an improvement in certain respect to technical matters concerning companies, the auditing of companies, the position and the obligations of the auditor himself. Furthermore in respect of the company which goes into liquidation, the assurance that liquidators who are appointed to manage the affairs of a company liquidation makes it possible for the matter to be dealt with quite impartially, because there will be no interest in the election of that liquidator by people who are personally interested in one way or another, as is provided in the latter clauses of this Bill. Company law itself is one of the pillars of our commercial system today and plays a very important part in the disciplining of the commercial life of the community. Today it is one of the most highly technical phases of our commercial law. When we have amendments put forward in the House, one is very much encouraged by the fact that these amendments are brought forward as a result of discussion and investigation by a standing advisory committee on company law on which sit, some of the outs<u>tanding</u> legal l<u>uminari</u>es of our country. In that sense one must look back at the Act itself with a sense of gratitude that a provision of this nature was incorporated so that we can have, as the years move on, a steady and constant improvement in the light of the circumstances of the day, improvements brought about not by people who have an axe to grind, not by people who represent only one section of thought in the commercial community, but rather by people who are able to look at the matter as legal experts from a purely and completely impartial point of view. For those reasons one approaches a Bill of this nature with a great amount of interest and certainly with a much greater ease of mind than one might normally approach a Bill of such a technical nature and where one has to look at so many aspects of our law in order to be satisfied as to what the legislator intends to incorporate in the existing Act.

The first thought that passed through my mind when I read the Bill, was the very excellent provision in clause 1 dealing with microfilming. I think microfilming is very vital in the community today for the keeping of records. Provision is not only made to maintain records on microfilm, but also for it to be used in evidence as the best evidence. This is a very important departure from the normal rules regarding the best evidence, because evidence will not be brought in the form of the actual record, but in the form of a microfilm of that record.

The thought I would like to put to the hon. the Minister is whether steps are being contemplated with regard to producing, first of all, a master copy of the particular record that is being microfilmed and, secondly, what procedure will be established for the certification of such master copies which will remain for all time as the authentic original record of that particular document. I do understand from inquiries that I have made—I can be corrected if I am wrong—that the microfilm record will replace the original document, which will, in time, be destroyed. It is impossible to house the voluminous records that are constantly growing up not only in the Registrar’s office, but also in other offices. For example, I understand that in Britain the company’s office had to be moved out of London to another town where all their records are being housed, but in the London company’s office the microfilm of all such records can be found. With the conservative approach of English Law and we share that peculiarity one can well understand—that they do not intend at this stage to destroy the original documents. However, I gather that as far as we are concerned, it will be destroyed and that the microfilm will remain as the only record. That is why I raise the question as to what steps have been taken to provide a master copy and what form of certification will be used to ensure that the master copy remains as the authentic document from which a microfilm can be made when it is required for official purposes and as admissibility of evidence in any court of law. In order to illustrate how important this issue is, one must realize how many companies are registered year by year.

In 1971, for instance, 14 400 companies were registered; in 1972, 14 300; and in 1973, almost 17 000 companies. As a result of the Act of 1973 and the new problems that presented itself with the reshaping of the actual documents for registration, the figure dropped to 4 101. In 1975 the number of companies which was registered, amounted to 4 676. Nevertheless, it is an illustration of how an office can become cluttered up with thousands and thousands of records. One virtually has to erect buildings, large structures in order to house these documents, because if they are to remain as original records, they have to be housed fireproof and in such a manner that they can withstand any pilfering, break-ins, etc. One can well understand that the whole question of microfilming can almost virtually be regarded as an important principle of the entire Bill. It has brought into being something which is not only important to us when recording generally, but which is also going to spread to other institutions, like our deeds offices, our law courts and certainly to our lower courts where I know the volume of records is becoming almost impossible to look after and control. Factors like waste of manpower and of time should be taken into account if we want to streamline the process of maintaining satisfactory records.

In the Bill we do not find much to quibble about. I was interested in what the hon. member for Johannesburg North had to say about the Bill, because to the best of my knowledge certain of the requirements of the Stock Exchange are laid down in the Stock Exchange Act. I hope the hon. member will clarify this point during the Committee Stage. The Registrar of Companies does not serve on the committee of the Stock Exchange, but the Registrar of Financial Institutions or his representative serves in a permanent capacity on the committee in terms of the Act. The requirements of the Stock Exchange are regulated in terms of the spirit of the Stock Exchange Act. I think the danger, which was foreseen when the new Act was put on the Statute Book, namely that private information which does not concern the public may be exposed so that a competitive company can gain knowledge of another company’s affairs does not exist. I am not sure that the hon. member’s view is very sound, but I would very much like to hear what the hon. member is going to say in the Committee Stage in order to clarify this doubt which he has raised in regard to the manner the Stock Exchange committee will deal with the documents and information that it requires.

Another point which I would like the hon. member to explain—I think it will interest us all—is the question of the rights offer and some of the examples he gave us. When I read the particular clause, it struck me that this would be one way of ensuring that the members of the company would receive the allocation of shares with the right to renounce it in favour of other persons and so have an opportunity to subscribe and to provide the capital of which the hon. member talks. I may be wrong, but I would very much like to know, because it is a matter of concern to us. It seems to me that these clauses have been drafted in such a way as to ensure that the members of the company have the first opportunity to provide the necessary capital that may be called for by the company. As regards the question of the information required by the Stock Exchange, I think that the provision in the clause obviates the need to have even the attenuated prospectus in terms of schedule 3. This information, as I have said, is called for, but it has to a large extent been laid down and would be sufficient to acquaint the member of the company, who will already have seen other balance sheets in the past and who usually knows something of the company, with just enough information to satisfy him that everything that should be disclosed has been satisfactorily disclosed. That is how I see that particular question.

I want to refer to one or two other matters which interest me. Firstly there is the question of the loans. The provision in respect of the loans, I find very satisfactory indeed. I think, further, that the new provisions in regard to the auditor are very helpful indeed.

One could of course go into a lot of detail on the various clauses, because one could compare the situation as it was with the improvements which are now being proposed. However I feel that this Bill will largely benefit the shareholders and will further strengthen the security of the shareholders and the public and not leave them exposed to any of the ills which were formerly encountered and most of which, I think, were remedied by the Act, to which this Bill is an amendment. We know that many ills in years past have been a contributory factor in shareholders having their fingers burnt. With those few words I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the contents of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I shall say a few words about the speech by the hon. member for Johannesburg North at a later stage. I think that basically the hon. members of the Official Opposition support us as far as this Bill is concerned. At this stage I, too, need to say something in connection with this legislation. Actually, I want to say that today we have once again a product before us of the work of the standing advisory committee on the Companies Act. However, we are too inclined to give all the credit and the thanks to this standing committee without thinking of the Registrar of Companies, who played a very important role in this process. I am thinking in particular of the fact that the present Registrar of Companies, Adv. Schoeman, will shortly vacate this post in order to take over another. It is noteworthy that in the period in which he was Registrar of Companies, we have had the greatest change to the Companies Act, in the short period of three years. I am referring to the Companies Amendment Bill of 1974 and to the important Amendment Bill before the House today. When I thank Adv. Schoeman, I have no intention of derogating from the important work done for us by the standing advisory committee at all. It is so that the use in the business world of a juristic person, usually in the form of a company, has become very much more important today than it was a few years ago. It is a useful instrument to use when one is in the business world.

If we look at the history of the Companies Act and at the rules and regulations relating to this matter, we find that there has always been a certain degree of mistrust and misgivings about a company. That is why the rules and regulations have always been stated severely and strictly. In time we became accustomed to it and made more use of this instrument. Therefore it is gratifying for me to be able to deduce from the Amendment Bill before us today that a certain degree of confidence is once again being shown in the use of this instrument, and that as a result we can do away with some of the strict and severe rules and regulations. I think that in particular we are going to save a great deal of time and money as a result of this legislation, because certain things, which are not important because a situation of confidence has developed, are being eliminated.

This Bill is, of course a technical measure and a measure which probably lends itself to discussion during the Committee Stage. In that connection I immediately want to tell the hon. member for Johannesburg North that he has already made his Committee Stage speeches. All he did not do was to move his two amendments formally. That hon. member wasted our time by speaking in that way during the debate on the Second Reading. If he wanted to move those amendments, he should rather have waited until the Committee Stage. I just want to tell the hon. member for Yeoville, who is also going to speak about this Bill, that we expect a Second Reading speech from him and not a Committee Stage speech. But, Sir, since the hon. member for Johannesburg North has now referred to clauses 7 and 9, I just want to dwell on this and comment briefly on those clauses. It is very clear what the hon. member for Johannesburg North has in mind with the amendment to clause 7 which he wants to move. In that connection I agree with the hon. member for Jeppe. In the first place we must afford the shareholders of the company the first opportunity …

No, you do not understand.

This is not all the hon. member for Johannesburg North has in mind. He says he has it in mind, but now, by means of this amendment to clause 7, he wants to open a door to take over other companies more quickly and easily.

No.

Of course; there is no other purpose to this. We must protect the shareholders of the specific company and give them the privileges, and in this way, give them to the public, too.

May I ask a question?

No, the hon. member had an opportunity to make his speech. I do not have time to answer questions now.

But you do not understand.

As far as clause 9 is concerned, the hon. member is now very concerned about the stock exchange. Mr. Speaker, it is very important to remember that this House appointed a Select Committee to go into the whole question of the functioning of the stock exchange. That Select Committee reported to this House. The hon. member wants to make out that the stock exchange’s committee may now set certain provisions and demands which will make it impossible for a company to comply with this, and which will retard the whole operation. The amendment which the hon. member is going to move, reads almost like a love story; there are a whole lot of words without any meaning. The hon. member is not making a positive recommendation. The hon. member must tell us whether he agrees, basically, with the principle—and this is exactly what the Second Reading is all about—that there should be a body which can lay down rules and regulations as to when such a letter of allocation may be sent out. If he agrees that there should be a body to do this, I want to tell him that under the present circumstances that body can only be the stock exchange and that the stock exchange must therefore obtain the necessary authorization in order to be able to do this. The stock exchange had this in the past. Why should we take it away from them now? If we look at the report on the stock exchange published by the Select Committee we find that many problems are identified, but also that one thing was ensured as a result of it, and this is that an attitude of confidence towards South Africa, the committee of the stock exchange, and the stock exchange as a whole, was brought about. The hon. member now wants the stock exchange to have that power no longer. Sir, I hope that the hon. the Minister is not going to accept these two amendments of the hon. member for Johannesburg North, because that would take the heart out of this measure. Sir, in conclusion I just want to say to the hon. the Minister that we in the business world are very grateful for this amendment Bill, which introduces flexibility to the procedures and facilitates the use of this instrument which is at our disposal to such an extent.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Johannesburg North has indicated, we will support the Second Reading of this legislation. I think it is now fairly obvious that company amendment Bills are likely to be annual events. Although that has certain disadvantages, in the sense of creating a state of uncertainty about the law, the advantage of this procedure is that a piece of legislation is being kept under constant review and that abnormalities are continually being removed. As a result legislation is, in fact, improved. For that reason it is obviously desirable to introduce legislation of this kind as soon as faults in existing legislation are perceived. I for one do not object to the hon. the Minister coming with this type of legislation every year if the proposals are, in fact, of a constructive nature, as are the majority contained in the legislation before us.

Another procedure being adopted is also one of which we approve, and here I am referring to the fact that there is not only a standing advisory committee to deal with these matters, but also the widest possible degree of consultation taking place about these matters. Therefore, by the time the legislation comes before us there has been a very wide range of consultations, the matter has ceased to be contentious and the legislation is therefore such that all stages can be passed, even at such a late hour on a Friday afternoon, without anyone other than perhaps the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke becoming emotional about the issue. It is for those reasons that one feels one can support the Second Reading of this legislation.

May I immediately, however, respond to what appears to be a complete misunderstanding of the position about rights issues where rights accrue to a company other than the company in respect of which the shares are being taken up. With respect to both the hon. member for Jeppe and the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke, who has now disappeared and is apparently not taking up his rights, it is quite clear that there are instances where it is necessary to have the rights given to people who are not shareholders in the company concerned. For the benefit of these two hon. members, let me give an example. For instance, there are two companies quoted on the stock exchange; the one is Plate Glass and the other is Placor. If Plate Glass, which is a company in which Placor holds the majority of the shares, has a rights issue, either Placor can take up these rights or the shareholders in Placor itself could take them up, and if Placor has not got the means by which to take up the rights, it would be unfair towards the shareholders of Placor, whose sole interest is in shares in Plate Glass, of which this is a holding company, if the rights did not accrue to them.

But they can renounce those rights in favour of that company.

That is the very point I am making. They can do so, and that is why, when one has renounceable rights of this kind, they should also apply to other companies.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North referred to the Greatermans situation. There are two other companies that hold substantial shares in Greatermans, i.e. Gresham and Griffon. What is wrong with what Greatermans has just done in having an issue of shares and stating that the shareholders of Greatermans and the shareholders of Gresham and Griffon would be allowed to take up rights? To say, as the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke did, that this is a scheme for the easier take-over of companies, is just utter nonsense. All that the hon. member for Johannesburg North has said is that the shortcut that is being recommended and given here in respect of rights issues should also be extended to other companies where these rights can be taken up. It is as simple as that. There is no question of monopolies or the take-over of companies. All of that is utterly irrelevant to this issue and I do not know why it has been introduced into this debate, unless there has been a misreading of what the actual provisions of the law are. There is no question, of course, that rights issues to other companies are not going to be allowed. All that has been suggested by the hon. member for Johannesburg North is that this easier procedure in respect of rights being taken up in this form should also be applied to rights given to other companies.

Therefore, with great respect, the case that has been put by the hon. member for Johannesburg North, a case which I thought he had put quite completely and adequately without my having to get involved in this debate, I think is an unanswerable case.

I think there is a difference between what he said and what you are saying now in regard to the amendment. However, that can be discussed at a later stage.

I understand the hon. the Minister’s problem and I realize that because he would like to get the views of other people as well, he has difficulty in saying immediately that he accepts the amendment. The proposed amendment will, in other words, be referred to the advisory committee and there will be consultation. We are quite happy with that, but this is the correct forum in which to offer such a suggestion.

I should like to make two other points. The first is that I, for one, am sorry that in this legislation there is not an amendment to section 37 of the Companies Act.

An amendment is coming.

Later this session?

No, next year.

I think it is both advisable and necessary that we have such an amendment. I think there is a further amendment which needs to be looked at. I think we should again look at the fourth schedule of the Act. I am of the opinion that paragraphs 25 and 26 in particular require to be amended. I think we need to deal with, for example, listed securities which are held for investment purposes and listed securities which are held for trading purposes in different ways, because amendments may be desirable. There are other aspects as well and we hope that we shall get further legislation next year in order that some of these matters may be put right.

May I now turn to a question which has not yet been referred to except in passing by the hon. member for Jeppe? I refer to the question of auditors. I believe that there is a considerable feeling in the commercial community that with the increase in the duties of auditors which is necessary in order to make sure that there are no abuses, there is unfortunately also a very substantial increase in costs. I think the hon. the Minister should himself pay attention to and ask his staff to pay attention to getting procedures which will give us the safeguards which are needed but which at the same time will keep the matter of costs under control. Exactly the same can be said in respect of the many secretarial services that now have to be rendered as a result of the amendments introduced by the Bill. I do not want to waste the time of the House at this late hour with giving full details, but, really, the increased cost of running even the smallest of companies is something to which the hon. the Minister should pay attention. It also applies to him in another capacity in dealing with his anti-inflation campaign, because this is in fact fruitless expenditure except for those who earn the fees which are involved. I really think that this needs some attention.

A further matter with which I should like to deal in relation to auditors is that the legislation to my mind quite correctly lays down that when auditors, for a variety of reasons, cease to hold office, they have to make certain reports and they cannot be removed from office until certain things have happened. Clause 21 which seeks to amend section 227 of the principal Act contains the following proviso—

In other words, if he is aware of an irregularity but he has not yet made his report, he can be removed from office. I believe that is undesirable. I believe that, if he is aware of it, and he has not yet made his report, he should not be removed from office because he can still make his report. I believe that—while I am not going to move an amendment on this because I believe legislation should not be delayed—this is a matter to which attention should be paid. When one looks at clause 23 of this Bill, a clause which amends section 28 of the Act, it is interesting to note that, where there is a question of resignation, it is not asked whether he has already made the report, but whether he has the belief.

I have your point.

You have the point. Sir, if the hon. the Minister will attend to this, I shall be very grateful. If possible, I would like to deal with …

[Inaudible.]

Well, you unfortunately do not understand it, old chap. So, do not get upset. [Interjections.] Sir, may I … [Interjections.]

Get to the point!

I have been on the point all the time, old cock! Sir, may I just refer to clause 27? In this clause provisions are made that in “any winding up by the court a director or former director of a company shall have no voting right in respect of the nomination of a liquidator on the ground of his loan account with the company or claims for arrear salary, travelling expenses or allowances due by the company or claims paid by such director or former director on behalf of the company”. This might mean that a man who is a very substantial creditor might have no say in the nomination of a liquidator at all, but that can be excused if the company of which such a person is a director, is one that has gone into liquidation, because he should perhaps have seen to it that the company did not go into liquidation. I believe that is justifiable. However, subsection (b) of the clause reads that the same right applies to a person to whom the claims have been ceded. Many such claims are being ceded as security for debts, not for the purpose of liquidation or abuse. What may well happen as a result of this—and I know this exists in respect of financial institutions where they take cession of the loan accounts as security for their debts—is that they may well be deprived of the right of voting on this claim for the purpose of nominating a liquidator. They will then only be able to vote on their own claim. Where a claim has been acquired, this problem may arise. I want to ask the hon. the Minister again to investigate this matter in order to have this provision amended with a view to safeguarding bona fide creditors, and not merely nominees to which it has been ceded.

Those are all the points that I would like to make at this stage. I have made them now, because I shall not make them in the Committee Stage. We shall allow the Committee Stage to go through without debate, except for moving a few amendments we intend to move. We do this, because we believe that it is not possible, in the light of the hon. the Minister’s attitude, to persuade him to accept any amendments now. Therefore, we support the Second Reading, and that is where we let the matter rest.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank hon. members for their support of this Bill. They will understand that I cannot react to their standpoints in greater detail at this stage. I only want to make a few general remarks and also to reply specifically to the amendments which appear on the Order Paper. I shall do so very briefly.

As our business life becomes more sophisticated, and since our business activities are conducted chiefly on a company basis, amendments to the legislation in question will naturally continue to be made. This is proved by the fact that we foresaw this when this Act was amended in 1974 to provide for a permanent committee to evaluate the necessary amendments from time to time. The draft legislation which is under consideration at the moment complies with three other basic principles contained in the Companies Act. The first of these is disclosure. The second is protection. The third principle arises mainly from the phenomenon that the management and ownership of companies often differ these days. This is a difference which is becoming greater and greater. Therefore there must be clear action to inform the owners, in other words the shareholders, of the way the company is run by the management—who are not necessarily the owners. I do not believe that there is any hon. member in this House who will advance any argument to counter these basic principles, principles which underlie the present amendments as well. Therefore I shall not take the matter any further at this stage.

A second important element in the legislation under discussion concerns procedure. It is aimed at facilitating the procedure as far as it is compatible with the concepts to which I referred earlier. It also concerns the question of auditors. I am quite prepared to investigate the implications of clause 21, which concerns the removal from office of an auditor. This is one of the points to which the hon. member for Yeoville referred. I am also prepared to inquire into the fourth schedule.

Any hon. member who during the coming recess, discovers facets in this legislation to which they would like me to give consideration, is welcome to bring such problems to my attention. I shall be pleased to help them. I shall refer their inquiries to the permanent committee.

I want to refer briefly to clauses 7 and 9 and the amendments to them which have been moved. We must bear in mind that clause 7 provides for a shortened procedure in connection with rights offers. The proposed section 145A in no way prohibits rights offers, as the hon. member for Johannesburg North made out, when there is a full prospectus. This is the essence of the matter. Companies may therefore still make rights offers to other companies, but not through the shortened procedure.

That is what we suggested.

Should I accept the hon. member’s amendment, it would go very much further than what the hon. member for Yeoville is asking for. It would mean that the issuing of offers according to the shortened procedure would be applicable to subsidiaries as well. It could also lead to the issuing of offers to the public without prospectus. This I cannot accept, and the hon. member will understand why not. However, I am prepared to refer the matter to the permanent committee.

You have actually missed the point I made.

No, I have not missed the point. I have indicated that there can be a share issue to other companies, but not through the shortened process provided for in the proposed section 145A. This does not prevent it. That is the point I am trying to make at this stage.

*I want to dwell on clause 9 for a moment. However, I shall not discuss it at any length. The hon. member will understand that we are dealing here with listed companies. The people who decide about the listing of a company are the people of the Stock Exchange, which is subject to the rules and provisions of the Stock Exchange Act and not to the one which is before us at the moment. I cannot understand the hon. member’s problem. The same company which is making a rights offer with respect to the provisions we are dealing with, is now, according to the Bill, going to determine which documents should accompany the letter of allocation. Hon. members must remember that the company has already been listed.

Finally, I want to say that we must not take the hon. member’s fears seriously. The Stock Exchange consists of stockbrokers, but these people are dependant on the number of companies listed on the exchange for their livelihood. The concept of the Stock Exchange Act, as also the concept of this Bill, is that facts should be published as far as possible, so that people may know what they are deciding about.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 7:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Amendment negatived (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Amendment negatived (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 19:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.