as Chairman presented the Report of the Select Committee on Allegations by Members.

Report, proceedings and evidence to be printed and considered.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to say that we on these benches will be voting against this clause. I do not wish to waste the time of the House by devoting too much time to the reasons why we shall be voting against this clause. I shall deal with this matter in more detail when we discuss clause 4 at which stage the discussion of the principle involved will be far more appropriate than under this clause. All I wish to say at this juncture is that hon. members of this Committee must remember that in times of stress the merchant fleet becomes the merchant navy and that all those who serve in the merchant navy will in fact be serving their country just like any other person would be doing in any capacity in the Defence Force.

With those few words, Sir, we shall be voting against this clause.

Mr. Chairman, like the hon. members of the PFP, the NRP will also be voting against this clause because we also believe that our merchant navy can be considered to be part and parcel of the armed forces. I think that if ever there was a case in which the merchant marine should be considered as being just that, it is the case of the Falkland issue. That is where we see the proof of the pudding.

We believe, therefore, that the action to be taken by the PFP and ourselves is the correct one and has an important bearing on the content of this Bill.

Mr. Chairman, we on this side of the House are going to vote for the retention of this clause. A few years ago, the position was that the training a person underwent while doing service in the merchant fleet, was identical to the training he underwent while doing service in the South African Navy. In the past, therefore, the training was interchangeable; the training and experience were the same. This is the fundamental reason why it appeared in the legislation. This is no longer the situation at present, and one cannot in any way compare the training in the merchant fleet with the training which is undergone in the South African Navy at present. It is not interchangeable, and with all due respect, I wish to state that it would be wrong to delete this clause.

I wish to point out that the merchant fleet is analogous to the South African Airways. If one were to say that the training in the merchant fleet is equivalent to the training in the South African Defence Force, there is no logical reason why one could not say that the pilots of the South African Airways should be treated in the same way. I think hon. members in this Committee will realize that this is not the case. That is why one cannot vote for the deletion of this clause.

Mr. Chairman. I do not think the hon. member for Pretoria West knows the Defence Act and understands what it really means. I think he should read the following—

In time of war it means that we have nobody who can claim service in the merchant fleet, because this clause must be read in conjunction with the provisions dealing with service in the defence of the Republic, and it means military service in time of war in connection with the discharge of obligations of the Republic. It has nothing to do with the question of how much service a man must give. The reason why this clause must remain is to enable one to have control over one’s merchant navy which is as such part of the defence of South Africa. As we have seen from the Falkland Islands’ problem, large numbers of ships are required in time of war. People then come and do serve as anybody else does.

Mr. Chairman, I listened with interest to the hon. member for Pretoria West. I am afraid I cannot agree with him at all because although I freely concede that there is a considerable amount of electronics in the navy today which they do not have in the merchant fleet, we still require people aboard merchant ships to be seamen, and in the merchant fleet they are trained as seamen. I know there are many people who think that in no time flat one can get a schoolmaster and turn him into a marine or maritime officer, but there is a lot more to being a sailor than that. When it comes to the question of using the merchant marines in war, perhaps because we happen to be a continental country and not an island country, certain of the militarists believe that they are not going to have to use the merchant marines, but how wrong can they be? What would be the situation, for example, if at some stage somebody was to want to have a go at Wai vis Bay? Flow are we going to get our masses of personnel there? We shall have to use merchant ships to take our troops there. They are going to be subjected to fire. I have seen over many years in many parts of the world what merchant ships have had to be subjected to. In the event of war the first thing that any enemy wants to do, is to sink as many of your merchant ships as possible to ensure that you cannot get additional supplies. And we are going to have to get supplies from elsewhere. These men are under fire right from the beginning of a war just as much as are the members of any other service. If we are going to deprive these people of their quasi military status, then I think we shall be doing a great disservice to people who in time of need will, I think, be a vitally important part of our military forces.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot find fault with the arguments which the hon. members of the Opposition advanced, but if we look at the clause, we find that it is concerned with a completely different aspect. When we examine the clause, I want to draw attention once again to what the hon. member for Pretoria West said. In South Africa we have created a certain mechanism in order to determine what a key post is. We have done this with the purpose of exempting certain individuals or certain organizations, under certain circumstances, from a liability to serve. Because, in my opinion, the merchant fleet is, as the Opposition put it, one of the most important elements we have, we have created the mechanism in the Manpower Board enabling it to be classified as a key post and dealt with accordingly. This means that if it is dealt with in that way, by means of that mechanism, other posts and other appointments, for example, the South African Airways, as the hon. member for Pretoria West pointed out, cannot begin to lay claim to the same thing. They have to be dealt with by this mechanism. Consequently I cannot accept the proposed deletion.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, this is now the beginning of the real debate in this Committee Stage because we start here really to deal with the substance of the Bill. Let me say right at the outset that perhaps my main regret in regard to this measure as it now stands before the House, is that there was no real endeavour by the governing party to obtain consensus on the Bill. This is the tragedy which now confronts us. Nobody can say that we who sit here have not tried over very many years not only to keep the S.A. Defence Force out of politics, but also to get agreement on legislation which is affecting the defence of the Republic. The purpose of a Select Committee has always been to try to achieve consensus in respect of matters before it. But in this case the governing party went out of its way to create a situation whereby they clearly indicated that they were not interested in consensus. They were only interested in majority decisions and in bulldozing this through. [Interjections.] That is the tragedy of the Bill, and that is also the tragedy that we who have tried to defend the Defence Force against attacks from all sorts of quarters, have to face today. Now we have to face it and we are now getting “a kick in the pants”, if I may use the proverbial term, from the NP for our endeavours over many years. [Interjections.] This is what breaks the heart of those of us who take the view that there should be consensus on defence matters.

There are really three important matters in this Bill, and they need to be discussed together. These are, firstly, the number of years to be served; secondly, the number of days to be served in each of these years and, thirdly, the extension of the age up to which military service must be done. These matters should all be treated together as they are actually part of a package. They therefore should be debated together. Our attitude on the package, which includes the extension of the period of service to 14 years, is influenced by the following factors: Firstly, we are committed to the defence of the Republic both against external aggression and internal violence and terror; secondly, we regard the S.A. Defence Force as a shield against this violence, and under the shelter of this shield the political solutions must be found to solve the long-term problems and unite the population against any aggressor or employer of violence or terror and, thirdly, to meet the threats against the Republic and find the solution calls are made upon manpower, not only by the S.A. Defence Force, but also by the economy. A strong economy is an essential ingredient in the process of solving the Republic’s problems and without a healthy economy a strong defence force cannot be financed or serviced. A delicate balance must therefore be achieved between the demands made upon the Republic’s manpower resources, and in this view we are not alone. We are supported by virtually every responsible organization in commerce and industry in South Africa.

Let me quote what the S.A. Federated Chamber of Industries has had to say—

They are here referring to human resources—

Assocom has stated—

The Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut has stated—

The Steel and Engineering Industries Federation of South Africa has stated—

In the Select Committee, however, we found that no adequate research had been done to determine the relative needs. No evidence was given on the effect on the economy of the Bill other than in the memoranda of organizations, who were all disturbed by it. No statistics or research on the subject was made available to the Select Committee. The oral evidence—which was not recorded—given to the Select Committee was given only by the S.A. Defence Force and that evidence related solely to its own requirements. In reality, therefore, this legislation is being introduced without an adequate background and research as to its effects on the economy. All that can be relied on is an exemption board to deal ad hoc with individual cases for exemption or deferment. The FCI makes the point very clearly when they ask for what they call “a composite manpower scheduling mechanism” if it does not exist, and it certainly does not. They also call for what they call “opportunity costing”. This has not been done. There was not even a debate on the written evidence from sources other than the S.A. Defence Force in the Select Committee. Members were left to consider it as they wished to do with the clauses as they were debated. The approach of the majority appeared to be: “These are the requirements of the S.A. Defence Force; we must accept them as correct, and that is the end of the story.” This then was their attitude, so much so that they actually passed a resolution to this effect on 24 May.

We therefore take the view that this matter has not been adequately investigated in so far as the economy is concerned. The Bill’s consequences in its demand on manpower may be serious for the South African economy. We therefore believe that it cannot be supported in its present form, not until the position has been accurately assessed. At no stage has it been suggested that the position is so urgent that it cannot await proper investigation. On the contrary, it has been agreed that the Bill is only to come into force at the beginning of January 1983. We therefore believe at this stage, firstly, that the law should be changed to make the burden on the Citizens’ Force personnel more equitable. Secondly, it should be changed by increasing the total number of days to be served from 240 to 480. This will make the system more equitable towards those who have done and who will do border service and will also considerably increase the number of man days available for the S.A. Defence Force by requiring those who presently are not required to do extra service in terms of section 92ter(2) to actually serve the same number of days as the others. Thirdly, it should be changed by giving members the option of rendering continuous service instead of interrupted service. In that way, there will be less disruption of the economy and more cost-effective rendering of military service. Fourthly, the S.A. Defence Force must ensure that all available manpower is used to the maximum extent and in the most efficient manner. Complaints of manpower not being fully utilized will then be reduced to a minimum. Fifthly, as a medium-term objective we still believe that a larger Permanent Force will be more cost effective and will enable all races to participate on a volunteered basis to a greater extent and will relieve the burden presently being carried by young White men. Sixthly, the problem of immigrants has not been dealt with by the Select Committee, and this should be investigated during the recess.

This increase of the period to 14 years means that a young man starting his career starts off with a two-year delay—as under the present system—in starting that career. Therefore for 12 years he may spend an average of two months a year on service. Add to this further time for study and for vacation—if he can get this—then, as Assocom says, “effectively they would be available to work for their employees for less than nine months in any year”. That is eight months in the one year and ten months in another. The employee will encounter competition in respect of his own career from those who do not have to serve, and the employer will get faced with problems in regard to increased production costs and difficulties in paying employees while on service. I therefore move as an amendment—

Lastly, as Assocom says—

They do not mention another source, i.e. immigrants. I quote further from what Assocom has had to say—

They also draw attention to the fact that people who in the past four years have attained seniority will create problems in having their posts filled while they are away, while their higher earnings will have financial implications for their employers.

Family life, the promotion of individuals, the financial position of individuals, all are affected as people get older and older. A longer period of military service will therefore have very serious implications, and that is why we have moved that this period of 14 years be restored to what it was, in the light of what I indicated will be our attitude on the other clauses.

Mr. Chairman, before I deal with the clause, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he would not consider agreeing that this clause stand over until we have dealt with clause 5. Clause 4 specifies an overall period of 14 years. I believe that what is important is what is required during that period, and that this is even more important than the overall period. If the obligation placed upon people during those 14 years is spread one way, then it could be acceptable. If, however, it is spread in another way it could be unacceptable. I would therefore suggest that we would have a more fruitful debate if we first dealt with the question of the six cycles of 30 days and 90 days which, in any event, determines the 14 years, before we deal with the figure in vacuum, without the periods of service that will comprise it. If the hon. the Minister could perhaps indicate whether he is prepared to let it stand over, I will not proceed to put my stand point about clause 4 now.

Mr. Chairman, in my view it is very important that one should start with the period and then discuss how the period is made up. To first discuss the way the period is made up and then to discuss the period itself would at this stage not really make much sense. Consequently I am sorry that I cannot comply with the hon. member’s request. I have tried to accommodate the hon. member for Durban Point by referring this legislation to a Select Committee and I do not believe that a further debate on this point will at this stage be worthwhile.

Mr. Chairman, I will then deal with the clause. Sir, this is perhaps one of the unhappiest debates on defence matters in which I have participated. [Interjections.] It was certainly the unhappiest Select Committee in which I have had to participate, and it was so because of the total inflexibility and unwillingness on the part of the governing party to argue, to discuss or to consider in depth any alternative proposals.

And they want a people’s Army!

Therefore we have to come to this House, which is the final authority, and plead for debate and consideration of those issues which we failed to debate in depth and also, I believe, on merit in the Select Committee.

I want to disassociate myself from the sort of interjection made just now by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North. [Interjections.] I am here to try to get the best Bill it is possible to achieve. I am attempting to improve the measure, not to have a confrontation with the hon. the Minister or with the Defence Force.

Sir, I want to approach this measure from a different angle from which the hon. member for Yeoville has taken. He has dealt with the effect this measure will have on the economy and its effect on manpower. I want to approach it from the angle of its effect on the Defence Force itself, on the men who make up the Citizen Force and who will have to perform this service. That is why I wanted to deal with the periods before the final total, because I believe that what is critical is that we have a strongly motivated and dedicated Citizen Force which is the backbone of South Africa’s security. [Interjections.] I believe that the 30/90 day cycle every two years imposes a burden on those citizen soldiers which militates against morale, motivation and therefore ultimate effectiveness. I believe that what we have to look for is a system of defence that imposes a burden that will not overstrain the individual lives of private citizens who become soldiers for part of the year—will not place such a burden on the leadership of the units in which they serve that too many of the members of those units and the regiments themselves find the burden too much to carry. This happens when interference with their earnings or their livelihood, promotion in their occupations and generally their opportunities in life, including their family responsibilities become too serious to carry. I believe that this House still has time to look at another system that will spread the three months’ camps, which is the main burden, over a longer period. One does not have tremendous resistance to or tremendous problems with the one month camps. The problem lies with the three month camps when a man is taken out of his job for a quarter of the year. Then he sees other people passing him on the promotion scale. In the early stages he might often see people without any military obligation—either people of colour of immigrants—filling positions because they did not have to be absent from their jobs to meet military obligations. It is then possible for those people to move faster up the promotion ladder. These are the realities of life. I have been looking at this measure from the point of view of the men themselves. What I want to consider is the effect on the units concerned.

The period of 14 years might however, well be acceptable if the spread within that period was different, and on the next clause I shall move an amendment to have a three-year spread. Then one could even look at a period of 14 years, although I believe that a period of twelve years would be enough. The proposal, as it now stands, militates against what we are aiming to achieve. One is going to get even more applications for deferment, when it comes to these 90-day camps, as the burden gets bigger and bigger. That is the problem. As the burden becomes greater, so there will be more and more people—not because they want to or are trying it on—being obliged to appeal for deferment or exemption. The area-bound provision will help the one-man businesses, but that is only helping a small fraction of those who will be affected. I believe very sincerely that if we could spread the burden, there would actually be more people available in the field doing their border camps of three months, because they would be able to plan their lives, plan their family affairs and their business affairs so that they could be away for three months every third year. To have to make those arrangements every other year, however, is an ever-increasing burden.

For those now being called up every year it will, of course, be a relief—some people have been called up every year. For those few it would certainly be a relief, but I think that the wider the spread of camps, the better. There are also other reasons which I shall be motivating when we deal with clause 5, but I do believe that the spread is the crucial aspect. However, if the hon. the Minister is not prepared to discuss the content of the 14-year period, we must of necessity deal with the bare, blank figure of 14 years in vacuo.

I therefore have no option but to move as an amendment—

This itself is in a vacuum, because its implementation depends on the content of those 12 years in respect of which I will move an amendment to the next clause. So, again, I appeal to the hon. the Minister to reconsider: Let us look at the content of these years before we determine the final figure. The hon. the Minister might be able to persuade me that 14 years is acceptable, provided it is made up in a way which will not place what I believe to be too heavy a burden on the Citizen Force member. In the meantime I shall persist with my amendment and we shall have to deal with this in isolation.

I am sorry that I heard noises when I spoke of the Select Committee. I think that any fair member of the Select Committee will agree that we did not discuss the merits of amendments but only whether they were acceptable or not to the Defence Force and to the Government members of the Select Committee. We did not discuss their merits per se. This is what I am trying to do in the House. That is why I am not seeking confrontation but a desire to attempt to improve this measure so that we can achieve the three things South Africa wants. The first is security, which is primary. Nobody can doubt this party’s loyalty to the defence needs of South Africa over the years. Secondly, we need a system which places a bearable burden on the men themselves whilst allowing sufficient manpower in the field to provide that security. Thirdly, we have to make sure that we do not introduce a measure—I put the approach of the hon. member for Yeoville as the third and not the first target—that will place such a burden on our economy and our manpower that we weaken the infrastructure which can keep the defence effort itself strong, powerful and adequately served.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to agree with the hon. member for Yeoville that clause 4 is the clause in which the realities of this amending Bill come to the fore. Accordingly, I think it would be as well if I began by referring to the report issued by the Select Committee. Paragraph 2 reads—

I want to express my thanks and appreciation to the S.A. Defence Force for the information they provided, their extensive talks with us and their long explanations. We had a great deal of time to consult with them. I also wish to thank those people who sent us memoranda. Looking at the report of the Select Committee one notes that 28 bodies and persons, plus an additional 13, submitted memoranda. We want to thank them sincerely for the memoranda they submitted. Each of us considered them and took cognizance of them, and we are grateful for them.

Then, too, I wish to thank the secretariat. They worked for long hours. The Select Committee worked under tremendous pressure and sat long hours. Accordingly I wish to thank the secretariat as well.

I also wish to thank my colleagues on both sides of the House for their co-operation. It went well. All of us, in terms of our specific approaches, did our best for the S.A. Defence Force. Thus it is that the penultimate paragraph of the report states—

It is in that belief that I stand here, and because I believe that this Bill will contribute towards the protection of the interests and the stability of the security of South Africa. In reality we are dealing here with a hidden problem. The other side of the House talks about rigidity, about people who do not wish to co-operate, people who did not want to achieve consensus. Therefore there is a hidden problem. The hidden problem lies in the fact that we do not all perceive the threat to the Republic of South Africa. In this regard I need only refer to the speeches of hon. members of the official Opposition as recorded in Hansard, speeches in which they deny that there is a threat to the country. If, of course, one denies that there is indeed a threat to the country, one will not agree with the extension of national service in the Defence Force. That is the hidden reason.

On Friday, 2 April 1982, the hon. the Minister put forward the three main principles of this measure in this House as follows (Hansard, col. 4145)—

In terms of the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville, there will be no extension of the period of service at all. How, then, can we accept that amendment? How can we accept it when, as the hon. the Minister put it himself, the extension of the period of service is one of the three main principles of the legislation? Accordingly I do not believe that we can accept the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville.

Therefore, when I maintain that the problem indeed lies in the fact that we have differing opinions as regards the growth of the threat to our country, this refers to only one of our problems. With regard to the memorandum submitted to the Select Committee, I just wish to point out that each member of that Select Committee was entitled to ask that a specific memorandum be discussed. Each member of the Committee was entitled to do so.

And nobody did so.

Now I want to know what the problem is. What are the complaints now? Everyone had the opportunity to ask for the discussion of a specific memorandum. A variety of aspects were incorporated in the various memoranda. In some of them the statement was made that the principles of the legislation were unacceptable. That the Select Committee, with the greatest respect, can do nothing about. Others, again, said that they wholeheartedly welcomed and supported the three principles of the legislation, particularly the principle of the extension of the period of service. Several people supported in their memoranda the idea that the S.A. Defence Force should at all times have the necessary manpower at its disposal. Hon. members can go and read them for themselves.

Who? Mention a few examples. [Interjections.]

What is important too, of course, is that other people, again, raised matters which fell outside the ambit of the inquiry by the Select Committee. For example, they discussed conscientious objectors, immigrants and aliens, and so on. However, the fact remains that it was the fullest right of every hon. member in the Select Committee to ask that a memorandum be discussed, particularly if he were of the opinion that a specific memorandum specially merited discussion. After all, we should really be honest and fair now. We must not kick up a fuss in this regard when in fact when there is nothing to kick up a fuss about.

I also wish to point out that we conducted very long discussions with the S.A. Defence Force. Literally hours were spent consulting about certain aspects of the measure. I must of course mention that not all the members of the Select Committee were present throughout. However, that is not my fault. [Interjections.] It is not my fault that people are not there to participate when the Select Committee meets. I therefore believe that we should really show some fairness. [Interjections.] I should like hon. members of the official Opposition at least to act fairly. We are dealing here with legislation that is in the interests of the Republic of South Africa as a whole. Therefore we must not try to play politics now.

Why did you not call more witnesses?

The hon. member for Durban Central asks why we did not call more witnesses. I do just wish to point out that after the evidence had already appeared in memoranda, only one application was received for the submission of oral evidence by one person. There were no further applications from anyone else. Let us, then, be honest about this matter.

Now, however, I wish to refer to the economic side of the matter. If there was one aspect that the Select Committee was concerned about, then it was the influence of the extension of national service on the economy of South Africa. Now no-one must come and tell me that we did not consider this. We gave it a tremendous amount of attention. To tell the truth, the White Paper proved it. In the White Paper it is stated, inter alia, that “war and economy are things not easily reconciled.” Those are the words of Edmund Burke. That was also the problem of the Select Committee, viz. to reconcile possible defence requirements and economic matters with one another. Although the onslaught on South Africa is increasing, it fluctuates, too. The threat to us fluctuates. At the same time, our economic situation fluctuates as well. These demands are constantly fluctuating! After all, we cannot therefor follow a rigid formula. Some of the people who submitted memoranda to us in fact said—they were representative opinions—that we should create an instrument capapble of solving the fluctuating problems of both the Defence Force and the economy. Such an instrument has been created in the Exemption Board. When one reads this Bill one realizes that it is a means whereby we can solve the economic problems. If one amends the composition of the Exemption Board a little, and perhaps involves representatives of employers in the private sector, it may become even a better means. We are entering times when an altered constitutional system will be created. It may be that more people become available for the Defence Force. [Interjections.] Then we should be able to meet these requirements. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will consider doing something in connection with the period. At present it is 14 years, divided into periods of two plus 12. If in the light of this the hon. the Minister considers the issue the 11th or 12th years, in the circumstances he may concent that people in these years could only be called up per unit with his permission? That would be helpful because it is not the idea to call up people unnecessarily. What benefit is there for the economy of the country, or for the Defence Force—because they also have to bear those costs—of calling people up unnecessarily? Therefor I wholeheartedly believe that this piece of legislation emanating from the Select Committee will meet the requirements that we have set, and they are that we must have sufficient manpower. We must have a broader basis of manpower and we must be able to grant service credits on a daily basis. We must also have the necessary time to train leaders. I believe that that period of 14 years is imperative and that we must retain that period. It must not be reduced to 10 years, because if we were to do that, that would undoubtedly frustrate the principles laid down by the hon. the Minister. I can see no reason to change that period. We must make provision now for a possible escalation so that we can protect this beloved country of ours at all costs. I believe that the citizens of this country will do that. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in the first place I want to congratulate the hon. member for Pretoria West, who was the chairman of the Select Committee, on the fact that he and his committee were able to do work of such importance and magnitude within such a relatively short period and submit it to this Committee today.

As a matter of fact, clause 4 contains the crux of this legislation, namely, the extended liability of every male voter with regard to this and every other branch of our security services, including the S.A. Railways Police. The best deterrent to a confrontation is a strong and prepared Defence Force. The hon. member for Yeoville raised objections regarding economic conditions which could be endangered. I want to ask the hon. member for Yeoville what is going to become of our economy in this country if we lose a military battle. [Interjections.] Prosperity and the maintenance of sound economic conditions in South Africa depends to a great extent on a prepared and strong Defence Force.

On the occasion of the unveiling of a commemorative wall for those killed in action at 1 Parachute Battalion, the Minister put it as follows. He said—

The hon. the Minister went on to say—

The hon. the Minister said that this was the reason why the S.A. Defence Force had approached Parliament to be able to have a greater claim on the country’s manpower resources if this should become necessary. He also said the use made of this power would depend on the escalation of the onslaught, and this depends on what the hon. member for Pretoria West referred to, namely that provision must be made now for the maximum involvement of the entire population of the country. However, this will still be linked to the escalation of hostilities. It therefore does not necessarily follow that those maximum forces will be used now. These were the hon. the Minister’s closing words—

As a result of the system in force at the moment, we have a drop in participation in the volunteer corps of our Defence Force in particular. When one considers the tasks of an average rural commando, one should note that it involves regional protection as well as the protection of national key points, the protection of homes, 24 hour aid to the S.A. Police, aid to civil defence organizations and gathering of information. Accordingly one realizes that this is an enormous task which the commando force is to be burdened with, and the manpower is not available to carry out this task. There are various reasons for this. That is why it is absolutely essential that the burden be distributed more evenly among our population.

We have frequently came across the following situation in the past: we find that a commando must for example, guard a national key point. We find that that commando is mainly manned by active farmers. This farmer must then leave his home and guard that national key point at night. This means that one has the situation that while that farmer is guarding a national key point, the uninvolved persons living in that town are attending a wild party, and they jeer at that commando member when they drive past that key point. The commando member is doing his share, but he is becoming unwilling to carry on because there are uninvolved persons in the same area who are not prepared to do anything.

The extended military service now required is imperative for our commando system in particular. It is absolutely essential to keep the farmer, who knows his veld, who knows every path through that veld, who knows every connecting route, who knows every hill and stream in his area, on active commando duty for as long as possible. The active farmers from the backbone of the commandos. Our farmers have also always formed the backbone of our South African politics, as is the case at present. For this reason I am opposed to the amendment moved by the official Opposition and I want to support the Bill on behalf of the CP.

Order! I want to point out to hon. members that I have allowed one hon. member from each party to discuss the general principles of the Bill. Up to now I have therefore allowed a free discussion. Further discussions during this debate will be on the Bill before the Committee, and in this connection I refer hon. members to Standing Order No. 63—

I request hon. members from now on to adhere to the provisions of Standing Order No. 63.

Mr. Chairman, I want to start off by reacting to a statement made by the hon. member for Pretoria West. I want to make it quite clear for the record that on more than one occasion I have asked for memoranda which had been submitted to the Select Committee to be debated by the committee. But a debate was not allowed, and therefore we could not deal with the Bill as we should have dealt with it in a Select Committee. [Interjections.] Although organizations in the private sector did offer to give verbal evidence no such verbal evidence was in fact taken by the Select Committee. For instance, I could quote from a document from the United Municipal Executive of South Africa in which they offered to give such verbal evidence. Assocom did the same.

I now want to get back to the Bill. The effect of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Yeoville will be that the time in the post-basic period of training will remain eight years and not be increased to 12 years. When one considers this amendment it should be considered together with the amendment which we have on clause 5 and in which we proposed that the number of cycles referred to in the Bill should be reduced from six to four. One cannot debate this aspect seriously without thinking about both aspects at the same time.

The effect of the two amendments read together would mean that, besides the two-year period, each member of the Citizen Force would be required to serve for four cycles amounting to 480 days as opposed to the period as suggested in the Bill. The question before us really is whether our proposal would fulfil the real needs of defending our country and not the needs as spelt out by the S.A. Defence Force. I believe this is where one of the major problems lies in discussing this Bill. So far we have not been given sufficient information, here or in the Select Committee, to convince us that there is a need to increase the frontline manpower by a figure well in excess of 50% of the current availability of manpower. I want to stress that the time and the place to sort out the issue to which I have just referred, viz. the extent of the manpower required, was in the Select Committee. However, in that committee the issues were discussed so quickly, and the steamroller effect was such that a real discussion was not possible. [Interjections.] By increasing the number of years from eight to 12 in the post-basic training period, the manpower availability would, as I have already said, be increased by more than 50%. In terms of this Bill all Citizen Force members will be slotted into a regular 120-cycle, consisting of a 30-day training period and a 90-day active service period. Provided the Defence Force works to a strict and well-defined programme the amount of time served by Citizen Force members will be increased because with a well-planned and well-defined cycle system, the Citizen Force members will know well in advance when their call-ups are going to be, and they will then be able to plan their lives accordingly. That will mean that instead of having something like 20% to 30% of Citizen Force members having to apply for exemption or deferment, that percentage would probably drop very dramatically. It would probably drop by half, if not by more. Therefore I say that the availability of manpower in terms of the Bill will be increased by well in excess of 50%. The increase will probably be closer to 60% to 70%.

Another reason why the number of deferments will dramatically be reduced is because all service will in fact count as from now. Every day will count. Therefore the temptation to apply for deferment or exemption will be much less than it is at present. I would go so far as to say that if a correct cycle system were worked out, even without having to extend the number of years, the amount of manpower would be increased very, very dramatically, and we would not need the number of additional years proposed in the Bill.

Another point which is often brought up during debate in favour of the 12-year period is the need for more leadership material. It is stated that within the eight-year period one cannot provide sufficient leadership material to do what must be done in the frontline. I can understand and I accept that it is very difficult to produce leaders of the calibre which is required in the space of time available, namely eight years, but then this question arises: Is it really fair to expect the civilian population of South Africa to produce the leadership material which South Africa requires today? Is our society so structured that it can be done? Should that leadership material not come from members of the S.A. Defence Force, who are in fact permanent professional soldiers? Under different circumstances the leadership material would in fact come from those men who want to be soldiers, who are happy to be soldiers and who make it their life’s task to lead in times of stress, in times of war or where there are border incidents such as at present.

Therefore, for those reasons, and I can think of other reasons as well, I support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Yeoville.

Mr. Chairman, in the first instance I wish to thank the hon. member for Pietersburg for his support and the support of his party. I agree with him that only a strong and prepared Defence Force will guarantee our continued existence.

†Then I also want to pay tribute to the chairman of the Select Committee. Several speakers in the Opposition benches have been critical of the workings of the Select Committee, but I want to say that I think the chairman of the Select Committee handled a difficult Bill in a short period of time very adequately indeed. I reject completely the allegations that there were attempts either by the chairman or by members of the NP in the Select Committee to steamroller this Bill through the Select Committee. Every opportunity was given to debate matters that came before the Select Committee. We had a number of memoranda referred to the committee and those memoranda could have been studied in detail by members of the committee.

Why are we not allowed to discuss them?

I say therefore that every reasonable opportunity was given in that Select Committee for debates to be held on the various clauses of the Bill and on the contents of the Bill as a whole.

Our difficulty in the Select Committee, and also the difficulty we have here in the House, is that there are differences of opinion in regard to the defence requirements of the country. There are differences of opinion even between the hon. member for Yeoville and the other hon. members in his own party about the defence requirements of this country. [Interjections.] I go so far as to say that if some of the amendments moved by the hon. member for Yeoville in the Select Committee were accepted by that committee, his party would have split from top to bottom. [Interjections.]

Try us!

There is a difference of approach. For example, there is a difference in regard to the existence of the threat, and reference has been made to that. [Interjections.] Coming back to the contents of this clause, there is a difference of opinion as to the number of men required by the Defence Force. For example, the hon. member for Yeoville and people who think like him believe that the requirements of the economy of South Africa are more important than the requirements of the Defence Force.

That is not what I said. [Interjections.]

Hon. members on this side of the House take the view that the requirements of the Defence Force are primary, and that it is only within the shield provided by the Defence Force that we can have a successfully functioning economy. Moreover, many hon. members of the official Opposition believe that there would not be a threat against us at all if the policies of the Government in the political, economic and social spheres were different. The point I am trying to illustrate is that we start from different bases. The official Opposition approaches the Bill and its various clauses both in the Select Committee and in the House from a completely different standpoint to ours.

The hon. member for Yeoville was supported by the hon. member for Wynberg. The hon. member for Yeoville believes that there should be a reduced period of service, in fact that there should be the maintenance of the status quo. The hon. member for Wynberg has moved another amendment. However, the hon. member for Wynberg and the hon. member for Yeoville have two things in common. They believe that we on this side of the House in our assessment of the manpower requirements, an assessment that is substantially based on the viewpoints of the S.A. Defence Force, are over-estimating it, that we are requiring too many men, and that is why they maintain that the period of service and the numbers required should be reduced.

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

No, Sir.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The hon. member for Simon’s Town referred to an amendment moved by the hon. member for Wynberg, while there is no such an amendment before the Committee. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Wynberg has not yet moved his amendment.

Sir, I was under the impression that he had moved his amendment. [Interjections.] We have here this afternoon a repetition of the sort of behaviour that I have come to expect from the hon. member for Yeoville and from other hon. members of that party whenever I rise to speak in this House. And there are good reasons for that. [Interjections.] I want to suggest that I was quite entitled to reply to the speeches of the hon. members from the Opposition parties made immediately preceding mine. I was trying to develop an argument until we had the repetition of the behaviour one has come to expect from someone such as the hon. member for Yeoville, but also from one who bears the title these days of the Chief Whip of the Opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I have not even made an interjection. I do not know what is wrong with the hon. member. I think he is round the bend.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

Sir, he is not round the bend.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the expression “round the bend”.

I withdraw it, Sir. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Simon’s Town may proceed.

I am speaking in support of this clause. The clause makes provision for extended service. I am one of those, like the Defence Force, who believes in the necessity of being fully prepared. I believe that it is possible, as the hon. the Minister has said in his Second Reading speech, that we are providing for a contingency— over the next five years—that might well be an over-estimate, but I would rather err on the side of an over-estimate than err on the side of an under-estimate. [Interjections.] That is why I, and other hon. members of the Government, feel that the provisions of this clause are worthy of support, and we therefore reject both the approach to this clause by the Opposition and the reductions in the period of service, for which purpose they intend to move amendments and, in some cases, have already moved amendments.

Order! Since I permitted hon. members a fairly general discussion of this Bill, I have allowed two speakers to refer to the Select Committee again. I want to make it quite clear, however, that henceforth I shall not allow any further reference to the Select Committee or anything that happened in that Select Committee.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: When we are discussing a clause and the details of a clause, surely we are entitled to refer to what happened in the Select Committee in regard to the clause. I think you are right in stating that we cannot discuss the general principle of the Bill, but references to what was said in the Select Committee I ask you please to permit.

Order! As long as what the hon. member is discussing has reference to what is in the clause, I shall allow it.

So that there should be no misunderstanding, let me say that we take the view that since the reason why we are asking for the reduction is because of the economy, we must therefore motivate that fact.

Order! Yes, that can be allowed, but the hon. member discussing the matter must stick to the details of the clause.

Thank you. Sir.

Mr. Chairman, this is perhaps the sorriest day in the 70 years that the South African Army has existed. I want to quote here from a letter I received from the hon. the Minister—

We are now, however, discussing a completely conscripted Army in South Africa, and that is the tragedy of the situation. If more efficient use had been made of the people who are in the Defence Force, I am certain that the amount of extra time would be completely unnecessary. I believe—as do hon. members in my party—that far too much of the time of members in the Defence Force is wasted. For this reason, in the Select Committee the hon. member for Yeoville moved, in the draft report—

Far too many people believe that the amount of time they spend in the army is wasted. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to reduce the time and to see to it that the ten years the people have to serve are fully utilized rather than that they should have to serve 14 years of which most of the time is completely wasted.

In respect of the amount of time involved—this applies to some degree to clause 5—as concerns leadership it is essential that certain people be sent on courses rather than attend camp. Commanding officers have great difficulty under the present system qualifying their men, particularly if camps and courses do not coincide. The hon. the Minister talked about our leadership requirements. One cannot have leadership unless people are qualified in leadership and they must go on courses in order to qualify. Unfortunately one finds that there is a conflict in requirements and that, as people are required to serve in camps and go to the border, insuffucient time is allowed for them to go on the courses on which they should go because there are insufficient people to send to the border.

The next point I want to deal with is the question of the evidence that should have been given in regard to the manpower position. The hon. member for Yeoville in the Select Committee moved that advertisements should be placed in newspapers to the effect that people should come and give evidence on their objections to the Bill. Such advertisements never appeared in any single newspaper whatsoever. While it was agreed by the Select Committee that people should be asked to come and give evidence, nobody in fact came, because the advertisements never appeared in any newspapers. The notice was given to Sapa, but why Sapa never published it, nobody knows. This is one of the reasons why, when the time came for it to be discussed, it was not.

I next want to turn to the hon. member for Simon’s Town. He talked about everything being discussed in this particular Select Committee. I have the minutes in front of me and there were two meetings in which everything was discussed informally. There was no formality until the third meeting. At the end of the second meeting the hon. member for Simon’s Town himself moved—

It is all very well for the hon. member to have moved that, but one cannot run an army without money, and one cannot run an army without the production of the civilian forces. People should not be deprived of supplying them. I mentioned in a speech I made—

It is all very well to say that, if one does not have an army, one will not have an economy; but if one does not have an economy, one cannot keep an army going in the field.

Finally I should like to deal with the remarks made by the Natal Chamber of Industries on the question of the time—

They are referring to military needs—

1. (a) seriously interfering with and dislocating administrative and productive capability; and
2. (b) discouraging new investment and thereby the creation of job opportunities, which in itself is critical to the survival of this country; and the potential for increased mobilization will certainly be interpreted by foreign investors and prospective investors as indicative of higher investment risk and conducive to withholding future investment and withdrawal from existing ventures.

These things were never discussed in the Select Committee.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout began his speech by saying that it was a sorry day for the S.A. Defence Force because these things had to be discussed here. But I want to point out that it is a sorry day for South Africa because we have people in this highest council chamber in our country who, while we are trying to protect the security of our country, are doing everything in their power to water down this legislation relating to military service and delay it at all costs. As a matter of fact, that is also what they tried to do in the Select Committee. We have had evidence of this again today. That is why I now want to make it quite clear to the hon. member for Yeoville that we on this side of the House are now tired of the noises he makes in connection with his so-called support for the S.A. Defence Force. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Yeoville and other hon. members of his party are not well-disposed towards the S.A. Defence Force. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is it in order for an hon. member of this House to call another hon. member as hypocritical?

Order! Which hon. member used the word “hypocritical”?

Mr. Chairman, it was the hon. member for Simon’s Town.

I did not say that! [Interjections.]

Of course you did! [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Kroonstad may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, here we again have a typical example of the sort of delaying tactics and attempts to chase up hares to which the hon. member for Yeoville has always resorted when important matters have to be discussed in this House. [Interjections.] I said we are tired of the noises made by the hon. member for Yeoville. After all, we know what other hon. members of his party have said about the S.A. Defence Force. The hon. member for Yeoville once dissociated himself from this, but he is still sitting there agreeing with those hon. members.

Mr. Chairman, I have respect for your ruling, and I know that you restrict me as regards a discussion on what took place in the Select Committee. I respect your ruling in this connection.

Order! Let me make this matter quite clear once more. Hon. members may refer to the proceedings in the Select Committee, provided they are relevant to the Bill or the clause in question. However, in other respects I shall not allow a general discussion of the proceedings in the Select Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I respect your ruling totally, and for this reason I am not going to discuss the proceedings in the Select Committee any further. As far as this specific aspect is concerned, I just want to point out in conclusion that hon. members of the official Opposition did not contribute their share in the Select Committee as they ought to have done, and that they are now falsely accusing hon. members on this side of the House with regard to things they should have done or should not have done. [Interjections.] In this specific clause, what is at issue is that the period of military service must be extended to 14 years. [Interjections.] This extension of military service is essential because it is the insurance policy for South Africa against the onslaught on it. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I cannot hear myself speaking; I only hope you can hear me. [Interjections.]

We are not listening to you in any case! You may resume your seat! [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Yeoville must control himself!

Mr. Chairman, I said it was essential that the period of military service in this country be extended. When we come to clause 5, we find the reaspns why it must be extended and how it is to be extended. However, I believe that herein lies the insurance policy for the defence of our country.

The Select Committee also considered the aspect of the economic situation in South Africa. All the relevant factors were taken into account. However, it appeared that we could not make the period of military service shorter than 14 years, because then the burden of military service would not be evenly distributed among everyone who has to render national service. This would also mean that the credit system would not come fully into its own. At present there are people who have to render national service and who sometimes render 90 days of service but only receive credit for 30 days. Therefore, when the national service system is expanded in accordance with the new measure, a credit system will also be adopted in terms of which every person will be given full credit for every day that he renders service.

In conclusion, I just want to confirm that I support this clause. I believe that when the next clause is discussed we shall deal effectively with the hon. member for Yeoville and his party. Yes, he can sit there swinging his glasses if he likes. However, I want to put it to the hon. member for Yeoville that he himself is going to swing before the discussion of this legislation in this House comes to an end. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Was the hon. member for Kroonstad not threatening the hon. member for Yeoville?

Order! I did not consider it a threat.

Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member for Durban Point pointed out, the Citizen Force and the Commandos are “the backbone of the S.A. Defence Force”. I think all hon. members in this House are agreed that they deserve nothing but the best and that even the best is not good enough for them. When one therefore considers the liability to military service proposed in this amendment then one must bear in mind that it is not pleasant to increase the liability of the Citizen Force and Commandos. This side of the House would have preferred not to recommend this if it had not been essential. When considering the amendment in clause 4 it is essential also to take the provisions of clause 5, clause 10 and 11 into account, as the hon. member for Yeoville has already pointed out. These clauses are all very closely linked, they have a great deal in common and I think one must transfer the reasoning arising from one clause to the other clauses. However, we must guard against repeating our arguments and for my part I shall try to concentrate on clause 4 which in reality is solely concerned with the 14 year period. At this stage I do not want to argue about the periods as such; I shall prefer to do so during the discussion of the other clauses.

With regard to clause 5 and the proposal of the Select Committee that this system only come into operation in January 1983, I want to say that this is in fact essential because the S.A. Defence Force will not be able to bear the administrative burden of implementing this clause with retrospective effect. However, this is going to mean that this year approximately 10 000 Citizen Force members will be removed from the Citizen Force complement and transferred to the active Citizen Force Reserve. This means that the Citizen Force complement is going to be reduced and this increases the risk with regard to the threat facing us.

A second important aspect when one considers this clause is that service credits with regard to serving Citizen Force and Commando members will come into force retrospectively from January 1983 with regard to all previous service completed. As far as the period of service is concerned, namely the two years of initial service and the 12 successive years of Citizen Force service, in other words, the six two year cycles, this period of 12 years is calculated as follows, and I think one should take this into consideration in one’s arguments! In the first place the security tasks are determined which the Citizen Force will have to carry out every year in future. When I refer to security tasks, I want to say that many hon. members of this committee were briefed by the S.A. Defence Force and they used the terminology of operational prediction to indicate what Citizen Force tasks would have to be performed and what would happen every year. By determining the security tasks and the annual allocation, it is calculated how many Citizen Force members and how many Citizen Force units will be needed.

The second action one must take to ascertain whether the period of 12 years is sufficient and whether it will be too little or too much, is that every year it must be ascertained what the feed-through from the initial two years of military service will be, those two years which are needed to train the future Citizen Force member or the member who will subsequently be absorbed into the Citizen Force or the Commandos, and also to a certain extent to allow him to acquire practical experience. It must therefore be ascertained what the annual feed through to the Citizen Force unit is. From this it can then be calculated how long Citizen Force members must serve; how many years they must serve to meet the annual requirement in the form of manpower to ensure that the security tasks that have been visualized can be performed. At the same time it must also be ascertained what the duration of the service is which has to be performed annually, but this is something I feel should be discussed further under clause 5.

The only variable, the only estimated, and the only debatable aspect is the required security tasks, also referred to as the operational prediction. In general this is also referred to as the threat. If the threat is underestimated the risk to the security situation of the RSA is increased, and if it is overestimated this could result in our having too many people on whom we can rely. This is what the amendments actually suggest. Please note that I do not say “too many people to perform the task simultaneously”, but too many people in reserve who can be used if we want to perform a task. Surely it is logical that when one wants to perform a specific task one will only use a certain number of people to perform that task and not too many of them, but then one still has that very important reserve. I am quite sure that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout will understand this position well. When estimating the threat it is therefore safest to overestimate it, because then one is not caught unawares and at the same time one need not place an unnecessary burden on the Citizen Force members. Surely this is perfectly logical, because then one has a larger Citizen Force and one can distribute the defence burden more evenly. This means that many of the Citizen Force members can then continue with their civilian occupations without being called up.

[Inaudible.]

I think there are hon. members who do not understand this reasoning, but in our information and threat situation they will have to accept that there is a certain threat facing the RSA. One can use this as a point of departure and come up with a manpower plan which is flexible.

The extension of the subsequent Citizen Force service from the present eight years to 12 years is a long one, and I am willing to concede this. If it had not been necessary to increase it to 12 years I would not have wanted to do so. I am certain that the CP who are supporting this Bill also agree with me in this respect. However, if it is taking into consideration that the number of troops deployed in the various operational areas in South West Africa and South Africa increased by more than 5 000% between 1975 and 1981, then this extension of the period from eight years to 12 years makes sense. I cannot understand how anyone can allege that a period of less than 12 years can be considered adequate.

The hon. member for Pretoria West asked if one cannot, if one has overestimated and therefore has too much manpower, reconsider the system of one year to 12 years and make some sort of concession. I am quite prepared to make a concession or to have the necessary administrative control over this in the following way: The eleventh and twelfth year’s of the employment of Citizen Force members will be personally approved by me per unit. I am prepared to keep Parliament informed if it is felt that there is a need for it to be kept informed of which Citizen Force units members are in their eleventh or twelfth year of service, his will give everyone in this House the opportunity to see to what extent the threat against South Africa is escalating.

But they are individuals; they are not a unit.

I said that I would approve individuals per unit and I am prepared to submit the numbers per unit to Parliament if such a need arises. Provided the predicted escalation of the threat against South Africa and the resultant increasing operational obligation continues, as the S.A. Defence Force impressed on the defence study groups of the respective parties, any period of service shorter than 12 years in the Citizen Force will mean that there will be insufficient trained Citizen Force manpower available. To be able to meet the manpower requirements of the Citizen Force, the present Citizen Force members will have to be burdened even more by having to undergo training every year for longer periods. I cannot recommend this. The system now being proposed guarantees to provide the South African Defence Force with manpower for the next five years to combat the expected escalating threat; in other words, to ensure the security of our country.

I want to refer briefly to the contributions of a few hon. members. In the first place, I want to thank the hon. member for Pretoria West for the understanding he displayed and for his explanation of the necessity for changing the present national service system by making certain adjustments to it.

I also want to thank the hon. member for Simonstown for his support. He made it quite clear to us that the Navy can depend on his support through thick and thin. He also showed that he has very good insight into the national service system and the proposed changes to it.

The hon. member for Kroonstad made it quite clear why the 14-year period is essential.

The hon. member for Yeoville spoke about productivity, about a larger Permanent Force and about the fact that other population groups ought also to be involved. He also referred to the problem in connection with immigrants and aliens. I referred to this during the Second Reading and I want to leave it at that. During the Third Reading I shall refer very briefly to the investigations at present under way. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member for Yeoville that a sound economy is of primary importance to ensure a sound Defence Force.

With regard to the allegation that organized trade and industry has not been given an opportunity to make a contribution, I do not think one should hark back to the past. One should rather look to the future. A military service system must maintain a delicate balance with the economy, and the mechanism created to deal with this delicate situation is in the hands of the Manpower Board. If the hon. member wishes, I shall submit proposals to the Minister of Manpower that organized trade and industry should have additional representation. The same can also be applied to the exemption board.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether the Director-General of Manpower or any of the hon. the Prime Minister’s economic advisory councils examined this legislation before it was submitted to this House to ascertain what the economic implications are?

I cannot say exactly what action was taken by any of these people, but I can say that when the proposed new system was being formulated, all these councils were consulted. The Manpower Board was also consulted. The Manpower Board is actually the governing body with regard to the use of manpower in the country.

The hon. member for Wynberg wanted to know if too much or too little manpower is being used. I tried to give the hon. member an indication of what the point of departure must be when one wants to amend a system or to formulate a new system.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout raised a very valid point.

†He referred to time wasted. I refer the hon. member back to the productivity project that is under way at present. I shall refer to this aspect again during the Third Reading.

*With regard to the question of the 90 days as against the 30 days, as raised by the hon. member for Durban Point, I shall discuss this matter with him during the discussion of clause 5. When we speak about the 14 years, I have tried to set aside the eleventh and twelfth years in order to introduce a certain measure of administrative control in this connection in order to ensure that it cannot take place so freely and haphazardly.

I want to thank the hon. member for Pietersburg most sincerely for his understanding of the defence of the country and also for his understanding of our commandos. I can give the hon. member the assurance that the commandos and the Citizen Force appreciate the support of this Committee—no matter what party it comes from.

These, then, are the reasons why I cannot accept the amendments that were moved.

Mr. Chairman, what is actually quite interesting is that the hon. the Minister has not tried in one single sentence in the whole of his speech to deal with the issue that we have raised, i.e. the very simple issue of whether in fact this Bill achieves the delicate balance which is needed between the manpower requirements of the S.A. Defence Force and the manpower requirements of the economy. Before one can ask for an extension of the period, as is being done in this clause, one has to justify that extension. Therefore it is quite futile—and I say this with great respect—as the hon. member for Simon’s Town tried to do, to say that one should rather ask for more than for less. The reality of the matter is that we have to ask the hon. the Minister what we are actually defending. What is the Defence Force for? One of the things that I have always believed that the Defence Force is for, is to preserve the family life of the individual, his peaceful existence, his ability to do his job and to live in peace with his family, his ability to live an ordinary, normal life and to enable the economy to function in order to build up the country and to generate wealth so that everybody can lead a better life. One does not have a defence force for the sake of a defence force. This is the dilemma in which the hon. member for Simon’s Town finds himself. He actually believes that one has a defence force for the sake of a defence force. We believe that a country has a defence force because the defence force is there to defend the things which are precious in a country. I do not need the hon. member for Kroonstad or anybody else telling us where we stand in relation to the Defence Force. I am not looking for compliments from them. On the contrary, I find them embarrassing and I would prefer not to have them. I do not want any part of that nonsense.

Those hon. members do not seem to understand what in reality a defence force is about. What the hon. the Minister is missing in this whole matter, and this is what worries me, is that if the enemies of South Africa, the people who want to introduce violence into South Africa, the people who want to introduce terror into South Africa have their way, everybody will be in the Defence Force. Then we cannot let the economy function and then we cannot generate the wealth to solve the social problems. Then we cannot have the things in South Africa which are needed for a political solution. The hon. the Minister himself is on record as saying again and again that the solution is not military, but that it is 80% political socio-economic and 20% military. That is what the issue is. The tragedy of this whole matter and the tragedy of this debate lies where I started right at the beginning. Not during this Committee Stage, not during the Second Reading debate on the Bill and not in the Select Committee has anybody shown where the balance lies between the needs of the economy and the needs of the Defence Force. The reason for this is very simple and it actually completely destroys the argument of the hon. member for Pretoria West because he contends that he considered it in the Select Committee. Well, we, did not consider it; that is clear. There was never a debate on it and the matter was stifled by a motion that was moved by the hon. member for Simonstown. Where is the key to it? The key lies in the statement that the hon. the Minister made. He said the following—

*What is interesting, Sir, is that the hon. member for Pretoria West said that this had been investigated by the committee. I say, however, that it was not investigated by the committee. And why was it not investigated by the committee? The following words of the hon. the Minister provide the answer—

†In other words, what the hon. the Minister is saying here is that he makes the judgment. However, I am saying to him today that the evidence we have is that nobody in the whole of the Government has actually made that assessment. [Interjections.] Nobody has made that assessment and I challenge anybody to produce it because it does not exist. [Interjections.] We asked for an assessment to be made. We suggested that the Director-General of Manpower should be called, and we were given a memorandum from which I cannot quote because it is marked “Secret”. I can, however, tell hon. members that it shows that there is no such assessment. Secondly, we asked for the economic advisers of the hon. the Prime Minister to be called but the committee turned this down as well.

We believe that South Africa has to be defended. We believe that we have to have a strong Defence Force, but we also believe that a situation in South Africa exists where the political, economic and social solutions are important. We believe that the morale of the people and the family life of the ordinary South African are important. His ability to work, to create and to earn is important, and that is why there has to be an assessment made of this issue. However, this is something that has not been done. This is also why not a single member of the Government side including the hon. the Minister has got up because such an assessment does not exist. We say that until such an assessment has been made we cannot really make a judgment.

I do not blame the Defence Force for wanting as many men as possible. If I have to do a job I should also like to have the greatest resources possible. Gen. Montgomery always said that he would not attack unless he outnumbered the enemy by three to one. It is very easy to win a victory when one outnumbers the enemy by three to one, but when there are other demands on one’s manpower, when there are other requirements in respect of the economy, in respect of family life and morale, then one has to establish what, in fact, is the correct assessment between the two. What in fact is the best situation for the country as a whole? How do I balance the two to make sure that the enemy does not make me fall into the trap of putting all my resources into defence so that I am left with nothing with which to solve the social problems of South Africa?

Sir, I want to ask a simple thing. Year after year we have supported defence expenditure in this House, but I want now to ask a simple question: If we did not have to spend that R3 000 million on defence—we voted for it in this House—and we will vote for it again—can hon. members imagine how much easier it would be to solve the social problems of South Africa? [Interjections.] Can they imagine how much easier it would be to build houses; how much easier it would be to keep trained teachers and to pay better pensions? However, the enemies of South Africa do not want us to spend R3 000 million on defence; they want us to spend more and more so that our resources cannot be used to solve the real problems of South Africa. [Interjections.]

We say: Defend South Africa. Make sure that the enemy does not succeed, that the forces of violence do not succeed but let us also ensure that we have the resources to solve the social and economic problems of South Africa. It is all very well to talk about constitutions. It is all very well to talk about pieces of paper, but when in fact people are hungry, when they are in need and are uneducated, then one cannot solve the problems. The problems of South Africa are as much economic and social as they are anything else. One has to face that reality. That is why I am making this request—in fact, this plea—to the hon. the Minister. Before we do this and fall into a trap that the enemy is setting for us by having us put ever-increasing resources into defence so that we cannot solve our social problems, let us have the matter investigated. Let us get the best brains in the country to determine a balance between the various requirements for South Africa. If we were to do that—and we have enough time to do it between now and the end of the year when the law is to come into effect—we would really be defending South Africa, because the defence of South Africa is that much easier if people are happy or contented, if they are earning a decent living, if they are living in decent houses and are properly educated. Then the defence of our country would be so much easier.

Mr. Chairman, may 1 ask the hon. member whether he is of the opinion that the onslaught would decrease in intensity or would disappear altogether in the time it would take us to do what he is asking for if we were to do as he asks? What does the hon. member suggest?

That is the very point I wanted to deal with. I have a cutting here containing a statement by the Chief of the Defence Force who said: “I expect victory after five years”. In other words, five years from now he expects victory. He also enlarges on that. The full force of the proposals we are now putting forward will only be felt in 1986, which is four years from now, in other words, a year before victory.

Are you talking about the 80%?

No, he is talking about it now. The hon. the Minister must read the article. I shall give it to him. It is indeed a very interesting article, a very inspiring article. The reality is that we have between now and the end of the year, because this law will only come into effect on 1 January 1983. We have a whole six months to get this done. I believe we are being led into a trap, and it is a trap that I, for one, do not want to be led into. The delicate balance that is needed is what we have to look for and have to achieve. I not only want to see the ordinary White young South African having to serve in the Defence Force—I do want him to serve in the Defence Force, oh, yes—but I also want him to have a family life and a job with prospects, and I want him to be satisfied. I want him to feel that the problems of South Africa are really being solved. That is why we are adopting this attitude and why we regard the matter as being so important. [Interjections.] We do not have to worry about the insults that are thrown at us, because we know we are right in the attitude we are adopting.

Mr. Chairman, there is really no need for the hon. member for Yeoville to become so agitated today.

This is a very important matter.

Yes, it is extremely important, but I think we should debate it calmly and quietly. But this is in fact the problem. We had the same difficulty in the Select Committee. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Yeoville flared up at the slightest thing. [Interjections.] He may disagree with me, but it is true. [Interjections.] He flared up and we could not debate anything with him properly. [Interjections.] That is the point. [Interjections.] With whom is the hon. member actually quarrelling now? We on this side of the House say that there is a threat. We do, however, disagree with those hon. members on the extent of the threat. Naturally we all want to combat that threat, but the hon. member is quarrelling with us. Why is he quarrelling with us? Let me tell hon. members what the hon. member for Yeoville’s problem is. He is really quarrelling with the hon. member for Constantia in his own party. [Interjections.] We know what the sequence of events in regard to this Bill has been. [Interjections.] It seems to me that the hon. member for Yeoville has lost the fight in his party. [Interjections.] Now he is blaming us. Now he wants to blame us for not having an opportunity to discuss these matters. [Interjections.] Surely the hon. member for Yeoville is aware—and we are also aware of this—that there are hon. members in their caucus who did not want this legislation. [Interjections.] Surely that is true. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Groote Schuur must not quarrel with me now, surely he knows that I am right. [Interjections.]

Do not talk nonsense.

The hon. member for Yeoville is trying to blame us for the problems in his own caucus. [Interjections.] However, we on this side of the House are trying to get a piece of legislation onto the Statute Book which is in the interests of South Africa. This is what we want. Yet the hon. member for Yeoville maintains that we are withdrawing all the men from the economy and putting them into the Defence Force. This is simply not true. Against whom are we employing the Defence Force? Against whom is the Defence Force fighting? The Defence Force is fighting against people who wish to destroy the economy which the hon. member values so highly. The Defence Force is not fighting in South Africa against people here.

I take it extremely amiss of the hon. member for Yeoville for implying that, in this entire investigation, the economy was not taken into consideration. Let us be quite frank with one another by saying that all military service has a detrimental effect on the economy. It means the withdrawal and the withholding of economically productive manpower from the economy. We do not dispute this. It is true. How can the hon. member say that we did not take this into consideration? Therefore the question is not whether military service is detrimental to the economy, but how it can be organized so as to have the least adverse effect. During its investigation the Defence Force Committee which worked on this for two years, never lost sight of this matter.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member is shaking his head. Yet it is a fact.

There was no such evidence.

I am not saying that the Select Committee did so. I wish to ask the hon. member for Yeoville whether he questions the evidence of the Defence Force.

The Defence Force never stated that the economy had been taken into consideration or that they had had figures in this regard.

I am asking the hon. member whether he questions the evidence which the Defence Force gave before the Select Committee. We accepted it.

But the Defence Force never gave such evidence.

It seems to me the hon. member for Yeoville never served on the Select Committee. The question which has to be answered, is basically the following: What is more detrimental to the economy—to withdraw more people for a short period, or to withdraw fewer people for longer periods? Many bodies were consulted on this. During the Second Reading debate, I read out a list of 26 bodies which had been consulted, and most of them agreed that they would rather part with more people for shorter periods, than fewer people for longer periods. Furthermore, in a speech on 1 April 1982 the hon. the Minister said, inter alia—

What more do we want? This was taken fully into consideration by the Defence Force while they were developing this system, before submitting it to the Select Committee. We are considering that new system today. That is why I really cannot agree with the hon. member for Yeoville that the Select Committee and its members did not give free run to their thoughts on the evidence submitted to it. That is why we cannot endorse the standpoint of the hon. member for Yeoville at all.

Mr. Chairman, when we speak in this House we should realize that the general public are also listening. If we wish to undermine the moral of the S.A. Defence Force, there is no better way of doing so than to say that the Select Committee did not take all the relevant factors into consideration. I think this displays a certain dubious spirit in the ranks of the Opposition caucus. The hon. member for Verwoerdburg was correct when he said that there was dissension. However, we should not do this to South Africa. We should not allow South Africa to suffer because of what we say.

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

I have just begun. The hon. member would do well to listen for a while. It would do him good.

I should like to refer to the report of the Select Committee. It is clearly stated there that the Select Committee gave thorough consideration and thought to the economic aspects.

That is not true.

The hon. member may say so, but he should read paragraph 4 of the report. Those hon. members should really read paragraph 4 of the report. I quote—

This is as it appears in the report. [Interjections.] I quote further—

The hon. member for Yeoville was extremely concerned about the balance, but not once did he argue that the Manpower Board and the Exemption Board were not able to maintain the balance.

That is not true!

No, wait a minute! I maintain that the hon. member for Yeoville did not argue that…

That is not true!

What kind of argument is the hon. member for Yeoville advancing then? Is he arguing that the Manpower Board and the Exemption Boards are not able to maintain the balance?

Yes.

What did the hon. member say? Did he say that they were not able to maintain the balance?

No.

Is it “yes” or “no”?

I am saying that they are not the correct bodies to maintain this balance. [Interjections.]

I am asking the hon. member a question. The one minute he says “yes”; the next minute he says “no”. [Interjections.]

I am saying that they are not the correct bodies to charge with maintaining the balance. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, if only the hon. member for Yeoville and I could understand one another. If the hon. member for Yeoville cannot help me, I should be pleased if the hon. member for Wynberg would.

Very well, they cannot do it!

Fine. Now we understand one another. The hon. member is therefore saying that the Manpower Board, which was instituted by this House for this very purpose, as well as the Exemption Boards, which were also instituted by this House, cannot achieve this objective.

Read the documents to us.

I have the documents here in my hand.

Read them, then. [Interjections.]

Now the hon. member is saying that I should read them. Surely he can read them himself. [Interjections.] The hon. member can go and read them himself. I am not going to read them out. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, the Select Committee in fact approached the Manpower Board with a request … [Interjections.]

Order! I cannot allow all the hon. members to take part in the discussion simultaneously while one member is speaking. If hon. members wish to express an opinion, they can be given an opportunity to do so. However, everyone cannot take part in the discussion simultaneously. The hon. member for Pretoria West may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What is important is that the report we have here is a secret report. This secret report contains certain tabulated data which we could argue about. However, hon. members of the Opposition did not raise any arguments about this data in the Select Committee. According to this secret report, the Manpower Board is, in reality, the body which should deal with these matters.

The report does not put it that way. [Interjections.]

The hon. member should simply go and read it. If he does not understand Afrikaans, he can read the English text. All he needs to do is to read the report. [Interjections.]

However, I wish to take this further. I have here in my hand a publication which appears regularly. This edition is entitled Manpower Survey, No. 14 of 1981, in which all these matters are clearly set out. It is therefore no secret. However, I maintain that hon. members of the official Opposition are not arguing positively. They are arguing in a destructive manner. They wish to create the general impression that the moral of the Defence Force is falling, and that we have not taken cognizance of the economic aspects. I maintain that this is not correct. I believe that it is essential that the members of the general public who have to do their military training, should realize that the Select Committee has put an instrument into operation with which we should all be completely satisfied. The hon. Minister has even said that he is prepared to investigate whether more employer’s organizations should not serve on the Exemption Boards. This is a positive suggestion. However, not one hon. member of the Opposition has referred to this.

In conclusion, I wish to associate myself with the finding of the Select Committee that the Manpower Board and the Exemption Boards are able to maintain the balance. It is therefore a pity that the hon. member for Wynberg has cast suspicion on an institution which has rendered excellent service over the years. We regret this. However, we wish to say to the soldiers and to those who have to do military service, that they need not be afraid. They will have the opportunity of putting forward their problems and we shall try, to the best of our ability, to ensure that the balance between the needs of the Defence Force and the needs of the economy is maintained.

Mr. Chairman, in reply to the accusation levelled at me, I just want to quote one sentence to the hon. member. It reads as follows—

This is what I wanted to quote in reply to the hon. member for Pretoria West. [Interjections.]

†Mr. Chairman, at this stage I should like to move the following admendment—

I want to say that at a time when the importance not only of warships but also of merchant ships has been brought very forcefully to our attention, it just makes no sense at all to delete the reference to the merchant fleet from section 21. Strategically from both a defence and an economic point of view it is in our interests to encourage the formation and expansion of our merchant fleet and also, in fact, to encourage as many of our young people as possible to become part of that merchant fleet. Today one frequently hears even the hon. the Prime Minister among others stressing the importance of the Cape sea route. In recent years we have spent vast sums of money on developing and expanding Simon’s Town naval base. We have a shipbuilding industry which is today just out of its infancy and we probably have some of the best dry-dock facilities on the whole of the African continent. In addition to this, South Africa is one of the few exporters of food and for this strategic commodity we need shipping and we need people who know how to handle that shipping. To a large extent our entire economy is dependent upon the export of raw materials and minerals. We need carriers and merchant ships of all types for this. South Africa needs as many young men as possible in her merchant navy. It is in our interests not only from a defence point of view but also from an economic point of view that this be so. Anything that will discourage this, is counterproductive. To my mind, therefore, it is inconceivable that credit should not be given for service in the merchant navy. This is not in South Africa’s interests at all.

During the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech, he did not devote much time to this amendment in this Bill. I think he more or less glossed over it and I think that he needs to give it some more attention. If we leave the position as it is and we simply pass the Bill as it stands, the only conclusion to which I can come is that the S.A. Defence Force has made a major policy change with regard to the Navy and the role that seamen are going to play in defence strategy and the defence of this country. If that is so, then I believe that the hon. the Minister must state very clearly what the policy is with regard to the Navy and what the policy is in regard to arrangements that are required to be made in order to protect the Cape sea route. I think he owes it to this Committee to tell us where we stand in this regard. Because of those reasons I now appeal very seriously and earnestly to the hon. the Minister to have a very good look at the amendment and not simply to chuck it out, as happened in the Select Committee, without giving it fair consideration. I believe that it is in the interests of South Africa to accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, something else which arises out of the speech made by the hon. member for Wynberg is that if the words “or the merchant fleet” are not inserted, it will mean that the credit to which a person who has served in the merchant fleet will normally be entitled will now fall away. Anybody who has served in the merchant fleet up to now will lose all that service and will virtually have to do the whole period of 720 days right from the start again.

I do not see why people who have served under the existing legislation should lose all their service by the omission of this. I furthermore believe that the hon. member for Wynberg has set out the case extremely well. In dealing with that, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether every soldier who has served more than 30 days on the border will be credited with the 60 extra days which he has to serve in terms of section 92ter(2) of the Defence Act. Are they going to be credited with service which will count as part of the number of days they are obliged to serve?

Mr. Chairman, I should like to support the hon. member for Wynberg in respect of his remarks on the merchant fleet. I am very perturbed at the attitude which is being taken in this regard because, as has already been said, the merchant fleet is of vital importance to the general economics of the country apart from political aspects. I think a lot of people are overlooking the fact that the very S.A. Navy that we have today was in fact created and built up by men who were originally trained for and in the merchant service. I know many of these people who have reached the ranks of commodore, admiral and so on.

Name them.

They were originally trained to be merchantmen. I can go back as far as Adml. Biermann, Adml. Johnston and a few others who were originally trained to be merchantmen. There is no doubt in my mind that the merchant service and its training are of inestimable value. I feel it is a terrible mistake to leave these people out. To train a merchant navy officer on deck takes approximately ten years. To train him in the engineering field takes a little less, but nonetheless it still takes a long time. If one is not going to accept this as being a part of military service, for want of a better expression, I believe one is going to be in some trouble in future.

The situation generally in countries which do have maritime services has always been that they do accept this. I should imagine that South Africa will be about the first country that does have a maritime service but does not accept that they can be used and that the time served in the maritime service is not regarded as time for the purposes of military training.

If at the very least, not even the people who have made a career of the merchant marine service, who have qualified and who have certificates of competency either on deck or down below or in the communication services, can be considered, then I believe we are going to make a terrible mistake particularly in the case of South Africa where at the moment there is a shortage of these marine officers and marine engineers. Many of the ships under the South African flag today have foreign officers because there are not sufficient South Africans to man those ships. I believe we must do something to encourage people, even if it is only, as I say, in the professional ranks in the merchant marine service.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to raise one point in this regard. Let us take the case of a man who joins the merchant navy and spends 20 years in it. If no credit is to be granted, then he would come out at the age of 38 or 40 and be expected to do two years’ basic training plus 12 years of camps and all the rest. Unless he is included in this group of people to whom the Minister can give credit for service, then the Minister has no authority to exempt him from service. The uniformed services—the Prisons, Police, Railway Police and merchant fleet—are specifically uniformed services in connection with which the Minister may give credit for service in those particular organizations against liability for military service. If merchant service is excluded, it is excluded from the right to be taken into account. It does not mean that a man can join the merchant navy for two years and then be exempted from military service because when he comes out he obviously will not get credit for that. His credits will depend on his length of service and his value then to the Navy afterwards. I think this is an aspect which deserves serious consideration.

Whilst I am on my feet I want to add that I am not going to revert to the question of the 14 years’ service. We will deal with that in clause 5. I merely want to say that at this stage we will stand by our amendment until we have dealt with the matter in clause 5.

Mr. Chairman, I have referred to this before and I again want to give hon. members the assurance that we on this side of the House have no fault to find with the arguments raised by hon. members opposite with regard to the necessity and the importance of a merchant navy. We have no problems in this connection. I can give hon. members the assurance that I personally, the Government and the hon. members on this side of the House, consider the merchant navy fleet as a most essential service, that we may need their support in the future and that we can always depend on their support. In other words, no amendment that is being moved is being moved to create mistrust or to cause harm to a position of confidence. On the contrary; the merchant fleet is very important to us. I want to put the matter as follows: There is a mechanism to ascertain which posts in the general manpower needs of the country are key posts. I think the posts in the merchant fleet are key posts. [Interjections.] The Manpower Board and not the Minister of Defence is the mechanism to identify key posts. If we are going to use that sort of reasoning, the S.A. Airways, the Post Office and the Railways, because they represent essential services—and I think they are essential—could ask me to identify them as key posts as well. The S.A. Defence Force and the Minister of Defence do not concentrate on examining various categories not classified under the security forces. That is why the fact that posts in the merchant fleet are not considered key posts has nothing to do with mistrust. On the contrary, I agree wholeheartedly with hon. members that if the need should arise in the future, we can rely on the merchant fleet. However, the merchant fleet must be classified in the correct category according to the control mechanism of the State, and the Manpower Board must identify it.

Why was it included then?

This was a custom which originated during the Second World War when the merchant fleet, along with the S.A. Navy, was actually part of the security forces. At the moment the two are not so closely interlinked. However, now this country has changed into a control activity; In the widest sense the control activity is now to determine what categories should be utilized as key posts. This is the reason and there was no intention to do them any harm. On the contrary. I think I am just as good a supporter of them as hon. members opposite.

It was only inserted in 1974. It therefore could not have been there since the Second World War.

On amendment moved by Mr. H. H. Schwarz, Omission of “14” put and the Committee divided:

Mr. Chairman, I move my first amendment, as follows—

1. (1) On page 7, in line 24, to omit “six” and to substitute “four”;

I wish to motivate this amendment by saying that under clause 4 that we have already dealt with, we move that the post basic training period should be kept at eight years and not at 12 years as provided for in the Bill before us. It follows, therefore, that we should move an amendment to delete the six-year cycle of two years each and to substitute “four cycles of two years each”. We are not convinced at all of the need to use Citizen Force members for six cycles when, firstly, the present manpower that is available is not being fully and efficiently utilized. Secondly, no real effort has been made to expand the Permanent Force to its absolute maximum. In the past this party has advocated a very much enlarged, multiracial, non-discriminatory Permanent Force to produce not only desk-bound soldiers but to produce a much higher percentage of frontline men and officers. This recommendation has over the years never been taken seriously, and it is largely due to this rejection of good advice that we are faced with the Bill that we have before us today. It would be interesting if the hon. the Minister could tell this House approximately what percentage of Permanent Force soldiers would be capable of and, in fact, are doing frontline service, if one were to exclude the Bushmen batallion and other non-White batallions. In my view a far too low percentage of our Permanent Force is in fact trained and capable of doing frontline service and we are therefore to a large extent dependent on Citizen Force soldiers to do that job of work. Those are two of the reasons why I believe we should not support the six-year cycle but should accept the proposed amendment instead.

Thirdly, I believe the cost to the economy of the six-year cycle system has not been calculated by any responsible body or, if this has been done, certainly we in this House have not been privileged to see that information.

Finally, the system of cycles and the more equitable sharing of the burden will in itself, in any event, result in far more manpower being available. So it is on that basis that I have moved my first amendment.

I now wish to move as my second amendment—

1. (2) On page 7, in line 27, after “aggregate” to insert:

In motivation of this amendment I should like to say that no one who has any interest in military matters would dispute the statement that a voluntary full-time soldier who is highly trained and highly motivated is worth at least as much as two or three—or perhaps even four—others who are not professionals and who would probably prefer to be doing something other than soldiering. It has been said by some military experts that the figure could even be as high as one in seven. Even whilst this debate is in progress today, hon. members of this House might well consider the superiority of the professional British soldier fighting in the Falkland Islands and doing what, from this distance, seems to be a superior job of work. I think one must consider this. One of the reasons why I am moving this amendment is because I believe that those young men who volunteer to complete a further 18-month period of service, after having done their two years of basic service—and of course are acceptable to the hon. the Minister—would be soldiers of superior quality. Secondly, in the system suggested by the Bill before us one needs, it is said, at least 10 Citizen Force soldiers for every one man who is employed at any time in the front line. Not only does one therefore have a disproportionate ratio, put one also has to bear the cost of constantly having to have refresher courses as well as the major expense of transporting thousands of troops from their homes, spread throughout the country, to the front line. Any way of reducing this wastage does, I think, deserve to be very seriously looked at, and I believe that in this amendment we are doing just that. Although the ratio is ten to one for Citizen Force troops having to do front-line service, I believe that the ratio for permanent professional soldiers is something like three to two. So for every three men who are permanent professional soldiers, and who would volunteer in terms of the amendment I have moved this afternoon, at least two would be able to do front-line service at any point in time. To put the whole matter into perspective, if one could encourage—I am just using a random figure as an example—say, 15 000 young men to volunteer to complete their service by taking up this commitment of doing the 18-month service, they would, in fact, release something like 100 000 Citizen Force soldiers from potential service. Now, if one looks at it in this light and one gets it into that perspective, one can see how much sense it makes to encourage young men to continue doing their service for a period of say, 18 months after they have completed their two years, knowing that thereafter they will have completed their Citizen Force commitment. At the same time they will be far more effective and they will be used in a far more cost-effective manner. Even more important than the cost is the fact that I believe that these young men will be superior soldiers. If they are treated decently in terms of facilities and remuneration, I believe that amongst these people one may well find the kernel from which one could build up an enlarged Permanent Force, which is what this country so desperately needs.

There are arguments against this which, I believe, hon. members on the other side of the House may well raise. One argument is that it is impossible to predict what number of young men will make themselves available for further service. I must accept that that is an argument, but I do not accept that it is a valid argument.

Why?

I shall tell the hon. member why. If the conditions are spelt out in a manner the young men can understand easily and if the conditions of service and the salaries paid are attractive, I believe that very soon, in one, two or three years, a pattern will emerge and one will find that by and large the same percentage of young men will make themselves available year after year. Perhaps the percentage will not be quite as high as one would hope. Nevertheless, no matter how small that percentage may be, even if it is as small as 5% of the young men who have completed their basic training, that 5% will come from those who are potentially the best soldiers available.

Having spoken to hon. members of the House privately about this amendment—even hon. members on the opposite side of the House—I believe many of them view this amendment sympathetically. In addition to that, I know that senior members of the Defence Force would be extremely keen to have this matter followed up to establish whether something along the lines I have suggested could not in fact in reality be brought about. Those are the grounds on which I have moved that amendment.

I also have a third amendment in mind. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, this is the clause I consider the most important of all the clauses in the effect it is going to have on the Citizen Force as a whole and on the people who make it up. It is in respect of this clause that I believe we have to give the most careful consideration to what is possible and not possible. Having moved and had rejected my amendment to clause 4 to reduce the period from 14 years to 12 years, I must say that the amendments I proposed moving had clause 4 stood over until after clause 5 had been dealt with, now no longer make sense because the period is to be 14 years and not 12 and my amendment made provision for three cycles of three years plus 30 days. Therefore I shall not move the three amendments which I intended moving. Instead, I move as a first amendment—

1. (1) On page 7, in lines 24 and 25, to omit “six cycles of two years each” and to substitute:

This will then still be the period during which men will be kept in the Citizen Force, under authority, in uniform, armed and available for any situation. It would, however, mean that one could arrange one’s military forces in a particular way. We have the example today of one of our divisions in which there are three brigades. Each year one of those brigades is required to provide the manpower for that division. The objective is that a full brigade should be required to provide the full manpower requirements for that particular operational service every third year. If we were to apply the same system here—a system of a cycle of three years—I believe it will have a multiple cumulative importance and value. In the first instance, from the point of view of the serviceman himself, he will be required only every third year to be away from work and home for a period of three months. I do not want to repeat the arguments I advanced when I referred to this aspect during the discussion on clause 4. It is, however, possible for a man to plan ahead. It is possible for a man in a small business to know that he will be away for three months every third year. If he has a partner, or if any problems should arise, he can arrange accordingly. He can, for instance, arrange that his partner will not be away while he is doing his three months military service. It may even be possible for him to get a member of his family to look after his business for that period of three months. He can arrange his affairs knowing that he will only be required to do operational service every three years, and that that will be part of his contribution towards the security of South Africa. From that point of view then, the heavy demand—the 90 days—can be spread over a more manageable cycle. It will also be less likely to be opposed. The likelihood of an application for a deferment or exemption will also be diminished, and it will also be less likely that employers will show resistance. An employee is also less likely to be prejudiced as far as promotion is concerned.

I am suprised that hon. members of the CP have not supported us in this matter because it is a fact that young men and even young women of other races are being employed in jobs which would normally have been performed by White South African males. That is happening at the moment. The heavier the burden the more employers look for employees who will be least disrupted. If hon. members had read the memoranda from employers’ organizations they would have known that the employers’ organizations themselves admit that that is what their members are doing. What I am suggesting therefore is a method by which that likelihood could be diminished. That influence could also be diminished if three months’ military training were required only once in three years. The disruption to the employer will then also be less.

The second benefit will be that one can then have one’s three months experience in the operational forces, while in the next year, one can have one’s unit concentrating on courses such as promotional courses for officers and NCO’s and in specialized training. In the third year, one can then have a normal 30 day camp, a refresher camp during which these men can again be brought to their peak as well as receiving special additional training. That then will be the cycle: Training, three month’s operation and courses.

Do not carry on like an old United Party Supporter.

Mr. Chairman, that is typical of what we experienced on the Select Committee. One is trying to advance a reasoned and logical argument and then one has that type of stupid interjection, a purely political interjection by a person who is unable to put defence above the interests of his own political obsession. [Interjections.]

You are a disgrace, do you know that?

I think that was a disgraceful interjection. I am trying here to motivate a case for which there is a great deal of sympathy among units and unit commanders because one of their main problems is that their officers cannot get away on courses. When these men have done three months’ duty on the border, they cannot be asked to attend promotion courses from lieutenant to captain or from captain to major or whatever it may be. If these courses are held every other year, it means that those potential leaders will again be called upon to give up their annual leave in the year of their one month camp and in addition attend promotion courses. These unit commanders see that as a cycle which would be of benefit to the units, to leadership and to the men themselves. It would also be less of a burden on employers; there would be less disruption and there would also be less of an anti-military feeling among employers themselves. We must face the fact that some employers have an anti-service feeling because their employees are being taken away so frequently that they say that their businesses are being disrupted; therefore those men are discriminated against. One is not able to prove this in terms of the legislation because this then is merely put down to reorganization, redundancy or to some other reason. However, there is no doubt that this discrimination does take place.

I listened very carefully to the hon. the Minister’s undertaking in regard to clause 4 and I should now like to move an amendment to translate that undertaking into the legislation—exactly what the hon. the Minister undertook to do, nothing more, nothing less. I therefore move as a second amendment—

1. (2) On page 7, in line 27, after “aggregate” to insert:

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chariman, I agree that in this clause we have the whole crux of this legislation. The hon. member for Wynberg suggested that we should have four cycles instead of six cycles. That would then work out to about 480 days. At present the situation is that a soldier can be put into active service in terms of section 92ter for up to 90 days per year. In a cycle of eight years, that would mean 720 days. What is happening with the six cycles? In effect one is really reverting to the 720 days which is more or less in keeping with the present situation, although I immediately agree that soldiers are not called up in terms of that section every year. In effect there is therefore not much of a change as a result of the six cycles now being introduced in terms of the clause.

When we have a four-cycle system, it will mean that in a period of six years for instance a soldier will only serve on the border four times. This will have the result that somebody else will have to serve on the border for the remaining two cycles. This again means that we shall require a larger manpower reservoir, and that is the problem. If we send soldiers to the border less frequently, but at the same time we want to keep the same soldier density at the border, it will mean that we require a larger manpower reservoir which, as I see it, will be more detrimental to our economy.

Yes, it will be more disruptive.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member for Pretoria West whether he agrees that if we have organized cycles such as we are talking about now but which we did not have in the past and where there is a firm programme so that people will know well in advance when they will be called up to do their service, substantially fewer of them will aks for deferment or exemption than is the case at the moment?

That obviously is a truism, but exactly that can of course be achieved by using a six-cycle sytem.

The point I am trying to make is that if we revert to four cycles instead of six cycles, we shall need a larger manpower reservoir. This is all I am trying to say.

I think the same really applies to the argument advanced by the hon. member for Durban Point. Again he prefers four cycles, but then he suggests 150 days per cycle which will give us more people on the border. It works out at 600 days instead of 720 days as is required here. If one makes a quick calculation one finds that a 20% increase would be necessary in terms of the hon. member’s suggestion should he want to obtain 720 days. That again means that we shall require a 20% larger manpower reservoir to achieve exactly the same objective.

600 days; not 400 days.

Yes, I have said 600 days. Between 600 days and 720 days there is a difference of 120 days. 120 on 600 gives one 20%, and that is what I am saying.

The hon. member will recall that we did have a certain document in front of us at the Select Committee which indicated the requirements should we have six cycles of two years on the one hand or four cycles of three years on the other hand. I think it boiled down to a difference of 50% in the manpower requirements. More people would be necessary when using the 4 cycles of 3 years method.

I want to put the point clearly that on account of the calculations and by virtue of the discussions in the Select Committee, it is very clear that the optimum use would indeed be achieved by having six cycles of two years. We all agree that we do not want to call up people unnecessarily, and in this connection the hon. the Minister has given an assurance on an administrative basis. I am not so sure that we require the amendment of the hon. member in order to write this assurance into the legislation.

We accept the hon. the Minister’s sincerity.

Well, if the hon. member accepts the hon. the Minister’s sincerity, there is no reason to write it into the legislation. On the contrary, I want to suggest that because the hon. member does not accept the hon. the Minister’s sincerity, he wants to have it written into the legislation. If one accepts the Minister’s sincerity there is no reason for an amendment.

[Inaudible.]

We normally find that Ministers do not go back on their word, even if another Minister becomes responsible.

There is also another argument. I would suggest that we have a certain flexibility in the system now if this could be done administratively.

How do you intend doing it administratively?

The hon. the Minister has indicated how it is going to be done. He himself will give an instruction. Surely he is the political head of the department.

That should be put in writing.

I understand what the hon. member is saying, but he is not the first one to say that. The hon. member for Durban Point has said it before. I do not think, however, that we should be rigid in these things. To sum up: I think the six-cycle way is the most economic way of supplying the required manpower of the S.A. Defence Force.

The hon. member also mentioned the question of 18 months continuous service. There again one does have problems. The problems were raised in the Select Committee and there is no point in repeating them again now. All I want to say now is that to expect people to volunteer and so to complete their service, could have a detrimental effect on those joining the Permanent Force. This the hon. member for Yeoville would not like to see happen. There are numerous matters of this kind. I suggest therefore that the hon. member’s amendment is not advantageous and should not be accepted.

Mr. Chairman, let us first deal with the question of the four cycles of 480 days to see what the effect of this actually is. The argument that was advanced by the hon. member for Pretoria West was that the people who had had their service extended in terms of section 92ter(2) were doing that and more before. If one goes back a bit into the history of section 92ter(2) one finds that one of the grievances that has existed was that that section was only to be used most sparingly. Yet in reality some people found themselves routinely being subjected to that section. I can tell hon. members—I have examples of it—that time after time in call-up notices the letter states that a person is being called up for 30 days but that on the day of his arrival, he will be informed in terms of section 92ter that he has to do the service. Whereas it was intended to be used sparingly in special cases, now the argument is that because one went back on that, therefore one should now be doing the same thing. That I think, with great respect, is not a valid argument. One of the problems that exist—we have heard it in the Select Committee and we have views on it—is that there is a grievance amongst a section of people who feel that they have been called upon to carry a far heavier burden than others. That is a reality. We know it, and nobody can dispute it.

I want to make a second point. I do not want to mention figures and statistics, because I think they are of a confidential nature. However, if the hon. the Minister feels that he can disclose it, he can tell us to what percentage of people section 92ter has in fact been applied. There is a vast number of people to whom it has not been applied and who would now have to do twice the number of days that they had to do before. The resource of extra manpower that comes from that, if the system of 480 days is followed—as we have suggested—is a tremendous one that can readily be used.

So the case that is made out in order to use four cycles of 120 days as opposed to six cycles is a very solid one. I can get no better support for this than the hon. the Minister himself. He is on record as having said—

So I think he agrees. He also said—

The only difference between my attitude and that of the hon. the Minister on this issue is that, what I call an over calling up he does not think is an over calling up. He seems to think—as he indicated here—that if someone should be called up for six months out of 12, it would amount to an over calling up.

I take the threat into consideration, and you do not.

I do take the threat into consideration and I shall quote the hon. the Minister against himself. He is on record—and I shall quote him—as saying that he does not regard a conventional assault as likely. What he is doing is that he is preparing for what is an unlikely possibility. The hon. the Minister said it. He said it, not I. [Interjections.] I shall use his words: “Such a conventional assault is possible and unlikely.” Those are his words. It is not I who said it, but he. The reality is therefore that he is preparing for an unlikely possibility. With the manpower that we are giving the hon. the Minister he can deal with any likely possibility and even an unlikely possibility.

Let me quote some figures. There are in the group that the hon. the Minister is going to call up in accordance with this legislation, approximately one million economically active White males. That is what the manpower pool is. Of the time of that one million economically active males, the hon. the Minister is going to use 11,9% on defence instead of on the economy. In other words, what he is doing is that he is taking out one million men—if one takes it as a whole—close to one-ninth out of the economy. Do hon. members know that the shortage of White skilled manpower—only of Whites—at the present moment is about 100 000 men? That is what we are short of as far as White skilled workers are concerned. We are in this unique situation that we have a shortage of White skilled manpower while we have unemployment in the unskilled Black sector. We are accordingly short of 100 000 men. Therefore we are actually short of the same number of people as we have put into the defence effort. This is part of our dilemma. If one is going to increase the burden one is actually going to aggravate that situation. I can quote no better statistics than those which were before this Select Committee—which we did not debate—and that was from the Steel and Engineering Industries Federation of South Africa. They indicated that as they saw it—and they did their calculations on the basis of two years of national service, the eight years, the extended periods, the question of the reserve and all the rest of it—that for their 82 000 White males, of whom 5 000 were in the 60 to 65 group, reducing their total by 5 000 and if we reduce it by another 5 000 if we eliminate the 55 to 60 years group, we get 72 000 people, these measures had a potential loss of manpower of 281 million hours. Mr. Chairman, can you imagine what this does to the economy? Can you, Mr. Chairman, imagine what this does to inflation and productivity? We therefore have to keep it within bounds and I keep coming back to this particular issue because this is so important. What does the Association of Chambers of Commerce say? They say, and I quote—

They draw attention to what are socio-economic problems which arise from the very point which the hon. member for Durban Point made in regard to this fact—and they say it in the following words—

And undoubtedly by immigrants. Therefore the young White South African is clearly going to have to carry a tremendous burden. He has to carry some of that burden but what we are saying is that that burden should be kept within limits because there are problems.

I asked the hon. the Minister to deal, for instance, with the following point. What is the situation going to be with regard to employers who now say that because of this extended service they are unable to pay their employees while they are away? They say that they cannot afford it. There is no law that says that they must. Is the State going to compensate? Is the State going to grant tax concessions? Is the State going to help? There are very real problems. There are problems that are personal to the individual firm and to the individual employee. There are problems that are social, political and economic. All these problems do exist. Then we come to the hon. the Minister’s under taking. I do not quite understand it. Does the hon. the Minister in fact have in mind that each individual person is going to be dealt with separately and that he will give his consent that each person need not do the extra camps during those years? Is he going to deal with each one? What is going to happen is that there is going to be a multiplicity of applications and of his having to apply his mind to this matter. We are then going to be faced with the situation where the exemptions are going to be granted in any case, but we are still passing a law with the knowledge that we do not need those people for that period. I do not understand how the hon. the Minister can get up here and say that the last two years will only be with his consent and that, therefore, he will probably not need them.

I did not say that.

No, but that was what you were implying. If you did need them you would not say that. The reality of the matter is that if there is going to be a need for these people, then let us come back to Parliament and extend the period. It is in that regard that we differ from the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Yeoville again mentioned quite a number of problems, and we are not unaware of the problems. However, at some stage we must try to think positively about this entire system. Merely dwelling on the problems will not solve the tremendous problem of the provision of manpower for the S.A. Defence Force. When I listen to the hon. member for Yeoville I cannot believe that the hon. members of the PFP and the hon. members of the NRP, as well as the hon. members of the CP—who were then still members of the NP—were fully informed about the manpower problem of the S.A. Defence Force on various occasions. What exactly do the arguments advanced here today, imply? They imply that those hon. members do not believe the information supplied by the General Staff and the members of the S.A. Defence Force; they reject it. They are saying that the General Staff talked a lot of nonsense and that their figures cannot be accepted. The hon. member for Yeoville also tried to attack these figures in the Select Committee, while in contact with the various members of the General Staff in that connection. The hon. member for Yeoville referred to what the hon. member for Pretoria West said in connection with the powers the hon. the Minister has in terms of section 92ter. It is true that whereof the commando force is now being used in a more regional context, more use had, of necessity, to be made of Citizen Force people, and for this reason the hon. the Minister had to make more frequent use of his powers in terms of section 92ter. When those powers are used in this way and when we look at the present system, and if things continue as they are, what this amounts to is what the hon. member for Pretoria West referred to, namely that those persons will have completed their 720 days in eight years’ time, whereas we are now giving them the opportunity, in terms of the proposed system, to distribute those 720 days over a period of 12 years.

As regards the amendment of the hon. member for Wynberg, in my opinion it has a great deal of merit. It is a good idea, and I do not merely want to dismiss it. But here we must also be realistic. The entire issue is one of guaranteed manpower for the S.A. Defence Force. As matters stand now we know that the volunteer system does not work properly. In terms of this system of 18 months, which actually amounts to a volunteer system, we do not have the guaranteed manpower available.

The hon. member for Wynberg also referred to a larger Permanent Force. However, I cannot understand why the hon. member raised this argument again, because during the Second Reading of this Bill it was dealt with at length. In addition, the hon. member also knows that every effort is being made to increase the size of the Permanent Force. However, I want to put it to him again that to meet the current manpower needs we shall in any case not be able to afford such a large Permanent Force, nor do we have enough people to defend the country on a full-time basis. We cannot therefore exempt the Citizen Force from military service in this way.

I really trod on the hon. member for Durban Point’s toes when I referred jokingly to his “Army”. I am very sorry that the hon. member interpreted it in that way, because I believe that he would like to make a good contribution and that he only wants the best possible legislation. I believe the hon. member when he says this, and I just want to ask him not to be so sensitive when we discuss these matters.

We have now decided on an extended period of national service of 14 years, and anything we are now going to decide on, whether it be extended cycles or whatever, which will mean fewer days of service, will only frustrate the aims of this legislation. It is necessary that after his initial military service, every man must render a further 720 days of military service. The needs of the S.A. Defence Force require this, and in the position in which we now find ourselves we shall have to meet this requirement. I also believe that we shall be able to do so through the will of our people in this country and also with a contribution by the economy. We shall be able to do so to an even greater extent if the hon. members of the Opposition, and particularly the hon. member for Yeoville, would help by adopting a more positive attitude, because then it would also be more acceptable to our general public, and there would be fewer complaints about a military service system the sole aim of which is to ensure the security of our country at all costs.

Mr. Chairman, before I return to the point I was making when my time for my previous speech expired I want to deal with two matters. Firstly, it was argued that we are questioning the requirement calculation and it would need a bigger pool if the amendment I have proposed were brought into effect, namely a three-year cycle instead of a two-year cycle. Of course that is not so. I am not questioning the Army’s calculation of their needs. What I am questioning is the calculation of how one achieves that requirement. I believe that one could meet that requirement in a different way with a lesser burden of 90-day camps, and I shall explain why. I know that if one feeds the figures into a computer or calculator one does find that if one has a three-year cycle instead of a two-year cycle one is going to need 33% more people. Of course it is easy to feed the data into a calculator and get that result. My point, however, is that one is not going to need a 33% bigger pool from which to draw. Let me explain how the calculation is made. For every man in the field on the border one needs 10 members of the Citizen Force. That is the initial argument we were given at Second Reading. For every one man that has to be kept in the field, the Army needs 10 Citizen Force members in periods of three months, with a change-over period. So it is talking about 10 people in order to keep one person in the field on the border. So it multiplies by 10 and then adds a non-availability factor. But it does not add it to the number of people one needs on the border. It adds it to the pool figure, which is already 10 times the number of people needed on the border. Then it adds the 30%, or whatever the figure is that it is working on, to the pool requirement. One does not, however, need 33% of the pool over the full three-year period to replace one man who does not go to the border, because one is not going to have to have 10 times 30—i.e. 300 times—the number of people in the pool or one man who cannot go to the border. One has the whole pool to draw from. That pool is there. So I do not accept the fact that one must multiply by 10 and add 30% for every year of the three years, therefore calculating that one will need a vast reservoir of additional men.

I believe that if one has the 90-day camp every third year, firstly one would not have the same number of applications for deferment. One would therefore have more people available to do duty. By spreading the load over a three-year period one is going to achieve better motivation and therefore have a better-trained leadership corps, a better spirit and therefore a greater willingness to serve. This is why I do not think the purely mechanical calculation is correct. Lastly it also excludes the possibility of more full-time soldiers, because for every additional full-time soldier one saves 10 members of the Citizen Force. That is why there is a lot of sense in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Wynberg. I do not agree with the period of 18 months that he suggested. I cannot support a period of 18 months because it does not correlate with the period of 14 years. There is, however, the principle that a period of full-time service, as in the old system, of an extra 18 months or two years, could exclude further liability for attending camps. For every one person doing that, one saves 10 people in the Citizen Force, plus the 30% fail-safe figure. So even though one is going to have that many fewer individuals in the Citizen Force pool, the requirement is actually only going to be one tenth plus 30% for every man one has there. So the number in the pool is going to be reduced by one, but the requirement in the pool is going to be reduced by 10 plus 30%.I am not saying that the Army has not properly evaluated its needs. I am questioning whether that evaluation of need cannot be met in a better way than is proposed in this Bill. That is the whole basis of my argument. I do not believe one is going to need such a large pool as determined on a pure mathematical calculation, because human beings are not ciphers one feeds into a calculator, but are individuals who react to stimuli. If the stimulus we feed in is a positive one, the response is going to be a positive one. If the stimulus that is fed in and to which they will react is one which provokes the feeling that they are “neergedruk” or overloaded with liability, then their reaction is going to be a negative one. This is what I am trying to avoid—to get away from.

I want to turn to the question of the hon. the Minister’s undertaking on the strength of which the hon. member for Pretoria West says that the amendment is not necessary. It is necessary. The hon. the Minister cannot guarantee that he is going to be there forever. If this is in the Bill it will serve as an assurance to people, an assurance they can look at and of which they can say: “This is the intention of the legislature.” Without this the Minister is bound by the law, as anybody else is, and the law would say that there must be six cycles of 120 days each. This, however, says that the last of those cycles can only be effected with the Minister’s permission, which is exactly what he said he wanted. If he does not accept this, why did he make his offer? I do not believe this matter can be handled administratively unless one has a clear authorization of this nature.

The Minister would have to break the law every time.

Yes, the law lays down something and then the Minister administratively does something else. He is now going to tell the Army not to go by the law but to go by what he says. I cannot see what possible objection there can be to accepting the Minister’s sincerity and putting into the law exactly what he offered so that it will be there for all to see.

As far as the amendments of the hon. member for Wynberg are concerned, we are opposed to his first one for four cycles of two years, which is virtually the status quo. We do not believe that that is going to contribute towards a solution. As regards the question of full-time service, we believe that that amendment, if properly adjusted and if provision is made for a longer period than 18 months instead of the camps, is an amendment we can support. However, we cannot support it as it stands. As regards the merchant fleet, that has of course already been dealt with.

So, we shall not support the first amendment. We shall wait to hear the hon. the Minister’s reply to the question of full-time service for two years, or whatever the period may be, after which we shall decide on our response to that. I plead with the hon. the Minister please to look beyond the calculator and the computer to what we need in order to have a fully motivated and fully supported Citizen Force with business backing it, with employers backing the men in it, with the men keen and enthusiastic to provide the service that is demanded of them and with everybody working together as a team instead of our imposing a system which can lead to resistance and which can result in a Force without the motivation which I believe this sort of amendment and particularly the three-year spread could produce as far as the morale of the Force is concerned.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to move as a third amendment—

1. (3) On page 7, in line 43, after “Service” to insert:

I am not going to motivate it at length as the principle has already been voted down twice.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say a few brief words in connection with the arguments of the hon. member for Durban Point. He raised the same argument here that he raised in the Select Committee. He now says, inter alia, that we must not take the computer into consideration. The hon. member made the statement that if we were to accept his proposed cycles of three years, there would be fewer applications for exemption. However, I want to know whether the hon. member has any evidence to support this. No, he has no evidence. I think that the hon. member must concede that he only has a “gut feeling” about this. However, he does not have evidence to prove this.

And he has such a large “gut”! [Interjections.]

One can therefore say that the hon. member for Durban Point has a large feeling. [Interjections.] What is at issue here is the threat and the manpower needed by the Defence Force to cope with this threat.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Verwoerdburg wants to know whether I have any evidence. Cannot one also ask if it is not true that applications for exemption have risen in direct proportion to the regularity of the training period of three months? Is the ratio between the number of training camps and the periods in between not directly proportional to the number of applications for exemption?

That may well be the case, yes. However, I have the impression—and we have no evidence in connection with what the hon. member for Durban Point has just said—that it is true that many more people are already applying for exemption because they feel that the burden they have to carry is unfair. That is why they are applying for exemption. Now the hon. member for Durban Point wants us, in addition, to accept cycles of three years because he says if we accept cycles of two years we shall need 10 men to keep one man on the border. However, does the hon. member agree with me that if we were to make the cycle three years, we would need at least 15 men to keep one man on the border? We would therefore need far more people.

In contrast to the hon. member for Durban Point’s feeling that fewer applications for exemption would be received, I think that we should rather take cognizance of the opposite, viz. the evidence we received from the Defence Force itself, in which it was stated what large numbers of people they needed. We are therefore not talking through the back of our necks. We are talking on the basis of the experience of the escalation of the threat against us. That is why we know how many people we shall need in 1983 for example. As a matter of fact, we dealt with those figures in the Select Committee. We also know how many people we shall need in 1984. So, too, we know how many people we shall need in 1985, in order to cope with the threat against us. In order to cope with this threat, we must have a specific number of people in the system, and if we were therefore to change the cycle, we run the risk of not having enough people to cope with that threat. After all, that is what the evidence before the Select Committee amounted to. We spent over an hour debating this aspect. The matter raised by the hon. member for Durban Point here was also discussed in full in the Select Committee. After we had discussed the matter we said that we could not run the risk of reacting to what was merely a “gut feeling” of the large hon. member for Durban Point. What this amounts to is that he wants us to deal with this matter as he suggested, instead of doing so on the basis of the evidence submitted to us by the Defence Force with regard to the threat and the manpower needed to combat it.

For this reason we really cannot support the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Point.

Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with the first amendment moved by the hon. member for Wynberg, in which he recommends four cycles. That will mean 480 days compared with the present 240 days. That means that we are actually prepared to accept a service period twice as long as the current period. In this respect I should like to come back to the point I raised and to which the hon. the Minister did not reply earlier. That is the resentment that exists amongst a large number of men who have served, and who want to know—in fact, every soldier wants to know this—whether, having served 30 days on the border, they will be credited with 60 extra days which they had to serve in terms of section 92 of the Act. Every serviceman wants to know whether he is going to be given credit for those days now because until now there is no stipulation in the Act which says he can be credited for that extra service. In terms of the Act it is not necessary for him to be given that credit. The hon. the Minister knows that as well as I do. Therefore, it is necessary to tell servicemen whether they are going to be given credit in order to obviate the existing resentment once and for all.

The second point with which I want to deal concerns the amendment in connection with the period of 18 months to complete one’s service in the Army in toto. The situation is that all over South Africa one sees the large number of recruiting officers trying to get civilians to join the Permanent Force. What they are really achieving is to get short-service people into the Army. There is no reason why the Permanent Force cannot go round on a recruiting campaign during the last two months of national servicemen’s service to recruit those people for a further period of service for 18 months. Such a system will have all the advantages.

In the first instance it will not be a case of a man being taken off the street by the recruiting officers. One has the reports of the commanding officers on national servicemen and one has other reports on their service as well. One therefore knows exactly what those people have done. One can thus be very selective in what one chooses. In the second instance it is true that not all the servicemen are matriculants who have left school and have served their two years. There are also large numbers of university students coming in. It can be very useful to have those people full-time for an additional 18 months’ period. If such a serviceman comes in after he has graduated or even after he has obtained a master’s degree, one will not have him for only two years, but for 3½ years. After he has finished his additional 18 months, he may again be recruited by the Permanent Force in order to establish whether he would like to become a member of the Permanent Force. It is the best method of recruitment one can have. In such a way one will be able to find the top leadership required for the Permanent Force. Such leadership will be provided rather by the person who is prepared to stay in the Permanent Force than the person who comes in for only two years and then goes out because he does not like to be in the Army.

The hon. member for Durban Point asked the hon. the Minister why he was not prepared to transcribe into writing a promise he made. Well, I can quote nobody better than Sam Goldwyn who once remarked—

That is the truth of the matter.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. members on this side for their very positive contributions. However, I wish to point out that it is very clear to me from the contributions made on both sides of the House that we are all concerned about the same precious item, viz. the member of the Citzen Force or commando. It is yet again clear to me that we in this House are ad idem that if we could reduce the period of service to the minimum, we should all do so. The real point of dispute is this: What justified period of risk is acceptable for certain cycles? We could argue about this until the early hours, and we could have all kinds of “gut feelings” about it, but we have to deal with the cold facts and answer the following questions: What is the threat that faces us, and how many people do we need to counter that threat? Can we afford having too few people to counter that threat at any stage? Can I, as the Minister, accept that risk? That is the crux of the matter.

It sounds very fine when we speak in this way and quote all kinds of figures. If I had been a member of the Opposition I would have tried to quote even lower figures, because after all, that is very good politics for outside consumption.

No, that is not the reason.

We must face realities and determine the risk. That risk is my responsibility, and hon. members may rest assured that my approach is the following: I must never be in the position of having to answer the question as to why there were insufficient troops to perform the task. The hon. member for Yeoville referred to General Montgomery who said: “Give me enough troops, three to one.” That is absolutely correct according to the method of waging war and the phase it has reached. “Three to one” is what is acceptable. I agree fully with what General Mongomery said. Accordingly, I want to put it as follows: As far as the calculation of numbers is concerned, I listen to the General Staff of the Defence Force, who provide me with figures on the basis of recognized norms, norms that have not been established here in South Africa but are recognized worldwide. Those are the norms we must use. I want to agree with the hon. member for Durban Point that we must not undermine the motivation, purpose and morale of the Citizen Force and the commandos. I agree wholeheartedly with that. Nor is it ever the aim of this side of the House to do so. That is what we stand for. On the other hand, however, we must assess the task to be performed and the number of people needed to do so. That risk is not something that we can assess here lightly across the floor of the House, and that is why the matter was referred to a Select Committee. This is the first time in history that the issue of national service has been referred to a Select Committee for possible amendments. This has never been done in the past.

It has been done in the past.

No, Sir, it has never been done with regard to this kind of amendment. Amendments concerning national service have never been referred to a Select Committee before. However, I did refer the matter to a Select Committee, because I wanted to afford all hon. members of this House the opportunity to have a say, because hon. members have as much right to that as I have. Accordingly we must bear in mind the task to be performed and the number of people required. I must then accept the risk of rather having more people who are not used but who serve as a reserve. It is one of the principles of warfare that one must have a reserve that can be called upon in the event of a crisis one is unable to manage. I do not think we need debate this matter any further, because we are ad idem in this regard.

I have sought throughout to base my argument on one clause after the other. However, in the course of debate we have digressed widely in respect of certain clauses, e.g. clauses 4, 10 and 11, and we are now repeating arguments. I shall try to confine myself to those matters which apply to the clause. Therefore, if I do not raise the matters broached under this clause which do not apply to the clause, then hon. members must pardon me. In considering clause 5, the proposed system of national service must be weighed up against the existing system. In terms of the existing system, consideration was given to prescribing periods of service of not longer than 30 days per annum for members of the Citizen Force, as hon. members all know. That was the point of departure. These 30 days per annum were aimed largely at refresher courses or training to improve the standard of the Citizen Force, to enable it to act purposefully if necessary. When this service was planned six years ago, it was calculated that the initial two years of national service training would be sufficient for the utilization of those national servicemen in the terrorist struggle before they reported to their Citizen Force units. Then, however, we had an escalation of the threat, of the terrorist struggle, and we learnt the hard way that the period of two years was insufficient. We realized that we had to make provision and had to step in and use these 30 day periods, which were spread over a period of eight years and amounted to a total of 240 days. Over the past four years the S.A. Defence Force, due to the operational escalation, viz. to meet security requirements, had to deploy more than 50 000 members of the Citizen Force and the commandos apart from the full-time force, viz. apart from the Permanent Force and the national servicemen carrying out their two years of training. This figure of more than 50 000 does not include those who took part in Operation Protea, Operation Super and others. However, this gives hon. members some idea of what we learnt in practice. Due to these escalations, far more people are necessary, and the system in terms of which people could be used for periods of only 30 days was no longer adequate, and in practice this training period of members was increased to 90 days.

That is only a small percentage.

The hon. member can well say that that is a small percentage, but I am speaking of equal treatment. I am speaking about the group that has in fact borne the burden in the operational area and has made sacrifices as far as their families are concerned. It is they who are at issue here.

But it was only a small percentage.

I go further. We never gave those members credit for their 90 days service. That was what worried the hon. member for Bezuidenhout.

†1 say it here tonight and I said it during the Second Reading: Yes, they will get credit for the 60 or 90 days in the operational area. They will get credit for every single day of duty that they have done under the old system.

*Mr. Chairman, I have already said this during the Second Reading, but I say it again: They will be given credit for that. This system, the 30 days of service over eight years, meant that 50% of the strength required by the Citizen Force to perform its task was available. In other words, we are saddled with a Citizen Force that is under strength, due to a system which was in operation for long enough to ensure sufficient manpower. The present shortage of manpower in the Citizen Force compels the Defence Force to call up certain members every year to perform service in the operational area. We cannot continue in this way. We cannot continue calling up certain individuals every year. As the hon. member for Yeoville said, we call him up for 30 days and then we extend his service to 90 days. We send such individuals to the operational area every year, while other members could have come in and resulted in a more equitable spread. That is what we envisage by way of this system: Equal treatment and a more equitable distribution, and that is what we shall do.

The proposed system also ensures that if a member of the Citizen Force or a commando is not called up for service in a specific year because he is not needed, this member’s liability to serve will lapse for that cycle and he will be given credit for it. To me this is the essence of the differences we have here. We say: Impose a liability on a man, and if one does not use him, then give him credit and allow the liability to lapse. However high that liability may be, it is better to have it this way than to have too little and go back to an old system in terms of which one says: I am sorry, I only called you up for 30 days but I am going to call you up for an additional 60 days. Then the morale of the Citizen Force and the commandos is at stake, and that is what I wish to guard against. In terms of the existing system, no member was given credit for what he had done, even if he had done more than 30 days. Even if he had performed 90 days of operational service every year during these eight years, with the liability of 240 days imposed on him—in other words, a total of 720 days—he would only have been given credit for 240 days. I think that is unfair to our Citizen Force. In contrast, the same hon. member, in accordance with the new system, would only be called up every second year—if necessary—for a period of service of 90 days, and then only if the threat of escalation demanded it. I am amazed that we do not think in terms of the escalation. I read in Die Burger this morning that in the last 13 days we have had 16 cases of sabotage. We had it at Paulpietersburg and we had it at Hectorspruit, but we are now sitting here debating whether there is a threat or not. The threat is the determining factor as regards the amount of service we shall have to perform.

Let us therefore continue with the proposed system of six cycles, and if the threat were to escalate, as the hon. members in the various defence groups were informed by the S.A. Defence Force, I know that we shall have the manpower to counter it. The hon. member for Wynberg asked me for the percentage of Permanent Force members serving on the border. I cannot give the figure because it is not a definite figure. It is a question of a situation where the Permanent Force has to perform a certain task in terms of its qualifications and talents. In any event, I cannot give the figures, because they are classified information. However, I am prepared to show the figures to the hon. member on a confidential basis. The other day a British general was there and he said that he was impressed by what was being achieved there. He was impressed by the Permanent Force there and he said that if the British had done that—I am merely quoting his words—they would have acted differently and it would not have been as successful as it is at the moment. That is the policy of the S.A. Defence Force. The first team of the Permanent Force are playing there, but they cannot be there for too long because other Permanent Force members ought to have that experience, too. Nor ought they to be there for too long. There must not be too many Permanent Force members there, because the members of the Citizen Force, the members of the commandos and one’s leadership elements in particular, in other words, the key staff, must be afforded the opportunity to undergo that experience as well.

As regards the amendment which provides that after the two years another 18 months’ service can be rendered, I think that that is a very clever idea. I think one should experiment with this type of thing. It would be as well if we could have certain members, in terms of the hon. member’s amendment, who began by doing the two years and then carried on for a longer continuous period and were subsequently phased out of the system. There is such a system at present. The Defence Force is engaged in an experiment in this regard. Between September 1981 and March 1982 they experimented with this and there are already 414 members in this facet. However, they have a problem. I want to say at once that one must see to it that one does this in a balanced way. The ultimate aim of training is still to get the Citizen Force together, sufficient members of the Citizen Force to man units so that they, too, can perform tasks. In other words, we must not have a short circuit in that we phase a lot of people out along the way. As far as the hon. member’s amendment is concerned, I cannot have it inserted in the Act as it stands. I do not think one should insert this type of pure concept in the Act, because it would restrict one’s freedom of movement. However, I can give the hon. member the assurance that the Defence Force is looking into this, and if the present one is not good enough, that will give them the opportunity to experiment with it further.

Mr. Chairman, may 1 ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not true that after a four-year contract, for example, they have to return to Citizen Force camps? Is that not the restricting factor?

That is quite right. The man gets two years and then he is given recognition for so many years during which he has performed service. That is the aspect at issue. I do not thing that we have already found a solution in every respect. I think that the problem concerns the amount of credit one is given per year of Permanent Force service. This is the area that requires a delicate solution so that, basically, we can launch a successful programme.

As regards the amendment in respect of the merchant navy, I should like to point out to the hon. member for Wynberg that the Minister has the authorization to grant recognition for service in the merchant navy. This is done in terms of clause 5(f).

Are you going to do so?

I shall certainly do so. I have already expressed my view of the merchant navy. That is one of the essential things. I shall recognize it—and I think the hon. member for Durban Point will also be interested in this—because good service is rendered in this regard. This is a service we can use in the S.A. Navy if the situation were to justify it.

The hon. member for Yeoville mentioned that I had supposedly said that we were preparing “for the unlikely conventional war”. That is quite right. I did say that. Nor do I dispute it for a moment. If one does not prepare for the unexpected or the unlikely—and the unlikely is coming our way—then one gets caught with one’s pants down. Then, too, there is another aspect in military terminology, an aspect they call the deterrent strategy. This is the deterrent strategy, and I do not think it is necessary to say anything more about it. In other words, conventional is “out”.

I think you are being unconventional now.

I shall not refer again to a reduction of cycles to six or fewer, because I think the hon. members realize that the threat is actually the determining factor.

I have already said to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that credit will be granted, and he can accept that because I can do it in terms of the Act.

I think that I have replied in general to the hon. member for Durban Point, except to his amendment. He referred several times to numbers, but I think the hon. member for Verwoerdburg drew his attention to that.

Are you not even prepared to consider three years?

The hon. member had an opportunity to raise that in the Select Committee, but he can approach me personally in regard to Defence Force matters. I shall never close my door to suggestions, even though they may not be all that sound.

The hon. member moved an amendment with regard to the eleventh and twelfth years, and asked me why I had said that I would do this administratively. I am particularly interested in the morale of the Defence Force. If I can give them the assurance that I personally believe that the eleventh and twelfth years are essential, but that the period may be reduced if the threat does not increase in intensity and the manpower will not, therefore, be required to such an extent, then that will set their minds at rest. However, I need not make provision for that in the legislation, because it is already embodied therein. In terms of clause 4(a) I already have the authorization to give credit for service, and I am prepared to do so. I believe that, basically, that disposes of the discussion of this clause.

Amendment (1) moved by Mr. P. A. Myburgh put and the Committee divided:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment—

Allow me, Sir, to motivate why we seek to do this. Firstly, matters pertaining to the commandos are of such a nature that the whole scheme must indeed be undertaken in stages. Secondly, on the figures of the men actually involved, it is clear that these people cannot all be absorbed simultaneously. Therefore it is also quite clear that if we should pass this legislation in its present form it will not be possible to execute it, I believe, for a considerable period of time. Therefore, to suggest now that we are going to require people up to the age of 55 years to render this commando service, and to render it in its entirety, is not only impractical, impossible, but also, I believe, likely to cause the wrong impression amongst the community. It may well be that in certain particular areas we are going to need commandos more than in other areas. I believe that if younger people are employed in those areas the social pressures in the community will, no doubt, cause the older people who are still fit and able to join forces with their younger fellows in order to render this service.

In the rural areas where this is indeed mainly required, I have little doubt that this is going to take place.

Moreover, many of us are obviously concerned about the nature of the duties which people will be required to perform in the commandos. We have heard the rather strange statement to the effect that this service could be rendered in the commandos either from one’s bedroom or from one’s lounge. No doubt, the hon. the Minister will be able to perform this service adequately from his bedroom, and the hon. member for Verwoerdburg is of course an expert in the lounge. As far as ordinary individuals are concerned, however, they need to be told that what they are required to do is within their capabilities and also relative to what they, at their particular age, should really be required to do. I believe that if we are going to use what in many cases is highly skilled and highly trained manpower—individuals in their middle age—and if they should find then that the type of work they are called upon to perform is unacceptable to them, we will see their morale destroyed, and the whole concept behind this move will indeed be destroyed. The question of the nature of the duties they will have to perform, and the manner in which such duties will have to be carried out, together with various other factors, I believe, need to be considered.

In the circumstances in which they exist here, I believe, we should not seek to embrace in the net immediately all those whom we might one day need. Parliament should nevertheless keep the control and should be able at some future date to decide that if there is a greater demand it will deal with the matter again. At the moment, however, the case for a demand in respect of people up to this age has to my mind not been made out. It was not made out in the briefing, it was not made out during Second Reading. It was also not made out in the Select Committee. Nowhere has a case been made out to show that we do indeed need the manpower up to the age of 55 years.

In other countries of the world this kind of system does not exist. Even in the case of the one example which was given—that of Israel—there is no commando service beyond the age of 50 years. What is even more important then is that there is no such service which can be required after the age of 40 years unless the Israeli Parliament, the Knesset, actually authorizes it. We are of course going far beyond that, and I venture to suggest to the hon. the Minister that the threat against South Africa is certainly not as great as the threat is against the State of Israel. I do not think, however, that that can be argued at this stage. Therefore, to my mind, if we draw any comparison with any other country in the world, we will nowhere find a country where people have to perform commando service of the nature prescribed in this Bill, also in clauses which we have not yet discussed, such as clause 11.

There is one final point I wish to make to the hon. the Minister in this regard. I mentioned the example of Gen. Montgomery and the fact that he always wanted to outnumber the enemy by three to one before he would go into battle. However, I did not mention that example because I believed that that was what we should be doing. If we have to outnumber anyone who confronts us by three to one, we shall have to look once again at the whole structure of South Africa’s Defence Force. We cannot then look at the situation as though we were dealing with a small White community. We shall then have to look at the whole of South Africa, at its entire population. We then have to give those people something to defend and bring them into the political, social and economic structure of this country so that we can defend South Africa. That should really be one of our main objectives. I sould like to tell the hon. the Minister that I actually prefer the philosophy that lies behind a Gideon in the Bible to the philosophy of a Gen. Montgomery. If the hon. the Minister remembers his Bible, he will know that Gideon only required a few hundred men in order to defeat tens of thousands of enemies. I want to say with great respect that perhaps the quality of the Defence Force is as important as any other factor. The dedication and motivation of the people are important and I should like in this case to say to the hon. the Minister that I would prefer to be on the side of Gideon rather than on the side of Gen. Montgomery as far as this philosophy is concerned.

Mr. Chairman, the basic principle involved here is once again the question of the extension of military service. This principle has already been debated in full by the hon. the Minister and previous speakers and I therefore do not wish to repeat the arguments raised.

The hon. member for Yeoville has just been referring to the 3:1 ratio, but he must also remember that this is not a fixed rule. It only applies in an ideal situation where one has that manpower at one’s disposal.

The question asked in the discussion of this clause is why the age should be 55 years and not, for example, 45 years, as proposed by the hon. member for Yeoville? This will unnecessarily limit the human resources available. This would mean that at least 15% of the people who are able to do military service would then be exempted from military service. These figures are based on scientific facts. In any case there are many people over the age of 45 and even 55 who are still prepared to do military service and this is an indication that they are in fact available.

We must cast the net as wide as possible. We must involve as many people as possible in military service.

It must also be borne in mind that everyone will not necessarily be called up. If people are in fact called up, younger people will certainly be called up first. The older people may never be called up. This will also only apply to medically fit persons and there is always the Exemption Board to exempt people who cannot be called up.

The CP wishes to support this clause.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Yeoville objected to the age of 60 years and is now objecting to the age of 55 years as well, which was in fact the age accepted by the Select Committee. The hon. member also said that it was true that everyone to whom this applied would not immediately be called up, and that this would be impractical. This is true. We agree with the hon. member that this is not what is going to happen. However, the hon. the Minister informed us—and this was confirmed by evidence submitted by the Defence Force to the Select Committee—that the entire system would be introduced progressively, starting with the lower categories. All these people will not immediately be called up and taken into service therefore. The hon. the Minister told us again this afternoon that the Act is now being amended to make provision for these people to be used if they are needed. The hon. the Minister also motivated this by saying that it is better to have these people available than to find afterwards that there are not enough people available. The hon. member conceded that where we use and need people of advanced age the most nowadays is the rural areas. It is no use saying that we should lower the age to 45 years, as the hon. member moved, and then find that in certain rural areas we are still unable to carry out the task which has to be carried out. The task in this connection is the combating of the threat. The evidence given by the Defence Force in this connection was that if they were to lower the age-limit in certain rural areas—where they undertook a survey—from 60 years to 55 years, there would be a loss of 12% in the available manpower in the area. If the age limit were lowered to 50 years, the loss in available manpower would be 24%.

The loss in manpower is 12% if the age limit is lowered to 55 years.

It is 12% on an age limit of 55 and if the age limit is lowered to 50 years it is 24%. That is why the Defence Force said that the risk was too great and that they could not afford to take the risk. In any case the point of departure was that we need guaranteed manpower to combat the threat. It is no use our aguing about this, because the threat is escalating. During the past week we had proof in South West Africa that Swapo is becoming active in Kavango again. We need people to go there and do what has to be done.

In addition there must be a fair and equitable distribution of the defence obligation. The present situation is that there is not a fair distribution of the obligation. This was also the argument of hon. members opposite and we also heard this in the Select Committee. However, one can only distribute the obligation fairly if there is enough manpower available. The hon. the Minister and the department are now making suggestions which will make the necessary manpower available so that the obligation can be distributed fairly and more people can become involved.

It is not the intention to call up everyone. The hon. member wanted to know what all these people were going to do. The people will be used as the need arises. The hon. the Minister and the department will determine how people will be used in the relevant areas. People will be used in the rural commandos, the urban commandos or the industrial commandos—depending on where they are employed. In other words, the service will differ according to requirements and the hon. the Minister and the Defence Force will determine how it will be possible to satisfy these requirements.

The hon. member for Yeoville referred us to Israel where people are called up until they reach the age of 50 years. There is another country I should like to mention in this connection, and this will interest the hon. member for Yeoville. I want to refer to Switzerland. Who would say that a threat existed in Switzerland? Switzerland is the one country in the world where no threat exists. [Interjections.] There is no threat and the last time they waged a war was 200 years ago. What is the liability to do military service in Switzerland? In Switzerland the officers corps does five years’ service in’a regional force and the other ranks do 10 years, service. Both the service for officers and other ranks extends up to the age of 60 years.

Not the other ranks.

Does the hon. member want to dispute these facts? You see, Mr. Chairman, this is the problem we have with the hon. member for Yeoville: He believes there is only one person in the world who is right, and he is that person. The hon. member must accept these facts. Why is he arguing with us about them? Consequently I cannot support the hon. member’s amendment.

Mr. Chairman, to be consistent I move—

The reason I move this amendment is that I do not go along with the hon. member for Yeoville on the maximum age of 45. I believe 50 is a more reasonable age at which to complete compulsory military service. There will always be the volunteers over that age, namely the leaders who today up to a much higher age play their part in the commandos. Without repeating what the hon. member for Yeoville has said, it must be clear that with the exception of certain specific areas it is totally unrealistic to believe that the Defence Force will be able to call up and mobilize 800 000 potential people who now will fall into the net of compulsory service. It is just not on. It is a dream which anybody who knows better and who appreciates the administration concerned, will know is in fact a total dream. Therefore, why do we establish an age limit which we know cannot be used? I believe 50 would be a more reasonable age and I believe that it would provide the sort of manpower that is necessary, except in a few specified areas, where I believe the threat would be of such a nature that volunteers could make up the difference. Hence my amendment.

I have drafted a further amendment pending the response of the hon. the Minister to the proposal for a 50 year age limit. I am not suggesting that people over the age of 50 are not fit for commando service. In fact, many of the leadership groups in the commandos are over the age of 50. I am talking about the general call-up and the general commitment which, in terms of the estimates given by the hon. the Minister during the Second Reading debate, amount to some 800 000 people who are to be brought into the network. Let me say at once: This party welcomes and supports the concept that every South African should have a military commitment. We support the concept that those who have, through no fault of their own, not been balloted in the days of balloting, those who have not been called up or those who evaded service, should play their part in defending South Africa. We accept that unequivocally, but we want to make it a reasonable commitment, one which will not create the impression that South Africa is now in a crisis, that we are now having a general mobilization, that everybody up to the age of 55 is going to be called up to serve in the forces and that everybody will go off on 12 day camps.

This is the other aspect which I do not believe is clear enough yet to the people of South Africa. It is not the intention, as has been explained by the Chief of the South African Defence Force and others, that everybody should go and do 12 day camps. We will come to the exception, the commandos who are area-bound by choice, later. The general body of the commandos, who are required to do 12 days, will largely do it in short-term periods of guard duty. It will be anything from one and a half hours to eight hours. One period of eight hours is counted as a day of service and two four-hour periods are counted as a day of service. It will not be a question of closing your office or leaving your dairy herd and going off to do 12 days of service in a camp with a pack on your back. It will be a question of utilizing those people according to the requirements of the problem area and the nature of the responsibility of the commando. I think that this has to receive more emphasis so that people do not get the idea that this is going to be “dad’s army”, with everyone up to the age of 55 going off to camp to do route marches and parade-ground work.

At least I believe that the age limit of 50 will constitute a lesser weapon to be used against South Africa in saying that we are in a panic situation, that we are losing the war and that we have to mobilize our total male population.

Therefore I will now only move the first amendment, to make the age restriction 50 years.

Mr. Chairman, I am rising to support the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville. I want to start by telling the hon. the Minister that as far as ordinary national servicemen are concerned, an attempt was made to ascertain what the manpower needs were, but as far as the commando system is concerned no attempt has even been made—as far as I know—to ascertain what the actual manpower requirements for South Africa are. In spite of this, in spite of the fact that no such attempt has been made, it was simply decided that everyone up to a certain age would be liable for military service in this connection. No basis was determined for this. I find it disturbing because one gains the impression that what one has here is someone standing on a river bank, catching as many fish as he can without determining how many fish he wants or what he wants to do with them. As at least two hon. members said, the net is being cast as wide as possible. It is poor legislation to do this. It is poor legislation merely to cast the net as wide as one can. This creates the impression among the general public that there is a threat here, which may be out of all proportion to the actual threat. In this way, as other hon. members said, the impression is also being created abroad that South Africa is resorting to total mobilization in the military field. I do not think that this is the hon. the Minister’s intention.

There are two or three other matters I should like to refer to this evening. It is constantly being said, the hon. member for Kroonstad said so earlier and I think the hon. member for Verwoerdburg did so as well, that it is necessary to guarantee manpower.

Do you not agree with that?

Do hon. members realize what those two hon. members are actually saying? They are saying that the public of South Africa will not be prepared to do their share when the time comes.

How can they if they are not trained?

They are not prepared to do their share when the country needs them. It is also being said, and the hon. member for Kroonstad said this earlier this afternoon, that the people are not prepared to join up voluntarily. I think it is a disgrace to allege that South Africans are not prepared to join up on a voluntary basis when they are needed. This was certainly not the case in the past. However, there is a tendency on that side of the House to pass legislation for every possible eventuality, whatever it may be, and to believe that by placing legislation on the Statute Book the problems will immediately be solved. This is the wrong approach and as far as defence matters are concerned I think that if manpower is needed the average South African will be prepared to play his part. He has done so in the past and he will do so again. It was asked by way of interjection: But what about training? Even if this legislation is passed and we were to decide that everyone up to the age of 55 years should be called up, it would take a very long time before we could involve everyone in the necessary training.

That is not true.

It will take a long time. It will take years. That is why my colleague moved that one should at least begin at an age at which one can train the available manpower within a reasonable time so that they can be used in a meaningful way. I therefore wish to support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Yeoville. In the Army, after a man has served 22 months, he is already called an “ou man”, and I should therefore like to know what someone of the age of 45 will be called. He then must already be a great-great-grandfather. [Interjections.] Apart from that, the age of 45 is certainly sufficient to provide us with the necessary manpower. Moreover, clause 36 provides for all those people who wish to serve as volunteers to join. I listened to the hon. member for Pietersburg this afternoon speak about the “boerende boer”, but I should like to draw his attention to the statement made by the Chief of the S.A. Defence Force on TV, when he said that in the magisterial district of Thabazimbi the voluntary system drew 3% volunteers, while in the magisterial district of Pietersburg I think the percentage was 5%. [Interjections.] Only 5% volunteers came from the “boerende boere” of that district. [Interjections.] According to the figures given by the Chief of the Defence Force, there are a certain number of adult males over the age of 18 in Thabazimbi and Pietersburg and those are the only people available in that area to join the commandos. In Pietersburg it was about 5% that volunteered while in Thabazimbi it was 3%. [Interjections.] I do not, therefore, like to hear all this talk that we have been hearing about the great patriotism. It is true that measures are now introduced to make sure that people do join the Army, but if people are going to be forced to join the Army, it is even more important that the length of service should be limited because of the problems that one has.

As far as the age of 45 is concerned, most of the men are at that age well established on farms or in businesses, and for them to have to serve in the commandos at that stage is an economic loss to the country. [Interjections.] It would be far better for them to stay in their particular jobs than to serve in the commandos.

Mr. Chairman, many subsequent clauses are also concerned with the age limit. Consequently I do not intend to repeat in the discussion of all these clauses what I am going to say now, because then we shall have to eat bacon and eggs here tomorrow morning.

You can eat the bacon and I shall eat the eggs. [Interjections.]

In my opinion very good contributions were made and I particularly want to thank the hon. member for Verwoerdburg for his positive contribution and good understanding of this matter. I believe his was a well reasoned argument. [Interjections.] What is of particular importance in this connection is that we should not merely ignore the volunteer and regard him as a person who does not exist. The volunteer is in fact the person who, since the Second World War has carried the burden of defence in this country, and still does so today. He performs an enormous task and is the heart of our Defence Force. Consequently we must not casually begin to play politics when we discuss these volunteers, the members of the Citizen Force and the commandos, and say that South African citizens do not want to do military training. [Interjections.] We must approach this matter seriously and say instead that there are many people who are not very keen to do military service. We must therefore refer to it in a positive way.

As far as this amending legislation is concerned this age limit produces a far larger amount of manpower, which will be available for military service—and this is important to me—on a geographic basis, namely a commando force which can be used in the respective areas. Once again, as was explained during the discusion of clause 4, the manpower needs are determined by the security tasks or operational tasks the S.A. Defence Force is directed to undertake. Consequently there must be manpower available to be able to combat this escalation of the operational intensity. I am referring again to what I referred to just before the supper adjournment, viz. the intensity of revolutionary activities which is increasing, particularly if one quickly calls to mind what happened recently in Paulpietersburg, Hectorspruit and elesehwere throughout the country. Here it is again a requirement that the liability to do military service which rest on the various members of the commando must be distributed equally. The more people we can therefore involve in this system, the smaller will be the liability of each individual, and herein lies the key, the solution to the problem. One does not want to overburden a small group and not have equal service. We would rather have more people doing service so as to allow the individual to do less.

The task of the commandos requires that they must perform their operational task at any time and any place throughout the country, jointly or separately. This means that members must be available to meet the operational needs of various areas, in the interests of their own community, whenever it is time to do so.

However, there is a problem, because the official Opposition says an age-limit of 45 years is sufficient. However, the NRP says an age-limit of 50 years is sufficient, whereas the Government fixes it at 55 years.

No, 60.

Now who is going to hit the jackpot? [Interjections.] I am going to argue that it will be 55, but it should really be 60. [Interjections.] However, in terms of the Act we can call up people until they are 65. [Interjections.] The Act makes provision for this. All the aspects connected with age that the hon. members mentioned and the entire question of people who do not want to do their share were taken into account. We made provision for this by lowering the age a little. We gave thought to the matter. We also looked at the various needs. We decided that 55 was the right age.

How did you get that figure?

I am going to tell you.

Well, come on!

I am getting to it. [Interjections.] One may divide the utilization of this force into three categories, i.e. the rural group, the urban group and the industrial group. Normally the rural areas are sparsely populated. In other words, the number of people available for commando duty is less than in the cities. The cities are probably “over-populated” when it comes to the operational obligations of the commando’s. In the industrial sector one may perhaps find that one has the ideal situation.

I want to indicate how this legislation, with its age-limit of 55 years, will be applied. In the first place I foresee that 1983 and 1984 will be used to obtain administrative particulars of various individuals in various fields, or as the hon. member for Yeoville put it during the Second Reading debate, to compile a register to indicate who is available in the separate areas.

In the second place, an administrative limit to a certain extent will be placed on the Defence Force in connection with the number which can be used. In the densely populated cities, where the primary task is a police task, and the Defence Force will only intervene in the case of organized revolutionary action, I do not foresee that the Defence Force will involve anyone over the age of 40 in the system at this stage. However, it will then consider individual aspects because every area is different. Johannesburg West is totally different from Jeppe as far as operational problems are concerned. Then it can make adjustments if it wishes because there will then be a flexible situation.

Then there are the border areas. During the Second Reading debate I referred to a certain area where there are 53 White farmers, three of whom are members of a commando. This is on the border where the risk of terrorist incursion is greater. I foresee that the age-limit will be 55 there. After that it can be ascertained whether the age-limit can be lowered. We can see what effect can be exercised to motivate other people who are older than 55 to join the commando system. I want to state that at this stage the Defence Force cannot afford to send national servicemen or other defence elements to those sparsely populated areas to perform the task because the local population is not involved.

Then it can be asked: What about the rural areas? I foresee that in the rural areas we shall go as far as the age of 50. Certain rural areas are however more densely populated than others. Nelspruit, for example, has a far larger population than the sparsely populated Karoo. As far as Nelspruit is concerned, I may add that they have a very active commando there. I therefore foresee that in the rural areas the age-limit will be 50.

I am therefore referring to a progressive increase. In terms of this Bill there can be a progressive increase as the requirements increase. The Bill gives flexibility. There is no rigidity. One is not absolutely bound to 45. If I had a choice I would prefer 50 to 45. However, 55 is the best.

The hon. member for Durban Point asked: “What are you going to do with 800 000?” I do not want 800 000 people. I want an effective Defence Force with a commando force which can perform its task in its field according to the needs. I do not want to overburden it either. In the rural areas, in the cities and in the industrial areas, in addition to their commando task, people must also be able to engage in their civilian pursuits.

This national service system amounts to a far better and more even distribution of the burden. In this way the present burden on the individual will be considerably reduced. I have now indicated to the hon. member for Yeoville why I prefer the age limit of 55 and why this matter cannot be referred back to Parliament every time. As I said, needs differ from one area to another. The need at present existing in the Karoo may be greater or smaller tomorrow. One does not want to return to Parliament time and again to fix age limits. The Bill gives flexibility. Parliament allows the Defence Force to apply the legislation accordingly and it must then accept the responsibility.

The hon. member for Yeoville also asked what the commando members are going to do. To sum it up briefly, I want to say that there are aspects such as protection of private homes; the protection of national key points; and then there is reconnaissance and the transmission of information which is one of the most important facets. There is no reason why a person cannot do this because of the age limit. Then there is aid to the S.A. Police if road blocks must be arranged, civil defence, etc. The commando member will perform specific tasks in his area according to operational needs.

Since we are speaking about the commandos I should like to refer to the Outjo Commando in South West Africa. The Outjo Commando is a unique commando. It is a commando we would do well to study. That commando has organized its entire area according to the commando system; the church organization is along similar lines to the commando system, the various wards are divided into sections according to the various platoons; and the farmers’ associations are organized according to the commando system. I can assure hon. members that this small but valiant band is a match for any terrorist. This is the one place where the terrorists have been successfully defeated every single time they launched an attack. I think that we must plan for South Africa in accordance with this concept.

Are they not volunteers?

There are volunteers among them. Others are doing compulsory training. However, I have another dilemma. I think that the hon. member for Yeoville will share this problem with me. In my constituency, Modderfontein, and also in the Edenvale constituency, a tremendous number of people have volunteered and have said they want to join up and be part of this commando force because they realize there is a need. I am not referring to people who are not independent; or to young people. I am referring to people of various ages, people without any military obligations, who are inspired and motivated. They want to get stuck in and see that the job gets done. This is the spirit which is already beginning to move people outside—I wonder whether I should say this—in the constituencies of good hon. members.

In Edenvale for example!

I was actually referring to Modderfontein. However, the hon. member must remember that half of Edenvale forms part of the Modderfontein constituency. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Yeoville went on to refer to Gen. Montgomery’s belief in three to one. I agree with the hon. member that the principle of three to one applies in conventional warfare. However, I wonder whether the hon. member has considered that the ratio of three to one in the case of a revolutionary war—the sort of war which is most probably in our country—will be more likely to be approximately 20 to one. This means that 20 soldiers of the S.A. Defence Force will be needed to neutralize one terrorist. Can hon. members understand our labour force problem? However, we have such good South Africans that we do not need 20 to one. This brings me back to the hon. member for Yeoville and his small but valiant band, the followers of Gideon. I think this is one of the best examples I have ever heard. I want to suggest that we in South Africa are synonymous with the small but valiant bands of old, particularly when seen in the light of the onslaught, the disputes and the play on words we have experienced here in the Republic.

Of course, Gideon was a Jew.

That is why I mentioned him here this evening. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Wynberg said this was poor legislation. He said we wanted to cast the net as wide as possible. I have just tried to prove to him that this is not the case; that, on the contrary, this is very good legislation. This is legislation which is flexible, which can be applied in accordance with the changing circumstances we are faced with from time to time and it gives the assurance that the security of our country is being taken care of.

The hon. member for Wynberg must however not believe for a single moment that it is correct to assume that this measure will mean total mobilization. On the contrary, this misconception resulted from certain newspaper reports which gave people the wrong idea. This is anything but total mobilization. It will be total mobilization when the country as a whole is called to arms to solve a problem. We are certainly not involved in anything of that kind. Nor do we want to mobilize the entire country. We do not want to give everyone a task to do simultaneously. Consequently, this is certainly not total mobilization.

I should like to thank the hon. member for Jeppe most sincerely for his very positive contribution. I want to compliment him on his speech. I can see he is a former Citizen Force officer. He spoke with expertise and understanding, and put the problem to us very well and in an expert military manner. I thank him for that.

I now want to return to the hon. member for Durban Point. I think that I have already dealt with the matters he raised. For the reasons I have given here I cannot accept the proposed amendments.

Mr. Chairman, firstly I should want to put it to the hon. the Minister that I actually appreciate the manner in which he has just replied here. Despite serving on the Select Committee—and my colleagues will bear me out on this—I have to point out, however, that this is the first time that anybody has really tried—that includes the briefing—to set out the situation in regard to the age limits. That, I believe, we all appreciate. I am really grateful for that.

I should like to put a few more points to the hon. the Minister. Firstly, a system of volunteers in respect of this type of commando arrangement has never existed. The commando system has been quite different up to now. Therefore, we have not actually given the people a chance on the kind of area-bound basis that has been set out here this evening. They have never had the opportunity to do that. I think that to some extent this is unfair to the public of South Africa in that they are criticized for not volunteering while in actual fact they have never had the opportunity to volunteer.

But they can do that now.

Of course they can volunteer now but the reason why conscription is being enforced and the reason why it is being made compulsory—and the hon. member for Verwoerdburg’s own members have said this; in fact, he has said it himself—is because they have not volunteered in adequate numbers. [Interjections.] Why have they not volunteered in adequate numbers? There are two reasons for this. The one reason is that they have not been given the right kind of system for which to volunteer.

Oh, no!

That is a fact, Sir. It is no use the hon. member saying “Oh, no”. The fact of the matter is that the system has been different up to now. The second factor is—and I think that this is one of the major failings of this Government—that they have not motivated the people of South Africa adequately at all. [Interjections.] They have not motivated the people at all. What those hon. members have done is that they have kept on talking about a total onslaught and have created a picture that has no credibility in that form. [Interjections.] The people have not been told of the real threats. I have said in this House before and I want to repeat that there are threats to South Africa. Of course there are. One cannot deny this. However, hon. members opposite have so overstated the matter that they have actually destroyed their own credibility. This is the danger inherent in this. One cannot keep on crying wolf and then expect people to react. I want to say that one of the charges that the Government has to face is its failure adequately to motivate the people of South Africa. That is a charge they have to face. [Interjections.] If the people are motivated and if they are given a system for which they can volunteer, only then can one sit in judgment as to whether they have volunteered adequately or not.

Let us for a moment consider the actual figures in relation to manpower. Nobody has spoken about figures. In actual fact, if we take the age at 45 we shall be able to draw upon 350 000 economically active Whites. That is a large number of people. One will not need more than that. When we consider this situation, we have to take the position of the average person who is over 45. We must not just take the example of the man who is fit and strong and is able to participate in this sort of thing in his late ‘fifties or even in his ‘sixties. Let us take a person like the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs. Look at him there. [Interjections.] He has grey hair and he looks so helpless. What do we expect him to do? [Interjections.] What are we going to do with him? Are we going to set him to guarding a bridge? Are we going to take a helpless and harmless person like that and expose him to all these risks at his age? [Interjections.] Really, Sir! I would not allow it! We would not want that done to a person like he is. I think it would be an absolute shame! [Interjections.] We therefore have to take each person as a separate entity.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I shall be turning 55 on Friday next. In case hon. members are interested, I am on the second floor in the Verwoerd Building where I shall be happy to receive parcels and so forth. [Interjections.]

You see, Mr. Chairman, …

Order! I think the hon. member has made his point.

I have indeed. Sir. I thought he was 65! [Interjections.] I am sorry for that and I withdraw unreservedly. I say that there are 350 000 economically active people that one could draw on after Citizen Force service until they reach the age of 45 years. I want to say that I think that those numbers are adequate and that they can be dealt with quite comfortably. That is the situation we have to deal with because that is the manpower that is available. I think that the people above 45 years of age who are fit and well should be given the opportunity to volunteer before being forced to render that service.

I want to deal with one other point. The hon. the Minister has been a little naughty today on no less than three occasions. What he has done—this is very naughty really—is that he has used acts of sabotage, which we are all unhappy about and which every South African and everyone in this House is unhappy about, in order to try to justify this legislation.

That is nonsense.

That was wrong because we all condemn those acts. I also want to say to the hon. the Minister that one can call up every White South African but that one cannot guard every building and installation in the country. One can never solve the problem that way. The Portuguese experienced that in Mozambique and in Angola. Their army outnumbered the terrorists to the extent which the hon. the Minister mentioned and yet they could not stop it because there has to be two factors present in a population. The first one—I tried to deal with it earlier—is motivation. It is not just motivation of the Whites of South Africa but motivation of the whole population. The whole population has to be involved. They must have a feeling of having a stake in the country. One can call up every single White South African and put him into uniform but one will not solve the problems of South Africa if one does not tackle the political, economic and social problems also. [Interjections.] That is the reality. With great respect, even taking the example of the Outjo Commando—I agree with the hon. the Minister; the reports which I have had of the commando show that it is a very effective unit—they cannot stop acts of terror in their area of jurisdiction. They can only try to deal with them when they occur and that is the way in which we have to look at this matter.

I want to end up right where I started early this afternoon. The reality of the situation is that one has carefully to try to maintain the delicate balance in respect of our manpower needs. One has to utilize what one needs to deal with the problem and leave the rest of the people to try to solve the social, economic and political problems of South Africa. One needs the manpower to do that. When one looks at the history of wars, one sees that in the First World War manpower was regarded as an expendable commodity. Manpower could be thrown away as was done on the Western Front. On both sides they allowed people to be wiped out because manpower was regarded as something which could be wasted. Where it was needed they could throw it in. However, today manpower, the manhood of South Africa is the most precious commodity that we have. We can never throw it away and we have to safeguard it.

Mr. Chairman, I welcome the sentiments expressed by the hon. the Minister about volunteer commandos, the fact that he accepts the importance of these and that he made special mention of them. However, the hon. the Minister’s memory needs to be refreshed.

†The same hon. Minister, before the Second Reading of this measure, in a statement issued by his public relations department—the heading of the statement was “News Released by the Minister of Defence” and stated further “May not be printed until permission has been granted by the Director, Public Relations, of the SADF”—said the following—

I regret that the hon. the Minister saw fit to issue that statement, because I prefer to accept his compliment to and his expression of acceptance of the importance of the volunteer commando. I know that there are many hundreds of persons serving voluntarily in the commandos today, particularly in leadership positions, who are making tremendous personal contributions and sacrifices in the interests of South Africa. I regret very much that that contribution should have been minimized by being termed “undependable” and not being “available for operational duty.” That is not my experience and I want to associate myself with tonight’s remarks by the hon. the Minister and welcome his change of face.

I had intended to move a further amendment but I see no point in doing so. All I want to do is to suggest that those commandos over 50 should not be used in continuous 12-day camps, but only for non-continuous periods of four or eight hours, whatever it may be, for the various duties as outlined by the hon. the Minister. However, I accept that the intention is to do this. The hon. the Minister has said so previously and I would like to ask him specifically to deal again tonight with that question of whether the intention is to call people up for 12-day camps or to use them for non-continuous periods of service so that it is clearly on record. Secondly, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether what he said he envisaged in respect of the use of the commandos—40, 50 and 55 years in the different categories—was simply just thinking aloud or whether it is part of his specific planning. We should like to know what he intends to do with those people who are called up under the new commando system. I would appreciate clear answers on those two questions.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban Point has attempted to take the hon. the Minister to task, I think, by referring to the news release made by the hon. the Minister of Defence. He quoted from paragraph 1.3 where it is said that experience has taught that volunteers cannot be depended upon as a force. I think the hon. member will agree that what the hon. the Minister stated in this news release, was what we actually and factually found when he had our different briefings from the different commandos. I have in my possession the notes that I took and I think it is rather unfortunate that the hon. member should try to play politics in this regard because, honestly, this is what we factually found. Is the hon. member prepared to agree with me that this is exactly what we found when we visited different units? I want to say that it is not my function …

Not entirely.

… to take the part of the hon. the Minister but in all fairness I think one should say that this is quite true and factually correct from the evidence given to us when we visited several commandos.

*I want to conclude by saying that the hon. the Minister has the support of this side of the House and that what he said was factually correct, and I appreciate the statement by the hon. the Minister that people will be called up progressively as it becomes necessary. We must always remember that the big pool of men to which the hon. member for Yeoville referred, approximately 350 000, is concentrated in a small area and not spread all over the country. That is why it is essential, as the hon. the Minister said, to use different criteria in different places.

Mr. Chairman, I was unfortunately absent for a short period and I missed the speeches of some of the speakers but, having picked up the thread of the debate at this stage, I would like to mention one or two points. In particular, if there is a phrase which is complete anathema to the serving commando member, it is the one used by the hon. member for Wynberg in regard to people being prepared to serve when the time comes. If one really wants to make a commando member frustrated to the point where he would like to break somebody’s head one must use that phrase. The situation is one where, if he serves by guarding key points at road blocks, he is at a disadvantage. However, this clever gentleman says that he will be available when the time comes, not taking into account that time is passing all the time and that service is being rendered and that he is quietly sitting at home awaiting something similar to this legislation. Our society is brought up to believe that in times of crisis, in situations when extraordinary measures are needed to meet circumstances that are not always obvious to the man in the street, those measures will be taken and that a man will be told by his authority, in whom he puts his trust, that it is necessary for him to serve. The concept that we in these benches have of spreading the load evenly has tremendous benefits to the young national serviceman who knows that he has the population behind him in respect of home service and that the men in general are better informed. There is no question about it that during this phase of service these men become better informed through training in connection with the threats and situation that develop elsewhere in the world and the methods employed to combat them. There is without doubt a situation within the commandos which requires urgent action in order to bring about the very essence of the theory of commando service in this country, i.e. that one may serve militarily whilst maintaining the economy. That is the entire basis of commando service. There must be sufficient personnel so that one can do one’s two, three or four days’ service, or whatever the circumstances might be, within one’s own area and one must then be able to bring in the reserves required so that one can go off to get on with one’s commercial or agricultural enterprise. By so doing an adequate force can be maintained in the area without disrupting the economy.

The farmers’ wives are already doing their bit.

The hon. member form my neighbouring constituency mentions the farmers’ wives. He is quite correct. This is an area which is not involved in this Bill and has not even been discussed here today, but has great bearing on the matter in general. The point I am trying to make is that, as of now, with the introduction of this legislation, we are extending the period of service for Citizen Force members, which means that none of them will be coming off the “production line” into the commandos for the balance of the period of eight years or twelve years or fourteen years, as the case may be, plus the five years in the Reserve. Therefore the commandos cannot look forward to an input of trained personnel from the Citizen Force for another seven years. The commandos are therefore not going to get reinforcements in respect of building up their strength for a considerable period of time other than from the resource of people who are not militarily committed up to the age of 55. We believe that the essence of the service of that hard core of senior NCOs, of officer personnel, will remain their loyalty to their unit and their commitment to maintaining their unit’s pride. Under those circumstances, by initially introducing service up to the age of 50, one will be filling an immediate requirement. Further to that, one will be reaping the benefits of more volunteer service during the period whilst waiting for the Citizen Force people to come in to start augmenting one’s numbers. I did miss the hon. the Minister’s remarks alluded to by my hon. Leader concerning volunteers but I can imagine the form they would take. However, I believe it is very important to give the volunteer his rightful place in the system and that the real thread of continuity and of application to build the standard and the esprit de corps that we require to maintain this type of service over a long period, is still going to come from the volunteer personnel. When one looks at the general throughput of personnel, one finds that the senior ranks, the senior NCOs or officers will have reached that age group, and so the provision in regard to the age of 50 or 55 really has very little bearing on them. They are concerned with maintaining continuity and, of course, they are also concerned with not letting their fellowmen down. If there is sufficient manpower so that they can equip themselves effectively, we believe that that volunteer element is something which must be retained. I am sure the hon. the Minister will acknowledge the fact that if we are going to train people who are going to retire at the age of 55—obviously we are not going to call up those men who are already 55 years old; we are going to call up younger men and see how far we get—we are going to reap a tremendous benefit from the fact that so many people can serve who did not serve before. There is therefore going to be a greater choice of personnel. People will have to commit themselves and get stuck into this thing. They are going to look at it and say to themselves: Well, if I am going to have to serve, I might as well get on with it, get myself course qualified and put my shoulder to the wheel. There are a number of beneficial factors that will flow from this provision that I do not think we have really assessed properly. I should like to suggest therefore that in the initial stages, bearing in mind the hon. the Minister’s statement that in any event the Defence Act allows for service up to the age of 65, we should really see our way clear to going along with the suggestion of an age limit of 50 years.

Mr. Chairman, I was rather amazed to hear the criticism from the other side of the House that has been directed so vitriolically against the hon. member for Yeoville and also against the hon. member for Durban Point. It is strange that in this House the two hon. members who are pleading most for a reduction in the period of service are two gentlemen who themselves have volunteered for service for their own country and, in addition, have heard shots fired in anger. It is strange to hear other people criticizing these two hon. members in the manner that they have been doing. All they seek to do is to reduce the period of service because they understand what happens in an army and they appreciate the fact that we are not dealing with machines but with human beings.

Nobody criticized them.

In the end, whatever one wants to say, the only thing that counts is the man who is able to fight and who is motivated to fight. It is all very well having men, but unless those men are willing to fight and know how to fight, one is wasting one’s time entirely. The two hon. gentlemen who have been pleading with the Government to reduce the period of service, are not doing so because they are not patriotic or because they do not understand the problems of South Africa. They understand that we are dealing with human beings and not with fighting machines. [Interjections.] I would even go so far as to say that I am surprised to read in the minutes of the Select Committee that a vote was not allowed on an amendment moved by the hon. member for Yeoville. His amendment read as follows—

It is stated that the chairman said that he was unable to accept the amendment as it sought to extend the scope of the Bill, as read a Second Time.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the clause.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am dealing with commandos, in particular with age-limits applicable to the commandos. [Interjections.] In reality an age-limit of 45 years is quite sufficient, and I therefore honestly believe that the hon. the Minister should agree to this.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the hon. member for Yeoville. He kicked off with very good compliments, but then his compliments dried up. However, I want to assure him on one point. As far as the Citizen Force and the commandos are concerned, they are constantly in my thoughts because I still think that they constitute the most important element in the defence of this country. We must make no mistake about that. It is for that reason that I am treating them so gently and doing everything in my power to accomplish the very best for them. The hon. member should not think for one moment that I am not making things as easy for them as I possibly can.

The hon. member for Yeoville asked whether this was the first time that we were going to introduce this volunteer system in the commandos. It is not the first time. We have had such a volunteer system before. We had a system where a person could be employed in a relevant magisterial district. With the developments in the operational area it was in fact a very good investment when we repealed that provision that a person could only be employed in his magisterial district, and sent him to the operational area, for we then gave him exposure and experience. Then we took him back to his geographical commando area and in this regard I should like to venture a prediction. People who want to enter these geographical areas of the commandos are going to meet their match as sure as twice two is four, because our men are experienced people who have already gained experience in the operational area. I firmly hope and believe that with this new service system we are going to succeed in establishing an effective and efficient commando system.

I want to compliment the hon. member for King William’s Town. From his speech one thing is crystal clear, and that is that he knows his commandos. He is completely familiar with the system. He came forward with a number of extremely important suggestions and I thank him sincerely for his support.

The hon. member for Yeoville said we had to motivate the public. They say they take it amiss of us for not motivating the public, etc. However, I motivate the public as much as I can. I do not want to blame anybody. I do not want to accuse him of anything. However, I would have expected that there would have been joint motivation in the sense that we could support this legislation together. [Interjections.]

Ah, but you did not want to do it.

I went out of my way to accommodate those hon. members. I said we should refer the Bill to a Select Committee. This has never happened before. However, that hon. member then turned around and said that that should not take place after the Second Reading, but before the Second Reading. [Interjections.] I do not blame the hon. member for that. I do, however, invite the hon. member to join us in motivating the public. Let us and the Opposition do this together, because the danger in this country lies in wait for all of us. It is not an army in the field or a political party that is at stake here. It is the democratic system we have here in South Africa. We could all do a very good job here, and I am sincere when I say this. I am not trying to play politics here. I did not for one moment refer to these incidents in order to point a finger at that hon. member. I did it under completely different circumstances. I actually did it for my own good, for often one becomes so conditioned that later one does not see things so clearly anymore if one does not give an account of what happened yesterday or the day before yesterday. That is the only reason why I referred to certain incidents. However, I know that those hon. members and hon. members on this side of the House feel the same way about that situation. As far as the hon. member’s remark is concerned that we shall not be able to prevent this matter with the commando force, I want to make it very clear that we shall not in fact be able to prevent it. A Police Force cannot prevent crime; it can reduce crime. Similarly a commando force and a citizen force cannot solve the problem completely, but it can reduce it and it can ensure the safety of the country.

The hon. member went on to say that there were going to be 350 000 people under the age of 45 available. I can tell him that the Defence Force wants far fewer people than those 350 000 under the age of 45. What the Defence Force does want is certain concentrations in certain areas, depending on operational requirements. I can assure hon. members that the Defence Force will deal with the question of people who may become involved in the system very carefully. The commandos are still regarded as the most important element in the defence of this country.

I have no fault to find with what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said in respect of the hon. member for Durban Point and Yeoville. I can assure you, Sir, that they often give me very good advice as well, and I appreciate it. It is only here and there that we differ on aspects, e.g. the age limit. So the hon. member need’ not be too concerned about that.

As far as the contribution of the hon. member for Durban Point is concerned, I want to thank the hon. member for Pretoria West for his support and for the statements he made in apt reply to the points raised by the hon. member for Durban Point. I want to say that I do not know what the passages which the hon. member for Durban Point quoted were all about. However, I want to give him the assurance that the gist of it is that the commandos and the Citizen Force, whether on a voluntary or a non-voluntary basis, is priority number one. That has always been the spirit in which I have issued statements.

The hon. member for Durban Point also asked me whether the 12 days were going to be continuous or non-continuous. They could in fact be either continuous or non-continuous, depending on the circumstances in a specific area. They will not necessarily be continuous. They will most probably be non-continuous. Provision is being made for a time credit scale which people can utilize. He went on to ask how the 40, 50 and 55 were going to be implemented. Actually I have spelt out the steps already. The Defence Force has already received instructions. They will receive the administrative details over this period and then they will apply them on the basis of 40, 50 and 55 as I indicated.

I think I have replied to all the contributions. I should just like to refer to the point made by the hon. member for King William’s Town. He made the important point that the voluntary leadership element was most important in the commandos. That has always been the most important element and I suppose it will always be. I agree with him that its primary source is now going to be limited to a certain extent and that this will now no longer automatically be the Citizen Force.

†It will be a question of getting people after a period in the active Citizen Force reserve. From then on they will be fed through. There will be a commitment on people up to the age of 55 and people over that age and up to the age of 65 will be able to volunteer.

On amendment moved by Mr. H. H. Schwarz, Omission of “55” put and the Committee divided:

Mr. Chairman, I wish to move the following amendments—

1. (1) On page 9, in line 58, after “66(1)” to insert:
   and in which area the member is resident when the service is to be rendered
2. (2) on page 11, in line 13, to omit “20” and to substitue “14”;
3. (3) on page 11, in line 17, to omit “1 000” and to substitute “700”;
4. (4) on page 11, in line 19, to omit “20” and to substitute “14”.

The first amendment has as its object to make it clear that the people will in fact be area bound, as has been said; in other words, they will actually render service in an area in which they are resident. That is the intention of the first amendment. I do not think it necessary to motivate this amendment at any length because that is the whole concept of an area-bound commando.

The second amendment deals with the question of 20 years and 1 000 days. We consider that 20 years’ service in these circumstances and 1 000 days is far too long a period. We have related our amendment to what we consider to be the proper length of service in regard to the Citizen Force as well. That is why we are moving an amendment to reduce the period to 14 years and the number of days to 700.

I do not wish to repeat all the arguments in relation to the economy but they do apply here. I also think that the arguments in respect of the social and recreational life, the job and the business of the individual are also very valid here. To have to render service for 50 days a year for 20 years and then to have to render additional service for a further 12 days in each year is to make a tremendous demand upon the individual. The argument has been advanced by the hon. the Minister—I would appreciate his listening to this because it is very important—that a person will not have to do all his service in one long camp but that he will, for instance, be able to do it in periods of one and a half hours at a time. Let us take the case of a man who is in a one-man business and who applies for deferment because he is in a one-man business. He can then be allocated in terms of clause 27 to an area-bound commando. That is the right of the exemption board. He still has to carry on his one-man business and he can do his service in periods of one and a half hours at a time. Does the hon. the Minister realize that if he does his service in periods of one and a half hours at a time he has to do that service every single working day of the year? Therefore, if he works—as normal people would do—until say 18h00 as a professional man or a businessman, he then comes home and stays there until about 19h30. He must then leave in order to do his service and if he takes half an hour to travel, he arrives there at 20h00. The one and a half hours’ service will take him to 21h30 and, after a further half-hour’s travelling, he gets back home’ at about 22h00. That he has to do every single working day in the year for 20 years. What kind of an existence is that? It is just impossible. If he does his service not in periods of one and a half hours but in periods of three hours, he has to do that service on 150 days a year every year for 20 years. That is an impossible situation. The social burden and the effect on the morale of the individual will be utterly impossible to bear. It means that every night for six months of the year—that is every second working-day this man has to work from 08h00 to 23h00 every night. He has no chance of being with his family and no chance of any recreation. This is no way in which anybody can live. With great respect, to impose this kind of burden on people and expect them to work in this kind of way to render service is not in the interests of morale. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to take this period of 1 000 days and 20 years in review. Even if he is not prepared to accept the amendments tonight, I would ask him please to bear in mind the realities of life. This is not a burden which can be imposed upon people if one wants to keep up morale.

One need only look at the life of a person involved in this. He leaves school, does two years’ full-time military service, he then, if he goes into an area-bound situation, has to do a further 20 years’ service—he is then 40 years of age—and then he goes on to serve 12 days a year until he reaches the age of 55. That will be the position in terms of the proposed legislation. I must tell hon. members that this does not hold out any great hope of family life, let alone the economic consequences. I believe this must be looked at again and must be made more realistic. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to do that.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Yeoville has taken the line of reducing the number of years involved whilst leaving the number of days per year at 50. I wish to move two amendments which approach the matter from a different angle, namely to reduce the number of days per year while leaving the overall period unchanged. I therefore move the following two amendments—

1. (1) On page 11, in line 16, to omit “50” and to substitute “35”;
2. (2) on page 11, in line 17, to omit “1 000” and to substitute “700”.

The reason I move these amendments is that the whole object of area-bound service is to cater for the person who cannot be away from his business activities for a long period and therefore cannot serve in the Citizen Force for 30-day camps and 90-day camps. The basis on which he would be allowed to become area-bound, if he is considered by the exemption board as qualifying for area-bound service is if it is not practical and realistic for him or that it would impose too heavy a burden on him to be away from his home or business for continuous periods.

Fifty days is one and two-third months. It is a long period for the owner of a one-man business to leave his business or for a dairy farmer or anyone else with an occupation like that. Were it not to keep the figures balanced with what we propose for the Citizen Force, I would have preferred to make it 30 days because a man can more easily make arrangements for a month. He can get a relative or a manager or someone to look after his business for a month. Whatever the problems are, he will find someone in the normal course of events. However, to make it clearly two months means that one puts him back virtually in the position of the Citizen Force where his average is 60 days over a two-year cycle. Thirty days and 90 days averages at 60 days per year and here he is averaging 50 days, a difference of only 10 days. That is not going to overcome this problem. Rather than to keep it at 50, which I think causes the problems, and reduce the number of years, my amendment reduces the annual period after his two-year service, his annual commitment, and leaves the period at 20 years. This gives an aggregate of 700 which is what the hon. member for Yeoville proposes. I know it is not going to be accepted. Nothing that we propose is accepted and I am not going to waste my breath arguing it any more. I have put what I believe is a justification for looking at 35 instead of 50 days per year over 20 years. I hope the hon. the Minister will respond to it.

Mr. Chairman, I want to move three amendments to clause 11. Firstly, I want to move the following amendment—

1. (1) In the English text, on page 9, in line 57, to omit “any”;

This will bring the English text more closely into line with the Afrikaans text and I think it will go some way towards meeting the arguments advanced in regard to the first amendment moved by the hon. member for Yeoville. I also want to move the following two amendments—

1. (2) On page 11, in line 12, to omit “(2)” and to substitute “(1)”;
2. (3) on page 11, in line 27, to omit “(2)” and substitute “(1)”.

This is merely a correction of an error in the Bill.

I find it rather surprising that the hon. member for Yeoville and, to a lesser extent, the hon. member for Durban Point, proceeded with the amendments to this clause. Here would have been some logic in doing so if the amendments which they proposed to clauses 5 and 6 had been accepted by this committee. It is only logical because of the operational needs of this country that after the completion of the initial period of two years the military service be completed for the remaining 12 years in the Citizen Force and that the people thereafter continue their service in the commando forces. People who succeed in fulfilling their obligation in the commandos in an area-bound capacity after their initial period of two years has been completed are in fact receiving a considerable privilege in relation to the people who have to complete their service in the Citizen Force. Therefore it seems illogical to me that while in the Citizen Force one is obliged to do 720 days over a 14 year period, the Opposition should then move amendments which boil down to the fact that the people who are being granted the privilege of doing fewer days, namely 700 days, over an equal period …

You are talking absolute nonsense. How can you talk such rubbish?

Obviously I do not agree with the hon. member for Yeoville because the fact of the matter is that if one does one’s military service over a period of 20 years, one can do it in a 50-day period or one can do it over shorter periods in camps, as the hon. the Minister has pointed out. However, the hon. member for Yeoville argues the extreme case of a person who opts for l½ hours every second day. He does not have to do that under any circumstances.

How does one run one’s business during the day?

They are already being given the privilege by not having to do their military service in two-year cycles over a period of 12 years during which period they have to serve for up to 90 days in one year and 30 days in the other year. If one then accords them the privilege that has been suggested by the hon. member for Yeoville one will be discriminating against the people who are doing their service in the Citizen Force. I do not think that people who are not permitted to do their service in an area-bound capacity should be discriminated against in this way. The two things are related. If the hon. member for Yeoville had succeeded in having his amendments to clauses 5 and 6 accepted, there would have been some logic in persisting with this amendment to clause 11. However, since we have now accepted the 12 year period, if one is granted the area-bound privilege, it is obvious that one should pay a price for it. Therefore, I think that the hon. member for Yeoville is illogical in presisting with this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I listened with some interest to the hon. member for Benoni, but I do not think that he really understands the commando system. The hon. the Minister said that this applied specifically to commandos on the platteland. If a farmer has to serve for 1 000 days over a period of 20 years it means that he will have to devote 50 Saturdays or Sundays per year, if the hon. the Minister does not do what the hon. member for Yeoville wants, in order to make up this amount of time. That means that he will have two free weekends per year. He will have to serve either a full Saturday or a full Sunday in order to catch up. If the hon. member for Benoni thinks that giving up weekends is conducive to family life, then I do not think that he understands the situation at all. This question of 50 days over 20 years is a tremendous imposition. At least, if the period is 70 days, it brings it down to 35 days per year, and that is reasonable that a man serves half the year going to the commando and doing it one day at a time; doing 8 or 9 hours and completing one day.

Mr. Chairman, we argued at some length about these formulae during the discussion of clauses 4, 5 and 10. In this case we actually have three categories of commando members. Firstly, there are the area-bound members allotted to the commandos from the ranks of the Citizen Force, who have certain obligations. Secondly, there are the members who are going to be allotted to a commando or who are already in a commando and who at present have a 30 day obligation. The obligation of these members is now being reduced to 12 days, and I believe that a substantial number of volunteers will fall under this group. They will no longer have such an extensive security task to perform. As proposed here, the area-bound force which will come from the ranks of the Citizen Force will have to serve a maximum of 50 days per year over a period of 20 years and thereafter another 12 days. It is very important to note that I say “maximum”, because naturally it depends whether circumstances are of such a nature that a member would have to serve the full 50 days per year.

I want to point out that we are actually speaking of a very small group here, because the Defence Force is of the opinion that this area-bound group will comprise only between 2 000 and 4 000 members. I do, however, believe that the obligation which rests on them is of importance, and we must be careful that this group does not become a loophole which people will use to make their service easier. For this reason the Defence Force, with the calculation of 50 days per year, allowed a 30% loading in respect of its counterpart in the Citizen Force which has to perform its task under far more difficult circumstances, requiring many more personal sacrifices from its members.

The third group consists of the members of the national reserve who are allotted to the commandos. If a member of this group has had no other training, his service will not exceed 30 days in the first year, and this can take place according to either a continuous or a non-continuous system. The purpose of the initial 30 days’ service is to incorporate these members and to give them an opportunity to adapt so that they can feel at home in this organization which was hitherto unknown to them, and that they will do 12 days’ service per year. I think this is really where the problem lies. Certain hon. members did not argue about this, and now suddenly they are experiencing another problem. If one is not acquainted with this aspect in its entirety, one will not be able to chew and digest those smaller stones in the stomach.

As is the case in the Citizen Force, the tasks these members have to undertake requires that those liable to service, i.e. the number of members available, has to be measured against the risk, against the threat. Consequently the manpower available in the various geographic areas will have to be determined according to the security requirements. If the threat should escalate and more people are needed in the commandos, there are two alternatives open to us, and it is actually very important to take cognizance of this. The one alternative is that we increase the age limit. We could increase it from 40 to 45 years, or from 50 to 55 years, or even from 55 to 60 years. So there is a built-in safety valve. Hon. members have been arguing about the period of service all evening, but the period is in fact the other safety valve. I think that what has been accepted here is indeed very reasonable. I think 12 days per year for an ordinary commando member who is going to carry out a specific task in his area, is excellent. I think the initial period of 30 days for those who join the Force is perfect. It is not too long. To my mind the total of 1 000 days, 50 days per year over 20 years, with a loading of 30%, is also correct. There is a 30% loading, and that is a reinforcement in the case of easier circumstances in comparison with those who have to serve in the Citizen Force. Accordingly, I accept the proposals agreed to by the Select Committee.

Service credit will also apply to these people we are referring to here, with retrospective effect as in the case of the Citizen Force.

This brings me to the amendments which have been moved. There is the restriction that the activities of a commando member should be confined to the area in which the member is resident, as the hon. member for Yeoville proposed. That is a fine ideal, a fine aspiration, and I share his feelings about this, but such a restriction would perhaps harm the efficiency and smooth functioning of the system. Let me state a problem as an example. A commando member lives in Kempton Park, but he works at Iscor or in the industrial area of Pretoria and is classified in an industrial commando. However, if his activities were to be limited to the area in which he is resident, it would create problems, because he might not fit in there or he might not be needed there as much as he is needed in the industrial area. Consequently I cannot support this restriction.

The area-bound commando member …

But it is not restricted to a city or magisterial district. It is a Defence Force area.

I shall come to the Defence Force area in a moment. I want to point out that we should rather include other areas than the areas of residence. As far as I am concerned, there are two categories. The first category involves those members who are area-bound. I feel that the member who is area-bound should not be employed outside his commando group area. In this way he will be exposed to fewer sacrifices and will have fewer problems than if he were outside his “area of residence”.

This brings me to the second group, the other members. At this stage I propose that in this case we retain the area of command. When there are more commandos which are more effective so that it will not be necessary to employ them outside their group areas, I shall be prepared to reduce the areas of command to a smaller area.

I think I have replied to the comments of all the hon. members without becoming entangled in too many figures, statistics or formulas. I consider this 30% loading in respect of the Citizen Force to be very reasonable.

In conclusion, I just want to refer to the three amendments of the hon. member for Benoni and thank him for his good contribution.

Amendment (1) moved by Mr. C. R. E. Rencken agreed to.

Amendment (1) moved by Mr. H. H. Schwarz negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment (2) moved by Mr. C. R. E. Rencken agreed to.

Amendment (2) moved by Mr. H. H. Schwarz put and the Committee divided:

Mr. Chairman, I wish to move the following amendment—

I think the hon. the Minister should accept this amendment because really, when a man reaches the age of 60 years in the Reserve and one is going to keep him there for another five years, I do not know why one really needs him. Even in the case of the Active Citizen Force Reserve I can mention a particular case where a certain person was asked to attend a particular course by a certain commanding officer. This person happened to be 61 years of age. He told me that he attended the course and came out top of the course having beaten all the young men attending the course with him. After having had a medical examination, he sent in his application with a G1/K1 medical classification at the age of 61. This person received a letter from the Defence Force to the effect that as he only had four more years left to serve, they could not make use of his services. That letter is available and I can show it to the hon. the Minister if necessary. If that is the case, then I want to say that one may as well reduce the age to 60 years because the Army cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to express an idea in connection with an aspect raised by the hon. member for Yeoville earlier this evening, concerning the motivation of our people. We are not aware of exactly what happens at the congresses of the PFP, where defence matters are concerned, but we on this side are not ashamed to say what happens at our congresses. I wish to point out that the legislation before this House at present stems from the motivation of our people at our congresses. Last year the NP held its Transvaal congress in Pretoria. At the time there were 1 109 delegates registered.

And how many of them are still members of the party?

I want to furnish the hon. member with a little information. But tell us first what is going on in your ranks. There sits the hon. member for Constantia. Just see how his mouth is watering, but he may not speak this evening.

Now you are putting your foot in it. [Interjections.]

*Order!

Very well. Let us leave it at that!

More than a thousand people were present at the congress. There were people from the platteland in particular, and also people older than 60 years, but just listen what they ask the hon. the Minister, and if that is not motivation, then I do not know what Afrikaans is. They asked that with reference to a 1980 resolution—it is a similar request that is repeated and was accepted the previous year—

I just wish to mention that this is the motivation coming from our people.

And then they all crossed over to the CP.

This legislation is based on a sound foundation, and stems from the desire of our people.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the hon. member for Standerton for his spirited speech. I am dependent to some extent on the age of people to determine whether they are fit to perform military service or not. I asked the hon. member for Bezuidenhout before supper and he said that 65 was in order. I also asked the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs, and he said that he was already 65 and that he was still capable of …

No, that is not true. I am going to vote against you!

The age of 65 in this regard is as old as the hills. It has never been changed and I do not know why it should be changed now. The reason it should not be changed now, is that it affords us the opportunity to allow those who are between 55 and 65 years old and who are prepared to perform voluntary service, to do so. At the same time it affords those people the protection they enjoy under the Defence Act to render this service. As the hon. member for King William’s Town said earlier, people who fall within this age group are probably the cream of the Citizen Force and commandos, particularly the commandos in this instance, and accordingly I cannot support the amendment that the age limit be reduced.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 17:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment—

The situation is that if it is a minor organizational matter then there would be no problem. Major organizational aspects are matters which Parliament should keep control over. That is why I move the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, in my humble opinion this clause provides that the reserve will be allotted to various components or branches of the S.A. Defence Force. The classification will be such that a person will as far as is practicable be allotted to a field in which he has already undergone training or to the technical division where he can best be utilized by the S.A. Defence Force. This classification is an exclusively administrative matter. It is an organizational matter which, in my opinion, can best be dealt with by those who are equipped for doing so. I find the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville somewhat inexplicable. I cannot see the point of his amendment. It aims more or less to prevent a person from acting on the authority of the Minister. I do not think one can allow that.

Nor can I understand what determination the Minister has to submit to Parliament and why he has to do so. If he has to submit a determination to Parliament which is the result of allotment by the Defence Force, then we shall be using Parliament to reveal to the world—including the enemy—what we are doing and how the S.A. Defence Force is being organized and if the organization has to be submitted to Parliament I ask myself: “What are we doing, and what do we as Parliamentarians wish to do with regard to that classification?” I repeat, it is an administrative arrangement and accordingly we cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to convey my thanks to the nominated member Mr. Vermeulen. He gave the hon. member for Yeoville to understand in a very simple way that these minor organizational matters are in accordance with the views of the hon. member for Yeoville himself. Accordingly I cannot accept the amendment. Is the hon. member perhaps prepared to withdraw the amendment?

No.

Mr. Chairman, I do not support the hon. member for Yeoville and we will have to vote with the Government on this. But it is surprizing that when we get a matter which is purely administrative, there is a move that it should come to Parliament, but when we have matters which are really the job of Parliament, the hon. the Minister says he will deal with them administratively. This is the exact opposite. This is an administrative matter and I support it, but why does he not then deal with other matters which should come to Parliament as parliamentary matters within the law, rather than dealing with them administratively?

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause 21:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendments—

1. (1) On page 17, in line 3, to omit “55” and to substitute “45”,
2. (2) on page 17, in line 8, to omit “55” and to substitute “45”;
3. (3) on page 17, in line 15, to omit “55” and to substitute “45”.

I do not want to impose upon hon. members by repeating the same arguments that were advanced in respect of clause 10. Those arguments apply in this case as well, and I think we are justified in moving these amendments.

Mr. Chairman, the amendments moved by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout simply do not make sense, because the amendments to clause 10 was not accepted. Surely one should be consistent and should not discriminate against people who go abroad. Because it is accepted that a South African citizen between the ages of 17 and 55 years must perform service, this should also be made applicable in this clause. I go further and say that in the past, many people manipulated the system of national service to evade national service. Some left the country for some reason and stayed away until after the age of 25 years in order to evade the national service. It has also happened that immigrants only accepted South African citizenship after the age of 25 years, also with the aim of evading such national service. This amendment is merely consequential, because the principle has already been accepted in clause 10. As I have already indicated, it was previously the situation that after a person had become 25 years old he was no longer liable for national service. The age of 55 years has already been accepted as the maximum age and therefore it must remain so in this clause. Accordingly I take pleasure in supporting this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the hon. member for Umfolozi for his contribution. During the discussion of clause 10 I explained at length why it was impossible to reduce the age to 45 and accordingly I am unable to support the amendments.

Amendment (1) negatived and amendments (2) and (3) dropped (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause 22:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

The same principle applies here in that we believe that the age is too high. We have already given our reasons why we want this reduced to 45.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting). Clause 24:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendments—

1. (1) On page 19, in line 14, to omit “55” and to substitute “45”;
2. (2) on page 19, in line 18, to omit “55” and to substitute “45”;
3. (3) on page 19, in line 34, to omit “55” and to substitute “45”;
4. (4) on page 19, in line 53, after “Minister” to insert:

and as may consent to be so allotted

As far as amendments (1), (2) and (3) are concerned, we have already given our reasons—and I shall not repeat them again—for wanting to reduce the age limit from 55 to 45. It is therefore for reasons of consistency that I move these amendments. When it comes to amendment (4), let me motivate it. At the best of times the conscription of young men into the Army is not a very popular system. We in this party have supported this system consistently in the belief that together with a multi-racial Permanent Force our sovereign independent integrity would be protected and that the S.A. Defence Force would form a neutral shield under the protection of which political changes could take place in a peaceful and democratic manner. At the moment we have the situation that most young South Africans who enjoy political rights are prepared to give a substantial proportion of their time to defend their country against any form of aggression. I do believe, however, that many young men who are willing to give their time today are not quite as happy to do so with regard to the S.A. Police Force. That is why I ask in my amendment that only those who consent to be allocated to the S.A. Police Force should be so allocated. There are a number of reasons for this.

Firstly, whether we like it or not, the S.A. Police Force has over the years, because of the laws which they have to enforce, acquired somewhat of a political flavour. I believe that in the eyes of many South Africans the S.A. Police Force is seen as an extension of NP ideology. [Interjections.] I expect many hon. members to disagree with me, but that is the reality of the situation. Because the S.A. Defence Force has not acquired such an image, I think everything possible should be done to prevent it from acquiring such an image. I believe that because of the image of the S.A. Police Force many young South Africans would not be prepared to serve in the S. A. Police Force. That is the one reason.

Secondly, we know that area-bound commando units will in future be required to do their work in such a manner that they will to a large extent work very closely with the S.A. Police Force, while retaining their own identity. Should the S.A. Police therefore be short of manpower, the commando units will assist them in their work. They will be responsible for military matters, while the S.A. Police Force will be responsible for police matters. [Interjections.] When we discussed this matter in the Select Committee, we were given to understand that, in any event, whenever young men are to be allocated to the S.A. Police Force, their consent thereto is obtained. I see no reason therefore why this should not be formalized and made part of this Bill.

Mr. Chairman, since approximately nine o’clock this evening we have had some degree of calm and unanimity in this important debate, but now the hon. member for Wynberg comes along with these grossly irresponsible statements about our Police. [Interjections.] Now he is sitting there looking at me. Perhaps he does not quite realize what he has said. I believe he is half asleep, Sir.

Half asleep? He is three-quarters asleep.

Even if it is seven-eights, it is still the truth. [Interjections.]

That engineer in the back bench should rather concern himself with other things. What is the motivation of the hon. member for Wynberg? The hon. member has a good point when he says that we should only classify people with the Police with their consent. Accordingly I should like to move the following amendment—

I believe that that is a better wording. [Interjections.]

Do you support my amendment, yes or no?

The hon. member should listen now. I did not interrupt him when he was speaking such nonsense. [Interjections.] If the hon. member gave a different motivation for his amendment then we could have considered it. But why does he come along and smear the police, something they certainly do not deserve? Why does he do that? Is it to please the hon. member for Constantia? [Interjections.] The hon. member for Wynberg maintains that people are not prepared to serve in the S.A. Police. We on this side of the House do not know such people, people who are not prepared to serve in the S.A. Police. Perhaps hon. members on that side know such people, but we do not know them. [Interjections.]

The hon. member went on to say that the S.A. Police had a political flavour and colour. Where does he get that?

He said that they would acquire such a colour.

He did not say they would; he said they already had a political colour.

Yes, he said they had a political colour. Where does he get that from? How can the hon. member for Wynberg make such an allegation? [Interjections.] I really believe we should display greater responsibility when we discuss people who are responsible for our security. [Interjections.] The S.A. Police are responsible for our security, but now a senior member of the PFP maintains that they have a political colour. That is irresponsible in the extreme, and in my opinion the hon. member ought to be ashamed of himself. [Interjections.]

The hon. member went further, however, and said that the S.A. Police was an extension of the NP.

Hear, hear! [Interjections.]

I agree with the hon. the Minister to the extent that the police are good Nationalists, but they are not an extension of the NP. [Interjections.] That is nonsense, and anyone who says that is talking nonsense. [Interjections.] Before we tell a person to go and do his national service in the S.A. Police, it is only fair and right that we should obtain his permission, but not for the reasons provided by that hon. member, because they are not acceptable reasons. [Interjections.] It was merely vilification. What he advanced as reasons was nothing more than rubbish. [Interjections.] However, those hon. members are always maintaining that it is the right of any individual to be asked what is to be done with him.

Correct.

There an hon. member confirms it. We say that we shall ask their permission before doing so, but now those hon. members are trying to advance other reasons for that. [Interjections.] I say that is scandalous, and we reject it with the contempt it deserves. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I cannot remain silent on this issue. We have had lectures on this non-political, fair Select Committee. I just want to point out, however, that the hon. member for Verwoerdburg voted …

Against this.

… against this precise amendment in the Select Committee, together with the chairman, the hon. member for Pretoria West, the hon. member for Kroonstad, the hon. member for Swellendam, the hon. member for Standerton, the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke, the hon. member for Benoni, the hon. member for De Aar, the hon. member Mr. Vermeulen and the hon. member for Simon’s Town. They turned down this precise amendment. [Interjections.] The Government has obviously now decided to accept it. The three people who voted against them, let me just say, were the hon. member for Wynberg, the hon. member for Yeoville and myself. Instead of admitting that they had changed their minds and would accept the amendment, the hon. member for Verwoerdburg moves his own amendment, so that his can be accepted and the one moved by the Opposition—and moved in the Select Committee too—can be rejected. Then they can say how fair they are because they accept amendments! I do not like this playing of politics with defence matters … [Interjections.] … and I want to expose it for what it is. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to raise two points. Firstly I want to ask the hon. member for Verwoerdburg, in all reasonableness, to behave like a gentleman now, withdraw his amendment and support the amendment of the hon. member for Wynberg. I think that what the hon. member for Durban Point has said is absolutely correct. The words are identical.

No, they are not identical. That is the point.

All he has done is to move the amendment in Afrikaans instead of in English. I am therefore appealing to him to be a gentleman, and I appeal to the hon. the Minister to be a gentleman as well. [Interjections.]

Secondly—and I raise this as a point of order—is it actually proper to move an identical amendment in the form in which the hon. member for Verwoerdburg has moved his amendment? I am actually asking you, Mr. Chairman, to rule his amendment out of order. If our amendment is accepted, presumably his amendment must fall away. So it must surely be done as I have suggested. I think the hon. member for Wynberg’s amendment must be put first, because if you do not do that, I do not know what the situation would be. I am actually asking you, Mr. Chairman, to rule the amendment out of order. Let us vote on the hon. member for Wynberg’s amendment and see whether hon. members on that side of the House will vote against their own amendment merely because it comes from the wrong side of the House. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, we on this side of the House are all decent people. [Interjections.] I am quite prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Wynberg, but then he must use the same wording as I used.

But what is wrong with his amendment? They are the same words.

Now he says the words are the same in English. The words I am proposing are “with their consent”. If the hon. member for Wynberg changes his amendment to read “with their consent”, I am quite prepared to withdraw my amendment with the permission of the Committee. Then, however, I expect of the hon. member for Wynberg to apologize for the outrageous things he said about the police [Interjections.] No, wait a moment. I am entitled to ask that. As I said, in that case I am quite prepared to accept the hon. member’s amendment like a gentleman, as long as he amends it as I have proposed. I still, however, object in the strongest terms to the motivation he advanced for his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the issue of the police was considered by the committee. The hon. member for Durban Point mentioned that the Government members on the Select Committee all voted against it. Perhaps we should have the decency to explain what is actually true in this case. This subsection provides for the allotment of national servicemen to the S.A. Police. This is no new arrangement. It already exists in the present legislation. Attention is drawn to the fact that in the course of completing national service questionnaires after registration and before reporting for national service, prospective national servicemen have to indicate in what section of the Defence Force or the S.A. Police they are willing to serve. Accordingly, under the old system it is customary for a national serviceman to have a choice whether he wants to serve in the police or not. We then felt that the inclusion of this amendment was superfluous, but after consideration we decided that we could grant it, but subject to the wording as we proposed it. That is why the hon. member for Verwoerdburg moved the amendment that he did.

I find it somewhat ridiculous and petty to demand in this House that the amendment of the hon. member for Verwoerdburg should be withdrawn, merely because the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Durban Point ostensibly thought of it first. It was basically unnecessary and, strictly speaking, it is still unnecessary. After listening to the hon. member for Wynberg and others in his party one can only believe that they are out to make political capital not only out of the S.A. Police but also the Defence Force, and that they will do so at all costs. I can well understand why the hon. member for Wynberg had to make the statement this evening that “many young people will not be prepared to serve in the police force”, and to motivate it by saying that the police force was nothing but an instrument to further the policy of the NP. Let me remind hon. members that the hon. member for Constantia has also said that “many people do not want to defend apartheid”, and dragged the same argument into the issue of the composition of the Defence Force. When one analyses these ideas one can only reach one conclusion and that is that those hon. members are really far more concerned about politics, or their own narrow view of politics in South Africa, than they are about the Defence Force or the Police Force of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member for Swellendam tell us whether he is prepared to defend apartheid? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Swellendam must confine himself to the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I take it that when one supports the principle that one does not want to drag politics into the S.A. Defence Force … [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, I now wish to know from the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North whether he wants to drag politics into the Defence Force. [Interjections.] When one is fighting on the border, one is defending …

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member put a question to me. May I not reply to him?

Order! No. The hon. member must continue with his speech.

I do just want to reply briefly to the hon. member’s question by saying that when I defend something, I defend South Africa and not a political policy. [Interjections.]

This clause also provides that people may be allotted to the various subdivisions of the Defence Force; inter alia, to the commandos as well. However, the hon. member for Wynberg made another very irresponsible statement in connection with commandos. He contended that the needs as far as the commando system was concerned had by no means been ascertained as yet. He says it is disturbing that those needs have not yet been ascertained. However, the hon. member is quite wrong. Of course those needs have been ascertained; if not, then surely an effort would not be made at this juncture to supplement the membership of the commandos. On what basis, then, is the Defence Force telling us that we must supplement its manpower because there is a shortage of manpower in the Defence Force? Surely it is irresponsible to make such statements in this House and to create the impression among the public that the Defence Force and its advisers do not know what is going on in the structure of the Defence Force. I simply cannot understand how one can be so naive as to come to this House with arguments of that nature. We have been told over and over again that if the age limit were to be reduced from 60 years to 55 years—the hon. the Minister also referred to that—12% fewer people would be available, while 24% fewer people would be available if the age limit were to be reduced to 50 years.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member is probably saying that I am now talking nonsense. It does not matter what he says. However, if he does not wish to take these facts into account, then he has no right to participate in this debate. Then he is only concerned with his own political narrow-mindedness and in fact he has nothing to do with the defence of this country.

The fact is that there are too few people in our Commando service in South Africa. We must have more people in it. We are faced with tremendous problems, because the platteland is becoming depopulated and in the process the people there are growing older. This means that there are insufficient people under the age of 44 years to render the service that must be rendered in our commando system. That is another reason for determining the age limit as we have it here. The hon. the Minister himself said that he would have preferred 60 years as an age limit but that he was willing to compromize and accept an age limit of 55 years. However, in that way we are losing an intake of 12% in the service of our commandos.

I take pleasure in supporting the clause, and the amendment moved by the hon. member for Verwoerdburg.

Mr. Chairman, I am only coming into the discussion again on account of the latest turn of events. In the first instance I do not understand what the argument of the hon. member for Swellendam has all been about. Why should we, at this stage, revert to another discussion of the age limits. We have had this discussion earlier and I have been under the impression that it has been disposed of. We are moving our amendment because we have to be consistent.

Do not tell me you still do not understand the argument! After all the discussions we had on it in the Select Committee, do you still not understand it?

Mr. Chairman, if I have to talk about the ability of people to absorb facts, I should refer to some of the things which the hon. member for Swellendam dealt with in the Select Committee. I do not, however, at this later hour want to begin to make things unpleasant for him. I am very kindly disposed towards him this evening. [Interjections.] I just do not understand the hon. member’s attitude. I am really sick and tired of these people who arrogate themselves the right that they alone are the good South Africans, they alone are the wonderful guys. I am not prepared to have it.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the clause.

Sir, I am on the clause.

No.

Sir, I am on it because I am replying to the hon. member who has attacked one of my colleagues.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the clause.

I am back on the clause, Sir, very much so. The very same arguments existed in the speech of the previous speaker and I am only dealing with what he has said and with nothing else. I am sick and tired of this.

Let me come back, however, to the hon. member for Verwoerdburg. With great respect, I think that when we agree in this House and then start having an unpleasant argument about the fact that we agree—well it is bad enough when we have unpleasant arguments about things upon which we disagree, and I think the hon. member will agree with me.

I do.

In those circumstances I again want to put out the hand of friendship to him. I shall advise the hon. member for Wynberg—in fact, he has said to me that he will do it—to move an amendment to insert the words which the hon. member for Verwoerdburg has suggested. I shall also take up the offer of the hon. member for Verwoerdburg that he will then withdraw, with the leave of the Committee, his amendment. If the hon. member does not do that, it will of course be something dishonourable. I therefore intend resuming my seat after I have asked the hon. member for Wynberg to get up to move the amendment in an identical form.

But then he must apologize too.

That hon. member must not come with nonsense now. I am not talking to him, but the hon. member for Verwoerdburg who is a gentleman. I shall say the same about the hon. member for Umfolozi unless I am compelled by you, Sir. [Interjections.] I shall now leave it to see what happens.

Mr. Chairman, I have already indicated that I am quite prepared to withdraw my amendment with the leave of the Committee if the hon. member for Wynberg is prepared to move an amendment worded in precisely the same way.

You have said enough; now sit down.

That hon. member need not prescribe to me what I must do. The hon. member for Wynberg arrogated to himself the right to grossly insult the police, and I am unhappy about that. The hon. member for Yeoville then came here—to me it is clear that it is already long past his bedtime …

My bedtime? I am only waking up now.

… and he comes here and talks in his sleep! I have already said that I am prepared to withdraw my amendment and accordingly, with the leave of the Committee, I hereby withdraw it. Let me say to the hon. member for Wynberg once again that we are displeased at the standpoint he has adopted with regard to the police. He might as well know that, and I bitterly resent his advancing this as the motivation for this amendment. Our motivation for doing so is different and better.

Amendment moved by Mr. A. J. Vlok, with leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Chairman, I move in lieu of amendment (4)—

1. (4) On page 19, line 51, after “subsection” to insert “, with their consent”.

If you now also apologize, you will be doing a good piece of work.

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to discuss the figures all over again—this concerns the first three amendments of the hon. member for Wynberg—because I did so when clause 10 was being discussed. I think I convinced him that he, too, should vote on this side. The last amendment moved by the hon. member is in accordance with what we do in practice and accordingly I accept his amendment.

Amendments (1) to (3) negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment (4) agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause 31:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendments—

1. (1) On page 27, in lines 14 and 15, to omit “or any officer acting under his authority”;
2. (2) on page 27, in line 19, to omit “or any such officer”.

The reason why I move these amendments is that the powers which are given here are of such consequence that they should be exercised by the Minister himself. One only has to look at the powers which relate to the movement, evacuation and assembling of people. I am not allowed to refer to a certain incident which recently occurred because it is sub judice. However, what I can say, is that it has been demonstrated that the power which can purportedly be exercised on behalf of the Minister can in fact be not only wrongly exercised; it can sometimes be exercised without authority. But when the Minister, under his signature and under his authority, has to act, then this cannot happen. We have had this before. We have had it for instance in this House where we have had to debate letters and documents signed on be half of the Chief of the Defence Force and where it turned out that the Chief of the Defence Force—who is now the Minister—knew nothing about it and did not authorize it. This is the same sort of problem, and that is why we believe that when so serious an action has to be taken as in this case, it should be the Minister himself who should authorize an act in this manner and not persons acting under his authority.

Mr. Chairman, in managing a large organization one has to implement a certain managerial philosophy. In an organization which is not only large in numbers, but the activities of which extend across virtually the entire geographic area of Southern Africa, and taking into account the task to be performed, one has to delegate certain powers. I am quite sure the hon. member for Yeoville is aware of the principle of decentralized accountability, because that is a basic principle applied in the business world.

Only for certain things.

Yes, for certain things. What is being said here by implication also applies to certain things. If there is a bomb threat, or a building has to be evacuated for some reason, and the Minister of Defence has first to be contacted for his permission so that someone may direct on his behalf that the premises be evacuated, the bomb could have exploded long ago and the building would have been destroyed.

But he does it under other powers.

The point at issue here is whether the man is authorized to do so. If he is authorized to do so—in other words, if there is a written authorization—or if the Defence Force in the region in question is placed in control, then the officer in question can take the decision himself. I think it is quite correct that the officer himself should be able to decide. Decisions of this nature are taken every day in the operational area where persons in charge take decision without first consulting the Minister personally in the matter. It is in that spirit that I am in favour of this system—as the Select Committee also recommended—and I am unable to support the amendment.

Amendment (1) negatived and amendment (2) dropped (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 36:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendments—

1. (1) On page 29, in line 20, to omit “taken prisoner of war” and to substitute “captured”;
2. (2) in the Afrikaans text, on page 28, in line 23, to omit “krygsgevangeskap” and substitute “gevangeskap”;
3. (3) in the Afrikaans text, on page 28, in fines 28 and 29, to omit “krygsgevangeskap” and to substitute “gevangeskap”;
4. (4) in the Afrikaans text, on page 28, in line 37 to omit “krygsgevangeskap” and to substitute “gevangeskap”;
5. (5) in the Afrikaans text, on page 28, in line 40 to omit “krygsgevangeskap” and to substitute “gevangeskap”.

The reasons for these amendments are obvious and need no explanation. The clause concerns payment of the salary, wage or allowance of a member of the Defence Force who is captured by hostile elements, to his next of kin or competent persons for the duration of his captivity. The words “prisoner of war” and, in the Afrikaans text, “krygsgevangeskap” are usually connected, in international law, with declared wars between recognized States, and wars to which the Geneva Convention usually applies. In the special situation in which South Africa finds itself, however, it may well happen that members of the Defence Force are captured during their period of service in terms of this legislation, not by a hostile State, because there is no declared war, but by hostile elements in a State without our being on a war footing with that State or even by terrorist organizations that are not recognized. I think the amendments I have moved cover all instances of capture, viz. in a declared war and in other circumstances where he is captured in the execution of his duties. This ensures that his salary will in all circumstances be paid to him or to the persons who are entitled to it, and that there will be no further doubt about this aspect.

Mr. Chairman, I find some of the things happening in this House quite remarkable. What I find even more remarkable is that when we debated this matter in a Select Committee, when we raised the problems and the difficulties which arose from this particular wording, two things happened. Firstly, there was a vote which went against this principle and, secondly, evidence was given before the Select Committee that “gevangeskap” and “gevange” related to prisoners of war and that they would be construed as meaning prisoners of war. That is the evidence that was given. I can even tell hon. members the name of the person who gave it. That is what was said before the Select Committee. We pointed out there that one needed to deal with two situations. The first situation was where there was actually a war, where a person was a prisoner of war, and the second situation was where he was not a prisoner of war but had been captured by somebody, some organization or some country that was hostile towards the Republic of South Africa. I do not want to discuss what may be delicate matters in this House. I believe that this is a very delicate matter and I think that it can have very serious implications. That is why we have worded our amendment in this fashion and that is why we said that we needed to cover both the situation of a prisoner of war and the situation of somebody kept in captivity by an organization or a country hostile towards the Republic of South Africa. That is why this is necessary. If it has to be done, we shall debate it here and discuss it, but I do not think that it is in any of our interests or in the country’s interests that we should go into great detail on the implications of this matter. However, I think it is absolutely remarkable that something like this should happen in this Committee when the matter was debated in the Select Committee. Here again one can look at the names of the people who voted for this and wanted it dealt with. They were the hon. member for Durban Point, the hon. member for Wynberg and myself. The hon. member who has just moved the amendment is the one whose name is down as having voted against it. I really do not understand this any more. [Interjections.] Then he finds it necessary to jump up in order to move an amendment so that he can say that his amendment has got to be dealt with by the Government and that that is how the matter has to be handled. As far as we are concerned, we want to deal with a situation that could possibly affect some unfortunate young men of South Africa. I accordingly move the following amendment—

Somebody must explain to us the reason for the sudden change. Why have words now suddenly changed their meaning? Why do dictionaries change overnight? Why do things suddenly change? What is happening here is really most remarkable.

Mr. Chairman, I find it a pity that the hon. member for Yeoville has attempted here to cast aspersions on the hon. member for Benoni.

It is true.

That hon. member who normally speaks with his hands and does not use his brains while he is so speaking and who was not even a member of the Select Committee should just keep quiet and listen. The situation is that this is a very delicate matter and the hon. member for Yeoville has said so. I would say that this is a very sentitive subject because matters of international law, matters of convention and matters of South African law are all contained in this particular clause. The Select Committee deliberated very carefully on this matter. As a matter of fact, the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville was one of the amendments that we considered informally but very thoroughly. We thoroughly considered numerous informal amendments. We were trying very, very hard indeed to reach some kind of consensus on this particular clause because we all realized that this was a matter that had to be treated with some circumspection. In addition, the fact of the matter is that it was not only tacitly but openly agreed among us that if we could have some clarity on this matter from the law advisers and even perhaps from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Information etc.—we would come back and by agreement try to have this matter dealt with.

When did you come back?

The hon. member for Yeoville must decide for himself, but I did come back to him today. As a matter of fact, I will be quite frank with the Committee. This particular amendment was discussed with the hon. member for Yeoville.

Before today. [Interjections.]

That is not what I said; it was discussed with the hon. member today. I am trying to be very gentlemanly about this. A short while ago the hon. member for Yeoville suggested that my hon. friend from Verwoerdburg should be a gentleman, and now I ask the hon. member for Yeoville to be a gentleman and to admit that I have already done my utmost to have this amendment done by consensus. Only today, after the department had gone through all the channels, I heard what the wording ought to be and, in all fairness and good faith, I approached the hon. member and asked him whether he would consider it.

Were you not given all our amendments?

I really feel that if an hon. member expects to be treated as a gentleman he should also be prepared to treat other hon. members in a similar manner. After all, we are all equally important.

*Mr. Chairman, I realize that I have now deviated somewhat from the clause in question and I shall leave it at that.

There is a bride at every wedding and a body at every funeral. [Interjections.]

I believe I have stated the matter very clearly, but I just want to explain that in respect of this matter, there are two or three principles we should take note of. First of all, we should not create the impression that we are declaring war. We should not create the wrong impression. [Interjections.] I suggest that if the hon. member for Yeoville is now satisfied with the amendment which the hon. member for Benoni moved—and I have been assured that it has been cleared up, as he knows, for I discussed it with him today—I should appreciate it if he would now be prepared to withdraw his amendment, because there is nothing wrong with the amendment by the hon. member for Benoni. In addition the hon. member for Yeoville has been consulted about this matter.

Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that the hon. member for Yeoville made the remarks that he did, I think that it is only fair that I answer those remarks. The hon. member moved the amendment that he has just moved, in the Select Committee, whereupon I moved amendments in exactly the same terms as those I have moved here this evening.

You did not move them.

I suggested them but I withdrew them. [Interjections.] I put this forward informally and we discussed it. The hon. member for Yeoville indicated that he could support the informal amendment I had suggested. In fact, he said that it would meet his requirements and that he would be satisfied if the amendments in the form that I had informally suggested they be worded, were in fact moved.

When was that? You are talking nonsense!

It is not nonsense, Sir, because all the hon. members of the Select Committee on this side of the House, and also the hon. member for Durban Point, are aware of the fact. However, other members then got up and said that in view of the delicate nature of the situation and in view of the international legal obligations, it would be better not to change the wording of the clause at that stage. We consequently decided against any amendment to it but on the understanding that it would be referred back to the law advisers and that if, upon their advice, any of the amendments were acceptable, they would then be moved here during the Committee Stage of the Bill. Having received advice today from the law advisers, having had an agreement with the hon. member for Yeoville and having made the necessary contracts, through our chairman, I cannot see that we have trodden on anybody’s toes. Since the hon. member for Yeoville agreed with the wording of the amendment that I have now formally moved when it was informally proposed, I cannot see why he persists with his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the question is not who moved amendments, but rather which amendment gives effect to what is necessary in the circumstances. I have not, however, had any adequate explanation. When it was suggested that the word “capture” alone should be used, we were told that that word had a very specific meaning, and references were furnished, but nothing has been provided to show that the advice or evidence given was wrong. So to suggest that the amendment the hon. member for Benoni wants to move satisfies the situation, is incorrect. What I want to do is to ensure that if a person is taken prisoner of war, he is covered by this provision, but also when he is otherwise captured—i.e. when he is not taken prisoner of war—by some organization or country hostile to us. If the evidence given before the committee was correct in assessing that the words of the amendment that hon. member wants to move only covers a situation involving a prisoner of war, all I can say is that we are not covering all the people we are obliged to cover. That is why the issue is not, as far as I am concerned, one of form at all. The real question is one of substance; in fact, which amendment is, in the circumstances, the better one. That is why we shall persist with our amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we had evidence that the word “capture” was in order in the English text, but that a person could only become a prisoner of war through being “gevange geneem”. I did not hold that point of view, however, and that was one of the reasons why we also decided to refer the matter back to the legal advisers. At that point I asked the committee clerk to bring dictionaries into the Select Committee, and from those dictionaries I satisfied myself that the advice we were given on this particular point was incorrect. By that time, however, the situation had proceeded to the point where we decided to proceed in the manner I have described, i.e. that we would not accept an amendment there, but refer the matter back to the law advisers, and that if one of the amendments was found to be satisfactory, covering all the circumstances which both the hon. member for Yeoville and I intended it to cover, such an amendment would be submitted during the Committee Stage in this House. The hon. member for Yeoville has moved his amendment and I have moved my amendment, as I did in the Select Committee. The reason why I have moved my amendment is because it achieves exactly the same objective the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville wishes to achieve, but is phrased in simpler terms, without making any substantive alteration to the text of the clause, as orginally drafted. I therefore cannot really see why the hon. member for Yeoville persists with his amendment. We were quite amicable about it in the Select Committee, and I cannot see why a fuss is being made about it now.

Mr. Chairman, I take it that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Benoni has been recommended by the law advisers and accordingly I support his amendment.

Amendments moved by Mr. C. R. E. Rencken agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment moved by Mr. H. H. Schwarz negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 37:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to state our point of view in regard to this clause. We believe that the Government should, in fact, be liable, not only in the case of acts or omissions, but also in the case of negligence. The clause as it stands now extends the scope by including the words which are underlined, starting with “or which is private property …” As scope is extended, I believe I am entitled to move as an amendment—

All I want to say is that, basically, the responsibility of the State for damages suffered by innocent people should not only be a liability for damages resulting from wilful, wrongful conduct but should also be a liability for damages resulting from negligent conduct.

Order! I regret that I am unable to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville as it is not relevant to the subject matter of the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, as you have ruled the amendment out of order, I must say to you that, since in the clause in its present form the State is not liable in the event of a negligent act performed by certain persons where private individuals would be liable—if a private contractor’s employee or a person acting for that private contractor performs a negligent act and causes damage to innocent people, then that private contractor is liable—we regret that we will have to vote against the clause as a whole.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.