announced that at a ceremony held in the Gallery Hall this afternoon, he had on behalf of Parliament accepted from the State President a painting by the artist Fleur Ferri of the last Cabinet under the previous constitutional dispensation. The painting had been presented to the Government by Volkskas.

Mr Chairman, it is a privilege for me to introduce the discussion of the Defence Vote. I want to begin by paying special tribute to Armscor and the SADF, the two members of the Defence family, for another successful year and for their sustained service to the community and to the State. I am certain all members of this Parliament appreciate what excellent service both these organisations have rendered and are still rendering. I am also certain that we are proud to be associated with this Defence family.

First of all I should like to discuss the SADF. Once again the SADF has carried out its task with dedication. It is a task which is becoming increasingly difficult and one to which many new dimensions are being added. During the past year the SADF had to adapt itself to supporting the SAP in internal unrest situations. I was impressed by the way in which they acquitted themselves of their task. Judging from the comment— the praise and any censure that bore any significance—the members of the Defence Force performed their task with distinction.

I want to begin by saying it is a pity that compliments are so scarce, that people do not readily hand out compliments, that we are bent upon criticising and slow to praise. I do think it is a pity that the Security Forces have not been praised by the hon members of the Official Opposition for the tasks they are performing in the specific circumstances of today. It is a pity they are not being freely complimented on this. We shall dwell on this again later.

Let me place the Defence Force in its correct perspective. The Defence Force is and remains the instrument of the elected democratic administration in South Africa. Therefore it is an executive instrument of the government of the day.

The Defence Force is concerned with the loyal performance of its task, and that is why the Defence Force stands aloof from emotional party-political issues and why it may not be used for that purpose. I want to thank hon members for being mindful not to drag our Security Forces into party-political matters.

The Defence Force has a professional history and this Committee may be justifiably proud of the successive leaders of the SA Defence Force who are worthy proponents of the military profession, who serve it loyally and who project this attitude down through the ranks. The Committee may be proud of the Defence Force leaders who are serving at present and of those who have already retired from the service.

I now wish to state four fundamental points concerning the SA Defence Force. Firstly the Defence Force is there to render a service. It is service to all the inhabitants of the country wherever the Defence Force has a task to perform. We are therefore talking about a defence force which is a servicerendering body. Secondly, it is the duty of the Defence Force to protect the vast peace-loving majority of the South African population, whose lives are being disrupted by militants and radicals. The Defence Force is therefore responsible for the safety of all South Africa’s inhabitants. Thirdly the Defence Force is geared to maintaining sound and honest relations with those inhabitants, as befits people who serve. The Defence Force is therefore geared to promoting and maintaining sound human relations among all the South African population groups. Fourthly, and finally, the service rendered by the Defence Force is not of a political nature. It is professional, and it protects development processes in society so that stability and peace can thrive.

After all, it is a defence force to which a father and a mother may entrust their son with confidence. During the time he spends there the Defence Force training will be able to make of him a maturer and more stable young man. That young man who serves his country, will be a young man who is regarded with respect.

It is for this very reason that I find it a great pity that the SA Defence Force, particularly our young men on duty, are time and again subjected to a barrage of propaganda, suspicion-mongering and disinformation from right-wing, as well as left-wing militant circles. I expect this campaign to intensify, particularly from the ranks of the End Conscription Campaign. That is why I trust Parliament will do everything in its power to protect this stabilising instrument, namely the SA Defence Force, and that all members of Parliament will express themselves opposed to suspicion-mongering, disinformation and so on, as soon as our Security Forces become involved.

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon the Minister?

No, Sir, but I shall be prepared to reply to questions later.

It is fitting that I pay tribute here on behalf of the South African community and of the Government to the next-of-kin of the 30 members of the Security forces who made the greatest sacrifice last year in actions against terrorists and the northern borders, for which the SA Defence Force bear responsibility.

It is such people, those who were wounded and the hosts of others who frequently have to carry out their task in the face of death, who make it possible for us to bring about evolutionary and fair changes in the constitutional dispensation of our country.

During the same period 599 Swapo terrorists were shot and killed in Security Force actions. It is tragic that these people are being sent to a certain death so that that enemy can attain its own sinister objectives. It is tragic to think that almost 600 people, Swapo terrorists, have crossed that border and had to be shot. The Defence Force is not bent on killing people, but these people who crossed the border were brainwashed and trained as murderers, as is apparent from the fact that 138 members of the local population of Ovambo died at the hands of Swapo. Among their number no fewer than 42 people were murdered in a brutal manner.

I find it tragic that there are certain hon members of the official Opposition who are always prepared to ask searching questions about the conduct of the Security Forces, but never ask the same questions about the enemy who is launching an attack on South Africa. They are not interested in the atrocities committed by the ANC and Swapo. Every week we receive a Question Paper here, but I have never seen a single question directed at these atrocities so that we can emphasise them against the background of what is happening in this country.

In the meantime the conflict in the north of South West Africa/Namibia continues. South Africa is being subjected every day to a flood of propaganda from news agencies and pro-communist governments. Hon members who listen to short-wave radio broadcasts can listen every day to the most atrocious untruths which are being proclaimed about and against the Republic of South Africa. These are being broadcast daily from Luanda, Addis Ababa, Harare and Dar es Salaam. I think with compassion of the members of the Security Forces who are being subjected in such an unfair manner to these broadcasts and to the references in these broadcasts.

I also thank the new Chief of the Defence Force, his Command Council, all officers of the Defence Force, and every man, woman and child who is involved in the SA Defence Force, for the way in which they are performing this task. I want to address a special word of welcome to Gen Geldenhuys in his new appointment as Chief of the SA Defence Force. On behalf of this side of the Committee and the Government I also want to wish him strength in his task. In these times in which we are living, it is no easy task. It is a position which makes very heavy physical and intellectual demands on the person who occupies it, but I can give the assurance that Gen Geldenhuys is thoroughly skilled and is equal to it. In the short time he has occupied the position, he has already proved that he is a worthy successor to Gen Viljoen.

That brings me next to Armscor. I thank the chairman of Armscor, Cmdt Piet Marais, his top management and every employee of Armscor and their families, for their contribution to keeping this country of ours safe. Armscor has had a particularly successful year. Its unbeatable export success testifies to the standard of its products and I can assure every member of this Committee that the quality of the products exported by Armscor is among the best in the world. The success of a year ago with the G5 gun which was exhibited at the arms show in Athens was followed by the International Fida show in Chile. In this connection I just want to mention the cluster bomb and the renowned assault helicopter, the Alpha, which was exhibited there. I am mentioning these achievements because these products were introduced to Members of Parliament on two occasions. Then, too, there was the launching of the latest replenishment ship, the SAS Drakensberg in Durban on 24 April. I also think this is concrete proof of what the private and public sectors are capable of if they unite to achieve a common objective.

I should like to repeat the tribute I paid to our State President on the occasion of the launching of that ship. I said it was through his far-sightedness that the modern Armscor had taken shape. He foresaw the UN arms embargo against South Africa even before 1977. Through his zeal we established an armaments industry which is among the best in the world. We want to thank him sincerely for that. Without it this country of ours would have been in a dilemma today, for then we would not have been self-sufficient as far as our own defence and protection is concerned, particularly when seen against the background of the onslaught which is being launched against this country. This industry is important to this country and its people.

It is common knowledge that the communist penetration into Southern Africa enhances the danger of armed conflict if a political solution cannot be achieved. To ensure our survival it is essential that South Africa should prepare itself for every eventuality and should be self-sufficient in the security sphere, as I have already said.

In the world of today in which there are so few constants which therefore makes advance evaluation very difficult, it is not merely a question of wars that have to be won, but also the prevention of war. This can be done by possessing deterrents which compel international respect. One does not of course frighten any enemy with airguns. That is why Armscor deserves only praise for what it has produced, together with the private sector, inter alia in the sphere of technology and arms production.

There is a White Paper on Defence and Armaments Supply, which was tabled in Parliament in 1986. I want to refer to Chapter III of that White Paper, which is really worth studying. It is remarkable and commendable what Armscor has achieved. Hon members should look at that chapter again. I want to praise the personnel and the two organisations involved in the preparation of the White Paper for the standard of the document which was tabled.

Before I turn to the Geldenhuys Report, I want to refer to a matter which is of great concern to me personally, namely the conservation of our wildlife. At present there are approximately 500 000 ha, distributed throughout the entire country, with which the SA Defence Force and Armscor is involved. Because wildlife and the environment is a matter of concern to me as well as to Armscor and the SA Defence Force, we believe that this land should be administered in such a way that we are able to return it one day in a good condition, and I even want to say a better condition, to posterity, so that the nation may in future perhaps utilise it in a different way.

I have consequently decided to involve an outside organisation possessing the necessary expertise in this matter. This body will advise me after they have acquired a thorough knowledge of what is involved and have drawn up thorough and comprehensive plans for wildlife administration. This organisation will consequently be responsible to me to ensure that the approved wildlife plans which the SA Defence Force and Armscor are to implement, are complied with.

The Department of Defence is fortunate in this sense that a faculty in this discipline was established a short while ago at one of our universities. It is with much gratitude that I am able to announce today that the Eugéne Marais Chair of Wildlife Administration at the University of Pretoria has agreed to undertake this enormous task for us and posterity in the national interests. [Interjections.] I believe that the university will also benefit from this faculty by way of student tuition in these areas and also by way of post-graduate studies in this connection, and that a partnership will be forged here which will augur well for the future of wildlife administration.

This brings me then to the Geldenhuys Committee. During the past few months frequent references have been made to the report of the Geldenhuys Committee, and great expectations were entertained in that connection. It was completed at the end of the year. The committee deliberated at length and in depth for 18 months on matters pertaining to the SA Defence Force and armaments production. Gen Jannie Geldenhuys acted as chairman and the members were Comdt Piet Marais, Dr Wim de Villiers and Gen Raymond Holtzhausen. I want to refer once again to the fact that they did good work. I want to thank them and their secretariat for the work they did. It was really excellent and produced very good results.

The committee heard evidence and made recommendations which I accepted in essence. Some of these recommendations are already being implemented successfully today. The committee deliberated in a scientific way and was uncommitted to any party-political preferences. The report meets the expectations and serves the interests of the Defence Force and Armscor, and therefore, too, the interests of the State and the community.

I did not give the committee a single directive on any possible preferences of the Government or of the political party of which I am a member. My terms of reference were that the cause of the Defence Force and Armscor—consequently the cause of South Africa—should be served. Consequently I want to add that this enquiry was objective and that the national interests served as basis for its deliberations.

The committee formed subcommittees, and in the course of its enquiry had to deal with a diversity of variables, including the internal unrest situation, which certainly had to have an effect on its recommendations. The Geldenhuys Committee listened to what altogether 50 various individuals had to say, and heard evidence from numerous bodies and organisations—church, economic and political—outside the Defence family and inside, that wanted to make contributions.

In this connection I should like to convey my thanks to those who testified. All this evidence was considered impartially and carefully before this report was formulated. These individuals and organisations adopted divergent and sometimes conflicting standpoints, and they also gave evidence accordingly. Time and again, as hon members of this Committee are aware, I extended the final date so that the committee could deliberate peacefully on all these contributions.

The fact that the committee did not come forward with material changes to the Defence family is proof that these organisations—the SA Defence Force as well as Armscor—have consistently kept pace with the realities of the onslaught and the means at our disposal to repel it. I want to tell hon members that it is truly very important that organisations such as Armscor and the Defence Force, which are responsible for the safety of our country, should constantly be engaged in innovation and dynamic consideration of the challenges and the task which varies from day to day, and should automatically make adjustments accordingly.

Most of this report deals with force design, the threat situation and the way in which these aspects should be dealt with. Hon members will understand that the report could not be released as a public document. I want to tell them that I should very much have liked to do so, but unfortunately I am committed to it, and I cannot do so because it contains highly classified intelligence. For that reason I decided on a confidential briefing of the Defence spokesmen in the various Houses of our Parliament.

As far as evidence by political parties is concerned, the CP did not testify. I asked in advance for all the parties to be invited. Last year I even invited hon members here in the three Houses to testify, and this is on record. I find it a great pity that the CP did not react. Perhaps they were so busy with their political campaigns …

Are you bringing politics into the Defence Force now?

… that they could not find time for this aspect of national importance. Why did the hon member who is now yelling across the floor of this House, not testify before the committee, instead of sitting here, yelling and bleating?

You say we should not talk politics, but then you introduce it!

Order! We have just begun the debate. There is ample time for debating. It is not necessary to interrupt the Minister across the floor of the House now. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Thank you, Sir. [Interjections.]

There is another matter which I cannot allow to pass without comment. It affects the hon member for Wynberg, who was reappointed by the Official Opposition as the chief spokesman on Defence. I should like to refer to the hon member’s conduct prior to a confidential briefing given to the Defence spokesman. In the Cape Times of 22 April 1986, there is proof, in black and white, of his conduct. The report was under the headline: “PFP attack on White Paper”. I label this conduct by the hon member as premature. I expected it, because the hon member finds himself in a tremendous dilemma. I want to tell him at once that I am not angry with him; on the contrary, I understand the dilemma in which he finds himself.

I must add, however, that I am disappointed that he cannot adopt a strong standpoint in respect of national defence in his party. Nevertheless I want to make an appeal to him to exercise care in regard to sensitive defence matters. I am therefore asking him to be less impetuous when we discuss such matters as these.

Now I must say at once that the record of the hon member for Wynberg speaks for itself. [Interjections.] This is the second time he has expressed an opinion on defence matters without having the facts. You will recall, Sir, that on a previous occasion he did exactly the same as he did now. Without having the facts at his disposal, he referred to and expressed an opinion on matters. It is an accomplished fact that he and his party find themselves in the voters’ market, where they have to take every left-wing vote into consideration. Personally he is of course under extremely heavy pressure from the people responsible for the End Conscription Campaign, and also of course from the left-and right-wing elements in his party. [Interjections.] I realise that and I can understand his position, but I am dealing with the realities and the truth.

That is last year’s speech.

He must take such people into consideration, but was it really necessary for him to be so impetuous as to attack the Geldenhuys Report before he had the actual facts at his disposal and before the Defence spokesman had been given any briefing in that regard?

I want to give the hon member a piece of sound advice. He must guard against becoming the football of the pro-left elements in his party. After all, he knows that he has already had to resign as the principal Defence spokesman of his party, and that this is on record. I, and this side of the Committee, have exceptionally high appreciation that he did so for the reasons he advanced. We must not misunderstand one another; I am in fact far closer to his side than he perhaps realises. [Interjections.]

Typical of the pressure under which the hon member for Wynberg finds himself being subjected to is also the fact—this was the first time he made this mistake—that prior to the referendum he made negative comments about a video recording which the SA Defence Force had made, before he had seen that video recording, of course. He expressed his opinion on it before he saw it. He also commented on a film before he saw the film!

He is trigger-happy!

I agree with my hon colleague that he is trigger-happy. When one talks about triggers one creates the impression of a person who shoots from the hip, but he is not even shooting in the right direction; he is shooting in a different direction.

The hon member attacked the Geldenhuys Report although he had already been invited to receive a confidential briefing. He merely reacted to a short summary which he had at his disposal. I rely on the hon member’s goodwill towards national defence, but I hope that he has now learned, in the national interests, to temper his actions and reactions in such a way that he will not again be so presumptuous as to act before he has scrutinised the facts of a situation.

You are a corporal.

The hon member opposite is saying that I am a corporal. I want to tell him, however, that that is the greatest compliment he could pay me, because a corporal quite probably occupies the most important rank in the SA Defence Force. [Interjections.]

Order! Whether it is a compliment or not, hon members are making far too many interjections. The hon the Minister may proceed. [Interjections.]

Some of the matters with political and economic implications on which the Geldenhuys Committee elaborated comprised inter alia the national services, as well as service by volunteers. I wish to make a few observations in this regard and on the possibility of a larger professional force, and I should like to refer hon members to these matters as they are dealt with in paragraphs 19 to 35 of the White Paper.

In principle, I have no fault to find with the approach of a larger professional force as opposed to a national service force. But we may not forget the nature of the conflict situation. We must bear that in mind throughout. We are at present engaged in a low-in-tensity war, and we must also be prepared for a possible limited war which could occur at the same time. The training and the utilisation of the forces for these two types of conflict differ drastically from one another, and anyone with expert knowledge of these two types of warfare and the difference between the two forms of warfare, well agree with my statement.

Another issue involved is levels of force. These may possibly be scaled down, but that in turn, creates another implication, for example the availability and the preparedness of a reserve and how long ago such a reserve underwent training and how well it has kept abreast of present needs.

From an economic point of view, the present system is the most beneficial for both the State coffers as well as the country’s economy. I know that all hon members of Parliament will agree with me that the country’s economy must be taken into consideration throughout, even in these matters.

For these and other reasons, I accepted the recommendation of the committee that the present national service system should be retained but I should like to make it clear that I shall in terms of existing legislation ensure that, taking into consideration the security situation, the burden on the Citizen Force and the Commando Units will be kept as light as possible. In fact I want to say that this policy indication is already being applied. It has been applied for the past two years, because I give instructions last year that this should happen. The lowest priority on utilisation is therefore on the Citizen Force and the Commando Units. I must add, of course, that the security situation will determine what the utilisation rate of these units will be.

As regards service by Coloureds and Indians, I have already made my standpoint clear. In terms of the the constitution the two other Houses must also express their opinion in this regard. I shall like to point out that the national service system for Whites developed in an evolutionary way until it assumed its present format in 1967. Hon members need not worry too much about the contribution by Coloureds, Indians and Blacks to national defence. They are already making a huge contribution. Yesterday I told the House of Representatives that more than a thousand of them were at present serving in South West Africa/Namibia. More than a thousand are at present doing operational duty. What makes this a remarkable achievement, though is the fact that all the persons involved are doing so voluntarily.

Mr Chairman, I take it that the confidential briefing furnished a week or two ago to the respect of the Defence spokesmen, as well as the short summary of the Geldenhuys Committee report in the White Paper, has been sufficient for Parliament. In the past I have said—and I should like to reiterate it today—that the door of my office is always open to hon members of Parliament when they wish to come and discuss matters concerning Defence with me. This also applies as far as the Geldenhuys Committee report is concerned. My standpoint is that I want to be of service to hon members, within the bounds of security.

For the time being, Mr Chairman, I shall let this suffice. I shall reply later to points raised by hon members. I shall also have something to say later about the external and internal threats to South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I request the privilege of the half-hour.

Mr Chairman, it surprised me this afternoon that the hon the Minister of Defence found it necessary, at this early stage of the debate, to resort to what I consider to be unnecessary and petty criticism.

But that is his nature!

His conduct was disgraceful!

Order!

Mr Chairman, I should like to make this very clear, so that there will be no misunderstanding in this regard. It is possible that every hon member, or even every other person, has perhaps reacted too hastily in the past—and perhaps I may still do so in future. I make no apology at all for the two examples which the hon the Minister used. It is my right to criticise the report of the Geldenhuys Committee, as reported in the White Paper. In fact I shall do so again this afternoon. I hope of course that it will be in a constructive manner.

Secondly I maintain that it is not the duty or the function of the Defence Force to become involved in political matters before or during an election or a referendum, as happened in the case of the Defence Force, shortly before the 1983 referendum. [Interjections.] I am sorry that I have to start my speech in this way, but the hon the Minister compelled me to react in this way. [Interjections.]

Furthermore, Mr Chairman, I should like to pay homage to all those who sacrificed their lives in the service of South Africa during the past year. On behalf of my party I should like to express our condolences to their next of kin.

On a somewhat happier note, it is a pleasure for me to welcome the new Chief of the South African Defence Force, Gen Jannie Geldenhuys. We on this side of the House know him to be a friendly man, but at the same time we have the greatest respect for him. That is exactly why, Sir, it was somewhat of a shock for me this morning when I found this copy of the Cape Times on my desk. I do not think the hon the Minister knows what I am about to refer to. What appears on the front page of this copy of the Cape Times, is the following—and what is more as a banner headline: “Geldenhuys axed”. Luckily I then realised that it was a copy of one of last week’s editions of the Cape Times. The report was of course about Burger Geldenhuys, of rugby fame. I really could not believe that such a progressive Chief of the Defence Force’s task could have been completed in such a short period of time. I am delighted that he is still here with us this afternoon. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the expenditure of approximately R5 billion by the Defence Force and by Armscor deserves a probing analysis. This afternoon, however, I only have time to concentrate on a few aspects in this regard.

As usual, the White Paper contains a source of information, but it is the summary of the Geldenhuys report which is important to us. In my opinion the White Paper is deficient in this respect because it contains recommendations that have not been substantiated.

This is a pity because it detracts from the task which was entrusted to Gen Geldenhuys. To a certain extent the briefing, followed by an open discussion in the general’s office, helped to clear up some of these shortcomings. I want to place it on record, however, that although we appreciate that the hon the Minister made such a briefing possible, we did actually ask for it. Perhaps the hon the Minister should just have mentioned that fact. That would have disclosed the facts more correctly.

By way of summary I simply wish to say that the PFP differs with the Government in four areas as far as Defence Force policy is concerned. Firstly we believe that a voluntary, permanent and multiracial Permanent Force, supported by a voluntary reserve is preferable, more cost-effective and less disruptive.

Secondly we believe that even within the present system there is room for exemption from military service for those who can advance moral and ethical reasons for it, provided they are believed in with the same conviction as a conscientious objector and provided they are not politically selective.

Thirdly it is our conviction that the use of the Defence Force in the Black areas on an ongoing basis is a very serious mistake.

Fourthly we feel that the security management system which has now incorporated the Defence Force into the JMS and mini-JMS, involves the Defence Force directly in local government and places it in conflict with the political aspirations of many South Africans. We are of the opinion that the Defence Force should leave local management to the citizenry and should rather focus its attention on the defence of the country, which is its real role and primary obligation!

Those are the four areas in which we differ with the Government.

In the White Paper the principle is accepted that a voluntary and permanent Permanent Force will gradually replace the Citizen Force as the primary defence mechanism. We welcome that. It is just a pity that Gen Geldenhuys does not see his way clear to giving substance to this in the short term. The reasons which are advanced for this I do not find convincing at all.

It is argued that in a permanent force the manpower requirements cannot be guaranteed and that those requirements cannot be scaled up or down. According to my analysis that argument is not correct. In the PFP’s submission we dealt with this matter very specifically. We suggested that the British system be examined. Our proposal is therefore based on the British system, and I should very much like to know from the hon the Minister whether the committee made a detailed comparative study with regard to the manpower supply in other defence forces. I would very much like to hear the hon the Minister’s reply to that question.

When one examines the British system, one notes that members join voluntarily on a full-time basis and that this Permanent Force is supported by a voluntary reserve—known as the Territorials. This has previously been debated in this House. They do not experience any problems. In fact they receive more than enough in the way of manpower and have an oversupply as it were.

The question which arises of course is why this should be the case. The reason is quite obvious. It is because the British Army provides interesting and intensive training which is also supported by excellent conditions of service. There an architect is not used to stand guard for example, or a diesel mechanic to do other work. They do the work for which they are trained and in which they are interested. The utilisation of the Territorials is such that they look forward to the periodic training camps which they have to attend. The voluntary permanent force meets the manpower requirements of NATO and of Northern Ireland and other areas, while the Territorials are a powerful pillar of support which can be relied upon in times of emergency.

It is important to note that the system works. Experience and history have shown that the system also works in a conflict situation. That is why the commission’s rejection of this option is incomprehensible to me, because it is simply not consonant with the facts. Had research in fact been done, they would have realised this.

Furthermore it was suggested that career planning and promotion in the lower echelons presented a problem. I realise it presents a problem, but we have the same problem in the Police Force. What becomes of a constable? He is trained and eventually he is promoted. If he is not promoted, it is because he derives satisfaction from the work he is doing. What happens for example to the troops in 32 Battalion? They stay where they are and are doing good work.

Furthermore the committee asserted that the citizen forces of Switzerland and Israel, for example, were better than the permanent forces of other countries. That is merely a stupid argument. In that case one might just as well compare the British Army with that of Egypt. It is generally accepted that the British soldiers are among the best in Europe, and they are a professional permanent force!

The committee did not furnish sound reasons for the retention of the present system, and I wish to recommend earnestly that we proceed immediately to introduce an intensive recruitment campaign, because that is where one should start and we have recommended it. Such a campaign would be assisted if the hon the Minister would announce that the number of service cycles, which is six at present, would be decreased. It should not merely be a vague indication, it should instead be announced that the cycles are going to be specifically reduced to four or even three. That would encourage the volunteers to make themselves available because they know there are possibilities for them in future. If the hon the Minister were to do that, it would help a great deal.

Furthermore I wish to recommend that the hon the Minister give us a target date for the implementation of the ultimate goal, as Gen Geldenhuys called it. That is when we shall change over from the one system to the other. That would at least create the impression and give the indication that they are working according to a plan.

†The hon the Minister will appreciate that one of the advantages of a volunteer standing army is that it gets around the whole question of conscientious objection. I do not want to run away from this problem but it has become very real, not only among the young people but also among a wide cross-section of the public. Again I believe that the Geldenhuys Commission failed to deal with this problem. They seemed to imply that those who were conscientious objectors were so with the deliberate goal of weakening the SADF. There may well be such people but there are also many very solid young South Africans who have a strong and deep feeling about service in any army—I want to stress that—and these feelings are not necessarily religious. What I am pleading for is that the whole question of objection on moral, ethical and religious grounds be reexamined. Hon members will remember that during the 1983 debate this party advanced what I believe were very cogent reasons why in addition to religious reasons the facility should be extended to persons with moral and ethical objections to warfare. The hon the Minister’s answer at that stage was that it was impossible to assess such other grounds objectively, but again I believe that he was wrong.

It is now quite clear that it is the board’s primary task to establish whether the convictions held by a religious objector are genuine and deeply held, rather than to ascertain whether the tenets of the church to which that person belong preclude participation in warfare. In other words, the board even now concentrates on the convictions of the individual and the strength of those convictions rather than the church denomination to which that person belongs. I believe, therefore, that the board could assess the convictions of non-religious objectors on the same basis.

This is, after all, what the USA had to do after 1970 when the US Supreme Court ruled in “Welsh versus the US Government” that opposition to war needed to, and I quote:

They have gone through that trauma. They also resisted it—I can understand it—but eventually they had to come up with an alternative. This they did—I believe to their benefit.

Conscientious objectors are not cowards, neither do most of them seek to harm the State or the SADF. I feel that we in this Parliament should accept this. Correctly employed in alternative National Service, these young people may be put to productive use. We know there is a critical shortage of qualified persons engaged in, for instance, the development of rural and urban slum areas. We know there is a need in South Africa for massive welfare. Some of these people may well be prepared to help. I want to say to the hon the Minister that it is very important at this moment to depoliticise the issue of conscientious objection and 1986 may well be the time to do so. I believe the hon the Minister should listen very carefully to what I have to say.

The hon the Minister referred earlier on to the ECC. I want to make it very clear that I am not a supporter of the End Conscription Campaign. [Interjections.] I am not a supporter! I want to make that very clear. Some of those people involved may well be using the ECC platform for their own political ends but as long as they operate within the law it is their right to do so. There is nothing that I or the hon the Minister can or would want to do about the people’s right to operate politically. I want to appeal to the hon the Minister not to overreact. He is overreacting to a small group of young people who are playing a political game for their own ends. In overreacting the hon the Minister may well do the SADF more harm than good. I feel the hon the Minister should try to be a little more relaxed about the matter.

Nobody will dispute the fact that the biggest single boost given to those who oppose conscription has been the sustained deployment of the SADF in the townships. I think nobody in this Committee can dispute that. I believe that this use of the SADF is a mistake and I shall tell the Committee why.

Firstly, there is the question of the traditional role of the SADF, namely to protect our borders. The use of our troops internally against Blacks as a matter of course—and I want to stress this—is changing the perception among Whites and Blacks of the role of the SADF.

Secondly, there is the role which the army plays in our society. The SADF is a microcosm of White society. Each year it draws into its ranks thousands of young men whose backgrounds are as diverse as those of our society itself. The ongoing deployment of these young men in the townships places them at the epicentre of a very fierce political controversy.

I know of few young men—in fact I cannot think of even one as I stand here—who are not prepared to defend the country on its borders, but I also know of a great number who are extremely concerned about the SADF’s ongoing activity in the townships. I must appeal to the hon the Minister not to shrug this off, but actually to do something about it.

Mr Chairman, this debate gives us an opportunity to thank the hon the Minister for the activities of the past year, for opportunities to receive intelligence and briefings, and for his assistance not only to the Defence Force, but also to us as members of this House in order to keep us informed about the defence of our country.

Following the hon member for Wynberg, we on this side of the Committee wish to congratulate Gen Jannie Geldenhuys, Gen Liebenberg and Adm Syndercombe on their respective appointments as Chief of the South African Defence Force, Chief of the South African Army and Chief of the South African Navy.

We wish to thank the Ministry and the Department of Defence for the White Paper which has been made available to us. It is a source of information not only for every member of the Committee, but also for our community and the general public. It has been compiled with great responsibility, and the objectives of the Department of Defence have been clearly set out.

We cannot omit to congratulate the other member of our Defence family, namely Armscor, on its brilliant achievements of the past year. Other speakers will associate themselves with this sentiment in due course.

As the hon the Minister has just said in his introductory speech, the Defence Force involves the whole of South Africa. Every economically active person in this country contributes to the central tax fund which contributes to the funding of our Defence Force. Hence we can rightly say that it is the Defence Force of our country.

All of us, especially we who are sitting in this Committee, have a duty in this regard. The first part of our responsibility is that we must know our enemies so that we can support our Defence Force. The second part is our loyalty and support of our Defence Force.

We know the enemy from outside the country. That information is available to us in numerous publications and is evident from the many experiences we have had. The great powers have also discovered what international terrorism means. The USA has perceived how disastrous it is.

Is that our enemy?

It is one of our enemies.

Is that our only enemy?

I shall come to the other enemies. The hon member for Sasolburg must exercise a little patience. [Interjections.]

We can read reports in today’s or yesterday’s newspapers about the court case in Rustenburg. Evidence is being given there and proof presented of who our foreign enemies are. However, there are clandestine people and organisations in our midst who are also our enemies.

This afternoon the hon member for Wynberg enveloped his speech in a neat and tidy cloak of piousness—although I did not want to use the word piousness, because it has a connotation of maliciousness. He said he dissociated himself from the ECC, but he cannot get away with that … [Interjections.] No, yesterday he had a probing question on the Question Paper, which the hon Deputy Minister sitting at the back there replied to, about that gentleman who was taken away from a certain meeting by our Military Police. He was to have spoken from the platform, and who would have appeared with him on that platform? Let us take a look at the panel of men who were to have been speakers at that meeting. It would have been this deserter, who is apparently held in high esteem in certain circles because Dr Alex Boraine was to have appeared with him on the same platform. [Interjections.] Now the hon member for Wynberg—he is the Defence spokesman on that side—should tell us whether he also dissociates himself from Dr Alex Boraine. Is he still a member of the party? Is he an influential person in public life? Did he not perhaps send in this question and request this hon member to ask it?

He does not know, he must first ask Helen. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, I simply wish to ask the hon member for Wynberg whether he dissociates himself from Dr Alex Boraine and his standpoints when he takes part in that End Conscription Campaign. [Interjections.]

The hon member may say that the hon the Minister should not overreact, and I take that amiss of him. He says those people are useful people who can be used. They are not lacking in courage, etc. Perhaps they are brave Johnnies, but they really are all over the place. Fortunately the hon member was not on that platform, but together with Dr Alex Boraine there were people who said the following … [Interjections.] Hon members should listen carefully; I am quoting from a report in Die Vaderland of 30 April 1986. One of the speakers was reported as saying:

In all earnestness I wish to say that if these are the platforms which these people share— these people are the PFP’s extra-Parliamentary wing—the hon member has a great responsibility and is in a great quandary here today.

The hon member has just praised Gen Geldenhuys and his committee, but directly afterwards he said that the arguments in the White Paper were stupid arguments.

That is my right.

Yes, the hon member has every right to do so, but if these people appear on platforms with people who say such things about the security of this country, then we wish to question it. [Interjections.] The hon member said they were a lot of stupid arguments which were being used, but if he says that, he has obviously not read his White Paper. What was modus operandi laid down by this Geldenhuys Committee? They used instruments …

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon member?

No, I do not have the time at my disposal. The hon member has had the privilege of the half-hour. On page 2 of the White Paper—quite early on—he could have read this before becoming tired. Paragraph 6 reads as follows:

In paragraph 8 it is stated that inter alia the School for Business Management of Unisa was used, as well as:

I think this instrument of the Defence Force, the Geldenhuys Committee, has done a thorough piece of work. It is a summary of the total task which was undertaken. I think it is an excellent document with useful information.

The hon member spoke of a voluntary service corps which would have to constitute the army. Great experts maintain … I have a brief summary of it here in which it is said that the size and cost structure of any specific country’s defence force as well as the proportion of budget allocated for this purpose must be consistent with the threat which that country is experiencing. There must be a correlation between the size of the Defence Force and the threat which the country is experiencing. If we look in all earnestness today at the total threat to our country—forget about the concept of “total onslaught”; I am talking about a threat—we see that we differ with the whole world in this regard, with a possible exception of Israel. If we take a look at the budget and the relationship to the defence budget to the total budget of the country, however, then we find that in real terms we are budgeting a smaller amount for our Defence Force than we did a few years ago. Our Defence Force is performing miracles with the funds at its disposal.

The people who compile these reports are experts. It is rubbish that a country should maintain a voluntary defence force when that country is facing a total threat, as we do today.

I want to return to another component. As has already been mentioned, conscientious objection to compulsory military service was fully accommodated in the comprehensive discussions and enquiries instituted by the Geldenhuys Committee.

Order! I am sorry but the hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I am rising merely to give the hon member an opportunity to complete his speech.

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon Whip for the opportunity.

As far as national service in the areas of unrest is concerned, I should like to point out that I personally went to give evidence before the Geldenhuys Committee. In my evidence I said that I did not like our young national servicemen having to operate in that sphere. Nevertheless they had to be there to try and restore order for us. We would like to withdraw our people tomorrow if peace has been restored. Whether the national servicemen were withdrawn depended on those people and on what they wished to do. If order were restored tomorrow, we would withdraw the Defence Force members straight away. Of course we would, but our Defence Force does have a task to complete there, and the law provides for this.

There is another aspect which I should like to raise and to which the hon member also referred. The hon member criticised the fact that the Defence Force was taking over the local management functions of organisations by means of the Joint Management Centres, the JMS and the mini-JMS in areas in which they were operational. That is not true. The Defence Force in fact wants to support, strengthen and expand the functions of those communities through its expertise, its organising capacity and its facilities, so that those communities will be stronger as far as security is concerned. We are experiencing this in the Northern Transvaal which the hon member visited with us. I cannot understand that the hon member could not get that into his head. He has perfectly good ears, but he really did not understand what they were telling him. [Interjections.] The Defence Force is not taking over there. They are not taking over from the CP or the NP or any party. They are doing their work and assisting in establishing our security. That is what those people are doing because they are competent. They have a vehicle to accompany a school bus home, for example. The town council of Messina has no such vehicle. They have those facilities at their disposal, but they are not taking over the functions of the town council. They support those functions because the task of the Defence Force is to ensure that security is maintained.

I should like to come to a splendid component of the Defence Force to point out to the hon member the threat to South Africa. Our coastal boundaries are the South Atlantic Ocean and the Indian Ocean. That border is approximately 3 000 kilometres long. The exact figure, in case the hon member for Sasolburg wishes to quote it to his people, is 2 954 km. [Interjections.] His sums are a little incorrect sometimes. [Interjections.]

These oceans are occupied by Soviet fleets. We have obtained proof of this in recent years since it has been monitored from Silvermine. There are no ships of NATO’s navy here. We have ships from Soviet Russia parading around our coasts. Their source inter alia is their defence boats and their strike craft as well as their fishing fleet and their merchant fleet which are equipped with sophisticated tracking and intelligence-collecting equipment. A volume of approximately 99% of our foreign trade, our imports and exports, is handled by our harbours. This represents roughly 50% to 60% of our gross domestic product. It would be madness, however, to think the Republic of South Africa should prepare itself to tackle a world power at sea. That is why we are grateful to Armscor, in co-operation with the private sector, for making equipment such as the supply ship SAS Drakensberg as well as other strike craft available to us—even though it costs us a great deal—to enable us to defend our maritime assets along our coasts with instruments that are effective.

I want to quote a few brief facts concerning the weaponry of those boats. The weapon system consists of six Scorpion seato-sea missiles with a range of 40 km. That is the range of those strike craft and that is why we are very grateful to our whole Defence Force family for their preparedness not only to patrol our territorial borders but also for the vigilance they display as far as our maritime affairs are concerned. We should like to support the Vote.

Mr Chairman, I should like to request the privilege of the second half-hour.

It is the annual practice of the CP to express compliments, congratulations, gratitude and sympathy openly in Parliament, and I should like to do so again on this occasion.

We are very grateful to everyone in the SA Defence Force family, with special reference to Armscor, for the very important task which they are performing in the service of our fatherland. We congratulate each one of them who have excelled in one way or another in their profession. We express our sympathy to everyone who may have suffered in one way or another in the service of the fatherland. Particularly we should like to pay tribute to the memory of those who had to make the highest sacrifice, namely those who had to forefeit their lives in the service of the fatherland. At the same time we wish to express the hope that Captain Wynand du Toit will be released and will be back with us soon.

We would like to welcome Gen Jannie Geldenhuys as the new Chief of the SA Defence Force. Besides being the best soldier in South Africa, he is also the most energetic barbecuer I have ever met in my life. We would also like to congratulate Lt-Gen Kat Liebenberg and Vice-Admiral Syndercombe on their appointments.

I have also been instructed by some of my colleagues to extend a special word of thanks to the officers and the NCOs who are on the hon the Minister’s staff, as well as to the Chief of the Army’s personal staff. We should also like to mention the names of Maj-Gen De Wachter, Brigadiers Lombard and Bosman, and Colonels Opperman, Joan van der Poel and others. These outstanding people are performing a magnificent task and their doors are open to us night and day. Many of my colleagues asked me to convey a special word of thanks to this exceptional group of people. I wish to thank them profusely for what they are doing for us.

As far as the SA Defence Force is concerned, our standpoint is very simple. The hon the Minister and the Defence Force have no need to keep on glancing over their shoulder because the CP stands solidly behind the Defence Force.

I should now like to refer to the contribution made by the hon member for Standerton. I came to know him as a very moderate person with whom I liked to tour and who always remained above politics. I found no fault with his contribution. It was a good contribution, and I agree with him for lightly reprimanding the hon member for Wynberg for the appearance of sympathy which the hon member harboured for the End Conscription Campaign. Apparently the hon member for Standerton is opposed to those men who do not want to do their national service. However, I cannot recall ever having heard the hon member taking Messrs Rajbansi and Hendrickse to task because they do not support national service either. [Interjections.]

As far as the hon member for Wynberg is concerned, I agree with him on one matter and differ with him on another. I agree with him that the hon the Minister got off on the wrong foot entirely today by dragging politics into this debate. Secondly I wish to tell the hon member that the hon the Minister can never overreact to the people of the End Conscription Campaign. As far as we are concerned he must thrash them until they do their national service. I now wish to turn to the hon the Minister.

As could have been predicted, the hon the Minister stood up here again today and himself polluted the debate, which could have run smoothly, by politicising it. At the beginning of his speech he said there were ostensible right-wing circles that were conducting a campaign against the Defence Force. He referred inter alia to disinformation. I now want to ask him bluntly whether he was referring to the CP.

I was referring to the militant right-wing elements.

Does the hon Minister include the CP in that category? [Interjections.] Sir, there is so much noise in the background that I cannot hear what the hon the Minister is saying. Does he include the CP in that category?

I am saying that I was referring to militant right-wing groups.

Sir, we have come to know this hon Minister as a powerless Minister who cannot even answer a question!

Order! I should point out to the hon member for Jeppe that this is not a question-and-answer session. The hon member may proceed.

I wish to ask the hon the Minister whether he equates the right wing in South Africa with the ANC and the UDF.

He is not allowed to answer.

Apparently the hon the Minister is not allowed to answer now.

I repeat that the hon the Minister warned us that politics should not be dragged into the debate, but then did so himself. We can see through him easily; he is very predictable! I want to tell the hon the Minister that one of his greatest crimes in politics is the fact that he is politicising the Defence Force. And he thinks we do not realise this!

I have a list of examples here, but I need only refer to the fact that the helicopters of the SA Defence Force are being used to take his pals in the Cabinet on hunting trips. That is a fact! It is also a fact that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning had to be taken to an NP function in a Defence Force helicopter.

I now wish to tell hon members what the best example of the fact that politics were dragged into this debate today was. The hon the Minister said that the contribution of the Coloureds to the Defence Force—I think he included Indians—was a huge one. I wish to tell him that if he calculated it relatively to the input being made by the Whites, he was misleading Parliament. I have figures at my disposal which I may not disclose. I know, however, how many Indians, Coloureds and Whites there are in the Defence Force, and if the hon the Minister says that the Coloured and Indian contribution to the Defence Force are in any way meaningful when compared to the total White input, he is misleading Parliament. [Interjections.]

Now that the NP, the Coloureds and the Indians are apparently going to hold joint caucus meetings, I should like to suggest that he also discuss the issue of national service there with his brothers. [Interjections.]

Where did you hear that?

I should like to say a few words about the Geldenhuys Report. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must give the hon member for Jeppe an opportunity to make his speech. [Interjections.] Order!

Sir, they do not bother me.

Quite a lot has happened during the past year. The Geldenhuys Report as well as the White Paper have appeared. We are grateful for that.

The hon the Minister saw fit to attack us because we did not testify before the Geldenhuys Committee. I now wish to ask him whether or not we are required by law to do so. Of course not. We may choose whether we want to testify or not. We made enough informal inputs to Gen Geldenhuys and others, and enough of them appeared in Hansard. That is why we did not venture into that specialised field. We had enough confidence in the committee to allow it to look into this matter by itself.

There are certain findings in the report which are significant, and of which we, as politicians, must take thorough cognisance. I wish to refer to a single one only. On page 4 of the White Paper on Defence and Armaments Supply, under the title “Findings of the Committee”, the introduction reads as follows:

That is the testimonial we have today to the Nkomati Accord, as well as the Government’s so-called peace initiatives. To tell the truth, the findings continue:

That is the result the peace initiatives have had.

But we voted “yes”, after all

Yes, we did vote “yes”.

On page 9 paragraph 48, I read:

Of course I agree with that. One wonders, however, why South Africa needs such a strong Defence Force if the Government is making such a shambles of the whole country with its new political policy, for which it does not have a mandate anyway. In the past the NP said that they would go to war rather than accept power-sharing with Blacks. The hon long-winded Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said in 1982 that sharing power with Blacks would destroy South Africa. I can remember how the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs said in 1978 …

The hon member is coupling his argument to war and peace, but he should not digress too far from the Vote. The hon member may proceed.

In 1978 the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs was still saying that we would rather make war than accept a Black president. He accepts him now without firing a shot, however. Despite the fact that South Africa has the best Defence Force in the whole of Africa—a fact of which we are all proud—the NP is capitulating and accepting a policy which it said in the past would destroy us. [Interjections.]

The recommendations of the Geldenhuys Committee appear on page 10 of the White Paper and I should now like to refer to some of them and also to appropriate testimony from the White Paper when I put important questions. Firstly I wish to ask exactly what the Government’s policy is in respect of members of the Defence Force. The CP’s policy is simple. It is also on record in Hansard, namely separate defence forces, and we do not advocate an integrated Defence Force; we advocate seperate defence forces for the various peoples. [Interjections.] I can see that the hon members on the other side are having a good laugh now, members such as the hon member for Johannesburg West, who served in the Air Force for one year. I think more of him since I heard that he was in the Air Force. The hon member next to him is laughing because I say our policy is that there should be separate defence forces, but is that not the NP’s policy?

I say you have a silly policy.

No, no, the hon member is trying in vain to get out of this now!

Is the NP’s policy not one of separate defence forces for the various peoples? Is that not NP policy? [Interjections.] Furthermore I should like to refer to page 19 of the White Paper, paragraph 104. I quote as follows from it:

Are those not defence forces for the separate peoples, or is the Defence Force policy an integrated one? [Interjections.] On page 20 of the White Paper we find the following under the item “Future Planning”—paragraph 108—and I quote:

Now we have the interesting situation that the NP now has a smorgasbord policy— “You want it, Magnus has it”. [Interjections.] He gives everyone who wants a separate people’s defence force, their own defence force. However, he also has an integrated defence force, or does he perhaps have both?

Do you want any more bananas?

If that hon member is not careful I shall tell him again what he should do!

There we now have the integrated Defence Force in which everyone can participate. Now I wish to ask the hon the Minister if there are any restrictions on promotion opportunities in the Defence Force for Blacks.

No.

The hon member Dr Vilonel says no. Is the hon the Minister able to answer that? [Interjections.] He will give me reply indeed! I will be an old man with a walking stick and a long beard and he will still not have given me a reply! [Interjections.] The fact of the matter is that there are no restrictions on the promotion of Blacks in the Defence Force. If the hon the Minister has the courage, he should admit it here. Blacks can occupy any rank, but now I should like to get to the point. Can a Black man become chief of the SA Defence Force? Do hon members see how powerless the hon the Minister is now?

Proceed with your speech.

Yes, I shall proceed with my speech, but it is a simple little question. Will the hon the member Dr Vilonel answer this question? Will he tell us whether a black can become head of the Defence Force?

Order! No, the hon member Dr Vilonel will definitely not reply to that question either now! [Interjections.] Order!

Mr Chairman … [Interjections.]

Order! There are far too many uncalled for replies being given from all sides of the House.

Mr Chairman, there are a few other matters I still wish to raise. As far as the organisational structure of the SA Defence Force is concerned, we welcome the appointment of the Chief of Defence Force Staff, and we congratulate Lt Gen Gleeson on his appointment.

As regards the expansion of the staff divisions as a whole, with the inclusion of an HS Plan, we also welcome these steps as being positive. It did not come as a surprise, however. It was to be expected that Maj Gen Frans van der Berg would be appointed to this important position, since it has already become tradition in the SA Defence Force to fall back on artillery-men for the more intellectual and demanding positions. As regards the standing committee there is still a thing or two I should like to say, Mr Charman. The standing committee is quickly becoming a dormant committee. Nothing is happening there. The hon the Minister should consider trying to activate this standing committee in this connection. Absolutely nothing is happening at the moment on that standing committee. I know the committee is actually intended to deal with legislation, but we could perhaps have discussed the Geldenhuys Report there, or even have done other work there.

You know, Mr Chairman, language is a strange thing. We speak of a standing committee that sits, and during an election period one speaks of a sitting member that stands. I should now like to suggest that in the Modderfontein constituency the sitting member will probably stand in the next general election. He is going to have a hard fall, however. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, apart from the hon member for Jeppe’s opening words, with which I can associate myself, in the rest of his speech the hon member made no constructive contribution whatsoever to this debate, again lapsed into his normal superficialities and once more simply dished up, in a tortoise-shell, the small-minded policy of the Conservative Party.

You just answer our questions!

Sir, the hon member for Jeppe said that he had his feet firmly on the ground. We have, in fact, seen him with all four feet firmly on the ground. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, I should like to touch upon a very important matter in an effort to make a more constructive contribution to this debate. I want to discuss the role of the SA Air Force in our present Defence Force set-up and emphasise a few relevant facets.

The SA Air Force is one of the oldest airforces in the world, a proud part of the SA Defence Force and always ready for action. During the Second World War, and during the Berlin airlift and the Korean conflict, the men of the SA Air Force matched their skills with the best in the world, coming through with flying colours. After a humble start in 1920, the SA Air Force developed into one of the best airforces in the world. Today it is able to play various roles and carry out a variety of tasks. To be able to live in peace, we must also be able to protect our land area, our territorial waters and our airspace against potential intruders. Knowledge of all movements in our airspace is therefore also essential, and our airforce must also be able to take action against undesirable intruders. Radar control of our airspace and aircraft, to enforce that control, is therefore vital. The control of the airspace above our ground troops is equally essential so as to prevent enemy aircraft from attacking our people.

The SA Air Force has already, on several occasions, proved its ability to control our airspace. The defection of Lieutenant Bomba from Mozambique three years ago was an outstanding example of this. Within a few minutes of that aircraft entering our airspace, it was intercepted by two of our fighter aircraft, which forced it down at Hoedspruit with two MIG 21 aircraft, which wanted to intervene operationally, being shot down.

Because attack is proverbially the best method of defence, our Air Force cannot only be geared to defence, but should also have the ability to attack strategic targets in a potentially hostile country. The SA Air Force has the aircraft with which to attack and destroy potential targets in Southern Africa. Any possible aggressor must therefore take note of this fact and know, too, that this force would be unleashed in all its fury if such a situation were to arise.

The important role played by the Air Force in the present border operations is well-known. The large number of Honoris Crux decorations won by Air Force personnel in the fight against terrorism attest to this fact. Helicopters and armed reconnaissance aircraft fly thousands of operational missions in support of ground operations each year. The role of the SA Defence Force in attacks on large Swapo bases, particularly as far as the element of surprise is concerned, has also contributed largely to the success of these operations.

Although the protection of our coastline— the hon member for Standerton did a good job of pointing this out—is primarily the responsibility of the SA Navy, as a result of the vast distances, which the hon member mentioned, the assistance of the SA Air Force is indispensable. Proof of the good partnership between the Air Force and the Navy comes from the numerous operations carried out over the years. The importance of the Cape sea-route, a fact which is not perceived by so many of our so-called friends, is consistently proved by the amount of information we nevertheless gather and make available to our friends in the West.

The role of the SA Air Force in the protection of our territorial waters is also emphasised by the building of the SAS Drakensberg, which has been fitted to carry Puma helicopters and also to support and deploy them operationally.

The SA Defence Force is not, however, geared solely to waging war. To many mountain climbers, flood victims and those who had lost their way, were drowning or were dying of hunger, the drone of the engine of an Air Force helicopter was a sign that rescue was at hand, and the Air Force has an outstanding record in that regard, as has already been reported far and wide.

The transportation of the Defence Force’s own casualties is naturally a matter of very high priority. The fact that a man who is wounded or injured can be given medical care within a short space of time is something we owe chiefly to the efforts of the Air Force, in co-operation with the SA Medical Services. They do, in point of fact, make an extensive contribution to maintaining a high level of morale amongst our troops and to developing it.

To be able to carry out all these tasks, professional personnel in a wide spectrum of disciplines are needed. I may just mention that the present-day training in the SA Air Force—whether on the ground or in the air—is amongst the best in the world, and we sincerely want to congratulate the people concerned on this achievement.

The arms boycott against the RSA by the United Nations has had a detrimental effect on the SA Air Force. With the assistance of Armscor and its subsidiaries this problem has been tackled, and the recent announcement of the assault helicopter is a manifestation of the progress made in this field.

Thus far in my speech I have tried to indicate that the SA Air Force has a multi-faceted function embracing the protection of our airspace, our land area and our territorial waters, support for our land-troops and the elimination of targets beyond our borders which are a potential threat to the security of our country. And a highly sophisticated attack aircraft could carry out all these tasks. Such an aircraft could, for example, sink an enemy ship or submarine. It could destroy a tank or any other armour-plated installation. With such an aircraft we could guarantee the security of our airspace against foreign intruders. Such an aircraft can also stop a large enemy force, at least temporarily.

If we look squarely at present-day realities, and are willing to imagine what our future defence needs will be, there are surely two things that we do know.

Firstly we know that the threat to our country is not going to diminish, but rather increase. Secondly we know that the arms boycott against the RSA cannot and will not be lifted in the foreseeable future. There are too many forces at work to prevent this. Against the background of the multi-faceted function of the Air Force, which I have sketched to hon members today, and also based on the reaction time—the reaction time needed by an aircraft to react to a threat and the time necessary to mobilise manpower—I am of the opinion that we cannot wait any longer with the development of our own assault aircraft capable of meeting future operational requirements. It has frequently been said in this Committee that war is costly, but that peace could prove to be even more costly. No price is too great for our freedom, because the alternative is enslavement and death.

In speaking of Armscor, we are speaking of one of the greatest success stories ever written in the annals of South African history. My appeal to hon members is that we no longer tarry in our decision to commence building our own assault aircraft. Armscor must be provided with the means of doing so, because I do not have any doubts about Armscor’s ability. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member who has just spoken is well known for his interest in and concern for the Air Force and I have no quarrel with what he has said.

I noticed that the hon the Minister realised that it is Wednesday today, “sports day” in the army. He tweaked a few tails to see what would come running out onto the sports ground but I want to go straight to what I wish to say. I want to start by joining the other parties in extending my congratulations to Gen Jannie Geldenhuys, the new Chief of the SADF, Gen Kat Liebenberg, Vice-Admiral Syndercombe and to others who have been promoted during the past year. We know these gentlemen, are proud of their records and have no doubt whatsoever—I speak for all my colleagues—that they will all make their marks in and a major contribution, together with the Chief of the Air Force, the Chief of Medical Service and others, to the defence efforts over the years ahead.

It is not only people who have changed since the last debate we had on this Vote in this House; circumstances have also changed. I think of South West Africa where the emphasis has moved from our army to the South West African Territory Force. I do not mean that we are out of South West Africa—we still have our forces there—but much of the thrust has moved onto the territory’s own forces. I think of the unrest situation in the townships but I do not intend to deal with that now because I moved a private member’s motion on the matter and I do not want to repeat what I said then.

There have also been changes on our other borders. The Far Northern Command has been activated on the borders of Northern Transvaal and the SADF has a greater responsibility on the eastern border with Mozambique. The balance has therefore shifted in regard to requirements, force levels and their disposition. Armscor too has moved towards new horizons and in this respect we think of our own designed prototype helicopter and the new supply ship which one of my colleagues will refer to. Here again there are new demands and new challenges that are thrust upon us. It is against this background that we have the Geldenhuys Report. The NRP seems to be unique among the Opposition parties because I have no quarrel with the Geldenhuys Report. I put in a memorandum on behalf of this party. It consisted of some nine or 10 points and only on one of my pet hobbyhorses were our recommendations not accommodated in one way or another. Therefore, those who do not find the Geldenhuys Report satisfactory must be on a different wavelength.

This is the third format in which the Budget has been presented in recent years and therefore one cannot compare the individual facets of this Defence budget with those of past years. Looking at the global picture, however, we as parliamentarians should welcome the fact that in real terms we are spending less on defence. In fact, although I am a parliamentarian, this concerns me as I am also a realist. I wonder if we are not overextending our demands on our Forces. It is all very well to save money but in the circumstances in which we live I do not believe that the country can afford to stretch its resources too far in providing our Defence Force with what they require.

In real terms that is what is happening. On the one hand they are being subjected to increased challenges and demands which stretch their manpower requirements. On the other hand this reduces the availability of troops on the ground at any one time. It is not as though it is not available but we cannot continue with this kind of economy measure indefinitely. It places a strain on our Defence Force and our Citizen Force units when they are called up and it affects administration and efficiency. I will deal with this in a later speech. I wanted my concern on the record.

I want to refer now to the role of the standing committee to which the hon CP member for Jeppe also referred. The Standing Committee on Defence is the link between Parliament and the SA Defence Force and Armscor. I do not believe that it is being used in the way that it could be as it is not being used for briefings and communication.

In fact, I wrote to the chairman of this standing committee on 22 August last year to suggest that the standing committee should be used to keep us informed of what was going on. I want to apologise that I did not realise that that hon member was in hospital at the time. When I received no reply to my letter I approached the hon the Minister and the then Chief of the SADF personally. A briefing was then arranged for 17 September 1985 and another one later on.

However, I believe that much more could be done to use the standing committee system which is the heartbeat of the new parliamentary system without first waiting until we have legislation to discuss before we meet. Instead we simply received a letter saying that there was no legislation and therefore we were not going to meet.

Even when the briefings were held they were held at our own expense. I am not complaining about it but we had to use our own flights if there were any left or else pay to get to the meeting. We had to pay for our own accommodation without receiving any allowance. This meant that members tended to cut down the time available. However, we did have briefings here both during the session and the recess. Some were good, some were excellent but others were not good enough. I do not want to go into detail but I may mention that I think the briefing on Cabinda was a disaster and the briefing on the townships during the session last year was not very satisfactory either.

We have now moved into a new situation and I want to repeat an appeal that I made in this House a few weeks ago that instead of having a Standing Committee on Defence as well as a Standing Committee on Law and Order which are each briefed separately, we should move into the same situation in Parliament as now exists in our security family. There one has joint operational commands and all information going to a State Security Council. I believe that we should have a Standing Committee on Security briefed on a regular basis with co-ordinated and evaluated information on the total security position. Just as the Police and Army are co-ordinated on the ground within the structure which has been created, the briefing of this committee should not be separate but co-ordinated. It is as important for Parliament to have joint committees on this matter as it is for our security forces to work together. They should not be in conflict, but should function under joint commands. We should have such a system of joint committees here.

I urge the hon the Minister to discuss in the State Security Council a new Standing Committee on Security. Such an arrangement would ensure an evaluated and co-ordinated effort, and that joint committee would become the channel of communication on the security situation in South Africa for all the parties in this Parliament. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I cannot actually cross swords with the hon member who has just resumed his seat, because he made a very good, balanced speech. About the briefing committee, he and the chairman will have to reach agreement about that. The arrangement the hon member has in mind will, I think, be to everyone’s benefit. A sincere thanks, in any case, for a balanced speech.

I want to link up with what previous speakers said by also expressing my gratitude to the generals who have been promoted and to the admiral who is the new Chief of the SA Navy. We value them very highly and have great faith in them. We know that their knowledge of this matter will ensure that they make a success of their new appointments.

I specifically want to mention one officer’s name. On behalf of the study group I want to convey the very heartiest congratulations to General De Wagter. If I am not wrong, it is for 37 years now that he has been involved with the parliamentary staff of the Department of Defence, and I and many of my predecessors have approached him with a view to obtaining assistance and information about the Defence Force. We should like to thank him for the sympathetic hearing he gave to those who approached him with problems. At the same time I want to congratulate him in a very special distinction that he has just had bestowed on him, and here I am thinking of the buckle awarded to him for 40 years’ service. He therefore becomes the longest-serving general in the SA Defence Force. We wish him every success.

I also want to extend a word of thanks to the hon the Minister for the White Paper that has been tabled. Once again it gives us a clear and illuminating picture of security conditions and the events and circumstances involved in security inside and outside South Africa, and then too the role of the Defence Force in all this. It is with thanks and appreciation that we note the findings of the Geldenhuys Commission’s report, which is also contained in the White Paper.

As far as his budget is concerned, I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon the Minister in his future efforts to bring it all together. With the strict economy drive of the past three years there have really been some acute efforts at cutting comers. In the past financial year savings and cutbacks have already reached a figure of approximately R900 million. I want to support the hon the Minister by issuing a warning today: If adjustments have to be made to the structure of the SA Defence Force, or if we have to keep pace with the need to manufacture modern armaments and related material, a larger percentage of the Main Appropriation will have to be allocated to the SA Defence Force next year.

Today it is also necessary for me to tell those who are participating in the whispering campaign or the gossip-mongering about Defence Force money being wasted that their allegations are pernicious and spiteful. There is not a single military unit in the country that is not geared to optimum economy measures. For that reason I want to thank the commands and unit commanders who, in these economic circumstances, are expertly doing everything in their power to balance the scales between a full training potential on the one hand and minimum expenditure on the other. In other words, maximum saving without detracting from efficient and effective training.

There are numerous remarkable examples to which reference can be made, all having equal merit, but as a result of the time limit I should just like to single out one, and that is the School of Armour in Bloemfontein. In saying this I am not being provincialistic, because it is a part of the Defence Force … [Interjections.] I am not all that good at illustrating a point, but I want to try to give hon members a picture of what exactly happens there. Firstly, a number of Elephant tanks are brought together in an area similar to a cadet shooting range, although it is longer. In the middle there is a control room equipped with a number of video screens and apparatus which monitors the tank artillery and with which the necessary adjustments can be made. Secondly, on the barrel they mount a .22 barrel which is also linked to the tanks’ firing system so that the .22 rifle barrel has precisely the same function as the artillery barrel. Thirdly, there is also an item of electrical apparatus on a miniature track keeping a number of heavy miniature rubber tanks moving by means of a nylon rope. These tanks are then fired at through the sights of the .22 rifle barrels mounted on the artillery barrels. In the control room the picture on the video screens makes it appear as if the tank is 2 or 3 km away, whilst in actual fact it is only 20 or 30 metres from the target that is being fired at. What I am actually wanting to say is that an apprentice gunner fires approximately 150 practice rounds per day. The figure could be higher, depending on the type of training. If 150 Ml rounds were fired, each costing approximately R1 000, that would have cost approximately R150 000. By using .22 bullets at 3 cents each, the cost is only R4,50. What this comes down to is that the training of 42 gunners per year costs only R189, as far as the ammunition is concerned, as against the initial R6,3 million. That is a remarkable, almost unbelievable saving, if it is borne in mind that the saving on the tanks’ artillery barrels amounts to an additional figure of approximately R1 1 000 per student.

I just want to refer very briefly to further savings. The artillery corps saves an annual amount of approximately R16 million by making use of firing control simulators which simultaneously increase the standard of training. The Navy also makes use of simulators which bring about a saving of several million rand per year. The SA Air Force is also responsible for equally large savings by making use of model aircraft and simulators of at least six different aircraft. The cost per aircraft per hour is more than R1 000 for Impalas, more than R6 000 for Mirages and more than R9 000 for Buccaneers. Even the Medical and Chaplains’ Services contribute to certain forms of saving. Thus each unit contributes towards saving, setting a noteworthy example that every South African can be proud of. Gossip about money being wasted by the SA Defence Force is a calculated untruth that should be rejected.

It is with great appreciation that we take note of the responsible attitude of the members of the SA Defence Force towards the problems of the Republic of South Africa in these difficult economic circumstances. We thank them for that.

Mr Chairman, the hon member Mr Vermeulen spoke about savings, which is a very important subject. He will forgive me, however, if I do not react to that any further.

†Mr Chairman, I should like to refer briefly to some comments made by the hon member for Durban Point who suggested to the hon the Minister that a new standing committee on security ought to be formed in order to deal with security matters which involve both the SA Police and the SA Defence Force. We on this side of the House would caution against the formation of such a standing committee because that would blur the distinction and the dividing line between the role of the SA Defence Force and the SA Police even further. I do not believe that it is something that the SA Defence Force can afford if that perception is heightened by a parliamentary committee which deals with both Police and Defence Force matters. Therefore we are not in favour of such a new committee.

Before dealing with some aspects of the White Paper, I wish to raise two matters briefly which are of relevance to my constituency and to Durban. Firstly, there is the question of the shooting range at Athlone which was proposed some time ago and which, after discussions between the Officer Commanding of Natal Command, the City Council and the Natal Parks Board last year, it was decided not to proceed with, provided that an alternative shooting range could be found. There is again speculation in Durban North and the rest of Durban that the Defence Force is going to proceed with the use of Athlone as a shooting range. The hon the Minister might know that that particular area has been declared a national monument. It is a nature reserve administered by the Parks Board. It is a very attractive scenic area which is visited by tourists and school-children and is of great ecological value to the Durban Area. Is the department going to utilise that area as a shooting range after all? Could the hon the Minister clear that up, please?

The second thing I wish to mention is also based on speculation, but there has been some talk that the Natal Command is going to be moved to premises in another area. Could the hon the Minister enlighten us on that point? If there are such plans, could he tell us what those plans are?

I now wish to come to some aspects raised in the White Paper. Everyone accepts that South Africa is presently moving through a period of transition. That necessarily means that there will be political and social instability. Such instability is caused on the one hand by a White reaction against moves to accommodate legitimate Black grievances and a White fear of Blacks sharing power with Whites, or running the country under a predominantly Black government. On the other hand, heightened Black aspirations and the mobilisation of Black political and economic power have raised expectations that apartheid and the Government can be replaced by a new and more just non-racial system of government within a very short period. Exaggerated White fears stand in contrast to exaggerated Black aspirations. No one can doubt that extremists on the right and on the left are active in this climate of instability, and that they find it a useful breeding-ground for their ideologies. When I talk of extremists, I refer to Marxist revolutionaries on the left and White reactionaries on the right who are talking of a counter-revolution.

The response of the Defence Force to this situation is vital. I have studied the White Paper on Defence, and in particular Chapter II which deals with the threat to South Africa. From the White Paper it appears that the often used concept of the “total onslaught” has now been replaced by the concept of “revolutionary onslaught”, because that term “revolutionary onslaught” is used in the White Paper. What I find alarming, however, is the simplistic manner in which the White Paper deals with the internal revolutionary onslaught. In my view, it plays right into the hands of both right-and left-wing extremists and I shall try to illustrate why I say this.

I refer hon members to page 13 of the White Paper and I quote from paragraph 61 under the heading “Internal Situation” as follows:

In paragraph 64, the following statement is made:

That is what the White Paper has to say about the particular aspect with which I want to deal.

In the White Paper, the Defence Force therefore refers to unrest as being integral to the onslaught against the Republic. Secondly, it refers to the UDF and its affiliates as resistance groups and, in the same breath, it refers to revolutionary groups. The question I should like to ask the hon the Minister to deal with when he speaks again, is the following: Does the Defence Force regard the UDF and its affiliates as revolutionary groups?

Yes.

The second question is: Does the Defence Force therefore regard the UDF and its affiliates as the enemy?

Yes.

Someone is saying “yes”, even if he is not courageous enough to say so in a loud voice.

It is the HNP speaking for the Government!

If the Defence Force does regard those groups as the enemy or as revolutionary groups, then I would suggest that this signifies a dangerous development. Firstly, it means that no distinction is being drawn between anti-apartheid activities and revolutionary activities, and that is exactly what revolutionaries want. Those who are aiming at a violent, destructive revolution would like to get the non-revolutionary anti-apartheid groups into their camp, and the Government will be doing precisely that for them if it fails to distinguish between the two. The activities of the non-revolutionary anti-apartheid groups constitute part of the normal political process during a period of transition and they should be entitled to play that role without the Defence Force trying to smother it.

Secondly, if the Defence Force does regard the UDF and its affiliates as revolutionary groups, and as the enemy, it means that the majority of Whites are being given full justification for their exaggerated fears that all extra-parliamentary anti-apartheid groups are part and parcel of a revolutionary onslaught aimed at a Black dictatorship.

What the White Paper therefore suggests—and I hope the hon the Minister will place a different interpretation upon it to the one I have just outlined—is that resistance groups equals revolutionary groups equals the enemy. This would definitely be a recipe for more violence and it is therefore crucial that the hon the Minister gives us his views on this aspect. If the soldier who is on duty at a funeral or in an unrest situation is told to regard all the participants as enemies of the State, then we have a clear example of a politicised defence force in action.

In my view, demonstrations and consumer boycotts are legitimate and democratic means of making a political point or of exerting political pressure. Are people who participate in such actions necessarily the enemy? They are obviously the enemy of an apartheid system but certainly not that of the State. If the Defence Force confuses these two roles, as I suggest it does in the White Paper, we shall soon arrive at a situation where all anti-apartheid activists or groups, whether revolutionary or not, are going to be dealt with by the full force of the SA Police and the Defence Force and, when that happens, the real revolutionaries can sit back with a feeling of great satisfaction. That needs to be avoided. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I am glad to be speaking after the hon member for Durban Central has spoken, because he is the chairman of the caucus of the Official Opposition, even though he is a young member and a back-bencher.

There is something emanating from that party which worries me. We know that in the past the Official Opposition’s chief spokesman on defence matters was the hon member for Yeoville. Now I want to ask the hon member for Yeoville why he is so quiet today. He is so quiet because he cannot take part in this debate owing to his positive attitude towards the Defence Force. The hon member for Bezuidenhout is also someone with a positive attitude towards the Defence Force. Perhaps he will not be speaking either, or only be speaking at a later stage. Who are the people talking on defence matters at the moment? The hon member for Yeoville is no longer the PFP’s mouthpiece on defence matters, and we want to know what the reason for that is. We also want to know why, for a certain period of time, the hon member for Wynberg, who spoke so timidly today, was not the mouthpiece either.

We also want to know the whereabouts of the former leader of the Official Opposition, who at one stage was the PFP’s mouthpiece on defence. With what groups is he now associated? I want to know whether he is associated with the UDF.

With reference to what the hon member for Durban Central said, I want to quote from the White Paper about the findings on the UDF:

What objectives are being referred to here? The objectives are clearly spelt out:

That is what is said about the ANC. The hon member for Durban Central and others are people who have the flag of the Communist Party fluttering over their heads. He is one who defends those people. [Interjections.] That is confusing as far as our people are concerned. The general public are confused. They do not know whether the PFP and its supporters are in favour of, or opposed to, our defending ourselves against an onslaught such as this. That is what people find confusing.

Something about which there is no doubt is that the border farmers, and in fact all the farmers in South Africa, fervently want to contribute towards defending our country. If we are now to tell ourselves that the Official Opposition’s standpoint is confusing and does not promote our fervent defence of ourselves against this onslaught, matters have reached a negative point. One gets the impression—I certainly did—that hon members of the Official Opposition indirectly want to promote the kind of objectives to which I have referred. I am saying this on the basis of the fact that their former colleagues, who sat with us here, are at present associating themselves with UDF and ANC objectives. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member permitted to say that specific hon members of the PFP, sitting here, associated themselves with the objectives of the ANC?

Order! I heard the hon member referring to members who are sitting here. Would the hon member repeat what he said?

Mr Chairman, I referred to Dr Alex Boraine, who sat here and who at the moment—as another hon member, I think the hon member for Standerton, pointed out—associates himself with the UDF, whose objectives I have just quoted, indicating with whom they associate, what the ANC is and where our enemies are—in Angola. It is the Russians and the Cubans who want to attack South Africa, and against whom our people no longer fervently want to defend themselves today because of the PFP’s attitude.

At the moment we find that our young people are confused; they do not know what they must do. I am asking those hon members of the Official Opposition to lend a guiding hand to that portion of the population which supports them. What bothers me, however, is why those people have lost their fervour, for example the hon member for Yeoville or the hon member for Bezuidenhout. It is because there are young people in the PFP who want to evade national service in South Africa.

That is true, yes.

As far as the farmers are concerned, particularly the border farmers, there is no doubt about where these people stand. The Defence Force plays a very important role, because there are 75 000 White farmers—English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking, the whole lot of them— who view this important task with fervour.

On the borders they form the first line of defence and supplement the Defence Force. We thank the Defence Force for the way in which it has armed these people, for their training, the preparedness they are instilling in the women, the link-up with the Mamet system and the national servicemen who are instructed to help these people protect hearth and home, as is being done at the moment beyond the Soutpansberg Mountains and on the Botswana border. Our sincere thanks for the role played by the Defence Force in the tenacious efforts that have to be made to protect people’s houses. There is no doubt in my mind that these people appreciate the Defence Force patrols that are active in that area at present, appreciate the minesweepers, the provision of protective vehicles and the transporting of children to school. Let me tell hon members that we should make use of this resource, and it is everyone’s duty to defend this fatherland we all love so much. What bothers me is that there are many people of colour who serve in the Defence Force with greater fervour than many supporters of the Official Opposition.

We have 1,2 million Black workers on White farms. These farmers, the border farmers of South Africa, together with their workers, are the eyes and the ears of the Defence Force and must be employed efficiently, their services must be utilised, because they are well-disposed towards us and are willing. Let me tell hon members that the overall majority of the Black workers on White farms are willing to assist the farmers to protect them and their families, and we must make use of this helpful assistance that they wish to give to the Defence Force.

If we lose the struggle in the rural areas, the cities will not remain standing—that is how important it is; that is how important it is for the Government and for the Defence Force to be conscious of the fact that these people in the rural areas must be able to help themselves, must receive help from the State and must receive help from the Defence Force, which they do. I want to conclude with a word of thanks to these people for their will to win, for the fact that they do not take to their heels and move out of the Northern and Western Transvaal. That is an example worth emulating, and I want to ask hon members of the Official Opposition to display the same attitude towards the Defence Force.

Mr Chairman, I very gladly associate myself with what the hon member for Jeppe said in congratulating the Chief of the SA Defence Force, Gen Geldenhuys. I also want to wish him everything of the best in this extremely important task that he must carry out. I also share in the appreciation the hon for Jeppe expressed to the senior officers of the Defence Force. I also want to add that their task in South Africa is of vital importance to the whole country.

Mr Chairman, these times of instability, in the sphere of security, and of rapid—at times even unpredictable—changes which are taking place in our neighbouring States and which could still take place in future, probably make planning very difficult, and here I am also thinking of the manpower needs of the SA Defence Force. That is true. According to the hon the Minister there are, at present, between 40 000 and 45 000 Russian surrogates present in Angola, which means that Angola can deploy between 130 000 and 140 000 men. That, together with a build-up of sophisticated armaments, and the fact that the Republic of South Africa remains the ultimate objective of Russian expansionism, this continues to be a factor— perhaps not in the short-term, but certainly in the long-term—which certainly must be borne in mind.

With the commencement of the new constitutional dispensation in September 1984, a previously unparalleled situation of internal unrest broke out, a situation which is escalating and which is increasingly assuming the pattern of a revolutionary war. The Institute for Strategic Studies at the University of Pretoria estimated, as far back as two months ago, that approximately R138 million in damage had already been done in the country. Today that damage probably amounts to a great deal more. The conflict potential inherent in forcing separate peoples into one political framework is going to make exceptional demands on the Defence Force—in particular as far as its available manpower in both its full-time and part-time forces are concerned. The Geldenhuys Committee also found evidence to support this statement, reporting that levels cannot be scaled down and that the situation of internal unrest has increased the need for manpower.

The Geldenhuys Commitee also found that at present no significant change needed to take place in the existing system of national service. I should like to ask the hon the Minister, however, what his standpoint is in regard to the question of national service prior to tertiary training. In paragraph 31 on page 7 of the Geldenhuys report, we read the following, and I quote:

I therefore want to ask the hon the Minister whether the Defence Force is considering introducing compulsory military service prior to tertiary training in cases of specific professional skills after tertiary training not being needed. I do not think one can really lay down any fixed rule with regard to the old question of whether one should do national service before or after tertiary training. My experience has been that for a young man who has just matriculated and knows exactly what he wants to do at university, it is better to complete his studies first, whilst in the case of a young man who is still uncertain of his future plans, it is much better for him first to complete his national service in the Defence Force. In the long run he would arrive at university a better disciplined person, and I think investigations have already shown that such young people do better at university than those who continued with their studies prior to doing military service. I would, however, like to know from the hon the Minister if anything of this nature is being contemplated. I am asking this question because it is not clear, from the recommendations, which recommendation the hon the Minister has accepted.

What is more, Mr Chairman, if there has to be a change in the system of compulsory national service, the question is who is going to decide about that. I want to know whether it is a general or an own affair. In reply to a question that was put in this connection, the hon the Deputy Minister of Defence said earlier this year that the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates should decide for themselves about national service for their own people. This is a standpoint that accords with what we read on page 20 of the White Paper, ie that the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates will decide about that for themselves.

The factual is that compulsory military service for Whites is a general affair in terms of section 2(1) of the Defence Act, No 44 of 1957, whilst the same matter in regard to Coloureds and Indians is regarded as an own affair that can only be decided with the concurrence of the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates. [Interjections.] Surely that is what is said here, and it is simply not good enough. Surely it cannot be regarded as anything but an own affair. So to say, as the hon the Minister said here this afternoon, that there are more than enough volunteers available from the other population groups is simply not good enough. On behalf of thousands of White national servicemen I want to tell the hon the Minister that it is unfair. It is flagrant discrimination against young White boys in South Africa who are in their prime. Or does the hon the Minister perhaps accept the standpoint of one of the hon members of the House of Representatives—we heard his standpoint on the radio this morning—accusing the Whites of being responsible for all the trouble and saying that the task of defence therefore rests solely on their shoulders?

According to the White Paper itself, as far as the internal situation is concerned, the defence burden rests primarily on the shoulders of the White manpower element, and in the future reliance will increasingly be placed on national servicemen. We in the CP say that this is unfair in a unitary State in which all citizens—White, Black and Brown—share in all the benefits of citizenship of that unitary State. Civic duties must then be equally apportioned. With the acceptance of the new Constitution we argued that the participation of all, ie Whites, Blacks and Coloureds, was unavoidable in a power-sharing situation and that this must inevitably lead to the full constitutional integration of the Black people too. Initially this fact was vehemently denied by the Government. What is the present position, however? The present position is that the Black people are, in fact, going to participate. Now, as we argued at the time, we are also arguing that the Government must accept the logical consequences of its policy, ie a one nation defence force, and what is more accept it with the full compulsory participation of the various components of that nation in a fully integrated defence force, because that is, after all, the Government’s policy. Arguments such as those about inadequate facilities or something or other not being practicable, simply do not hold water, because the burden should be spread equally.

In contrast, however, I clearly and unequivocally want to state that the CP is not in favour of such a defence force. History has shown that any people which delegates its defence force task to other peoples—even the lesser tasks in a defence force—is eventually overwhelmed by those peoples. We believe in an ethnic defence force—a defence force from the people, for the people—to maintain, perpetuate and protect its sovereign authority. Only in such a situation can the necessary degree of pride and cameraderie develop amongst the members of such a defence force. Thus would they develop the necessary team spirit and feeling of cohesiveness that are most closely bound up with a person’s own ethnic pride and freedom.

That is for example why, as far as the Black people are concerned—the hon member for Jeppe also mentioned this—we are in favour of 116 Battalion being established for the North Sotho. It can eventually develop into a defence force of an independent State, as in the case of the TBVC countries. The various peoples of the subcontinent of Africa must have their own defence forces which can on occasion, by agreement, come together for joint action against a common enemy.

The value of an ethnic defence force, as a model defence force for any people, can never be underestimated.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Pietersburg asked certain penetrating questions about compulsory national service for Indians and Coloureds.

To which the hon the Minister is not going to reply.

But I think the White Paper contains a very clear reply to this, namely that Coloureds and Indians will follow precisely the same road as the Whites and that they will grow into this process. [Interjections.] This appears on page 20 of the White Paper and hon members must simply take cognisance of it.

They do not say when. In the year 2000?

I want to react very briefly to one of the points made by the hon member for Jeppe with regard to the Nkomati Accord. I think it is very important that it should be said here. One must ascertain what the reaction of the South African Community Party itself is with regard to the concluding of the Nkomati Accord. I am quoting from the first issue of The African Communist of 1985:

That is what one calls disinformation!

That is their reaction and I think one must take cognisance of it.

Is Machel a communist or is he not? [Interjections.]

The Americans eventually had to withdraw from Vietnam, not because they actually came off second best in the bush, but because they lost the psychological war in their own sitting-rooms.

Like you lot.

There is no way in which the SA Defence Force is going to lose the bush-war; on the contrary, I think that recently South Africans have emerged as the best bush fighters in the world. [Interjections.] There is no way in which the SA Defence Force is going to lose the war on the border either.

We are going to lose if you lot go to the bush.

There is also no way in which the SA Defence Force is going to lose the war in the concrete jungle which has only started now. But if we do not tread warily, I think we are running the danger of losing this psychological war which is being waged against us like the Americans did. If one takes cognisance of the spirit of defeatism which has already taken possession of many people, one wonders whether this psychological war is not to a certain extent already successful. [Interjections.]

Order! I appeal to hon members to afford the hon member for Randfontein an opportunity to make his speech without constantly interrupting him with interjections. The hon member may proceed.

This psychological onslaught against the RSA is definitely part of the total onslaught and has as its objective the demoralising of the will of the population so that eventually they cannot offer enough resistance to the Marxist revolutionary onslaught. Because of the little time I have at my disposal I cannot point out all the aspects of this psychological war.

Hear, hear!

I just want to single out a few of them for the information of the hon member for Jeppe. [Interjections.] It is part of this psychological onslaught that the Defence Force as an institution must be dismantled, undermined and destroyed. The reason for this is obvious: With the Defence Force in the way no revolutionary onslaught can ever succeed. In this connection I want to quote Lenin who in his turn was quoted by Shapiro in his book 1917: The Russian Revolutions. He said:

I want to repeat this. With the Defence Force in the way a Marxist revolutionary onslaught cannot succeed in South Africa. That is why our enemies say that the Defence Force must be dismantled and destroyed. This dismantling process assumes various forms. The Defence Force is misrepresented as being engaged in an unholy war on the northern border of South West Africa. At home the Defence Force is misrepresented as an instrument that is actually being used to preserve apartheid. That is why one must have the choice of not serving in an institution like the SA Defence Force. This is the conclusion reached by the “End the Conscription Campaign”.

The other evening in the Cape Town City Hall I was surprised to see how many young people have already been taken in tow by the ECC. But I feel that these people are doing South Africa a disservice and are playing right into the hands of the revolutionaries. South Africa is not engaged in an unholy war. The Defence Force is preventing the Red Flag from flying in Windhoek or Pretoria. The Defence Force is not preserving apartheid inside the country; it is protecting people of all population groups against the most atrocious forms of intimidation which exist.

The psychological onslaught also has as its objective to create the impression in a subtle way that the revolutionaries actually have the upper hand, that the Security Forces are no longer able to protect people effectively and that the Government is actually on the point of collapse. This perception can also be created by excessive news coverage of revolutionary incidents. It is an indisputable fact that the success of any act of terrorism depends in the main on the publicity given to it.

I feel people must also judge Bishop Tutu’s statements abroad against this background. He reproaches the South African Press, and specifically the White Press, for not reflecting the reality of South Africa. Consequently he is reproaching them for not giving enough publicity to acts of terrorism in Black residential areas. What Bishop Tutu is advocating by implication is that the Press must in fact by means of excessive news coverage create the impression that South Africa is in flames.

I think that everyone knows that the Press in a democratic country is in a difficult position. On the one hand there is the right of the public to know, but on the other there is the danger that excessive publicity can encourage terrorism. One only hopes that the Press will also maintain a very good balance in this respect.

Associated with this it is also an objective of the psychological onslaught in fact to create a spirit of defeatism—I have referred to this—and a spirit of “is there still a future in this country?” by means of acts of urban terrorism such as explosions in large shopping centres and petrol bomb attacks at schools. I have already said that this spirit has taken possession of many people. We lose our heads at the slightest sign of urban terrorism.

But we must bear one thing in mind: The success of a terrorist attack must not be measured by what one sees happening in the street. The success of this revolutionary onslaught must be measured against their own objectives. After all everyone knows that it was an objective of the ANC to be ruling in Pretoria before Christmas, but thanks to the effective actions of the Defence Force their plans were frustrated and this was prevented from happening. These acts are consequently very far from successful.

The State has four power bases. By means of its constitutional power base it must create a political dispensation which is acceptable to everyone. By means of its economic power base it must ensure the welfare and development of all its people. By means of the security power base it must maintain the sovereignty of the RSA. Lastly there is also the psycho-social power base. The objective of this power base is, in fact, to give people the motivation to achieve the eventual objectives of the State. [Interjections.] One must never allow the psychological war to destroy this power base.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of the HNP I should like to associate myself with the fine things said here this afternoon as a whole regarding the Defence Force. But I cannot elaborate on this now. I should also like to associate myself—it is not often possible for me to do so—with many of the things which the hon members on the Government side of this Committee said here this afternoon. I am referring in particular to the remarks of the hon member for Randfontein.

But having said this, on behalf of my party I must object very strongly to what one can call the great overall war policy of the Government. It has been following this policy for some years now. In the first place we reject once and for all the idea that South West Africa must be given away, handed over or surrendered at all. As far as the HNP is concerned, South West Africa is as much a part of White South Africa as the Cape and the Free State. Our boys are fighting on the borders of South West Africa to keep that country permanently for the White man and South Africa. As far as we are concerned, it should not be the objective at all only to fight a temporary war there as this Government is doing.

My charge is against the Government, because it is only fighting the war in South West Africa on a temporary basis until the Cubans have left when it is going to implement Resolution 435 of the UNO by means of which Swapo will come into power. Then we will have to retreat and start fighting again at the Orange River. We trample upon that policy of the Government, and in particular of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

It is repeatedly said that South Africa’s South West Africa policy is linked to the Cubans. If Cubans were to withdraw and be replaced by East Germans, Koreans or other leftwing or communist forces, what would the Government’s policy be? I am asking the hon the Minister this. Will the Government then go ahead and implement Resolution 435 in South West Africa. The HNP says once and for all no, because Swapo and the ANC are merely the two prongs of the communist onslaught against South Africa. Swapo must work down the west coast while the ANC works down the east coast. There is no difference between the communistic tendencies of these two organisations. The war we are waging against Swapo is the war we are waging against the ANC. That is why we in the HNP are seriously concerned about the fact that the Government does not realise this.

There are other organisations who do realise this. Dawie of Die Burger and Beeid wrote the following recently:

These are the left wing elements and the communists—

That is the entire point! There is no suggestion of talking to the ANC or to Swapo. In this connection I agree whole-heartedly with Beeid and Die Burger. These elements pretend that they want to talk, but they will continue to use violence until they have appropriated South West Africa and South Africa. That is their big objective, and that is what our Defence Force is fighting against. The Defence Force needs our whole-hearted support in this, but I have a great deal of fault to find with the Government.

No less a person than the State President said the following on 25 September 1979 at the Cape Congress of the NP. I am quoting from Beeid of 26 September 1979:

Consequently he is only fighting the war to win time for his reform programme. That is his big objective. We revolt against that! We think it is a crime to use a defence force to win time to implement one specific party political approach.

In this respect the Government has the full support of the hon member for Yeoville and the PFP. They have said that the soldiers will not win this war, but that it will be won or lost by the politicians. They also place emphasis on the fact that peace must come through concessions on the part of the politicians.

Maj-Gen Charles Lloyd stated the matter correctly, which proves to us that in the Defence Force itself our people get the right training. On 20 February 1981 he said to Die Transvaler:

Pik Botha!

It is atrocious that the Government, in particular the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, has an approach which is entirely in conflict with the fundamental principles of warfare. Maj-Gen Charles Lloyd and, I believe, the officers sitting in the officials’ bay now, as well as the Defence Force as a whole know that one only fights a war to win it. You do not play with people’s lives or with your nation’s treasures and money. If you fight a war you fight it to win.

We could crush Swapo and the ANC if it were not for the fact that this Government was keeping a tight rein on the Defence Force and was holding it back because it wanted to win time. The declared objective of the State President is that he wants to win time to implement his policy.

In conclusion I want to quote from an American publication, The Spotlight. They in their turn quote a great European military expert, Prof Karl Borgin, of Norway. Borgin said the following in The Spotlight of 23 December 1985:

It could not be put more sharply and clearly than this. Consequently we want to appeal to the Government … [Interjections.] Well, perhaps, but it will not help. It will have to be defeated. This matter will not be rectified until the Government has been defeated. We want to ask the Government to cease using the Defence Force to achieve a specific, political policy objective, while the Defence Force has one big task, and that is to crush the enemy, the ANC and Swapo. They can do it.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Sasolburg has a habit of over-simplifying things. [Interjections.] It is not simply a question of war or political solutions, but in the case of South West Africa surely both play a role. I want to assure the hon member for Sasolburg that we on this side do not want to see the Red Flag flying over Windhoek any more than he does, and we do not intend simply to hand over South West Africa to communism either. But whether he wants to admit it or not, South West Africa was never constitutionally part and parcel of South Africa. [Interjections.]

I now want to deal with South Africa. The people responsible for violence in South Africa are not freedom fighters according to any recognised definition. They are terrorists in any sense of the word. What specifically makes them terrorists is that without hesitation they attack soft targets which have nothing to do with their cause and subject innocent civilians to the cruellest forms of torture, mutilation, burning and murder. When they plant landmines on farm roads, place limpet mines in shopping centres or at railway stations or throw petrol bombs at houses, they do not know who their victims will be. They wage their war without respect of persons.

For that reason one cannot negotiate with terrorists. That evil must be totally eradicated. This can only be done if it is combated in the same way it is waged. In that respect I also agree with the hon member for Sasolburg. It must be fought mercilessly; it must be fought internationally, but also inside the country. This applies to organisations like the ANC as long as they use violence, terrorism and intimidation.

Those persons who are constantly urging the Government to negotiate with the ANC without further ado, over-estimate both the ANC and its support as political factors in South Africa. If the ANC and their followers really did enjoy as much support as some people are trying to suggest they do, they would not resort to violence, because terrorism, insurgency and intimidation are the weapons of weaklings. Terrorists use them because they are unable to gain the voluntary, active support of those persons they are pretending to represent. The situation in South Africa is still far from a revolution, but experience gained elsewhere, in Guatemala, Lebanon, Angola and other countries indicate beyond doubt that the Soviet Union’s revolutionary onslaught on South Africa is increasing.

At present the Soviet Union is still making use almost exclusively of unconventional warfare by means of surrogates and terrorist organisations like the ANC and the PAC. It has been doing so for some time now. In 1977 the Russian expert on Africa and son of the present Soviet President, Anatoly Gromyko, stated that the ANC had close connections with the Communist Party. Shortly before his death a former SACP leader, Youssuf Dadoo, stated in 1983 that the SACP was fully integrated with the ANC. In 1985 his successor, Joe Slovo, was included in the ANC’s executive committee, and his links with the KGB are well known.

In the course of the debate on his Vote last month the State President made known new sensational evidence of the international link which exists between Moscow, Libya and organisations like the PLO, the ANC and the PAC, and revealed the Gaddafi-type operations were being planned against South Africa.

In view of this I consider the recent antiterrorist statement by the Six major Western powers and Japan as one of the most important developments in recent times. This followed on President Reagan’s statement that terrorists may have no place to hide anywhere in the world.

After America’s attack on terrorist bases in Libya and the support for this by the Tokyo conference, Western countries will find themselves in a serious moral dilemma if they again withdraw their ambassadors or take other steps against us when we take action against terrorists, as they did after the attack by our Defence Force on terrorist hide-outs in Gaborone. [Interjections.]

If honesty and sincerity still count for anything in the West, they must after all admit that there is no difference between a terrorist bomb attack in a Berlin nightclub frequented by off-duty American soldiers, and a terrorist attack on a shopping centre where South African holidaymakers in Amanzimtoti were making their purchases.

I hope that the Western powers stick to their statement, but whether or not South Africa is the victim of international double standards again, in my opinion the time has come for us, as we always have, to fight against terrorism with might and main and, what is more, to intensify our struggle.

It is frequently said of revolutionary warfare that military actions are only 20% of the solution and that the remaining 80% are to be found in the political arena. I accept this as a general statement, and that is why we are also involved in a comprehensive programme of political, constitutional and socioeconomic reform, but there are times and circumstances in which this relationship can change. Because it is not possible to negotiate with terrorists, the security actions against them must be total.

The reason why revolutionaries succeed with intimidation, no matter how insignificant and unrepresentative they are, is because they do not hesitate to carry out their threats of bomb attacks and necklace murders. That is why we must state anew and formally that we will not put up with this and be equally prepared to carry out our threat.

I believe it is absolutely axiomatic that the greater the deterrent at one’s disposal, the smaller the risk that one will have to resort to it. That is why I welcome the combined and visible show of strength of the Defence Force and the Police in Alexandra. This must be done more frequently and with an even greater show of strength and visibility … [Interjections.] … no matter what the world of the opposition has to say about this or wants to do about it.

I have great admiration for the contribution by the Police in the fight against terrorism and insurgency, but the Police are trained to combat crime, whereas counterinsurgency requires different training. The Defence Force is already, as the hon member for Randfontein said, extremely proficient in its counter-insurgency operations in our operational border areas. The same expertise is now required in urban conditions, that is, the concrete jungle, and not only to assist the Police as is being done with success.

That is why I want to ask that a special task force for this purpose, under the command of the Chief of the Defence Force, be established as a matter of urgency and I hope that the hon the Minister will consider this notwithstanding the manpower and other problems which have already been pointed in this connection. Then the Police can be used more effectively to fight the criminals who exploit unrest.

I want to conclude with a word of appreciation for the contribution of the Defence Force, in co-operation with the Government’s diplomatic initiatives, to neutralise terrorist groups in our neighbouring states. In South West Africa Swapo now has a signficantly lower profile, and the ANC has now been virtually emasculated in every neighbouring state. In this regard, I want to tell the hon the Minister and the Defence Force: Keep up the good work!

Mr Chairman, I have a very short time available to me. I should just like to associate myself with the remarks made by my colleague, the hon member for Durban Point, concerning the appointments and promotions of members of the general staff. I should also like to express the wish, as we now have very much a deepwater admiral with lots of sea-time to his credit, that he will be able to fight the good fight for an ocean-going navy, one which is capable of doing more than just cruising around the coastline and acting as a sort of coastguard.

With a head office in Pretoria!

I think that when one views this in the light of the fact that our Shackletons are now outdated, one can see how serious the situation is.

I should like to deal with part of the subject dealt with by the hon member for Randfontein—who, I believe, made a very good contribution to the debate this afternoon— and that is the argument that while the Army is in place, the revolution will not succeed. Of course, the Army’s continued presence and its ability to fight and to maintain morale, depend tremendously upon the actions taken in respect of its image. I should like to say a few words about that because I believe this is the point that we must air in debate very thoroughly, in order to obtain the various points of view. Certainly, we must accept the changed environment we are living in and I do not believe that “keeping the peace, parts one to four” is going to fulfil its necessary role as a doctrine in the circumstances in which the Army is operating at present. It is terribly difficult for anyone to get a fair view of what exactly is going on.

When one reads the newspapers, it becomes obvious that they adopt a cool attitude toward Defence Force participation, probably mainly because they have a large Black readership in the townships. When listening to the media, there is always the thought in the back of my mind that the SABC is sometimes seen as an organ of the Government and therefore has a credibility problem. The man in the street is therefore in a very difficult position as far as image is concerned.

I should like to refer very briefly to the Van Der Walt report relating to the occurrences in the Vaal Triangle and to quote in particular from page 42, where he says the following:

Having equated the Police with the Army, let us have a look at what he says about the two. On page 40 he says the following:

He says that the Black public make remarks like the following:

I believe we must apply that to some of the SADF action. In this regard I think specifically of civic action. The SADF’s civic action concern reaches as far as Ovamboland and it is also involved in the national states but one sees precious little civic action taking place according to any programme in the urban areas.

Along the same lines, I think the question of the image of the SADF in the eyes of the national servicemen and the parents must be dealt with. We have to combat the syndrome which has developed whereby people see national service as a waste of time and of education opportunities. We have to combat that morale-sapping point of view. In the case of non-White volunteers, who are the targets of sustained anti-SADF propaganda—things such as “join the apartheid army”, etcetera, are said—we lose many potential volunteers who are in many cases leader group material.

I believe we should be looking at a broadened base of the SADF. The hon the Minister mentioned the evolutionary concept of other groups coming into the Army. That statement frightens me a little because I think it gives one the impression of its being too far into the future.

I believe we should have a programme which is aimed at a new target group, namely the parent and the serving member himself. I think there should be better service benefits whereby a member could, for example, extend service or obtain a gratuity for certain service which could be convertible. It could either be an educational grant or it could be a question of giving the person seniority or a job in the public service. Furthermore, if he has meritorious or decorated service in any form, he should receive additional benefits.

Army service should be seen as a process of the upward mobility of citizens and it should be so attractive that the volunteer element would enter the SADF at a greater pace giving the SADF the opportunity, therefore, to select people from a very keen and involved group for further service— maybe even for Permanent Force service. The whole attitude of the public towards national service should relate to the advantage which stems from it instead of the SADF saying that it gives society a man back after two years. That is a very subjective and remote sort of statement.

I think when one makes that field one’s target, rather than the subjective media target which we have had for so long, one will have an Army which will in fact be capable of defending the country. It should be regarded in terms of what it can do for those servicemen. I believe we would then, to an extent, have undone some of the damage which has been brought about recently.

Mr Chairman, there is not much regarding which I want to quarrel with the hon member for King William’s Town. Consequently I hope he forgives me if I do not react directly to what he said.

I just want to make a remark in passing regarding a statement by his benchfellow, the hon member for Sasolburg. He made the statement here that there was only one objective when a war was being waged, and that was to win that war. Consequently he is saying that war has no political objective; it only has a military objective.

No, no.

This can never be the case. Under all circumstances a war always eventually has a political objective. That is why different kinds of wars have different mixtures of political objectives and military means. I just want to make that point and leave it at that.

You misunderstood me.

If the hon member for Sasolburg says I misunderstood him, I shall not pursue the matter.

The hon member for Wynberg lodged an appeal for the replacement of the present system in the Defence Force with a system in which a larger full-time defence force will be used, which would thus make the system of compulsory national service unnecessary. Of course this is an old argument. I do not have enough time at my disposal to deal with that argument fully; I just want to draw the attention of the hon member to an article which he has undoubtedly read and which was also mentioned here earlier today. It is an article with the caption “Why conscription must continue”, written by Helmut Reumor, which appeared at the beginning of the year in the publication Frontline, in which in my opinion a very strong case was made out why in these specific circumstances the present system was the best and as a matter of fact the only system which could serve the purpose and which we could afford. Nothing the hon member said today could convince me that he had in any way refuted this very good exposition.

This then brings one to the almost immediate conclusion that the PFP must have some or other different motive for its proposal. I do not think one needs to look very far to see what that motive is. It lies in the problem which the PFP has with the young Progs, in the sense that the young Progs and the End Conscription Campaign, the ECC, are hand in glove. There is no doubt that the young Progs support the ECC, although the hon member for Wynberg, the official spokesman of the PFP, says that he does not support the ECC. That is why this proposal of the PFP looks very much like a way of circumventing the problem, because if they can advocate a stronger full-time defence force, they can also argue for the abolition of national service and then this does not bring them into conflict with the Young Turks.

If one looks at the question of the objections to national service as such, which are being put forward by inter alia the ECC, there is in the first place the matter of religious objections. I think that religious objections is a matter which the Derence Force has well under control, which they have dealt with in detail and which they have found a way of dealing with very effectively. The other point which is frequently raised is the matter of conscientious objections, and the hon member for Wynberg again argued this afternoon that the Defence Force must evolve a system to accommodate conscientious objections.

I am afraid that is not so easy, because whereas one can make an objective assessment in the case of religion, because one can test it against a basic, consistent standpoint adopted by a specific denomination, in the case of conscientious objections one has no such objective test. If a person has conscientious objections to being involved in an actual war, the possibility still exists that he can be accommodated in the Defence Force in a non-combatant capacity. This should make adequate provision for those people who really have conscientious objections to war and fighting as such.

There are also other objections to national service to which I shall return later. The first of these is selfishness, in the sense that the person who avoids national service, is in a better economic position. There is also the matter of fear where a person is afraid to be involved in a battle. When one is dealing with a conscientious objector, there is always the suspicion in the back of one’s mind that he is hiding behind the so-called conscientious objection, in order to conceal his fear, selfishness or hostile motive. When a person in fact has such a tremendously strong conscientious objection that the objection is insurmountable for him, he must give proof of the strength of his conscientious objection by accepting the consequences of his action and going to prison or wherever. Then I will believe the objections of such a person.

If one gets back to the ECC and the entire set-up of the struggle in South Africa, one sees for example the distinction which the hon member for Durban Central tried to draw between the internal and the external dimension—the internal dimension in which the Police must be involved, and the external dimension in which the Defence Force must be involved. This is in fact one of the characteristics of a revolutionary onslaught, as the hon member for Randfontein and the hon member for Benoni also indicated. This kind of struggle in fact blurs the outlines, blurs the distinction between external and internal sources of the onslaught.

This is very clear when we see how those people who stimulate the revolutionary climate the most—people like the ANC, the SA Council of Churches, and even the ECC—rely on sources of finance and on material resources which are situated virtually entirely abroad. As a result this role, this distinction between the external and the internal sources of the onslaught, becomes almost indiscernible so that one can no longer say that this onslaught is simply an internal insurrection.

We are well aware of the links, at least between the core of the ANC and the Communist Party, and between the Communist Party, in its turn, and Moscow. We know about the objectives of Moscow in this part of the world, and that is why we can draw the line straight through to the so-called revolutionary onslaught on South Africa, and also link it to overseas countries. That is why one cannot do otherwise but view this matter in the international perspective too.

That is also why the motives of the ECC, particularly because they are financed from countries abroad, and have an ally in the Unit on Apartheid of the UNO and in all the other foreign organisations which are inherently hostile to South Africa, become increasingly clear and one begins to wonder whether these people are merely concerned with their own conscientious objections or whether they are not concerned with disparaging the image of the Defence Force and the power of the Defence Force inside the country because the Defence Force, as the hon member for Randfontein put it, is indeed the shield which is standing between the population of South Africa and the revolutionaries and the onslaught from abroad. Is it not indeed the case that these are the things which are standing in the way of a successful revolution?

That is why I find the motives of the ECC in that connection extremely suspect. I believe that it is so suspect that in this case the onus of proof shifts. I believe that prima facie a case can be made out that the ECC is in fact not concerned with conscientious objections; that it is not even concerned with bona fide political objections, but that it is actually concerned with support for an onslaught with the aim of overthrowing the Government of South Africa by means of violence. That is why I believe that they themselves must first prove the contrary before one will be able to believe them.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Helderkruin spoke about the question of conscription and conscientious objectors. I shall deal with those matters in a moment. I must say, Sir, that I am surprised that the hon the Minister, instead of sticking to policy matters regarding the SADF, descended to the low level of petty politics and attacked individuals and the party of which I am a member. Let me make it quite clear to the hon the Minister, the hon member for Vryheid and the hon member for Helderkruin that we on this side of the House know better what to do when the call to arms comes. We know what makes a soldier tick. Of the seven World War II volunteer veterans who still sit in this House five are in this party, and we know what being a soldier is all about! [Interjections.] Not a single war veteran is to be found on the side of the Government! [Interjections.]

Mind your blood pressure! [Interjections.]

The hon member for Wynberg and I approached the hon the Minister and asked him if he would allow us to have a briefing by General Geldenhuys on the Geldenhuys Report, and he acceded to our request. Therefore, I believe it was very unfair of him to react here this afternoon in the manner in which he did. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to address myself now to more mundane matters. As war veterans we view with interest happenings in connection with the Military Veterans’ Administration as dealt with in Chapter 4 of the White Paper on Defence. The hon the Minister has said that 30 men died in action last year. I should like to ask the hon the Minister how many men were wounded during the same period, and how many of them will ultimately be declared 100% disabled.

We, the hon members who sit in this Parliament, have the power to declare war. We can demand of our fellow South Africans that they defend their fatherland and ensure the maintenance of the democratic system which we purport to uphold. It should never be said of us, therefore, that those who have been wounded in action as a result of our decision-making, have been forgotten and are inadequately compensated.

Do hon members here know that some 12 200 South African military veterans receive compensation to varying degrees? Of these, two received the Victoria Cross, the highest possible decoration for valour under enemy fire.

South Africans fought in World War I, in World War II, in Korea and in wars on the borders of Angola, South West Africa and South Africa. If wounded in action, they receive compensation. What they are paid is called a military pension. It is not really a pension, however, but compensation. Although at present this falls under the control of the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development, all military veterans would prefer, first of all, that the name be legally changed to military compensation; and, secondly, that the handling of such military compensation be placed under the aegis of the hon the Minister of Defence under the supervision of the Military Veterans’ Administration. We all know that the Department of Pensions under the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development would welcome such a transfer. I am glad, by the way, that the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development has come into the Chamber to hear what I have to say. I appreciate his having come.

Workmen’s compensation rightly falls under the authority of the hon the Minister of Manpower. Military compensation rightly belongs under the control of the hon the Minister of Defence.

Under the old system there were two grades of compensation based on a level of R6 000 per annum. White veterans on the higher scale received R627 per month, while those on the lower scale received R537 per month. There was a discriminatory scale for Coloureds and Blacks in the ratio 6:4:3. Thus, while Whites on the lower scale received R537 per month, a Coloured or Asian received only R358 per month and a Black R269 per month. Under the new scheme, this discrimination based on colour has been eliminated. Parity now exists, and we on this side of the Committee congratulate the Government on having brought about this parity.

I want, however, to deal with the new scales of compensation. These scales are based on a percentage disability of 100%. The percentage of disability is ascertained by a board of medical doctors. According to the new scales, a man with a Bachelor’s degree or higher gets R1 000 per month; one with matric or its equivalent R750 per month; and one with lower than matric R600 per month. There are extra disability allowances for people who are over 80% disabled and who necessarily depend on outside help. Those totally dependent on outside help will get an extra 25% of the pension paid, while those mainly dependent will get an extra 124% of the pension paid.

What qualifications, however, do these people who receive military compensation actually have? Of the 12 200 veterans receiving military compensation, only about 220— 1,8%!—have a Bachelor’s degree. Some 5 880—48,2%—have matric, and about 6 100—50%—have lower than matric. Moreover, the qualifications must have been obtained at the time the injury was sustained. In other words, for a soldier to be regarded as 100% disabled, he must have been totally blinded, or have lost both arms, or have lost both legs, or be totally paralysed. I believe the new scheme is a disgrace! It is said that the South African Legion has agreed to this scheme, but it did so simply because compensation was somewhat better than under the old scheme.

The majority of servicemen leave school to join the army. Therefore, they are unlikely to be qualified to receive anything higher than matric. That applies to the hundreds who have been wounded during the past year.

Personally, I am opposed to differentiation on the grounds of qualification at the time of injury. Every serviceman in the service of his country exposes himself to the same risk and is therefore entitled to the same compensation.

I want now to deal with the ravages of inflation. When the present scheme was instituted in 1976, 100% disability was assessed at R300 per month. If the increase in the rate of inflation is taken into account, this R300 per month should have been increased to at least R900 per month in 1986. What, however, do these military veterans actually receive? Those on the top scale get either R750 per month or R600 per month. In other words, those on the higher scale enjoy an increase of only R123 per month and those on the lower scale R63 per month. I want now to deal with the extra disability allowance for persons above an 80% disability. The 25% and 12£% extra allowances are totally inadequate. Those who are totally blind or paralysed will need a driver and a car to be able to move around in. Those who have lost both arms and legs need extensive special conversions to their motor vehicles. Does the hon the Minister realise what the cost today is of running, servicing and replacing one’s car?

In the United Kingdom, in addition to basic pensions and allowances which are given for wives and dependants and are also allowed in South Africa, all kinds of other things are provided for: Education allowance; exceptionally severe disablement allowance; severely disabled occupational allowance; allowance for wear and tear on clothing; and allowance for lowered standard of occupation. These unfortunate wounded veterans need the consideration of a sympathetic Minister of Defence, and the quantum of 25% is insufficient. R187 a month extra to employ a person to help one and to provide food, clothing, lodging, etc is completely insufficient.

The total of persons who are 100% disabled numbers a few hundred. Cannot we show some appreciation for the mental and physical agony sustained by them in the defence of their country?

I want now to deal with the duties of the Military Veterans’ Administration. In addition, they should appoint a number of well-trained military social welfare officers to visit every person entitled to military compensation at his home or workplace at least once a year to assess his standing and advise him on his status to acquire a better life by explaining to him to what he is entitled. Surely this is one of our fundamental duties to ensure morale in the SADF.

The military compensation veterans often suffer indignity by having to visit district surgeons when in need of medical attention. They should fall under the SA Medical Service doctors and the military hospitals.

The rehabilitation of our disabled veterans is poor and leaves much to be desired, particularly as it falls under the Department of National Health. By transferring it to the Department of Defence it should be possible to establish a highly sophisticated rehabilitation centre where both body and soul of the disabled can be restored. The former No 1 Military Hospital at Voortrekkerhoogte would be ideal for this purpose.

South Africa will always need to have a suitable army in one form or another. For the sake of its future morale the hon the Minister must accede to the requests I make. “Gone, but not forgotten” might be a suitable text on a tombstone but “Living but not forgotten” will be a better testimonial to the hon the Minister of Defence if his department takes over military compensation and places it under the Military Veterans’ Administration.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Bezuidenhout opened with rather high blood pressure and indicated how many PFP members had fought in the Second World War. I was four years old when war broke out and ten when it ended so I was not altogether ready for fighting.

What did your father do?

I am able to say I served in the Permanent Force on a voluntary basis for four years and that was not because I was called up. In 1967 I applied to do voluntary military service in Angola and the then Minister of Defence turned down my application. [Interjections.] We should therefore examine the position now. I want to know of the hon member for Bezuidenhout what happens to his blood pressure when he speaks to a former MP like Dr Boraine if it soars to such heights when he addresses a patriot like the hon member for Helderkruin. What does he discuss with his former colleague?

I am not my brother’s keeper.

Today I should like to speak on the task and functions of the South African Medical Service with specific reference to primary health care. Before doing so, there are two small matters I want to touch upon briefly. The members of each of the four components of the Defence Force— the SA Army, the SA Air Force, the SA Navy and the SA Medical Service—above and beyond their national pride and loyalty to their country and above and beyond their pride in and loyalty to the SA Defence Force, are also exceptionally proud of and loyal to one of the specific Defence Force components to which I referred. The SA Medical Service is a special detachment to me because I served in it for four years.

The colours, crests, mottoes and uniforms of the various detachments are now under discussion. One is proud of the Defence Force as a whole but I think the thousands upon thousands of individual members of each particular detachment of the Defence Force feel exceptional love, loyalty and pride towards their particular detachment.

I now get to the colours of the SA Defence Force and wish to unfurl its flag. [Interjections.] Is it not beautiful? When I was a boy and we were still longing for the assumption of a republic, I found the Republican flag of the Transvaal a spendid one. If I look at the four colours of the Defence Force—the orange of the Army, the pale blue of the Air Force, the dark blue of the Navy and the reddish brown of the Medical Service—I can almost say it is my new Republican flag. My blood flows faster when I look at it.

Allow me to exhibit the flag of the SAMS to the Committee now. [Interjections.] Is it not beautiful?

Where is your white flag?

If I look at the emblem of the Castle, with the crossed swords of the Army, the pale blue wings of the Air Force and the anchor of the Navy, I miss the fourth component of the Defence Force. I do not see it represented on that badge and this worries me a little. I do not know whether to discuss this with the hon the Minister or the new General Geldenhuys—they always say new brooms sweep clean. I have every confidence that the Defence Force will safeguard our country therefore I do not have the least doubt that they will also solve this trifling problem. [Interjections.] They have my thanks in advance for this.

I now wish to refer to the question of South African citizens who have been automatically naturalised in terms of the South African Citizenship Amendment Act, 1984. These are people for instance who were told in 1979 that they did not have to do military service. Consequently they did not provide for this and made completely different plans but now they suddenly have to do military service in terms of the new legislation. I support the new legislation and mentioned it in this House but I request that specific attention be paid to these people’s problems. Obviously their problems differ from those who knew as early as 1979 that they would be called up in 1985; this places them in a different cadre.

I said I should like to speak on the task of the SAMS with special reference to primary health care. I have the White Paper of 1984 issued by the Department of Defence with me. The crest of the Defence Force is again splendidly displayed on the cover. Because the Armaments Corporation has been included in the White Paper, I see its logo has been added. I really think we could still do something about the emblem of the SAMS. [Interjections.]

The duties of the Medical Service are explained in this White Paper and I quote from page 46:

It is said that the SAMS provides a comprehensive service and I must add that it is of excellent quality. They say it takes place, and I quote:

Emphasis is therefore placed on preventative medicine. That is what primary health care comprises. It is only when one cannot prevent, that one requires curative services. In the event of permanent damage or problems, the question of rehabilitation arises.

I now get to another matter related to the Medical Service. I wish to quote further from page 47 of the White Paper dealing with combat operations:

The peace of mind of every fighting soldier who knows he will receive immediate attention and outstanding specialised treatment within four hours is of great value.

There are various other matters I wish to discuss but time will catch up with me. It is generally accepted that the way in which the Defence Force deals with drug abuse is among the best in the world.

I wish to refer briefly to the role played by the Medical Service in the self-governing and independent states as well. As regards primary health care with the emphasis on prevention, the Medical Service plays such an important role that it is simply a fact that, if it were withdrawn from certain areas, health services there would definitely collapse. I do not have the time to mention all the figures but I want to say we are very grateful for the great role played by the Medical Services there. Medical and paramedical services lend themselves precisely to that type of service and their role cannot be overemphasised.

I wish to conclude by quoting from an article in the Suid-Afrikaanse Oorsig of 18 May 1984 on 1 Military Hospital. The article begins like this:

In other words, one almost asks to become ill as that hospital is so beautiful with its light background music and the atmosphere prevailing there. I should like to close with the words concluding the article:

In other words, the ultimate—

We are proud of the Medical Service and I should like to see justice done to its logo.

Mr Chairman, the hon member will pardon me for not speaking on the field into which he ventured because I do not think I know enough about it to discuss it.

I should actually very much like to say something about national service. Its Afrikaans version “diensplig” is a very short word—it contains only nine letters—but it means twice 365 days to the national serviceman and subsequently numerous call-up instructions for long periods.

The two-year period of national service actually comprises three phases. The first is preparation for embarking upon service and departure for the base. The second phase consists of long days and nights of active training, being away from home and homesickness. The people at home also long for that national serviceman. The third phase comprises the homecoming—the end of the period of national service. Then the national serviceman’s great problem is adjustment.

At the beginning of each year thousands of young men who were at school the day before have to report for national service. Let us examine the scenes taking place in this first phase of the national serviceman’s life.

There are the parents who prepare and the national serviceman who prepares. There are all the messages on scraps of paper which his mother inserts between the pages of his Bible to remind him of home when he reads it and to know there is someone in constant prayer for him. A parent with a child on the border has him in mind day and night no matter what he is doing.

There is the packing with a heavy heart because of the unknown ahead; the silent tear and the deep desire of a mother’s heart; then a courageous waving of the hands of those on the platform and those on the train; the laborious groan of the moving train as it departs. There is a last wave of the hand as the child and the train disappear from sight. Those who remain walk to a car with bent heads and dragging steps. The homecoming to an empty bed and a vacant room follows. Clothes are picked up and put away and the room is prepared for the day of his return. Now the long wait begins.

Hope and confidence go hand in hand with the long wait and the period between now commences. There is joy at the first letter which arrives from the border or the base and then the chaplain’s letter follows. I wonder if people realise what that letter from the chaplain means to the parents of a national serviceman just after he has arrived there. That letter assures a person that they are caring for the spiritual welfare of one’s child. I should like to read the prayer of a national serviceman’s mother because I do not think I am capable of reflecting the feeling of such a mother better than this:

The people at home have a very great and exceptional duty toward that national serviceman—they should write regularly. Every scrap of news from home is of great importance to that national serviceman; it makes no difference whether they write about his dogs, his cats or his canaries; it does not matter what trifling news they write. Even the little ones who cannot write yet, the little brothers and sisters, can make a few drawings, add a few kisses to show they are longing for him. This means a great deal to this national serviceman; nor should these people ever forget to send parcels and letters. This should be done very, very regularly.

Try to avoid all the complaints on what is going wrong and all the less serious aches and pains. The letters should be positive so that he may be eager to return home. They will also make him more careful because he is very exposed. His safety on the border where he is exposed gives each of us on the home front the assurance that we may sleep safely and peacefully.

Post day is very important on the border. Hon members will ask why I am mentioning all these matters but I had five sons in the Defence Force.

Hear, hear!

Post day on the border is very, very important to these young soldiers but what about whose chaps who receive no letters from home at all! Have we ever thought about them? I want to tell hon members—now I am speaking from experience again—that we encouraged the Voortrekkers, youth movements and also schoolchildren to write letters to “A boy on the border”. These were sent to be handed to those men who receive no letters at all. In those letters the children thanked the men heartily for the sacrifices they were making to maintain security on our borders and were sacrificing their own safety in the process.

Many of our young women whose husbands do border service have very great problems. There are broken taps, interruptions to the power supply, motorcars out of action and sometimes a helping hand becomes the very wolf who destroys that marriage because the woman is very vulnerable at that period and sometimes disorientated and lonely. The community should involve them in church and community activities; they should be assisted and kept out of the hands of wolves.

When the 7-day pass comes round for such a national serviceman, it must be made into an absolutely wonderful experience for him to be at home for that time. Take care that all the problems have already been solved or shelved until after his departure.

When the two years have expired, the national serviceman returns home. We should remember that an adjustment now has to take place. He has acquired rich experience in those two years and attained a more mature stage of his life. In addition he has faced dangers and done heroic deeds; he should be honoured for them. He should be given the opportunity of pouring out his story; he should be assisted in making an immediate start in that community which requires him so very, very much. This is the duty of each of us.

If I may express my opinion, I think a young man should do his national service after matriculating. He should wait before marrying and so avoid many problems which may subsequently arise. Perhaps this is just a little good advice from someone who knows.

Very good, Bessie!

Mr Chairman, at a later stage I shall be referring to certain points of discussion and questions, but before I speak about the threat, I want to say a word or two to the hon member for Germiston District. It was a great privilege to have been able to listen to her. I thank her very sincerely for her very fine, positive testimony here this afternoon. To tell the truth, I was sorry that she resumed her seat so soon, because in the course of her speech she gripped the attention of the entire Committee because she was speaking as a mother of boys who had served in the Defence Force. We thank her and her five sons very sincerely for their services to the SA Defence Force.

Permanent Force officers, including company commanders, are attending this debate. I am truly gratified that the hon member took the opportunity of speaking as a mother should speak and of painting us sensitive pictures of things that all officers and non-commissioned officers should take note of. And I can give the hon member the assurance that they do take note of them, because they try to treat these young boys, not as mere numbers, but as South Africans who have next-of-kin such as brothers and sisters and sweethearts who are dear to them. I thank the hon member very sincerely for what she said here today.

Since becoming Minister of Defence, I have informed this Committee each year of the external threat and the variables that manifest themselves year after year here in the Republic of South Africa.

The realities of our situation are such that both the external threat and the internal threat against us can repeatedly be traced back to one chief source, and that is the influence of the Kremlin.

†Before making some observations as regards the external situation I wish to refer to the ANC, that tool of Moscow close to us. In the debate on his Vote in the Committee of this House the State President disclosed the Libian connection of terrorist groups that operate against our country. The State President illustrated that there is no difference between terrorism in South Africa and elsewhere in the world. A terrorist attack in Amanzimtoti is no different from a terrorist attack in Rome, Athens, Bonn, Vienna, the Middle East or America. The State President indicated that the ANC, the PAC and Swapo form part of an international terror network in which Lybia is deeply involved. He disclosed how members of the PAC received intensive training in Libya as so-called “death squads” or “hit teams”. He disclosed secret meetings between South African terror groups, the PLO and the IRA in Tripoli.

Apart from the network which links all these groups, they also have one overriding objective in common and that is their opposition to Western interests. For this reason I welcome the joint statement last week by the seven democracies—the seven rich countries of the world—relating to joint action against terrorism. We can only trust that the exchange of intelligence and concerted action directed against individual terrorists as well as diplomatic action against those who harbour terrorists, will prove to be effective. The Libyan activities and other horrific deeds appear to have created a new awakening to the dangers inherent in terrorism. In this way Libya could prove to be a blessing to the West.

I naturally hope that this awakening will also be to the Republic of South Africa’s benefit. I trust there will also be a greater appreciation and understanding of our cross-border operations. It would be most encouraging if the West were to realise that South Africa’s actions in this regard are taken not only to protect our own interests but also those of Southern Africa and the Western community.

In our case, we are dealing not only with a Libyan connection, but indeed also with a Soviet connection. The dominating role played by the South African Communist Party—which is Moscow’s most loyal external extension—over the ANC, is well known. The State President also dealt at length with this alliance in his speech on 17 April.

In our situation it is abundantly clear that the same forces which use terrorism as a tool are also the instigators of internal revolutionary violence. It boils down to a twopronged approach with one purpose, namely to prepare the way for a revolutionary political power-bid. In that revolutionary process the population is intimidated, grievances are exploited, innocent people are killed and law and order is undermined.

The circumstances in which we find ourselves are enough justification for operations against terrorist bases across our borders, should the threat of course originate there. The merit of such action was underscored by the United States’ courageous action against Libya after many threats and much provocation.

Having said all this, I am the first to say that violence and force are not the sole means to manage problems and challenges. This is why the Government has opted for reform, tangible evidence of which can be seen almost daily by those who do not prefer to be blind.

It is common knowledge that reform generates conflict. That is the dilemma of the one who reforms and reshapes. On our path of reform we have to provide for the revolutionaries who are essentially only interested in a violent overthrow of the existing dispensation. On the other hand, the one who opts for reform has to take note of reactionaries—those who live in and upon the glory of the past, those who are fearful to keep pace with the needs of others and who are ego-centred. Both these extremes oppose reform albeit for different ends.

On the revolutionary front the ANC has intensified its violent onslaught. Our security forces are singled out as a target, the belief being that if one can make them waver, other hurdles and foundations of our society will be easier to overrun.

In this regard I wish to make some remarks relating to the ANC. Despite a faction of Black nationalists within the ANC leadership, this organisation is dominated by the Moscow-aligned faction. The Black nationalists are, as the State President clearly stated, manipulated by communists.

I am aware of renewed efforts to put pressure on the Government to talk to the ANC. There are again in South Africa leading people who subtly project this communist-dominated terror movement as reasonable and pragmatic. They try to create a climate in which the Government will be forced to soften its approach towards the ANC. When the Government then rejects their pressure on the grounds of the ANC’s inherent support of violence, they seek to wash their hands in innocence.

Ironically, these are the same people who regard our reform initiatives as purely cosmetic. These are the same people who are in cahoots with the ANC, the ANC which will swing their Press, religious and economic freedom in an opposite direction—a direction in which these liberties will disappear. After all, this is what Moscow did through its tool, the MPLA, in Angola. If ever there was a suppressed people, one need only look at the Angolan population under Moscow/Havana domination. South Africa cannot allow itself to become a victim of this kind of manipulation and power expansion.

It is the stated policy of the Government not to enter into negotiations with organisations or, for that matter, with individuals who offer violence as a solution. It remains the Government’s policy that the ANC is welcome at the negotiation table provided it denounces violence. This is a truth of which the Black nationalists in the ANC should also take serious note.

I conclude these remarks by quoting from the State President’s speech on 17 April 1986. He said (Hansard, House of Assembly, col 3595):

*Once more I want to state unequivocally here that the more success we achieve with political reform, the more virulent is the ANC’s onslaught, in particular, and outside pressure going to be. Hon members will have noticed how the international pressure being exerted on the Republic of South Africa is on the increase.

Earlier this year the State President suggested introducing a mechanism to control regional conflict. It must be a control body on which there is room for all countries in our region to participate so that we can respect one another’s territorial integrity. Nothing has come of that, however. No one has taken any notice of it.

ANC and Swapo supporters are still entering the country to commit violent, cowardly acts of terrorism against our people. Look at what is happening, for example, in Lebowa, KaNgwane and certain of our Black towns. I have warned our neighbouring States, and now I am again asking them, to gain territorial control of their own areas. If they are not prepared to keep the ANC and Swapo out of their territories, I have offered them the services of the SA Defence Force which will be prepared to assist them. If that is not done, the RSA will be compelled to take action, outside our territorial boundaries, against these terrorist organisations, because we cannot freely permit the ANC and Swapo to enter the country. [Interjections.]

We must remember that the ANC, led by the South African Communist Party, is an organisation that wants to subvert the political structure in the Republic of South Africa by violent means. The ANC does not want to negotiate. Its objective has been elucidated, and the objective is to take over by force. I think that the view of the hon member for Benoni, as set out this afternoon, is correct. We cannot negotiate with any organisation or individual that pursues such objectives. We can only consider negotiating with organisations or individuals that unequivocally renounce or reject violence. I do not think that is asking too much.

As I have promised, I now come to the external, but certainly Moscow-inspired, threat to our country. It is, of course, the continual responsibility of the Defence Force and of Armscor to keep themselves abreast of th+e developments taking place in our neighbouring States and in other States on the subcontinent of Africa. By monitoring and properly evaluating the arms built-up in our neighbouring States, the kindred defence forces are able to get themselves into a state of preparedness so that the territorial integrity of our country can be properly protected and maintained.

This question of an arms build-up is dealt with in the White Paper. I shall be referring to it once more in a moment. The hon member for Pietersburg has already done so and I have no fault to find with that. It is not only my personal opinion, but also that of all information and intelligence organisations in the Western world, that this arms build-up is part of Russia’s indirect strategy with which, to our detriment it wants to disturb the balance of power on our subcontinent. With a view to building up strategic mobility against our region, the Russians are trying to safeguard themselves by granting support to Swapo and ANC base areas. Angola is where it has its firmest foothold.

During the year under review—28 February 1985 to 28 February 1986—there has been a considerable increase in the land forces of the frontline States, with the surrogates, particularly in Angola, increasing by between 5 000 and 10 000. The surrogates are Cubans, added to the forces in Angola. As far as aircraft are concerned, Russia has delivered 19 assault aircraft—MIG 21’s and MIV 23’s—to Zambia, Angola, Mozambique and Tanzania. A total of 25 helicopters have been delivered to frontline States, with 21 going to Angola alone. These helicopters are chiefly MI 25’s, probably one of the most formidable, modern and sophisticated helicopters in the world, and also a few modern MI 17’s. During this period six transport aircraft were also delivered to Angola.

Southern Angola’s air defence system has largely been extended with a view to limiting the freedom of movement of the SA Defence Force’s aircraft operating in the area and also against Swapo. This again illustrates the Russian strategy, that of providing safer base areas to terrorist movements.

Apart from these facts, there is a prolonged tendency towards converting to more advanced equipment. Angola, for example, already has the T 62 tank, a very modern tank. I do not know why tanks are being given to Angola, because I do not think the MPLA needs tanks for its campaign against UNITA. There is also a number of MIG 17 fighter aircraft which are being replaced by the MIG 23, a more sophisticated aircraft, and the SU 22 fighter aircraft. Both are outstanding aircraft.

As far as strategy is concerned, in the past year there has been no fundamental change in the frontline States. Certain adjustments have been made to a greater or lesser extent, however, in regard to the combating of the activities of terrorist movements. For example, Botswana—and I am very gratified that Botswana is trying to do something— has given priority to measures to prevent cross-border terrorist action by South Africa. Approximately 100 British SAS troops have arrived in Botswana to help that country’s defence force with its training—as they put it—to counter cross-border anti-terrorist action by South Africa. I hope they realise, however, that that is not what is taking place there. What is taking place there is, in fact, action by terrorists entering the Republic of South Africa from across the border in order to plant landmines here and to commit other cowardly acts against innocent people.

In Angola Pres Dos Santos’s shaky government has been given a stronger military bias. A total of 10 serving defence force members have been appointed to the central committee of the Angolan Party. Dos Santos has informed his party congress that he is going to devote at least one-third of his budget to defence. Angola nevertheless remains the most important base area for the ANC and SWAPO in Southern Africa. At this stage there is no indication of any change in attitude concerning support for these organisations. The Cubans have entrenched themselves there and Dos Santos is apparently powerless to get rid of them. Dos Santos, however, is blooming as he signs treaties with Russia and its satellite States. In spite of the conflict situation in which South Africa finds itself at present, the amount budgeted for the SA Defence Force compares favourably with that of other Western countries that do not find themselves in similar situations of conflict. Here I want to ask hon members to have a look at the information contained on page 26 of the White Paper where relevant details are furnished. I am also very gratified that certain hon members have drawn the attention of the House to the fact that the finances allocated to the defence insurance policy should probably be reconsidered, should possibly be increased in the light of the prevailing threat.

In my view, Mr Chairman, this is the absolute minimum needed to give South Africa an opportunity to develop constitutionally, in peace and harmony, along evolutionary lines with a view to ensuring the preservation of the Western standards we all want to maintain here. Short-sighted views about our supposedly spending too much on defence would only lead to our own debilitation and incapacity, and will also destroy our ability to serve Western interests, for example the safeguarding of the strategic Cape sea route. In the short time remaining, Mr Chairman, I should now like to react to certain points raised here by hon members. I should like to thank the hon member for Randfontein and the hon member for Helderkruin for the exceptional contribution they furnished here. There was no politics in their contributions. What they said, was truly illuminating, and I think it is the duty of all of us in this House—all the hon members of all the parties here—to go and convey that message to members of the general public. In those two contributions the present onslaught was briefly summed up. This embodies the psychological onslaught against South Africa, including, too, the onslaught directed at undermining the morale of our country’s population to such an extend that they oppose military service. These are fundamental problems, and all of us who support the family of defence disciplines regard it as our duty to convey the messages, delivered here this evening, to the public at large so that the Defence Force can take a strong stand, strengthen its resolve and accept the challenges facing it.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Sasolburg asked whether the Cubans should now leave Angola or not. He also wants to know whether they were going to be replaced or not. Unfortunately the hon member only came to this House very recently. These aspects have already, on numerous occasions, been subjected to scrutiny in this House. In the negotiations we have conducted they have also repeatedly been subject to scrutiny. An agreement has been reached, the South African Government’s standpoint being that the Cubans must get out of Angola.

Hear, hear!

The Cubans must get out of Angola, because their presence there is a threat, not only to Angola, but also to the whole Southern African subcontinent. It is also a threat to the Republic of South Africa. I share the view of those who believe that if the Cubans were allowed free reign in Angola, they would be able to do whatever they liked on this subcontinent. The hon member for Sasolburg also wanted to know what would happen if the Cubans were replaced by similar forces. Mr Chairman, if that were to happen, the Cubans would be replaced by the same iniquitous elements already present in Angola. The South African Government’s standpoint, however, remains the same. When we and the USA agreed about the Cubans leaving Angola, we agreed that in no way may they be replaced by an offensive or politically unacceptable force or forces.

I am therefore glad to note that the hon member also realises that that is the longterm evil.

Mr Chairman, I need not respond to the hon the Minister’s last speech in which he has restated the threat. In the time at my disposal I want to touch on what is perhaps a more controversial topic.

Firstly, however, I want to express my very sincere appreciation to the parliamentary staff of the hon the Minister and of the Chief of the Defence Force, as well as to all the officers I deal with. By that I mean all the officers on every level; not only the generals and those on the higher levels, but the officers throughout the service. The people whom we as MPs approach with our problems are people we learn to respect, people who become our “comrades”—if I may use what is perhaps the wrong word—perhaps I should say people who become our friends! [Interjections.] I must say that I have enjoyed nothing but the greatest assistance, co-operation and courtesy whenever I have approached any of these people with a genuine problem.

Having said that, I want to add that I think these people themselves are sometimes a little embarrassed by some of the answers they have to give on some of the problems. I really could have had a ball tonight with some of the letters the hon the Minister wrote me after last year’s debate. I decided, however, that that was water under the bridge, and so I will not embarrass him by quoting back to him some of the replies—replies, that is, to the questions I had raised— which I was supposed to swallow.

I do not think, however, that the correct information in regard to a problem that has been raised is always relayed to the senior staff. Obviously, the senior staff act upon the information they are given. In fact, I think that even without their attention being drawn to certain facts, the senior staff themselves sometimes realise that the answer given is not really the correct one. We are not all that stupid. I may look stupid, but I am not totally stupid. [Interjections.] Sometimes one does not appreciate being treated as though one were stupid. I just want to give one example because I do not have much time. I asked a question about a certain waterless camp. According to the answer to the question the camp was designed for 500 people and is accommodating 1 600 people. The water supply dried up and I asked a series of ten questions about this camp. They admitted that the water supply had dried up because lightning had struck a water pump which was out of order for four hours. However, then they admitted the real truth. The boreholes had dried up and they were carting water by tanker. They are carting it day and night and how long they can go on in that way I do not know.

Then I went on to the other questions. I asked whether training had been interrupted. The answer was no and the rest fell away. In fact all route marches and all PT was stopped for two weeks. All physical exercise was stopped because there was no water. One could not make the men do PT and go on route marches unless they could have a shower and have a certain amount of drinking water. Why was that kind of answer given which according to my information was nonsense? There are other problems there as well but I am not going to go into them now. I am told that in the meantime the situation is “under control” by other measures.

There was also the question of uniform issues but I do not want to go into details of all the jerseys being small size and of big men with jerseys that fitted over one arm and all the other problems that one has. [Interjections.] Yes, it is a normal, typical military snafu. I could give hon members another word but I will not use it.

We do not want that kind of reply. There was a question about men who did not attend a church parade because of their religious beliefs. The answer given to me was not the full picture. My information was that somebody was in fact reprimanded for that. I have pages and pages of information because I do not raise a matter unless I have something to back it up with. I just mention this to indicate that whilst we have this tremendous co-operation I think something should be done when one gets a phoney answer like this to trace it back, follow it up and tell the person involved he should not make the Defence Force look ridiculous and he should explain why the full picture was not given.

I quickly want to mention two points. The first is the dismissal from employment of national servicemen called up for camps. There is a prohibition in the Act but it is a dead letter—just a joke. I have not heard of one successful prosecution. However, it is happening.

I cannot fathom some of the decisions of the Exemptions Board in connection with people who, if called up, are going to be in real trouble and risk losing their jobs. One cannot protect their jobs and they will have to find other jobs. I think there is a little too much automatic rubber-stamping of applications. Somebody may for instance have missed, say five camps and is then compelled to attend the next camp irrespective of his circumstances. I know of a case of a man with a wife and child and who has been out of work for nearly a year. His wife is getting a small salary but he will not be paid while in camp. Welfare have told him they will lend him money. What does he have to pay it back with? Surely the SADF Fund is there to help people to feed their wives and children when they go off to a camp leaving them without any money or earnings with which to pay rent, electricity and water. I think there must be a review of the attitude towards such a person.

I am sorry I do not have the time to deal with problems like the 40 hour working week and the views of operational troops in this regard. I think we have to do something about the perception of some people as clock-watchers working for 40 hours a week while other people in the operational area are working 24 hours a day for seven days a week if needed. This applies also to Citizen Force members who are prepared to work gratis at all hours and over weekends as well. Unfortunately my time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I do not want to react to the hon member for Durban Point. He made his point and I believe the hon the Minister will reply to him on that score.

It is probably inevitable that we in this Committee accept that the threat to us in this country is today being initiated by external forces, which are also engaged in playing a most active and successful role within the country. In my opinion there is no doubt that the South African community is being threatened today by the actions of the ANC, which is trying internationally and internally by means of a comprehensive influencing campaign to justify its violent onslaught against the Republic of South Africa on the grounds that the Republic is not prepared to allow it unconditionally to participate in the political process.

We know this is sheer propaganda aimed at gaining external and internal support to prevent it from being labelled in the West as a terrorist organisation. Historical and recent policy announcements by the ANC confirm irrefutably that the ANC is a revolutionary organisation which sees violence as the only method of obtaining the monopoly on political power in South Africa.

To consolidate its support and to confirm its image as a so-called moderate nationalist movement, the ANC professes to advocate the institution of a majority government in a unitary state. There are people in this Committee that support and endorse this view because they, too, believe it. However, sufficient information is available to prove that what the actions of the ANC explicitly amount to is that they want to place in power a government dominated by the ANC and the South African Communist Party in the Republic of South Africa.

In the same way as in revolutionary organisations of the past, and in the more recent revolutionary wars, a distinction can be drawn between an international and an internal dimension in the ANC’s actions. We know that the ANC is trying to hit at South Africa internationally so that the country will ultimately become crippled economically. We know, too, that the ANC is making use internally of a whole range of activities of a non-violent as well as a violent nature, which form part of its total strategy of ultimately destroying the existing political, economic and social structures in the Republic.

Its short-term objective internally is to politicise and mobilise the population, chiefly by means of violent acts of resistance, to make the country, as they put it, ungovernable. This appears to be the case from what the ANC itself has said. In the process the ANC is relying heavily, directly and indirectly, on legal internal resistance organisations, of which the UDF is at present the most important.

It is interesting to note that hon members of the Official Opposition, particularly the hon member for Durban Central, now want to draw a subtle distinction between the revolutionary group and the anti-apartheid group. [Interjections.] They are trying to make a case for people in South Africa today to act sympathetically, in the face of this onslaught, towards a so-called “anti-apartheid group”, even if its revolutionary aim is to attempt to destroy the Government of this country.

I am also opposed to apartheid …

I think it is high time the Official Opposition decided in their own and in South Africa’s interest whether a revolutionary onslaught is developing against this country. If that revolutionary onslaught hides behind the so-called “anti-apartheid movement”, the PFP should not be so naive as to damage South Africa by trying to achieve their minor political aim in collaboration with that organisation.

Do not point a finger at someone else because you are pointing three at yourself.

The ANC is consciously and determinedly making an onslaught on this country. It is supported externally by major powers. The ANC is subtle and well-organised. It is recognised in 32 countries today. Its objective is specifically and implicitly to isolate and hit at South Africa, and to cripple our economy.

It is perplexing and amazing that there are still people that believe we should agree to a political ideology that would in any case never work in South Africa. One feels genuinely concerned that certain elements in this Committee—I am referring to the hon members of the Official Opposition—plead continually for the release of recognised leaders of the ANC and for the legitimisation of illegal organisations in this country.

Yes, exactly!

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member a question?

Mr Chairman, I have only 10 minutes at my disposal and hopelessly too much to say in that time.

I want to substantiate my claim by referring to the speech by the hon member for Sandton on 8 April 1986, in the Second Reading debate on the Appropriation (Hansard, col 2869):

And Harry agrees!

What about Sam Nujoma? [Interjections.]

The hon member for Sandton went on to say:

Exactly! [Interjections.]

That is the very point I want to make. The hon member said: “Exactly!”

Exactly! This must take place! [Interjections.]

Order!

Can anyone be so dumb or naive enough as to believe that you have to give away your birthright because you think for one moment that those people will think of you when they are in power? [Interjections.]

No, I do not think so.

I appeal to this House and to the Official Opposition please to sit down and think rationally about what is taking place in South Africa, and in the interests of the existence of all the peoples of South Africa—the White man, the Brown man, the Black man and the Indian—to reflect and to come to the conclusion that we have a common enemy in this country, which we have to fight tooth and nail. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Order! Before I call upon the hon member for George to speak I want to say that I am not prepared to allow this debate to deteriorate into a slanging match across the floor of the House.

Mr Chairman, I am very grateful that the hon member for Wynberg explicitly dissociated himself this afternoon from the End Conscription Campaign. I do not find this good enough yet, however, because if I look at the meeting which took place on 30 April in the Cape Town City Hall at which an MPC of the PFP, Mrs Di Bishop, appeared with Bishop Tutu, he should also distance himself from members of his party associating themselves with this campaign. What I want to say is that this hon member should not send up smoke screens and in the process permit individual members of his party to escape. Tonight I want to request him as the chief spokesman for his party on Defence affairs to dissociate himself from the utterances of Mrs Di Bishop in this regard.

I also wish to refer to the hon member for Jeppe as I find it ridiculous that he once again delivered a tirade here this afternoon for a separate defence force. I do not wish to enlarge on this but want to ask him whether he also believes that this country has separate borders. It is as simple as that. Does he believe this? Yes or no? [Interjections.] In addition he made a great fuss about the standing committee which is supposedly inactive.

Yes.

Boggom! [Interjections.]

It is self-righteous to make utterances of this kind. I want to take this back to an excellent Defence Act which we have in the Statute Book. We may associate it with our hon Minister who was the Chief of the Defence Force at the time when the Act was drawn up while the present State President was the Minister of Defence. His saying this was actually a compliment to our State President and our hon Minister. Let that suffice.

Have you finished with me?

He did not get to you.

I wish to refer to a single point regarding the hon member for Durban Point. I would be dishonest …

You should not find that difficult.

Order! The hon member for Jeppe has made enough interjections.

I only made two remarks, Sir. [Interjections.]

Order!

I wish to tell the hon member for Durban Point I would be dishonest if I did not express sympathy with his view that we are neglecting the SA Defence Force in real terms at the moment as regards the allocation of finance. I wish to give further reasons. What are the facts?

The facts are that since 1977 our Defence budget, expressed as a percentage of the gross domestic product, has declined from 4,8% to 3,8% at present. In addition the share of the SA Defence Force in total state expenditure has decreased by 24% whereas the security situation in the country has deteriorated in the first place and in the second a build-up of armaments has taken place in our neighbouring states.

Considering the total economic condition in our country, I appreciate the attitude of the Defence Force in this regard. All I am appealing for tonight is that we should not permit the Defence Force to fall behind in building up its total strategy in the process. [Interjections.]

In referring to the manpower position in the SA Defence Force, it strikes me that in the 1985 calendar year the full-time manpower of the SADF—by this I mean the Permanent Force, the Citizen Force and Auxiliary Services—declined by 4,5%. I can understand this because it was largely the result of budgetary restraints—which I appreciate.

Tonight I wish to make an appeal and associate myself with the hon member for Germiston District on certain points she raised in paying tribute to women in the Defence Force. My appeal is that we should not scale it down when it comes to the participation of women in the SA Defence Force. [Interjections.]

Tonight I wish to praise the SA Defence Force which took the lead in permitting women to come into their own in the labour field. Today women have become indispensable in supporting services of the SA Defence Force.

I cannot omit paying tribute to my predecessor as the member of Parliament for George because he had vision in the establishment of the SA Army Women’s College in George. [Interjections.] Today we are proud of the students the college has produced and we are also proud of the command structure which has been instituted over the years from Colonel Hilda Botha to Col Telana van Zyl at present.

If we look briefly at the role of South African women in the SA Navy, we are taken back to 8 October 1943 when uniformed women were appointed to the SA Navy for the first time. The hon member for Durban Point will remember this—the “Swans” came into being. At that stage the purpose was largely to establish a supporting service in the Navy. In the process we reached the stage of being able to release more men for service at sea.

This resulted in the establishment of Navy women as a military group, known as the “Swans”, in 1973. In 1979 the name “Swans” was abolished and replaced by the normal procedure that they are also addressed by their rank as men are.

Today South African women serve in the Navy in various branches of which I cannot name all—from the intelligence service to electronic warfare—and I could expand on this for a very long time. [Interjections.] Today women in the SA Navy comprise 6,1% of the Permanent Force establishment. Women have unlimited opportunities in the SA Navy today.

In referring briefly to the SA Air Force, I may mention that women comprise 7% of manpower, or should I perhaps say “woman-power”? Here they also have the opportunity of pursuing a full career. I find it even more important that the SA Air Force in particular has kept pace with the increasing tendency in our society that women in uniform should also comply with requirements of suppleness and slimness. [Interjections.]

Today women are an indispensable component of the manpower source in the SA Army. A number of women already serve in the SA Staff Corps at present.

The use of women should never be contrary to the being of a woman. [Interjections.] Women in the SA Defence Force have proved themselves a reliable and competent component of the manpower source. The value of women has become indispensable to the SA defence Force. I wish to express the hope tonight that women will be used in increasing measure. I hope the SA Army Women’s College at George will be extended to make the better utilisation of women possible for the Republic of South Africa as a whole. I thank the hon the Minister and his top staff for the confidence they have placed in the role of women. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to endorse the contribution of the hon member for George on the role of women in the Defence Force.

The hon member for George and the hon member for Swellendam quarrelled with the PFP over the sympathy of that party’s members for the UDF and the ANC but at the same time those hon members are silent about the fact that Rev Hendrickse sits in the Cabinet with this hon Minister. Rev Hendrickse said in 1983: “Ek kom saam met Mandela deur die stryd.” [Interjections.] It was also Rev Hendrickse who said last night on television that he gave the tricameral system only two more years and then it had to disappear. [Interjections.] It is also Rev Hendrickse, who sits with the hon the Minister in the Cabinet, who refuses to have his sons do national service but was co-reponsible with the Cabinet for the decision that the period of military border service for White boys should be extended from three to six months.

The hon member for George referred to the exceptional Defence Act, an Act created by a White Parliament under the leadership of the then Minister of Defence, Mr P W Botha. It certainly was a good Act. Nevertheless that hon member omitted to tell this Comittee tonight that, as regards future legislation affecting the defence of South Africa, consensus would have to be reached in a multiracial standing committee consisting of 11 Whites, seven Coloureds and five Indians. [Interjections.] I want to tell hon members that they need never be concerned about where the CP stands when the security of South Africa is involved. [Interjections.]

Order! I am not prepared to allow the proceedings to continue in this manner. I shall not permit hon members to shout down the hon member for Kuruman or any other hon member. Hon members must give the hon member an opportunity to make his speech. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I am the proud father of two sons in the Defence Force. One has completed his national service and the other is on the border at present. I am proud of that lieutenant of mine in the Parachute Battalion.

Tonight I want to say we have won the military struggle under the leadership of our Defence Force but we are losing the political struggle in South Africa under the leadership of this hon Minister and the State President. [Interjections.]

The State President is a powerful person. In terms of the Constitution the State President may declare war; he is the head of the South African Defence Force and Col the Hon Pik Botha recently spelt out the possibility that South Africa could have a Black State President in future. [Interjections.] After the NP had accepted power-sharing with Black people, he stated explicitly that South Africa could possibly have a Black State President in future. I now wish to ask the hon the Minister: Is he ranged with Col Botha, the hon princeling of Swaziland, that South Africa could have a Black State President in future? [Interjections.]

Order! Will the hon member for Kuruman confine himself a little more closely to the Vote.

The State President is the head of the Defence Force and it is important for us to know if Col Botha, the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, says …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member permitted to refer continually to an hon Minister in the way in which he is doing? [Interjections.]

Order! Will the hon member for Kuruman return to the Vote. The hon member is circumventing my ruling by referring to the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs as “Colonel”. This does not impress me at all and the hon member must revert to the Vote.

Sir, I wish to appeal to the hon the Minister of Defence to appoint the hon the Minister of National Education as a colonel as well. [Interjections.] He may regard it as an honour. [Interjections.]

I wish to ask the hon the Minister this evening what his standpoint is. Does he agree with the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs that this could be the case? I want him to tell us clearly tonight how he feels about it. I want to state it categorically that in the light of the direction which that hon Minister and the Government have taken, South Africa will have a Black State president in future whoever the head of the SA Defence Force may be.

Of course! [Interjections.]

Let that suffice on the way of integration the hon the Minister and his Government are following.

I should like to refer to the SA Army Battle School at Lohatla. This is a fine part of the Defence Force situated in the vicinity of Kuruman. It is often said that, if the CP should come to power, there would be boycotts against South Africa.

Yes! [Interjections.]

In the past when military boycotts were instituted against South Africa, Armscor was created. I want to pay tribute to Armscor tonight because we started manufacturing our own weapons when the world wanted to boycott us. Today this organisation makes among the very best weapons in the world, some of which are exported as well. [Interjections.]

Some of these weapons are tested at the Army Combat School when exercises take place there. Bombs exploding in the vicinity create enormous vibrations and there are farms in the neighbourhood. I wish to refer to the farmhouse of Mrs Fia Venter which is situated near the site where bombs are usually exploded. Her husband was a builder and built many houses which are still standing today without a crack in the walls. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon member for Kuruman?

No, I do not have time for questions.

I have already made representations to the Department of Defence to investigate the cracks which have been caused in the walls of this widow’s house as a result of those explosions and that she should be compensated for this. [Interjections.] The Defence Force reacted to these representations and sent people to investigate. By coincidence, however, on the day when the force of the vibrations was tested, they were not using the same heavy artillery as in the past and in addition the detonation site was reasonably far from Mrs Venter’s house that day. The reply come back that she could unfortunately not be assisted as the Defence Force would not be to blame if her house collapsed! [Interjections.]

I wish to raise another point in this regard. When the Army Combat School was established, the farms of a large number of farmers in the vicinity were bought to add to the territory of the Army Combat School. Farmers were given three months to vacate their farms. When the Tswanas were resettled in Bophuthatswana early in the seventies, a number of Coloureds who had lived with the Tswanas in that area remained behind. The Coloureds, among whom are a number of large farmers, obtained permission to farm 14 000 ha within that area until such time as a refuge was found for them.

In the past I made very strong representations to the then Minister of Coloured Affairs and Planning for the removal of those Coloureds from the area. It was planned that the Coloureds would be resettled as a community in an area in the vicinity of Kimberley. I had the full support of the Chief of the Defence Force of the time, the present Minister of Defence, for that resettlement. [Interjections.]

The presence of these Coloureds within this area is a disadvantage and hindrance to the movements and exercises of the Defence Force there. Ten years have passed in which the Defence Force has been active there and we still find a powerless Government unable to resettle that small group of Coloureds carrying on their farming in the heart of the Army Combat School. [Interjections.]

I now wish to ask the hon the Minister whether these Coloureds are to remain in the area. In addition I want to ask him whether their presence in the heart of the territory of the Army Combat School is still causing problems to the Defence Force as regards exercises taking place there.

My information is that the Coloureds in that area pay no rent. There are only three large farmers among them. At the moment one pays an annual rental of R1 per hectare at Kuruman. Roughly calculated, these farmers have the benefit of R14 000 per annum at their disposal. I now wish to request the hon the Minister to resettle these Coloureds. Provision has already been made at Kuruman for this: for some time 20 houses have been standing empty in which these people could be resettled but a powerless Government cannot move them. [Interjections.]

I wish to make further representations that the hon the Minister assist Mrs Venter and the neighbouring farmers by compensating them for damage to their houses. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, is it not possible to extend the hon member’s turn to speak, because “Private” F W de Klerk interrupted him?

Order! Did the hon member for Pietermaritzburg South say the hon member for Kuruman was a disgrace (skandaal)? If that is so, the hon member must withdraw it.

May I address you on that, Mr Chairman? I believe the hon member for Kuruman is inciting racial hatred and racial conflict …

The hon member does not understand Afrikaans! [Interjections.]

Order! That is no justification for the hon member to say the hon member is a “skandaal”. He must withdraw the remark.

Mr Chairman, I should like to withdraw it, but I cannot.

Join your ANC brothers!

Order! If the hon member is not prepared to withdraw the remark he is disregarding the authority of the Chair and I am afraid I shall have to order him to withdraw from the Chamber for the remainder of the day’s sitting.

[Whereupon the hon member withdrew.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I wish to appeal to you to permit the hon member to remain in the Chamber because I do not think he understood what I said in Afrikaans.

Oh, sit down, you are talking nonsense!

Order! Nevertheless that is no justification for an hon member to contravene the rules of this House.

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: When you ordered the hon member for Pietermaritzburg South to withdraw from the Chamber, the hon member for Kuruman said: “And I agree with that.” I think the hon member should withdraw that too.

You are under the influence of Folidol.

Order! I did not hear that. The hon member for Kuruman was possibly referring to something else.

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: The hon member for Brakpan referred to an hon Minister on this side of the Committee as “Private” F W de Klerk. I think this impairs the dignity of this Committee.

Order! I agree with the hon member for Kimberley South, nor do I think it fitting to refer to hon members in the Committee, hon Ministers in particular, in that way. Nevertheless it is not unparliamentary.

Mr Chairman, I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that I am a colonel in the Railway Police! [Interjections.]

Order! As soon as the jocularity has subsided the discussion of the Vote may proceed. I call upon the hon member for Primrose.

Mr Chairman, it is such a pity that the debate is being conducted on such a tasteless note at the moment. It went well all day but the hon member for Kuruman was obviously involved in his customary incitement. I think the hon the Minister will deal with the second part of his speech but at the outset I should like to say it is his usual speech which we have heard so many times already this year. All it comes down to is that he moves increasingly into the past and the darkness because all he can see for the future is the past.

I should like to speak on Defence Force finances because I do not regard it necessary to devote further attention to the hon member for Kuruman’s speech. As the hon member for Kuruman referred to Armscor, I should like to congratulate Armscor on its achievements. I wish to add that we should remember that Armscor has the potential to become one of the largest exporters of technology and armaments. We know that, next to oil, armaments are the most important trade commodity in world trade at the moment. I foresee the possibility that Armscor will not only borrow money in future for development but will also make money for South Africa and earn foreign currency.

Then there is an aspect of which we are all aware and which has often been raised before in the House. This is that a strong Defence Force requires a strong economy and that a strong economy needs a strong Defence Force. We are all aware of the economic problems South Africa is facing at the moment. It is said at times that, as the Defence Force comprises one of the largest Votes, money may be squandered or made available unlawfully. A few people are aware of the latest allegation which is that money is allocated to the Defence Force at the expense of other Government departments. I should like to attempt dealing with those two aspects.

I wish to state it clearly at the outset that the Defence Force finds itself in an unenviable position in that it has to withstand an increasing threat with decreasing money. I believe that is the crux of the entire Defence Force budget as it appears for the 1986-87 financial year. Most of the answers we can acquire in this debate without blurting out confidential information are to be found in the White Paper on Defence and Armaments Supply. The hon the Minister also referred to this. Tonight I wish to pause at a single section of the White Paper. This is Part V in which the question of Defence Force finances is dealt with. I regard this as a brilliant piece of work. In addition I wish to state very clearly that I deeply regret that the media did not make more of the White Paper and in particular of Part V in which Defence Force finances are dealt with. Certain allegations are so frequently made against the Defence Force that it supposedly does not apply its money productively or it is argued that the Defence Force should have done this, that or the other. I should like to appeal to the media—to all media, because we are all taxpayers—to re-examine the White Paper and in particular Part V and announce the contents to John Citizen because the question John Citizen asks on the financing of the Defence Force is dealt with very clearly and comprehensively in Part V of the White Paper.

I wish to touch upon one or two more points. Firstly I wish to assert that the most pleasing aspect of the entire budget is the fact that 40% of Defence Force finances are currently spent on renewal and modernisation against operating costs of approximately 60% of the budget. Over the past number of years the operating budget has continually decreased whereas the onslaught on this country has become increasingly fierce. The following tendencies are indicated here and I wish to point out one or two of them. The first of them is thorough planning in the compilation of and control of the budget. The new system being instituted under which budgeting is done to the lowest level of the Defence Force indicates that it is possible to carry out proper monitoring down to the lowest level of the budget. I believe the success the Defence Force has achieved in the case of the additional finance requested over the past years may be ascribed to the fact that monitoring could be carried out down to the lowest level. Some of the earlier speakers on the Government side indicated what had been done to remain within the limits of the budget. I wish to point out further that the new format of the budget, which its target objectives for the 1986 budget, has become operative and is a further instrument of control.

I should like to point out one example of saving. I believe we are all aware of the fluctuations in the fuel price over past years. When we examine the White Paper and analyse the budget over the past years, we note that the Defence Force fuel account remained at between 2,6% and 2,8% of total expenditure. And that while there were increases of up to 15 cents per litre in the price of fuel at times! All honour to the Defence Force for that—firstly for the control exercised and secondly because the Defence Force contributed its full share to saving on Treasury expenditure.

Today criticism was expressed. Tonight I want to express criticism as well but I wish to do so in a constructive spirit so I want to express positive criticism. It is shown here that the budget has not increased in real terms since 1977. My criticism is that that is wrong. The threat has become increasingly great. The threat, as it has been spelt out over the past few days in the other two Houses where the Defence Vote has been debated, is of such a nature that we shall have to budget more in future. I wish to argue tonight that the hon the Minister should return to the Priorities Committee, which is under the chairmanship of the State President, and request more money. I think his department is entitled to ask for more money.

I associate myself wholeheartedly with the last sentence of the explanatory memorandum on Vote No 13. I wish to quote that sentence here tonight. It runs as follows:

In comparing the budget of the SA Defence Force with others—we may employ any yardstick in doing so—we see that three points emerge very clearly. The first is that we find ourselves in the position in which we are compared with countries experiencing a small or no threat such as West Germany, Switzerland and France.

The second obvious point is that the portion of the gross domestic product which is spent on the Defence Force budget is far less than the corresponding budget in those other countries which are not threatened. If we note further what portion of the State appropriation is devoted to Defence, it becomes very obvious that the portion of State expenditure which comprises that spent on Defence—as a percentage of the entire Budget—is hopelessly too small. It is only 15,3% in the case of the RSA whereas it comprises approximately 25% of the total budget in Israel which to my mind finds itself in the same circumstances as South Africa. That is the reason for my urging the hon the Minister tonight to return to the Priorities Committee to request more money to provide in particular for the future threat.

I also think we do not require the money particularly for operating expenses but rather because we have reached the stage in which we have almost achieved equilibrium between operating expenses and capital expenditure. I do not think we shall be able to economise more without making the preparedness of South Africa suspect. The only way in which we shall be able to promote development will be to request additional money for financing capital expenditure.

I also wish to express my thanks to the hon the Minister. Last year in this debate I put certain questions to the hon the Minister and he replied to me in writing. The success of what we discussed here last year has been manifested in the new helicopter, yet I should like to ask the hon the Minister to examine Navy expenditure in future. I requested this last year and I repeat the request this time. The hon the Minister increased the SA Air Force budget but I appeal to him to increase the share going to the Navy as well.

Mr Chairman, I take pleasure in following the hon member for Primrose. He addressed the House in a calm manner on certain matters affecting the SA Defence Force. I am also pleased to be able to share his pride in this fine young bull we term the SA Defence Force.

We had the opportunity today of listening to the shadow Ministers of Defence—from the hon member for Wynberg, past the hon member for Jeppe, to the hon member for Durban Point—and I want to say that, if I had the choice, I should vote for the hon member for Durban Point every time. [Interjections.] The story is told in the Bible of the man of Gadara who was possessed by demons but I want to say that, if the hon member for Jeppe were appointed as Chief of the SA Defence Force, that story of the demon-possessed man of Gadara would sound like a nursery tale. [Interjections.]

I am not here, however, to respond to hon members but should like in preference to express my thanks and appreciation to the SA Defence Force for the recent visit we paid to the operational area of the Northern Transvaal. It was truly very pleasant to visit that part of our country and to see and experience what the Defence Force is doing there. I was also privileged today to see General Charles Lloyd in the corridors of Parliament again. All I can tell him is that he is a man among men. We are proud of him and we know the Northern Transvaal is in good hands.

Mr Chairman, we are being confronted by the longest war of our history in the RSA. The socioeconomic and physiopsychological effects of war conditions influences every society, community, marriage, family and individual directly or indirectly involved. In this respect I also take pleasure in associating myself with the hon member for Germiston District. She spoke so well today I almost felt like calling her “Aunty”. [Interjections.]

The writer Ponsford once made the following pronouncement:

It is a fact that the incidence of social problems in the South African Defence Force is directly related to the incidence and intensity of local problems in the civilian community. The high premium the SADF places on the sound social functioning of its members and the necessity for readiness and preparedness gave rise to the foundation of a military social welfare service during 1968. The French writer Voltaire said perfection was reached slowly and required the hand of time. I believe he wrote this in a period before he could have known about the SADF and the way in which it acts. Since then this service has had to expand rapidly and adapt continually in order to satisfy the rapidly changing circumstances in which we find ourselves. At present there are 127 social welfare officers in the service of the SADF. Geographically they are placed in such a way nationwide that every member of the Defence Force has access to the service of such an officer. The extent of the need for a social welfare service increases in consequence of inter alia the effect of the war on the economic and emotional stability of families and individuals. Services are rendered to people falling into the following categories: All national servicemen, all members of the Permanent Force and their dependants, all members of the Citizen Force and Commando Force when they are on military service, all civilian employees in the service of the SADF and all military veterans.

All population groups which are members of the SADF are served by social workers. Services to national servicemen consist of dealing with social problems like those of drugs—it is a fact and research has proved that in most cases the drug problem began before the member reported for military service; therefore while he was still at home— adjustment problems, identity problems and especially problems with relationships. This includes strained relationships with their parents, wives or in many cases their girl friends. [Interjections.]

Social workers are further involved in investigations to establish whether a national serviceman’s application for transfer nearer to dependants in consequence of so-called welfare problems is justified. The same investigation is also carried out regarding applications for compassionate leave in consequence of a crisis at home and applications for deferment of military service for welfare reasons. In the operation area it is the social worker’s chief duty to act as a link between the national serviceman or member of the Citizen Force and his dependants at home. [Interjections.]

The hon member referred to girl friends. That is true.

Two social workers attached to 1 Construction Regiment, Springs, where pupils from special schools receive modified training, ensure that the exceptional needs of these national servicemen receive continuous attention. National servicemen or members of the Citizen Force experiencing financial problems may apply to the SA Defence Force Fund for financial assistance. Social workers are responsible for assessing applications for aid and making recommendadions on the nature and extent of the aid required. As regards members of the Permanent Force and their families, social workers are particularly involved in dealing with marital and family problems. In handling welfare problems which any member of the Defence Force experiences, social workers always co-operate very closely with the commanding officer concerned and other members of the professional team available within the SADF. This includes the medical officer, officer psychologist, psychiatrist and chaplain. While on the subject of the chaplain, I want to tell the hon member for Soutpansberg that it was a wonderful privilege the other day to be able to attend a service in his constituency conducted by the Chaplain General of the Defence Force, General Naudé.

Nevertheless the focus is not only on the handling of existing problems; a great deal of attention is also paid to the prevention of problems. In the unit context the social welfare officer and other professional people are involved in presenting programmes to make members of the Defence Force aware of the dangers of drugs and alcohol, to give training in sound ways of dealing with tension and in promoting a sound life style. Family days are provided for the families of members of the Permanent Force when topical subjects are presented which promote the sound functioning of families.

Those of colour benefit greatly from programmes presented to improve their quality of life. These include guidance on how to deal effectively with finance, information on the preparation of balanced meals, talks and films on the dangers of alcohol and dealing with other needs that identify themselves.

The social welfare officer is offered the opportunity during the training of junior officers of providing guidance in a group context on the early identification of welfare problems among hands and how to deal with the reference for assistance to the social welfare officer or chaplain. During an intake of national servicemen they are requested to complete a questionnaire which is aimed at creating awareness as early as possible of any problems the national serviceman may have. This enables the social welfare officer and commanding officer to pay attention to the problems of a national serviceman as soon as possible after he reports for national service.

A senior social welfare officer attached to the SA Medical Service headquarters is responsible for the co-ordination of all aftercare services which are furnished to handicapped soldiers after discharge from the Defence Force.

At this point I wish to ask the hon the Minister quickly whether the Defence Force, like the Department of Communications, should not consider constructing homes for the aged for members of the SA Defence Force.

Social workers from other Government departments and private welfare organisations are involved in these aftercare services. Services in the interests of military veterans consist of the care of the enfeebled aged in co-operation with nurses or otherwise admission to a suitable institution. Military veterans who are still healthy and active are involved in occasions where they can meet companiably, socialise and experience that they have not been forgotten.

I want to say more but my time is up.

Hear, hear!

As regards the hon member for Jeppe, I can only say there is an English proverb: “Do not answer a fool in his folly.” I take pleasure in letting that suffice.

I should like to thank the hon the Minister and his department, Colonel Opperman, General De Wachter and all in the Defence Force for the friendly way they assist us in helping people with problems in the Defence Force. I can assure the Committee it is the best service one could receive and take pleasure in thanking them for it.

Mr Chairman, I think I will save the hon the Minister some time by saying to the hon member for Newton Park that I have little doubt that the hon the Minister will get up and say that he “made a very positive contribution”. [Interjections.] There is one other point that I would like to make in regard to the hon member for Newton Park and that is that there is no accounting for the preferences of some men. If he prefers the hon member for Durban Point I really have no problem—I am very broadminded. [Interjections.] I really have no problem with his preferences.

There is nothing wrong with you either!

No, there is nothing wrong with me—I can promise the hon member that!

I would like to take up a point that the hon member for Primrose made. It concerns the question of finance and in particular Chapter 5, Part 5 of the White Paper. There are a number of issues I would like to raise.

It is quite clear that the endeavour which is made in the White Paper and in particular in Part 5 is to demonstrate how short of money the Defence Force has really been, now it has kept its expenditure at certain constant levels and that it has a very low percentage of the GDP. I have no quarrel with these figures. Whether they are slightly higher or not is really irrelevant because the percentage of GDP is relatively small judging by world standards.

The issue of the actual expenditure is, however, another matter. For instance, the hon the Minister is taking care not to remind us that his department was allocated an extra R323 million earlier this year, an amount which is not shown among the figures in the White Paper and which would completely change them. There is also no indication of the transfer of R206 million to the Special Defence Fund at the end of the last financial year when there was a surplus.

These facts show that the amount budgeted for and that ultimately made available for defence is not always the same. [Interjections.] Creating the impression that the figures contained in the present Budget represent all that is going to be available for the current financial year, and that the amount has to be cut by 2%, does not reflect the true situation quite correctly.

I also have a problem with the new division of the 1986-87 Budget into capital expenditure and a number of other items. The published Budget indicates no capital expenditure in the Department of Defence at all. Not a single cent of capital expenditure is shown. The second factor in this problem is that most of the items included in the 39,5% of the Defence budget allocated for renewal and modernisation, according to the White Paper should actually be included under current expenditure. The Estimate of Expenditure for the current financial year contains the following definition:

Durable goods, Sir!—

By this definition, the acquisition of most of the equipment I mentioned qualifies as current expenditure and not capital expenditure. The hon the Minister now has to tell us what the capital expenditure referred to in the White Paper includes, because no such expenditure is referred to in the Estimate of Expenditure. [Interjections.]

That brings me to another important issue, namely the Special Defence Fund. It was created to provide for major capital assets for the Defence Force, but it has not always been used exclusively for that purpose over past years. It has also been used to supplement current expenditure. Whereas the original intention was to use the Special Defence Fund for major projects and for the acquisition of major assets such as ships and aircraft, it has actually been used over a long period to finance current expenditure which should actually have been included in the Budget.

The picture of the current expenditure position depicted here, therefore, is one which has been distorted in three ways. One is that the Special Defence Fund has been used for purposes which were not intended; the second is that the hon the Minister has managed to have certain items of expenditure excluded from the Budget; and the third is that the Department of Defence’s definition of capital expenditure is not that of the Treasury. Somewhere along the line this will have to be explained.

I would like to deal with the question of what the Special Defence Fund should actually be used for. The hon member for Kroonstad spoke about the Air Force. I am very happy with the new helicopter, but it is only an attack helicopter and not a troop carrier. In the kind of warfare in which South Africa is engaged, we need to be able to move troops very quickly. We need helicopters of that particular kind and not merely attack helicopters.

But we have them!

There is to my mind another fundamental purpose for which the Special Defence Fund should be used. One of South Africa’s major requirements in the years ahead is going to be fighter aircraft. The hon member for Kroonstad called them attack aircraft. Irrespective of what anybody says about Angola, to my mind the most serious threat to South Africa which exists from Angola is the presence of highly sophisticated, modern Russian aircraft. If they lose an aircraft there, they can replace it tomorrow, and we find ourselves in a situation where the balance of air power in Southern Africa could be changed overnight. It can change quickly because from the point of view of the Russians, to move in two or three squadrons of sophisticated modern aircraft would present no problem. That would in fact change the whole balance of air power in Southern Africa. If the balance of air power is changed, our troops on the ground and the whole situation are jeopardised.

It is fundamental to South Africa’s defence that the whole question of the strengthening of the Air Force from a fighter point of view has to receive priority very urgently. That is where I should like to see money being used because that is vital for the defence of South Africa if the balance of power in Southern Africa is not to be disturbed.

The question, of course, arises as to what really is defence expenditure. Defence expenditure can include expenditure on conventional warfare such as I have been talking about, or on unconventional warfare and on securing the internal peace of the country. However, in South Africa at the present moment we have instability and unrest. The existence of that unrest has an impact on the economy, on confidence and on overseas opinions and actions. How do we deal with that unrest? There are areas of South Africa where 40% of the economically active people are unemployed. In those areas the average wages are R150 a month for a family. If that situation continues it does not help much merely to increase the size of the security forces, because the security forces themselves know that the best way to deal with unrest is to get the people off the streets and back to work. Unless we get the people off the streets and back to work, it is no use expending vast sums of money alone. One has to get them off the streets and back to work so that they are no longer idle.

Private enterprise has not given the lead in South Africa in order to create the jobs to get the people off the streets, and I think that the Government and the Defence Force and the hon the Minister have to support us in this, because the hon the Minister knows that this is the way to deal with unrest most effectively. He has to support a programme of job creation to improve the quality of life in South Africa and so get the people off the streets and back to work and stop the unrest in South Africa. If the unrest in South Africa is stopped, there will be a return of confidence and then the Government will in fact be able to bring about a policy of reform. The reality is that while there is unrest, the Government will not be able to sell a policy of reform adequately. However much good they may try to do on the one hand, it is destroyed by the element of unrest which exists on the other hand. This is therefore defence expenditure as much as any other expenditure in South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Yeoville made a very constructive contribution and in essence I think one can agree with it. I have no doubt that if one were to summarise the hon member’s initial argument about the defence budget, he in fact said we must give the Defence Force more money.

I want to interrupt myself to request the hon member for Durban Central not to leave now; I should like to refer to him.

When the hon member for Yeoville says that money which was earmarked for capital expenditure in the Budget was utilised for current expenditure, surely this reflects only one thing, viz that sufficient money is not available for imperative current expenditure. This proves only one thing, viz that we need more money in the Defence Force. [Interjections.] This confirms the point made earlier by the hon member for Primrose.

I want to make a second point about the contribution of the hon member for Yeoville. He says we need more work opportunities and that that is a large part of the solution. That is definitely true and I have no doubt that the hon member is correct, but I want to point out to him—and I think he agrees with me—that Armscor in itself is one of the largest work providing bodies in South Africa. While we are discussing this Vote, we must at least have that point put on record.

I should now like to refer to the contribution made by the hon member for Durban Central earlier today. He made a very interesting contribution and used an interesting academic argument. With reference to the White Paper, he put it to the hon the Minister that he had deduced that the White Paper implied that the UDF was revolutionary and communistic, and that …

I did not say communistic!

But you did say revolutionary, did you not? The hon member said the White Paper implied that the UDF was revolutionary, and for that reason was in fact the enemy the Defence force was fighting. That is the drift of the statement the hon member made. The hon member wanted the hon the Minister to confirm whether or not this was indeed so. During the suspension of business tonight, I specifically went to look up the relevant chapters in the White Paper—those to which the hon member for Durban Central referred. I did so because I wanted to determine whether it was possible for us to misunderstand one another. In the first place I want to make it clear that I could find no fault with what is contained in the White Paper. In fact, I believe the points of departure and the formulations that are being applied in respect of the internal unrest situation and the factors associated with this situation, as well as to the bodies responsible for it, are one hundred per cent correct—in my opinion at any rate.

I should like to test the hon member in this regard, however. If this is his point of view—and this is the inverse of his own argument—we must necessarily deduce that he maintains that the UDF is really just an organisation which stands for the promotion of civil rights.

No! No!

This is the antipole of what he asserted, Mr Chairman. [Interjections.] Very well, let us test the hon member according to his standpoint, Sir.

Is the UDF the enemy?

Is the UDF an instrument through which this country is to be made ungovernable? Yes or no? [Interjections.] Yes or no?

Come on, tell us!

Yes or no? The hon member is not reacting at all now, Mr Chairman.

[Inaudible.]

Mr Chairman, I put the question to the hon member very clearly. Is the UDF being used as an instrument …

What do you say the UDF is, Roelf?

Ban the UDF! [Interjections.]

Order!

I say the UDF is a conglomerate of a number of things, which also includes people who are not necessarily revolutionaries.

Then why do you not take the UDF to task?

The hon member for Durban Central is making an important mistake, however. This is the real statement I want to make, Mr Chairman. The hon member is making a mistake by trying to create the impression that he wants to condone the UDF and organisations which are nothing but extensions of the South African Communist Party, and wants to assert that they are merely involved in an act of love; that they are simply trying to bring about peace, and that that is why we must fight shy of them. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

He agrees with you, Roelf!

Order!

Mr Chairman, I believe the hon member for Durban Central is making the mistake of not drawing an effective distinction. He does not see that the revolutionaries, the Communist Party, and everything associated with them—the Marxists and the whole lot—do in fact use internal powers and organisations to attain their objectives. Besides, we have evidence to support this. All I want to know from the hon member, therefore, is whether he agrees that the UDF is also an organisation that is being used …

There are individuals in the UDF who are being used! [Interjections.]

I am sorry, Mr Chairman, but the hon member is trying to worm himself out of this. I believe the hon member for Durban Central—and in a sense I am rather disappointed about this—tried this afternoon to justify his own visit to Lusaka last year. [Interjections.]

I need not justify it. What is more, I shall go again! [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, it is very interesting that the hon member for Durban Central—in my opinion—is placing himself in a position in which he himself can become the leader of the leftists in the PFP.

Come now!

He is the elected chairman of that party, and … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, I shall come back to the hon member for Durban Central. I do not have the time to argue with him about this matter now. We shall confront him with this again, however, because he will have to express himself clearly on this issue.

I have no problems with this!

Order!

Mr Chairman, I want to put one question clearly to the hon member. When the leaders of the UDF make it their objective to make South Africa ungovernable, does he approve of that?

No.

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon member for Johannesburg West?

I shall come to the hon member for Kuruman in a moment. He can put his question then. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Johannesburg West does not want to reply to questions now.

Mr Chairman, we …

The National Party has been making South Africa ungovernable for 38 years! [Interjections.]

Order! It would appear that certain hon members are trying to provoke the Chair.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Bryanston cannot even succeed in making his own party ungovernable. I think he must carry on with his own individual efforts in that party. Perhaps he will succeed in the end. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, we have debated about the Defence Force this afternoon and tonight. I should like to point out certain aspects which in my opinion are important enough to emphasise.

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon member?

I shall give the hon member an opportunity to do so in a moment, Sir if I have any time left.

When we look at the task of the Defence Force, its function and those matters we are talking about here, I think there is at least one area of common ground which has emerged from the debate, viz that we should like to see it becoming a defence force of the people. We should like to see that defence force consisting of those people of the country whose objective is to maintain civilised standards in this country in the interests of and for the benefit of all people in this country. Ultimately that is how we should like the defence force to serve all of us. When we say it is a defence force in service of all the people in this country, that means it is a defence force which should in fact consist of representatives of all population groups in this country, because it serves to protect the values of everyone in this country.

I now want to put a question to the hon member for Kuruman and the hon member for Jeppe as well as other hon members of their party.

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon member?

I shall give the hon member an opportunity in a moment. I want to put a question to those hon members first. If my understanding is correct, those hon members took the stand at their congress and also in other public places, that Coloureds and Blacks should not do border duty in the interests of the SA Defence Force. Is that correct?

That is untrue.

In other words, the hon member is saying they may do border duty.

Yes.

They may, therefore, do duty on the borders of South West Africa in the interests of that country and in the interests of South Africa. That is what the hon member is saying. He says, therefore, that Whites, Coloureds, Blacks and Indians must fight together on the borders of South Africa.

In their own units! [Interjections.]

The hon member for Jeppe and I were in the operational area together a number of times, and we saw the conditions in which they work there and perform the task of protection. He knows just as well as I do that it is impossible to unravel everything in that situation and that ultimately, the protection of those borders enjoys preference. I therefore put it to the hon member that in that situation it is fundamentally important that our border should be protected by all the available manpower, including representatives from all the population groups in this country.

Compulsory.

That is interesting. Now the hon members are arguing that members of all population groups in this country should do compulsory military service. Have they asked themselves, however, whether it is possible to implement that tomorrow?

What about the day after tomorrow?

Have they made sure of that?

The hon member for Kuruman has just raised scathing arguments in respect of Rev Hendrickse. [Interjections.] Has he checked on the statements made in this connection in the House of Representatives yesterday, however?

I have just dealt with what the hon member for Durban Central had to say about the one side of radical polarisation in this country. Let us take a quick look at the other side of radical polarisation. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to speak after the hon member for Johannesburg West, and once I have associated myself with the sentiments expressed towards Genl Geldenhuys and the Defence Force as a whole, I should like to devote my few minutes to a discussion of our commando system.

The value of the commando system in South Africa cannot be underestimated. The following appears in paragraph 190 on page 39 of the White Paper on Defence:

It is not possible to realise this ideal fully without the commando component of the Defence Force. The commando system is an inextricable part of the Defence Force. It is a truly South African system and gives full expression to the concept “defence force of the people”. It is a country-wide territory force which is formed into groups under the command of the army’s territorial commands.

The commando system is unique because it is the only force which has a definite area of responsibility. In other words, each commando serves a specific area. Its most important function is the protection of that area. In the present circumstances in particular, in which terrorism is the order of the day, it is of the greatest importance for each commando to be well-equipped and organised in order to fulfil its function effectively.

The chief value of the commando system lies in the country-wide cover it provides, which ensures that not a single section of the country is left unprotected. This ensures quick reaction in respect of terrorist threats, immediate supportive services, localised action to combat threats, or the rendering of assistance when disasters take place. The action after the floods at Laingsburg serves as a wonderful example of this. I think too of the Demoina disaster in Natal and the Eastern Transvaal, when commandos were used on a large scale to assist in rescue operations, as well as in the regulating of all possible forms of assistance to normalise life there once again.

In addition, commandos’ training in communication and control systems enables them to perform a large variety of military tasks such as the protection of hearth and home, the handling of roadblocks, patrols and border patrols, the tracing and elimination of infiltrators, the protection of national key points and the gathering of information.

Another important contribution made by the commandos in stabilising our communities, is to prevent the occurrence of panic and irresponsible action. Their disciplined, calm, correct and purposeful action creates confidence among the public.

Nor must the important role played particularly by rural commandos in the relations between population groups be underestimated. All population groups are involved in the commandos and the contact made in that sphere contributes a great deal towards building good relations. It is interesting that of the total number of volunteers in the commando force at present, 7% are Coloured, 3% are Indians and 2% are Blacks. This is in agreement with the policy that the representative number of the other population groups in the Defence Force must increase gradually, as has been shown.

Through the years the commandos have relied mainly on volunteers. They still form the heart and soul of the system today. In the meantime, numbers have been supplemented by national servicemen as well as by older members who are being put into service in accordance with Operation Buttermilk. Operation Buttermilk is the official name for the call-up of national service reserves.

I was in the privileged position of visiting such a commando training camp which took place in my home town during February this year. I want to tell the hon the Minister I was pleasantly surprised by what I saw there. The enthusiasm prevailing there was infectious. I do not think we can realise the value of such a training camp for the morale and the feeling of solidarity in a community. Men who have never marched in their lives experience the discipline of the Defence Force there.

The hon the Deputy Minister of Defence will have the opportunity to inspect this unit and meet its members when we invite him to attend the official opening of the commando headquarters soon. Incidentally, I was specifically requested to thank the hon the Deputy Minister for his part in obtaining the property for the use of the commando from the Provincial Administration.

As in the case of the Permanent Force, the Civilian and Commando Forces had to make their contribution to the Defence Force’s economy measures. Hon members have already referred to the respective economy measures. The scope of this was such that the Commando Force’s man-day allocation had to be decreased by 1 228 000 man-days. This resulted in a saving of R20,9 million during 1985. We must also bear in mind that the handling of the unrest situation makes greater demands on our Defence Force and particularly on the commandos. I want to express the hope that this reduction will not have an adverse effect on our commandos in the rural areas in the execution of their task.

The commanding officer of the rural commando plays an extremely important role in the degree of success achieved by the commando in its activities. With regard to Operation Buttermilk in particular, it is important that the commanding officer must be the right person from the community, someone who has complete understanding for the circumstances of the community and who knows and understands the members of the community well. It is important that the people of the community be handled with the necessary prudence, and that this be done by someone who is accepted by the community. We therefore endorse the Defence Force’s point of departure that the commanding officer of a commando unit must be someone from the community. We should like to pay tribute to these men who make time to perform this important task despite their normal daily task and vocation.

It is not unusual for these men to spend up to 80% of their time on commando and community service. In the rural areas they are usually farmers, who have to leave their farms to do service in the commando. The service they render is truly selfless, and I should like to make use of this opportunity to ask the hon the Minister to take very good care of these men.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to speak after the hon member for Humansdorp. He made a sound contribution on the very important role of the commandos in South Africa. They play a vitally important security role, and we owe a great debt of thanks to these people. It is appropriate that we say this to them from this Council Chamber.

I should like to make an observation on the speech made earlier this evening by the hon member for Kuruman. That hon member did not do anyone a favour with his very acrimonious party-political statements, particularly in the first part of his speech.

Certainly not you people!

He did not do the SA Defence Force a favour, and he did not do South Africa a favour either. [Interjections.] The hon member finds it easy to talk. He says the things that are very popular, he asks the popular questions, to which he would like replies. But that hon member bears no responsibility, and he knows that he will never be held accountable for the things he kicks up such a fuss about. [Interjections.]

They were material questions!

It is a pity you have the responsibility!

Order! I am not prepared to allow a constant reaction from other members while the hon the Deputy Minister is speaking. The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

We must keep party-politics out of the Defence Force at all costs—at all costs! [Interjections.] All these years it has been the policy of the Ministers of Defence, as it is the policy of the present hon Minister, to keep party-politics out of the Defence Force. [Interjections.]

What did your Minister do today?

Let me tell the hon member for Kuruman now that we are in this difficulty together, we are in this struggle together. Our enemy is a Marxistic, revolutionary enemy that wishes to exterminate all of us in this House.

We are not together …

Order! The hon member for Kuruman and the hon member for Rissik have interrupted the hon the Deputy Minister quite enough now! The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

We, the members of the CP and the members of the PFP must stand together, otherwise we are never going to overcome our problems, and the manner of the hon member for Kuruman this evening in trying to score political debating points off the Defence Force and the hon the Minister benefits no one. Consequently I am making an appeal to the hon member for Kuruman to set party-politics aside so that we can accord the security matters of South Africa and its Defence Force a higher priority than the scoring of party-political points. [Interjections.]

This evening we also listened to the hon member for Yeovilie, and it was pleasant to hear his voice. We have no fault to find with him. The hon member for Yeovilie spoke about the communist threat to our country. The hon member for Wynberg also referred to that this afternoon. We agree with them.

Unfortunately the hon member for Grey-town is not here at the moment, but I want to ask him and the hon member for Durban Central: Do they also agree that there is a communist threat to South Africa? Do they and the hon member for Yeovilie speak the same language? Or do they speak a different language? We should like to know that.

We all speak the same language.

But the hon member for Durban Central went to speak to the communistic ANC in Lusaka. What language was he speaking then?

You should also go and speak to them!

Does the hon member tell those people that they are threatening his country, or in what language does he speak to them? We, too, say that we shall speak to the ANC, but as the hon the Minister spelt it out today, they must renounce violence.

We know where we stand with the hon member for Yeovilie and the hon member for Wynberg. However, we are worried about where we stand with some of the other hon members of the PFP.

However, the hon member for Durban Central put certain questions, and I should like to furnish him with replies. He asked about the possible relocation of command headquarters. We have no knowledge of any such plans, but I shall make enquiries and let the hon member know.

The hon member also made representations concerning the Athlone shooting range matter. We are aware of the circumstances. We are also aware of the problems in that connection. In fact, representations in this regard were made more than a year ago to the Defence Force and to me through the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and the hon member Mr R S Schoeman.

I want to make it clear that the Defence Force and also some other departments have a definite need for shooting range facilities in Durban. Inter alia we must afford the people who have been called up an opportunity to try out their rifles. We must also arrange normal shooting practises for them. At present we are obliged to drive 100 kilometres in order to give these people shooting practise, and that costs the Defence Force more than R200 000 annually. Consequently we will not be able to carry on indefinitely in this way.

I understand these problems, and the Defence Force as a whole also appreciates what is involved. We know it is a sensitive issue for the inhabitants of that area, and that is why we are seeing what can be done about this matter. As I said to the hon members, however, we shall not be able to carry on indefinitely in this way. We simply must acquire shooting range facilities closer to Durban. To all hon members, and particularly the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, the hon member Mr R S Schoeman and the inhabitants of Durban, I am therefore saying that we are in fact asking them for help. After all, it is also in the interests of the inhabitants that we acquire facilities where we can provide our people, whom we have to use to look after their safety, with proper training. That is why we are looking for facilities in the vicinity of Durban to which we can then move that shooting range. We are looking for such facilities very urgently, and we will appreciate any help in this connection.

As far as the hon member for Wynberg is concerned, I want to say I am very pleased that the hon member is once again the official spokesman on Defence Matters of the Official Opposition. I am saying this in spite of the fact that we differ politically with one another.

He is a nice fellow.

Yes, I know he is a nice fellow. I agree with the hon member for Yeoville. What is far more important, however, is the fact that the security of this country is a very high personal priority for the hon member for Wynberg. We have appreciation for that, and I should like to say this to the hon member this evening.

Yet the hon member told us today that the PFP objected to the involvement of the Defence Force in the National Management System. Earlier this year, before he really knew what was happening there, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition also made certain nonsensical statements about it. The standpoint is being adopted that through the involvement of the Defence Force in the National Management System, it is becoming involved in party-politics. I want to tell hon members that this is devoid of all truth. Security, which is involved here, is above all party-politics; and the Defence Force does not participate in party-politics. Let me also say that the National Management System is not the system of the Defence Force; on the contrary, the system is intended for all Government Departments, and all Government Departments participate in that system. The National Management System, the National Security Management System or the Joint Management Centres have nothing to do with party-politics. Nor is there any colour connotation attached to it at all. All population groups in this country participate in this system.

Very few Blacks were appointed.

I am stating categorically that it is a completely apolitical system. It does not become involved in party-political differences at all. The question that follows is what it does do. It co-ordinates Government actions which may have an effect on security situations in our country.

Since when is security a party-political matter? Security has nothing to do with party-politics, and we must keep it that way. It is clear to me that some hon member of the PFP do not know precisely how the National Management System or Joint Management Centres work. I shall be only to pleased to explain this in detail to the hon members. I do not have the time to do so now, but I offer to explain it to them later. They will see that there is nothing sinister behind it, and that we are simply engaged in bringing something into existence which can deal more effectively with the security situation in our country.

There is another observation I want to make and that is that I get the impression that the hon members of the PFP, too, do not really know what is happening in South Africa. [Interjections.] The hon members are laughing at my statement now. We do not think that we have a monopoly of wisdom.

No, you definitely do not.

However, we know what is happening, and what the answers to our problems are. [Interjections.] The hon members have simplistic answers to all the problems. They think one should sit down and talk to the ANC in Lusaka, and the problems will disappear like magic and be solved.

No.

We deny it, and say there are many things that have to be done. If I had an opportunity I would be able to explain them carefully to the hon members. In South Africa we are experiencing a revolutionary threat. That is a simple fact. We need not argue about it. The revolutionaries are using every means at their disposal to overthrow the Government in South Africa. To succeed in this, they are trying to politicise the masses. They are using every means at their disposal. There are Black areas in our country in which problems exist and in which people have grievances which are being seized upon by these revolutionaries and utilised to politicise the people against the Government and against the State.

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon the Deputy Minister?

Sir, I should very much like to give the hon member an opportunity to ask a question, but unfortunately I only have five minutes left. If there is any time available at the end, he is welcome to put a question.

All that this National Management System and the Joint Management Centres are doing, therefore, is to combine the abilities of the State and the community to address these problems. These problems have a security implication, and if one does not address them, they become a security problem and an instrument in the hands of the revolutionaries. Ultimately they succeed in politicising the masses with them, not only against us—against the Government—but against all hon members, including those of the PFP. They need not think they will escape if the revolutionaries seize control of this country.

No one is saying that.

To go and try soft-soaping them is of no avail either. One cannot negotiate with revolutionaries. That is why the National Management System is dealing with these things. There are no political prescriptions for these Joint Management Centres, and the members of the Joint Management Centres come in all political shapes and sizes.

How many Progs?

There are many. I shall show the hon member places where PFP members are making good contributions. I shall also show hon members where CP members are serving on Joint Management Centres and are making good contributions.

Of course.

Such people have a sense of responsibility and realise the safety of their town and community does not depend on party politics but inter alia on the matters which I have just mentioned to hon members. That is what they are busy doing. Consequently there is no colour or political connotation attached to this system at all.

It is integration.

I think we should rather encourage one another to support the Joint Management Centres, which are working in a co-ordinated way to solve problems in South Africa.

In the few minutes that I still have at my disposal, I should like to make a few quick observations about the utilisation of the SA Defence Force in the Black residential areas. Although the PFP, through the hon member for Wynberg, expressed this in very careful terms, they object to the utilisation of the Defence Force in the Black areas. Once again I want to make it clear that the Defence Force is acting in support of the SA Police in the Black residential areas. The SA Defence Force is not acting there out of its own accord or by choice. We have received a task from the Government, because the Defence Force is an instrument of the Government, and that is why the Defence Force is taking action in those areas. The Defence Act also authorises the Defence Force to act in this manner. When that legislation was piloted through this Parliament a few years ago, not one party voted against it. Consequently we are merely carrying out an instruction of this Parliament and of this Government.

According to the PFP the Defence Force, in the words of the hon member, is “being used as a matter of course against Blacks inside South Africa.” I want to object in the strongest possible terms to those words. The SA Defence Force is not being used “as a matter of course against Blacks” in South Africa. We are not taking action against people of colour per se; together with the SA Police we are taking action against everyone who endangers the security of South Africa. It does not matter what the colour of a person’s skin is. I want to make this point very clear. It is an instruction the Government has given us, and we shall carry out that instruction.

The Defence Force is not in the residential areas to make war. That is by no means the case. The Defence Force is a friend of the peace-loving, reasonable and law-abiding citizens who live there. We are protecting them. It is a fact that those people want us there. I shall prove it. From time to time we have surveys made in order to acquaint ourselves of what the people have to say about these matters. Our surveys are objective, but yet scientifically accountable.

In a recent survey which we caused to be made among the Black population in an un-rest-stricken area, we received the following data: 62% of the respondents were of the opinion that the Defence Force and the SA Police were going to put an end to the unrest situation. In addition, 75% felt that the Defence Force and the Police were safeguarding the residential areas. An overwhelming majority of 82% were of the opinion that the Defence Force and the Police should co-operate to deal with this situation. That is why we argue that in this connection we should rather stand together, and that we should not try to detract from the Defence Force any further here. It is in the interests of all of us that the Defence Force should take action in these areas in order to restore peace, tranquillity and order to these Black residential areas as soon as possible.

If it were possible we should like to withdraw the Defence Force from the Black residential areas. We do not want to keep them there a minute longer than is necessary, but they are there to carry out a task. They are there to look after the interests of the ordinary, peace-loving people.

Mr Chairman, we are now approaching the end of the debate, which up until now has been of a reasonably high standard. [Interjections.] To such an extent that the hon member for Newton Park even found it necessary to compare me to a biblical figure.

A swine! [Interjections.]

Let me tell the hon member that he is a great surviver. He reminds me of the famous Gadarene who survived the stampede and did not drown.

As far as the UDF is concerned, the hon member for Johannesburg West …

Order! Did someone say that an hon member was a swine?

Mr Chairman, I just said that the hon member for Newton Park did not compare the hon member for Jeppe to a biblical figure, but to a swine. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Jeppe may proceed.

Mr Chairman, the hon member and I are great friends, and I do not think he has an axe to grind.

As far as the UDF references are concerned, I want to tell the hon member for Johannesburg West that it is necessary that the PFP, the Government and all of us adopt a standpoint on the UDF. This is the CP’s standpoint. We regard the UDF as nothing other than an extension of the ANC, and the sooner they are banned, the better. That is our standpoint.

As far as our standpoint on the deployment of the SA Defence Force in the unrest areas is concerned, we are in favour of the Defence Force being deployed there, while the situation is not under control. In as much as the CP’s approval for it is concerned. [Interjections.] Hon members are laughing now, but it is a known fact that more than half of the members of the Defence Force in any case support this party. [Interjections.] Up until now this debate has shown two main characteristics. The first was the wonderful way in which the hon member for Germiston District put her stamp on it, and I think this debate will be known as the Bessie Scholtz Defence debate.

The other main characteristic was the behaviour of the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister. We have grown used to the hon the Minister’s habit, when he is attacked, of evading his responsibilities in a pathetic manner and hiding behind the generals and the Defence Force by saying that the Defence Force is being politicised, when that is not really happening. But we did not think that the hon the Deputy Minister also had so little guts. He also tried to evade his responsibilities today by saying the Defence Force is being politicised. That is simply untrue.

It is the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister who brought party politics into the subject of the Defence Force, and the sooner they realise that they are responsible for being addressed here as political heads, the better. In the first and last place the Defence Force remains a State department, which has to be judged by Parliament. The hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister are the political heads of it, and they must answer for it. We shall not hesitate to confront them when they transgress, just as we have always done in the past.

I hope the hon the Deputy Minister will never have a finger in the pie when it comes to authorising the use of helicopters at State expense for Ministers to go on hunting trips. [Interjections.]

As far as the hon the Minister’s reply is concerned, he may forget whatever he wants to, excepting for two questions. Is it possible for a Black to become Head of the SA Defence Force? [Interjections.] Is it possible, in the hon the Minister’s political way of thinking, that a Black could become the State President of South Africa? The hon the Minister merely has to reply yes or no to this question. [Interjections.]

I should like to conclude with a reference to Armscor. Arms boycotts have led to the development of Armscor and of South Africa’s ability to become self-sufficient in the development and production of high technology armaments. Onslaughts against our country are now being warded off with the help of our own defence equipment.

The armaments industry quickly established expertise and abilities in the RSA, which otherwise would have taken years to arise. Products that gained international recognition and are praised by experts, are exposed at regular intervals to the military world, or even exported, and according to Finansies en Tegniek of 14 March 1986 the exports made by Armscor are worth more than $245 million.

Armscor’s success is determined by its own people, its contractors in the private sector and its colleagues in the SA Defence Force. Over the past 21 years these people have even been prepared to attempt the impossible. From our side we should like to congratulate Armscor on its outstanding achievements. We are proud of Armscor. Without it South Africa would be lost.

I should like to conclude by wishing the Defence Force and Armscor a very prosperous new year from this side.

Mr Chairman, according to the hon member for Jeppe the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister, as political heads, are always looking for something to hide behind. That hon member is groping in the dark if he makes such an allegation. The hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister serve the interests of the Republic of South Africa and all its people; that is their point of departure and that is what they stand for. [Interjections.]

We appreciate the CP’s standpoint, as expressed by the hon member for Jeppe, that they support the use of the Security Forces in Black townships, something about which questions have frequently been asked. [Interjections.]

On behalf of Beaufort West and Fraserburg I want to thank the Defence Force fot their intervention at a very critical stage, in combating the locust plague in my district. I want to thank the young men of the Defence Force who took extremely effective action.

This evening I also want to focus on one aspect which perhaps does not always enjoy the necessary publicity and the necessary understanding from the public. It plays a key role and makes an enormous contribution to combating the onslaught of terror by insurgents and terrorists across our borders. This is a division without whose dedicated efforts it would be extremely difficult to fight this onslaught, as a result of the extremely crippling effect of a total arms boycott against us, that has lasted for more than eight years now. Thanks to the foresight of the then Minister of Defence, our present State President, who, as befits a good statesman, accepted the challenges at the first sign of an arms boycott against the Republic, Armscor was brought into being.

We want to assure Commandant Piet Marais and his board of directors, Mr Fred Bell, as executive general manager, and all Armscor’s staff that we appreciate the dedication with which they keep South Africa’s security forces prepared and well-equipped for the struggle they have to wage. I also want to express my personal thanks as well as that of this group, for the visit to Armscor which the hon the Minister made possible for us. When one walks in there and see what is being done, and one sees the dedication, then it fills one with pride and gratitude that we as young country in the arms industry were destined to be able to concentrate so many fine techniques there and to implement them. One’s feelings of gratitude really bring a lump to one’s throat.

It is this dedication which allows us to take our place as one of the top contenders at an international exhibition. It is an established fact that in striving for selfsufficiency in the area of armaments, a country will soon find itself at the forefront of armaments technology. This is also becoming true for South Africa. Armscor’s contribution to this takes on various forms.

The first and probably the most important, is to give the South African industry the necessary direction and advice on what kind of technology is essential, and also to give support during the establishment and maintenance of such technology. Due to the limited requirements it is not always possible to establish and support advanced technologies over a wide front. In many cases a specific kind of technology can only be established at one single undertaking, which then also makes its survival very vulnerable, and this consequently places a tremendous responsibility for its maintenance on the shoulders of Armscor.

Technologies which are specifically maintained by private undertakings for military application, produce amongst other things, products such as run flat tyres, bulletproof glass, armourplating and rifle barrel steel, just to mention a few. A second kind of undertaking which provides products primarily for private commerce, makes products which are certainly essential to the manufacturing of armaments, for example diesel engines, gearboxes and axles for use in South Africa, which of course have to be adapted to our conditions. Here one thinks of products such as sulphuric acid and quartz crystals. In such cases the manufacturing process is better controlled and more refined processes are used to manufacture a high quality product, for example with the welding of special metals, heat treatment, fine machining, data processing and so forth.

All these aspects also have an affect on the private sector, in which these refined, almost artistic technologies can also be used effectively. As a consequence developments in this area also have an influence on the commercial field.

A third category includes those products which cannot be produced by the private sector or by industries due to strategic or economic considerations. The technology required for this therefore had to be established at Armscor’s own subsidiaries. These include, amongst others, manufacturing businesses such as those which produce TNT explosives, red phosphorus, ammunition fillings, optical glass, light intensifiers and fine casting. All these undertakings, together with many others, are the building blocks of our armaments industry and as a result of Armscor’s sustained efforts at establishing a technological framework we within South Africa’s present day industrial infrastructure have virtually every product and process available, which can be used to serve virtually every system with the necessary insight and adaptation. Armscor also continues to encourage more contractors to manufacture these buildings blocks by means of illustrated designs.

These efforts of Armscor’s subsidiaries, together with the private sector, have made it possible for new designs such as the new assault helicopter, the Alpha XR1, as well as the cluster bomb, the shell type aircraft bomb, the 20mm G-12 automatic cannon, a servo-controlled aircraft weapon system, and last but not least, a new supply ship can be counted under the RSA’s latest armaments which give extreme effectiveness and hitting power to our Defence Force, which the rest of the world has no choice but to take notice of. It is developments such as these that place South Africa in the forefront of armaments exhibitions such as the recent international Fida exhibition in Chile.

With this Armscor wants to see to it that these supportive methods and simulation can be checked against actual conditions, and also that the necessary facilities are established for use by the armaments industry. In this regard I am thinking of the Eugene Marais Vehicle Testing Ground and the missile testing range at St Lucia. After the completion of the Overberg testing site and the artillery testing range near Copperton, the local industries will have access to testing and measuring facilities which should fulfil their requirements. This will be a further development for the private sector too. This ability of Armscor to make provision for the South African consumers’ most challenging needs, without assistance from abroad, and the ability to enter successfully into competition with the rest of the world in the export market, deserves the highest praise, appreciation and support of everyone in the RSA.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Beaufort West has touched on a subject we all agree on, and that is that Armscor has made a tremendous contribution in the field of technology. I think that although we do not support the same systems of national service, it is also possible in the case of national service for us to agree that it is very valuable in terms of training shaping their characters.

I want to state that the discipline inherent in national service is valuable for forming character. Group discipline, the scrupulous relaying and obeying of rules and the willing and painstaking carrying out of instructions in a group, leads to the development of self-discipline, which is an absolute prerequisite for leadership. Discipline forms the infrastructure of every military organisation, training procedure or operation. It is an integrating component of the system, which ensures uniformity of behaviour.

In the limited time I have at my disposal I want to touch on seven points dealing with how the training ground of national service can contribute to the character formation of national servicemen. Although national service was not introduced for educational reasons, it nevertheless has certain positive results. I am thinking, for example, of the acquisition of specific skills which can be applied very usefully in later life.

The maintenance of physical fitness, which is achieved through physical exercise, drilling etc, can become a way of life, and we all know that a healthy mind presupposes a healthy body.

It creates improved human relations. Joint operations, co-operation and team-work improve human relations, and in our country this is very important. Personal neatness, exemplary behaviour and well-maintained equipment are impressed upon national servicemen, and remains with such a person throughout his life. Respect for Defence Force property, respect for symbols such as the national flag and the national anthem, as well as respect for traditions, historical events, etc is acquired. We all know that every unit or personnel division has specific past achievements which are emphasised and of which they are very proud.

The occasional unavoidable hardships develop perseverance at an age when young men are open to what they can learn about life from it. This is an asset which remains with them. One of the objections is that there is too little time for individuality, but compulsory competition and team-work promotes self-knowledge. National servicemen remember for the rest of their lives the lessons learnt during their national service on their own abilities and unfortunately also on their own inabilities. They become aware of their limitations, but they also become aware of their skills. This is particularly so in the case of those who undergo voluntary courses.

The grouping together of a diversity of socio-economic groups—I am referring to children from well-to-do and less well-to-do homes—is an equalising factor as is the fact that they wear the same uniform. Children from rural homes are grouped with city children and members of different language groups as well as young men with divergent convictions about life are bound together in unanimity. They learn about each other’s cultures, they develop a better concept of South African society, and it imparts tolerance to differences. They also become less provincial. In this way a spirit of national unity is cultivated.

The Bureau for Higher Education at the RAU launched an investigation into the way in which students who are ex-military become integrated in the university. Although the bureau indicated that generalisations could not be made yet on the basis of their research, it is nonetheless clear that students who completed their military service first, are generally better at adapting and achieving at universities. This group shows a greater measure of stability and maturity, a more stable interest and greater realism than students who continue their studies directly after school. This investigation was carried out by means of questions and answers. The following was one the questions asked:

The reply was:

This positive attitude and disposition to teachers and the increased acceptance of their actions and methods, definitely points to characteristics such as discipline, endurance, etc. The role played by military training to develop and extend these characteristics has certainly not been a minor one.

The important question to many parents is certainly whether the ideals of students who first complete their military training fade or not. The answer was that they became more strongly motivated during military service.

The allegation was also made that national servicemen became rusty during the two years of military training, particularly as far as the subject orientated subjects offered by certain universities were concerned. That allegation, however, was proved incorrect by the military students of 1979. The pass rate amongst those students was 92,1% in the Faculty of Economics and Management Sciences, 79,1% in the Faculty of Arts and 58,8% in the Faculty of Natural Sciences. Those pass rates were much higher than the average pass rates for first-year students at other universities.

As far as the question of knowledge of subject content growing rusty is concerned, the university can very easily compensate for that by making use of refresher courses. The hon member for Pietersburg put a question on this. Although I think one cannot be prescriptive about this, I nonetheless think that this investigation has certainly shown that the two years of national service does not have a negative effect on the tertiary training of such a student.

Although the main function of military service is to guarantee national freedom, I think that I have been able to show that we must not lose sight of the fact that the training of national servicemen holds many advantages for them which will stand them in good stead later on in life, and which can only be advantageous to our country as a whole at national level.

Mr Chairman, I have very little time at my disposal. I shall do as the hon member for Primrose suggested and reply in writing, as I did last year, to those aspects in questions of hon members to which I am not able to react now. Last year the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North upset the entire debate, and I am very pleased that he remained seated here the whole time this year so that he could see how a good discussion of a Vote should take place and so that it was not marred again, as last year’s discussion was.

He can speak again next year. [Interjections.]

The standard of today’s debate, with the exception of the remarks made by the hon member for Bryanston, was extremely high. The contributions made by all the parties were of an excellent standard.

Who wrote your speeches?

If the hon member for Bryanston would give me a chance, I will continue. The Defence Force is elevated above party politics by all the parties, and I want to thank all of them for the calibre of their speeches.

Vlokkie, you have been repudiated.

Today I perceived a golden thread running through this entire debate, and I am exceptionally grateful for it. It was the recognition for the excellent work and achievements of the SA Defence Force and Armscor. If I am any judge, Gen Geldenhuys and Comdt Marais and the personnel of both these officers may rest assured tonight, because hon members of this Committee demonstrated today their appreciation of the achievements of those two organisations in regard to the important task they have to fulfil in respect of the security of South Africa. I thank all hon members who paid tribute to these two organisations.

I want to begin with the hon member for Standerton. With his speech he set a high standard and demonstrated why he was such a stalwart. He replied very well to the hon member for Wynberg, and I have nothing to add to what he said. In fact he did so in a masterly fashion. He not only displayed political skill, but also his knowledge, by speaking authoritatively on the Soviet maritime threat.

The hon member for Kroonstad of course was an officer in the Air Force and it is clear that he is still very fond of it. That is why he made such a wonderful contribution, and I want to say that he really had both feet on the ground. [Interjections.]

Hon members must please pardon me if I do not reply to them in chronological sequence, but there are a few aspects I now wish to emphasise because I should not like to do it by means of correspondence. I want to begin with my hon Deputy Minister. I am not going to comment on what he said. I just want to say that his contribution is appreciated throughout. I do not mean only throughout this debate, but I appreciate his contribution throughout the year. I am not only speaking on my own behalf, but on behalf of the SA Defence Force and Armscor. To have such a positive, effective and inspired Deputy Minister is probably one of the pleasantest things in life. It facilitates my task, as well as the objectives and activities of the SA Defence Force and Armscor. I want to thank him very sincerely for the part he is playing in the defence of our country. [Interjections.]

I want to refer briefly to the hon member for Jeppe and the hon member for Pietersburg. As far as the hon member for Jeppe is concerned, I sympathise with him in regard to the specialised fields into which he betook himself, and therefore I do not want to involve him in any further specialised matters. However, I shall reply now to his question about the promotion prospects of Black people in the SA Defence Force. The appointment of officers—it makes no difference what population group they belong to—to the respective posts in the SA Defence Force takes place exclusively on the grounds of three aspects. The first is merit, the second qualifications and the third seniority. The same applies to the position of the Chief of the Defence Force, which Gen Geldenhuys occupies at present. [Interjections.] I want to state candidly that I am not prepared to drag the SA Defence into petty party-political issues. [Interjections.] Nor do I indulge in speculation. Moreover I am not a prophet to come and talk in this Committee about the promotion of various individuals. Let me state candidly now that if I were asked five years ago whether the hon member for Jeppe would become a major, I would have said I did not know. [Interjections.] I am not prepared to plunge the SA Defence Force into petty political issues, and in that respect I leave them alone.

I come now to the second matter which the hon member for Jeppe asked me about, viz the use of Defence Force helicopters for hunting purposes and of Defence Force aircraft by my hon colleagues in the Cabinet and by Public Servants. No helicopters are being used for hunting purposes.

Oh, please, that is a lie.

This was a vendetta …

Order! Did the hon member for Jeppe say it was a lie?

Yes, Sir, I said it and I withdraw it. I say it is an untruth.

No SA Defence Force helicopter is being used for hunting purposes. Instructions in this connection have been issued. The hon member for Durban Point will remember that, because he was here when the use of helicopters for hunting in South West Africa was debated for a long time. Certain directives have been laid down, and are being dealt with by the Department of Finance. They are only used if lives are in danger, or if there are animals for example that have to be killed by a hunter and which may otherwise perhaps hurt him. The department in question must apply to the Treasury, who may provide the Defence Force with authorization. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Jeppe wants to insinuate that hon Ministers are hunting from helicopters. I want to tell him that the Chief of the Defence Force has issued instructions that if any person hunts from a Air Force helicopter, steps will be taken against him and against the SA Defence Force. [Interjections.] If that hon member had kept quiet this afternoon and listened to me, he would not be asking such questions now.

It was very uninteresting.

I spoke this afternoon about Libyan connections, but he does not know what is means or what it is all about. I said there was such things as hit teams. Does he know what that means? He does not know, and we are making provision for such things. Those are matters we do not want to discuss in public, but he always wants to drag it across the floor of the House here, because it is concerned with the safety of people. If helicopters or aircraft are being used to take me or colleagues of mine to the hunting grounds or anywhere else, I am answerable for this, and I can give hon members the assurance that it is being done according to reasons that have been laid down.

He went even further and said that under certain circumstances some of my colleagues were being conveyed by Air Force aircraft. He wanted to insinuate that this was for private purposes. However, there is a State policy and directives, and these matters are dealt with accordingly. I am becoming angry about these insinuations of his because it seems as though my colleagues and I have no respect for the State, for the administration of the State and for the money of the State.

I want to say thank you very much for the comment which the hon member for Yeoville made here this afternoon when he discussed the administration of the finances of the SA Defence Force, for that is how we are managing our affairs, and not in the way the hon member for Jeppe was insinuating.

Chris Heunis was brought to a NP meeting by helicopter …

Order! The hon member for Jeppe will not make any further comments on the hon the Minister’s speech.

I come now to the hon member for Pietersburg. I want to thank him for the very good contribution he made.

I assure him that the system concerning the choice of national service before or after tertiary education is being maintained. It is a pity that he, too, in addition to this good contribution he made, belaboured the hackneyed subject of own affairs and general affairs. I have stated my standpoint on national service for Coloureds and Indians over and over again in this House, and I refer him to my replies to the questions in this House, and in particular to question 45 of 11 March 1986, which was put by the hon member for Jeppe. I explained the legal position in my reply to this question …

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon the Minister?

I just want to finish. When I am finished, I shall give him plenty of time. I made statements in this regard, here and in the other Houses. Yesterday I had a long discussion concerning Coloureds and Indians and national service and national service obligations. I ask hon members to go and read what I had said. I tell this to all and sundry. But they think it is a secret. They do not know what is happening in the two other Houses of Parliament, because they live wrapped up in their own cocoon here. [Interjections.] Therefore, Mr Chairman, I think I have already replied fully in regard to this matter, and I am now going to leave it at that. The hon member pointed out that the number of Coloured people in the Defence Force, proportionally, was small compared with the number of Whites doing national service. However, the number of Coloured members doing operational duty at any given juncture in South West Africa is proportionately far greater than the number of White national servicemen doing operational service there voluntarily.

That brings me now to the hon member for Sasolburg. [Interjections.] I listened with interest to his radical statements. Of course I meant what I said earlier this afternoon. I also think that it appeared to be clear enough. It is clear that the standpoint of the hon member for Sasolburg in regard to South West Africa and its ties with South Africa have not kept pace with the realities of and the present-day developments in the world. It seems that his party has been in the political wilderness for so long that it was not even able to read about all the things that have happened. [Interjections.] I take it amiss of the hon member, though, for involving Gen Lloyd in politics. The general was not referring to the political restrictions which this Government imposed on him, but to the general political restrictions inherent in the entire situation.

I should now like to say a word or two in regard to the speech made by the hon member for Yeoville. He discussed the Air Force and hostile air forces here. He made one of the best speeches on one of the most likely things that could occur. He subsequently discussed unemployment and the quality of life, which must be improved in South Africa. If the hon member for Sasolburg would only listen more frequently to the hon member for Yeoville he would understand more in connection with what is happening in regard to defence and security in this country. [Interjections.] However, he is cynical. He listens to no one. I really thought he would listen to the hon member for Yeoville, but it seems to me he does not even want to listen to him.

Harry, you must speak to Louis, do you hear! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the unfortunate thing of course is that the hon member for Sasolburg is not interested in facts at all. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, the hon member Mr Vermeulen is a Free Stater. Of him one can only say: “Vrystaat!” I thank him for his contribution.

This brings me now to the hon member for Wynberg. Actually I do not want to add much to what has already been said. Hon members on this side of the House have replied to him fully enough. I am thinking in this respect of the hon member for Standerton, the hon member for Helderkruin, the hon member for George and the hon member for Johannesburg West. Nevertheless I still have appreciation for the hon member for Wynberg. I said today that I had taken cognisance of his attitude, and I trust that we will understand one another better in future, because it is in the national interests. I want to tell him this, and I extend the hand of friendship to him.

He discussed the Geldenhuys Committee and he asked me whether the British system had been investigated. Yes, it was investigated and was also rejected. It is inappropriate in this country because the United Kingdom and South Africa cannot be compared with one another.

A scientific study by the HSRC and by Unisa, in co-operation with the Defence Force, proved that the present manpower set-up was cost effective. That is one of the reasons why the Geldenhuys Committee made these recommendations.

The hon member for Wynberg nevertheless said things here this afternoon that were perfectly true, and I want to compliment him on doing so. He certainly has an insight into military matters. That is definitely the case, and I want to tell him that it would be a pity if he were to disappear from the scene as the military spokesman of the PFP. I want to tell him that the South African Defence Force and Armscor considers him to be a friend, because they know he places the interests of the Republic of South Africa first, although he levels a great deal of criticism at them. I want to assure him that they appreciate that criticism which he expresses in this House.

I come now to the hon member for Vryheid. Unfortunately he cannot be here this evening, but he tendered his apologies. He spoke with authority on border protection, because he knows about it. It is in his constituency that the first training was carried out according to the new national service system. I add what he said to the contribution made by the hon member for Humans-dorp. The hon member for Humansdorp revealed a tremendous insight and made a contribution on the commandos. While we were listening to it, we knew why the commandos were so important.

I should now like to put a question because the hon member for Wynberg argued that we should in fact have a larger Permanent Force, and that we should get rid of the other part-time forces that have obligations. When we listened to those two hon members who spoke about the Commando Force— this afternoon we did not discuss the Citizen Force—surely it is clear that we in this country and under the circumstances in which we are living, and mindful of the manpower distribution and the tasks that have to be performed, cannot get rid of the Citizen Force and the Commando Force. I think that ought to serve as an additional reason to make him realise that the demands he is making are unattainable.

The hon members for Randfontein, Benoni, Swellendam and Helderkruin discussed various aspects of the revolutionary onslaught. All four made staunch contributions, and I appreciate them. In particular I appreciate the fact that emphasis was placed on the threat constituted by the ANC, the psychological onslaught on the people in our country, and the ECC.

†That brings me to the hon member for Durban Central who should guard against playing games with regard to what equals what. Nevertheless, he received answers to his questions in what I have said since he delivered his speech, with which the hon the Deputy Minister also dealt.

Matters raised by the hon member for Bezuidenhout will be studied and discussed in consultation with my hon colleagues concerned and with the Head of the Military Veterans’ Administration. I think he made a couple of very good points which warrant investigation. [Interjections.] I may add that I have also received a deputation of ex-servicemen’s organisations in connection with military pensions, and that I shall go into the matter.

*The hon member Dr Vilonel asked for consideration to be given to the insertion of the logo of the SA Medical Services, as the fourth arm of the Defence Force, in the emblem of the SA Defence Force. The heraldic experts are of the opinion that the present design is so crowded that we cannot insert anything. This afternoon the hon member brought along examples here of what he had in mind, but I think he will agree with me that it will be very difficult, for example, to include the little snake in that emblem as well. I want to thank him for his positive contribution on the role of the SA Medical Services. We have, as he does, great appreciation for the good work that is being done by this arm of the Defence Force.

That brings me to the hon member for Durban Point, who is a veteran in the discussion of this Vote. He can speak with authority about constants and variables, and has knowledge of things such as planning and evaluation, which are difficult matters. He will know what I am talking about.

†The hon member for Durban Point referred to a standing committee on security. I will consider his recommendation, but I think it is very doubtful whether we should start to think in terms of amalgamating the two particular committees.

In addition to the other two, not amalgamating them.

I want to add, concerning the points the hon member raised in regard to the standing committee, that I think the standing committee should be accorded a higher status. I have instructed the Chief of the Defence Force that an office should be made available at the Ministry of Defence in Pretoria for the chairman of the standing committee. Members of the Standing Committee on Defence, when they come to Pretoria, will then be able to make use of this office, and they can therefore feel at home in the department. If the members have then any connections with us, they can, as soon as they come to Pretoria, make themselves at home there. [Interjections.]

†If the hon member for Durban Point will let me have the information in his possession on the matters referred to in his questions, I will have it investigated and compared with the answers furnished by me. The hon member for Durban Point is obviously well aware of the fact that neither I nor the South African Defence Force has any say in decisions of the Exemptions Board. I suggest that he approach my colleague, the hon the Minister of Manpower in this regard.

*I regret to say that my time has expired. I shall reply to other hon members in writing.

I should like to thank everyone.

Vote agreed to.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No 19.