Mr. Speaker, in reviewing the debate of the last few days, I was struck by one interesting aspect, namely which hon. members of the official Opposition have participated in the debate so far. After all, it is quite obvious that only hon. members of the right wing of the official Opposition have participated in the debate. Moreover, they have done so with great circumspection, because they have realized that this is a very sensitive matter. I believe that those hon. members of the right wing are dreading the participation of the hon. members of the left wing because their leftwing cannons usually fire pink and red shots when they enter such a debate.

Repeated references have been made to American examples, such as the case of Welsh vs. the State, which the judge ruled that conscientious objections were also valid for the purposes of exemption from military service. What hon. members of the Opposition have not done, however, is to examine the historical background a little more closely. The case they referred to was heard in 1970, but a year later, in 1971, there two cases of this nature were adjudicated in the American courts, namely the Gillette case and the Negré case, in which the judges ruled that they were not conscientious objectors but political objectors and that they had to complete their military service. These were the findings, notwithstanding the fact that the American system is not a system of national service such as ours, but a far less equitable draft system in terms of which only certain people are compelled to fight.

I find this an important question: Why is America used as an analogy when we are discussing South Africa? After all, America was not involved in a struggle for survival. America was involved in a prestige war in a foreign country, unlike South Africa, which is involved in a struggle for survival.

If one were to ask the general public to categorize their aversions in order of priority, I know and the entire House knows that an aversion to military service evaders will be very high on that list. After all, it is a fact that the vast majority of people loathe and despise military service evaders.

I have very little time and I must make haste. If we must bring the Americans into this, I want to point out that after they decided in America that conscientious objection was a reason for evading military service, the numbers escalated from 17 000 to 40 000 in the course of seven years. This was also indicated yesterday by the hon. member for Pieterssburg.

I am appealing to the official Opposition to get rid of this smokescreen, which was very obvious when the hon. member for Yeoville entered the debate yesterday and performed an egg-dance in which his efforts were directed at steering clear of certain subjects rather than at touching on others. Surely that was quite obvious. They must get rid (f this smokescreen they are using to conceal tae division in their own ranks. They should ather take into account that when one opens the door wide enough to allow a trickle through, this could eventually betome a flood which could threaten South Africa’s security.

I give this Bill my wholehearted support.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sasolburg yesterday discussed the problems of the armed attack both within and without South Africa in great detail. While some of his assertions were very valid, it is my intention to deal with the invalidity of many of his other assertions during the course of my speech. I want to say at this stage that it is not my intention to bring this debate on defence down to low political levels. I shall endeavour to the best of my ability to maintain it at its proper level.

Hon. members will remember last year this House passed the Defence Amendment Act, No. 103 of 1982, which according to the hon. the Minister made “provision for compulsory military services for all White males from their 17th to their 55th year”. The hon. the Minister also informed this House that there would be further Bills some time during 1983 with regard to alternative service for conscientious objectors, and for the calling up for compulsory military service of non-South African citizens who enjoyed the security provided by the Defence Force but who for various reasons did not contribute their manpower.

The principle of the Defence Amendment Act of 1982 was that only compulsory military service would be effective and that the whole basis of voluntary service, which had been enshrined in the original Defence Act of 1912, would disappear because all military service would be compulsory. In this Bill, because service in the Commandos is compulsory and conscription prevails, it is correct that persons serving in the Commandos should be subject to the same regulations and military discipline that are applicable to the whole of the S.A. Defence Force. The Commandos are a fully-fledged branch of the S.A. Defence Force and deserve to be.

On the other hand, the hon. member for Jeppe says that the Conservative Party wants four separate armies in South Africa—one for each colour group. What the hon. member for Jeppe wants to do is to prepare South Africa for the same sort of civil war that now prevails in Zimbabwe.

What nonsense! [Interjections.]

There can only be one Defence Force in South Africa and that is one which consists of persons whose allegiance is to South Africa, irrespective of colour. Some of the remarks made by Conservative Party speakers in regard to non-White soldiers were quite intolerable. Who was the soldier on whom the Medical Corps, at great risk, operated to remove a personnel grenade that was embedded in his chest? It was a Black soldier who was fighting on our borders to defend South Africa. Do members of the Conservative Party know how much more difficult the task of our soldiers on the border would be were it not for the tracking ability of our Bushmen troops? Do they realize the outstanding job being done by the Cape Corps Battalion on the border to defend all of us in this country and in this House?

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Bezuidenhout allowed to refer to something I did not mention? I did not refer to Black soldiers.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout may proceed.

Sir, we have now come to the second Bill that the hon. the Minister promised us. Because certain persons who were called up felt it impossible for religious and other reasons to serve in any combatant form, it was necessary that provision be made for them to do alternative community service. This Bill therefore introduces the new principle that recognizes the fact that there are persons who are unable, because of conscience, to serve in a combatant capacity either within or outside the Defence Force. This Bill therefore recognizes furthermore that alternative national service called community service should be provided so that there should be a fulfilment of duty by all to the State. Most of us on both sides of this House are ad idem and agreed in regard to the acceptance of this principle. Where is the difference of opinion? It is in regard to the manner in which the principle is to be applied and is to operate.

The Bill before the House states specifically that it should be for religious beliefs only, while we on this side of the House feel that this is too limited and should be extended to religious, moral and ethical beliefs. In the United States Supreme Court case of Welsh vs. the United States it was held that all persons “whose consciences, spurred by deeply held moral, ethical or religious beliefs, would give them no rest or peace if they allowed themselves to become part of an instrument of war”, were entitled to exemption from performing military service.

It must be emphasized that “beliefs” is the operative word. We must realize that there has been a complete change in the approach of most Defence Forces in the Western World to the handling of their manpower since World War I. We have come to realize that our most precious weapon is the human being. It is not so long ago that men were shot summarily in the front fines when they broke down psychologically because it was then considered to be a sign of cowardice. Now the leader of the New Republic Party wants conscientious objectors to be put up against a wall and shot. What arrogance!

I would like to do it to people who talk about slavery.

The SADF pays great attention to both the spiritual values of its men through its excellent chaplain service and their psychological welfare through its highly trained psychiatric service in an excellent Medical Corps. The army of today has a completely different approach to the handling of men as human beings with feelings and emotions to that of the armies of yesteryear. It is therefore necessary for us to try to understand what activates what we call conscience. We must try to get a clearer and scientific understanding of this human manifestation. What do we mean by conscience? Webster defines conscience as follows—

Hence we have the expression “let your conscience be your guide”.

I want to quote at some length from the book Sielkunde by J. du Toit and A. B. van der Merwe about the conscience—

Does that include political objection?

I read further—

Whilst it is true, therefore, that for every religion to have value, it must be based on moral and ethical beliefs, it is equally true that one does not have to be religious to have a conscience which is dictated to by moral and ethical values.

What is at stake in this Bill, is that it stipulates that the conscience of a Quaker or a Christadelphian or a Jehovah’s Witness is a superior and a stronger qualification for exemption from combatant service than the equally recalcitrant conscience of a free thinker who recognizes no established religion, an atheist who recognizes no deity or a member of the Christian faith who is against war in all its forms as such. What right have hon. members of this House, whose ancestors fought for freedom of belief and for religious freedom, to try to ordain by the law of this land that their ethical and moral values are superior because they are based on an organized religion? This is not a political debate and hon. members should not reduce it to that level.

Even though I may not be a member of the Protestant faith, it is common knowledge that the Protestant Church insists upon the authority and inviolability of conscience, but it has in these modern times accepted that conscience based on moral and ethical beliefs may be as valid in a person who does not belong to an established religion.

The case put up by hon. members on the other side of the House has been spoiled by their trying to assert that our case is based on a particular war. This was dealt with very effectively by the hon. member for Yeoville.

It is because of the deep respect that we all have for the judiciary and the judicial system in South Africa that I believe that we can safely leave it to the judgment of a judge and two assessors to sort out the genuine objector from the imposter. It will not take long for the rulings of this tribunal to make themselves manifest so that only genuine conscientious objectors will be allowed to do alternative community service and also contribute to the development of their country instead of fingering in detention barracks. The hon. member for Wynberg, the hon. member for Edenvale and the hon. member for Yeoville have refuted allegations made in this House and no purpose will be served by my repeating them.

Let me appeal to the hon. the Minister, with all the sincerity of one who has tried to serve his country both in peace and war, to show some compassion and to send this Bill to a Select Committee before Second Reading. Let us try to arrive at a consensus that may unite this House in its approach to the S.A. Defence Force rather than pass a Bill that will leave us divided. Let us have a Select Committee before Second Reading in order to arrive at a consensus so that we may all live by the motto of our country, namely “Union is strength”—“Eendrag maak mag”.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, in a speech that he had written out in advance—because he wanted to choose his words carefully—tried to make out a case for people with political and conscientious objections to military service. We are in a situation in South Africa today in which we need not tell our people that the war is going to begin; we have to tell them that it has already begun. Events in the history of our country in the past are not applicable to today’s circumstances. The circumstances of the past were quite different to those of today. The Second World War was not our war. It took place on a different continent. South Africa only provided assistance on a voluntary basis. Today a different situation prevails. It is a different kind of war that is being waged from our own country today. Against whom are we waging this war? Against the strongest force in the world, Sir, and I challenge anyone to deny that we are indeed engaged in a war with Soviet Russia, with Soviet Russia and its satellite countries. When we consider what has happened in Angola, Zimbabwe and Mozambique we realize that the war is coming closer to us and that more stringent measures are required of us.

It is striking, Sir, that we do not have difficulties about this matter with any other party in this House. For example, we differ with the CP in many respects but as regards this aspect, which is of vital importance to us, there is no dispute between us whatsoever. The same goes for the NRP. It is only with the PFP that we have problems, and then only with the PFP as they sit here in this House. It is not with the supporters of the PFP as such that we have difficulties. Hon. members of the PFP who are sitting here hold a brief for those people and tell them to dig in their heels and not defend their country. [Interjections.] Members of the PFP must tell me whether it would benefit anyone in South Africa—Black, White or Coloured—in any way if the same were to happen here as has happened in Angola and Mozambique and Zimbabwe. No, Sir, surely we have seen that that only brings misery for every member of the population. If, then, the PFP knows that the system we have in South Africa is better for the people of South Africa, why, then, do they not motivate their people to play their part in South Africa’s struggle for survival?

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

No, Sir, my time is too limited. Surely, Sir, we know that the PFP is divided against itself. If ever there was a good bloodhound it is Mr. Bruce Cameron of the Daily News, and he states here in headlines that there is considerable dissension within that party. And we know that in any event. The Mercury asks who the culprit is. Sir, I take it amiss of that party. Earlier in this session, in the no-confidence debate, their leader made a point of asserting that the S.A. Defence Force was supposedly the destabilizer on this continent. Now the Mercury comes along and asks who the culprit is. It goes on to ask—

The newspaper goes on to answer the question by saying that South Africa is not the destabilizer. There are elements that are seeking to involve us. The Leader of the Opposition determines the spirit of his party. Let me tell you now, Sir, what spirit prevails among members of that party. Where was the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North yesterday? He went to give evidence on behalf of a political objector, a member of the PFP. He went to give evidence in court and said … [Interjections.] … in favour of this man, who was given a two-year gaol sentence because he has refused to perform military service …

Mr. Speaker, could I ask the hon. member a question?

No, Mr. Speaker. My time is very limited. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North went to give evidence in court on behalf of this political objector. Let us see what he said. I quote—

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The giving of evidence in a court of law is something which is in the public interest. That means that to attack somebody for giving evidence in a court of law must be contra bonos mores because it would discourage people to give such evidence. I suggest that the hon. member for Vryheid is using an intimidating tactic which can negatively affect court procedures. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I submit that you should rule any attack on anyone giving evidence in a court of law to be out of order. [Interjections.]

Order! Apart from the question of whether there is any merit in the point of order taken, it depends on whether the witness concerned gives evidence voluntarily in favour of an accused or whether he is forced to give such evidence.

Mr. Speaker, with respect, I submit it is in the interests of justice that people should be encouraged to give evidence in a court of law. Whether it is voluntary or whether it is under subpoena is irrelevant. This attack which is being made now—I do not know what the hon. member for Vryheid is about to say—is completely unfounded, because the reality is that if one attacks a person for giving evidence in a court of law one is in fact discouraging people from giving such evidence, and that should not be allowed because it is against the public interest. [Interjections.]

Order! As the hon. member for Vryheid develops his argument further I shall decide whether he should be ruled out of order or not. The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say what the standpoint in court was of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North, as reported in The Cape Times. I quote again as follows—

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North therefore attacks the Afrikaners and says that in previous wars they objected to military service, and that accordingly, he and members of his party also had the right to object on political or conscientious grounds to performing military service for South Africa. [Interjections.] That is the standpoint adopted by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North. I should like to know whether the hon. member for Yeoville agrees with this standpoint adopted by his hon. colleagues. Does the hon. member for Yeoville agree with that?

Why did you not fight in the Second World War?

I should like to know whether anything apart from criticism has been uttered by the PFP in any single debate on the Defence Force or the Police ever conducted in this House. I do not believe that a single hon. member of the PFP has ever said anything positive about the Defence Force or the Police. Never once.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to know from the hon. member for Houghton—and I see she is leaving this House now—whether she has ever, when going to visit the prisoners in the gaols …

I shall be back; just you wait.

She is so fond of visiting the prisoners being detained in our gaols. Has she ever gone to visit our soldiers? Has she ever encouraged our soldiers or even had a good word for them?

Why do you wait until she has just walked out and then attack her? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I want to know from hon. members of the PFP whether it was mere coincidence that the hon. member for Constantia made a shameful attack on the S.A. Defence Force in this House last year. Does the hon. member for Yeoville agree with what the hon. member for Constantia said here last year? At the time he did not agree with him. Indeed, he repudiated the hon. member for Constantia. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not repudiate the hon. member for Constantia. Therefore I should like to know from the hon. member for Yeoville whether he agrees with the standpoint of Mrs. Di Bishop as regards the Defence Force and the Black Sash. [Interjections.]

Order!

I have in my hand a form.

Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member take a question?

No, Mr. Speaker, I am busy with my speech. Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand a form which indicates that my constituency—the constituency of Vryheid—is the first constituency in the country in which people up to the age of 55 years were obliged to register to perform commando service.

Why? Because there was an insufficient number of volunteers.

It is because the war situation is growing in intensity. If the hon. member for Yeoville had read his newspapers he would have been aware of what was going on.

Why, then, were there not enough volunteers? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I challenge the hon. member for Yeoville to bring me one person from the constituency of Vryheid who is not willing to perform voluntary national service. Thousands of them have told me that they are willing to perform military service. People over the age of 55 years have come to object because they were not also being involved. We have to tell the people that we need them.

You cannot make your Minister a liar.

We must motivate the people. The people are not unwilling. The fault does not lie with the NP and its supporters or with the NRP and its supporters or with the CP and its supporters. The fault lies with the political leaders of the PFP and their representatives, who tell their people not to perform military service for this country. [Interjections.] Whose youth refused to have this legislation implemented? The PFP youth refused. In the past they have fought every law, good or bad, proposed by the Defence Force. [Interjections.] I want to accuse those hon. members of interceding for the objectors. Do hon. members know what the situation in South Africa is at present? [Interjections.]

Order! I cannot permit the hon. member for Yeoville to deliver a running commentary while an hon. member is speaking. I shall not permit any further remarks by the hon. member while the hon. member for Vryheid is making his speech.

Mr. Speaker…

I have given my ruling. I am not going to argue further with the hon. member. The hon. member for Vryheid may proceed.

Mr. Speaker…

Order! I shall not permit any further remarks by the hon. member.

But may I not address you?

No, the hon. member may not address me because I have already given my ruling.

Mr. Speaker, there is such a thing as audi alteram partem

Order! I have already given my ruling and if the hon. member insists on speaking I shall call upon him to leave the Chamber. The hon. member for Vryheid may proceed.

Surely we know what is going on in our country. Let me quote from the Citizen, in which there is an article about a clergyman … [Interjections.] … of the Methodist Church who was charged and gave evidence in court, and I quote—

Does the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North agree with that? Do the hon. members for Pietermaritzburg North and Constantia agree with that? Now they are very quiet. Among other things, this clergyman also says the following, as does that hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North—.

I, too, am scared of dying, but I am not scared to die for my country.

Hear, hear!

Where were you in 1939? [Interjections.]

That clergyman of the Methodist Church also said—

Does the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North agree with that? Now he is very quiet. [Interjections.] We do have problems in this country as far as motivating people is concerned, and accordingly I call upon the hon. members of the official Opposition to play their part in this regard. This spirit of boycott that they have displayed in connection with the President’s Council is something that they must please not pursue as far as the Defence Force is concerned, because yesterday and today they were continuing to display that spirit of boycott, in order to prevent us from defending ourselves in this country. What is the greatest danger in South Africa today? Is it the war or the psychological war being waged against our young people in order to discourage them from defending themselves? Yes, that is the greatest danger in South Africa. [Interjections.]

I say the NP poses the greatest danger to South Africa. [Interjections.]

The uncertain attitude of the PFP is more dangerous than the Cubans, Swapo or any other enemy of the Republic of South Africa. This duality, this ambiguous or uncertain attitude of the PFP, has resulted in the public not knowing whether they hate or love the Defence Force.

The public knows exactly where we stand. We have stated it very clearly.

It is no secret that everything depends on the will and the spirit of the people of South Africa, and in that regard I appeal to the hon. members of the PFP to play their part. After all, what they do cannot be calculated to weaken the hitting power of our fatherland. Will they not help us to instil enthusiasm and involvement in the people? After all, it will be to their own benefit, to the benefit of the country as a whole and to the detriment of Soviet Russia. It is a matter of the survival of the Christian civilization as a whole and the maintenance of our standard of living in our fatherland. Can it be true that the Coloureds show more enthusiasm for the defence of the country than some Whites in this country? Is it not to the benefit of the entire people that they be trained and ready for eventualities in our country?

In conclusion I want to say that we may not allow the Bishop spirit and the Hulley spectre to infiltrate among our soldiers. Those who condemn the Lesotho raid are like a cancer in our society. Clear adoption of standpoints by the political parties, including the PFP, will be appreciated by all the inhabitants of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I like to speak after the hon. member for Vryheid. I agree wholeheartedly with every thought he uttered. I think it was the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens who asked by way of interjection where the hon. member for Vryheid was in 1939. In defence of the hon. member for Vryheid I wish to tell that hon. member that in 1939 he was at school with me in Utrecht. He and I matriculated together at the same school.

From the debate thus far it has become clear to me that the most important point of difference, and therefore of dispute, between the official Opposition and the other three parties in this House is the provision being made for national servicemen who have religious objections of substance, whereas there is no provision for conscientious objections on ethical or moral grounds. The official Opposition is putting tremendous emphasis on this. The issue is being stretched to include religious, conscientious, ethical and moral objectors. The problem is that hon. members of the official Opposition repeatedly refer to conscientious objectors on ethical or moral grounds. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout was the first to try and explain what they understood by conscience. He quoted a section which, to me, did not say much about it. Up to now no hon. member of the PFP has indicated what they understand under ethical or moral grounds. The hon. member for Durban North repeatedly asked by way of interjection whether political grounds were also involved, but they simply remained silent on that score. There are different views and different definitions concerning this subject. Hundreds of people have written thousands of pages about what they understand by the terms conscience or ethics.

A view is determined in terms of the particular school of thought which someone adheres to. It could be a particular theological, philosophical, psychological, ethnological, anthropological, etc., school of thought. Because of the particular view held by the particular school of thought one adheres to, one has a particular view concerning conscience or ethics. The official Opposition, too, sees these things in the light of a particular school of thought or way of thinking. We must not fail to take this into account. In due course I shall come back to this question of conscience and ethics. At present, however, I wish to put forward a few ideas with regard to this legislation.

As has already been pointed out, and rightly so, this legislation only makes a concession in respect of national servicemen who have religious objections. As it stands at present, the Act only makes provision for national servicemen who genuinely belong to a recognized denomination which has or preaches doctrines in terms of which its members may not participate in war. In essence, this concession in the Act is an unfair measure granting a privilege or concession to those persons who belong to other churches or denominations that do not thus prohibit violence or war in terms of their articles of faith or doctrines. Therefore this benefits the member who belongs to a particular denomination, religious group or faith the articles of faith of which contain such a prohibition in respect of war or violence, in that he can plead for exemption from national service on the basis of the creed of his church, whereas the person whose church has not made provision for this cannot plead on these grounds. It is my contention that until now, those people who have refused to do military service on religious grounds have, firstly, not justified themselves in respect of their personal view: instead, too many of them have sought shelter behind “what my church says” in this regard. This is also a statutory provision which has functioned exclusively in respect of those people whose church did not afford them protection in this regard, if this could be regarded as protection.

The Bill before us at present also affords members of other denominations the articles of faith of which do not contain such a prohibition, the right to apply for possible exemption on the basis of personal objections, personal convictions or religious objections. This affords them the opportunity of putting their case before a board, based on their personal religious convictions. The board will consider such a case on the same basis as the others who are backed by the doctrines of their churches. It also goes further than that. It affords the individual the opportunity of giving a personal account of his own religious views and of answering for a particular duty towards his nation and his fatherland, accounting for the responsibility he wishes to accept and carry out in respect of his nation and his fatherland. Personally, I object to people being protected by their doctrines, whereas they are not compelled to give a personal account or to be held to account. Therefore it is no longer a matter of the denomination prohibiting this in terms of its doctrine, but the individual, in terms of his own faith or religious convictions. It is he who is coming into the picture now. This is an extension of a concession contained in the Act. However, I wish to say at the outset that this extension, this further concession, should be seen against the background of the fact that the Defence Force is not obliged to consider any person in this regard, whatever his particular objection, since everyone is equal before the law in this respect. Therefore, despite the obligation which exists, the Defence Force takes into consideration the objections of a certain group of people. This particular group of people constitutes a small percentage; they are an insignificant number. I am convinced that if that number constituted an extremely large percentage, we should have had to argue the question as to whether even that objection should have been permitted as a valid reason.

The basis for consideration is religion, and in my opinion this is the only justifiable basis, unless I were to judge on the basis of total physical deficiency, emotional disturbance or mental retardation. I think that besides these things, the only justifiable reason for objection is religion. Even religious reasons are to be questioned, since the validity of these reasons varies from church to church, from faith to faith, from religion to religion, and therefore from personal religious conviction to personal religious conviction. That is why, in my opinion, doubt already exists in respect of religious reasons.

Absolute remission is not being stipulated for the religious objector. The exemption granted, the recognition of the religious objection, does not imply complete remission of service; by way of accommodation it makes provision for a quid pro quo. To me, one of the important points in the Bill is the provision that whereas the Defence Force is not obliged to grant remission, while it makes allowance for a certain group of people, it must also expect them that while they enjoy this concession, they must give a quid pro quo which is equal to, or which takes into account the inherent risk in respect of, the service rendered by those people who are not granted remission or exemption, and who have to endure and brave the violence of war. I think it is extremely important that we should not overlook the whole question of the quid pro quo.

I really think, as the hon. member for Jeppe pointed out yesterday, that if one is going to analyse this risk, the alternative service which has to be rendered in order to be equal to the risk, should be such that it can truly be measured in terms of one and a half times, or double standard. I do not think that there is anything unfair or unjust about that.

Because religious objection itself is questionable, a degree of objection is being introduced in terms of the Bill. There are degrees of difference, or degrees of objection. One person could have a greater degree of objection than another, and on this basis categories are being created within which the objection is accommodated. I think it is also fair and just that since we are providing for degrees of objection, provision should also be made for categories within which the objections of these people may be accommodated physically, but the alternatives should also be accommodated accordingly. The greater the concession, the wider the choice of alternatives. The Bill also makes provision for this. After all, the issue, ultimately, is duty, performance of ones duty, and not the evasion of duty. That is why we should see it it that the grounds for objection are as limited as possible and not as wide as possible. Precisely because of the doubt concerning even religious objection, we shall have to take care to guard against what the apostle Paul called “a semblance of piety”. I mean that we should not afford people the opportunity of slipping through under the guise or pretext of religious objection when in fact there are other motives behind the application for exemption or remission.

That is why I agree that the board dealing with these applications shall be composed as provided in the Bill. Firstly, there is the judge who, with his legal mind and his legal knowledge, will see to it that absolute justice is done, since he sees the case from a completely independent point of view. In contrast, we find that the board is loaded with theologians. These theologians may be chosen from various denominations, including the denomination to which the particular objector belongs. After all, these people are supposed to be the people who deal with religion and with the religious lives of people. They are supposed to be the people who do not judge, but who, by virtue of their knowledge and their field of study, can judge whether the person involved is there because of objections genuinely based on his faith or religion, or whether perhaps there is something hidden behind his pretext. Then, too, the Defence Force itself is represented. It will undoubtedly be a senior officer well acquainted with the Defence Force and soldiers, who will judge the application objectively from that angle.

Since the Bill is concerned with the individual and not with the standpoint of his denomination, I personally have a slight objection to clause 9, and specifically to the proposed section 72B(2)(d) which deals with grounds for objection and which states that the application must state the books of revelation and the articles of faith on which the applicant’s religious convictions are based. It seems to me as if we are here once again emphasizing the denomination with its articles of faith, instead of keeping the individual in the foreground, since it seems to me as though we are here again benefiting that person who belongs to a particular denomination the articles of faith of which incorporate a prohibition, and who can therefore refer to those articles of faith which he submits, whereas the person whose church does not have an article of faith which contains such a prohibition, does not have the privilege, the opportunity or the benefit of having an article of faith to which he may refer. He will have to submit reasons entirely unsupported by his articles of faith. He will have to argue on the basis of personal religious convictions, and that is not so easy. That is why I should like the hon. the Minister to take another look at this particular clause.

It is true that most denominations do not object to war or to taking up arms. I am acquainted with church history and I could address this House at length on the so-called pacifism that was encountered in the first centuries after Christ in the history of the Church. I could also address this House on the history of the Crusades and holy wars that were waged. I also know what theological ethics say about just and unjust wars. I also know what my own church, viz. the D. R. Church, has to say in this regard. I also know what my church says with regard to the whole question of exemption from military service. The D.R. Church issued a booklet in this regard published by the publishers of which I was until recently head of publications. That is why I know precisely what that little book contains. That is why I object to the statement I have before me. The heading reads—this is a photostat copy I have here—“A Statement to the Press”. In it a number of people object to this Bill. Inter alia, they say the following—

The D.R. Church, the White church, has never taken a decision in this regard. The statement being made here, is therefore factually wrong. It is incorrect. If the Sendingkerk has done so, they should state that it was the Sendingkerk, since the two are different. When one speaks about the D.R. Church without qualifying what one means, one is speaking about the White church. The General Synod of the White church has approved the contents of the booklet I have just mentioned, and that booklet does not contain a single word of what is alleged in this document. It is therefore incorrect to allege that the D.R. Church makes provision, for moral grounds as grounds for objection.

Religious objections must also take the question of aggression into account, and surely the issue here is not aggression. The issue here is not a war which we want to start, a war in which we are the aggressors, with the aim of gaining, territory or other spoils. The issue is that in the first place, and, I think, in the final instance as well, we are concerned about defence against aggression which may be perpetrated against this country.

That is why we are a “defence” force.

That, as the hon. member for Jeppe says, is why we are a “defence” force. To us the issue is defence, the protection of the fatherland, the property of the fatherland and the people of the fatherland. I therefore believe that it is the task, the calling and the duty of every responsible person to fulfil his duty of defending the people and property of the fatherland.

I do not wish to raise the question of pacifists again. I think the hon. member for Pretoria West disposed of that issue yesterday. He indicated clearly that that phenomenon, too, was suspect. I also wish to point out that so-called pacifism hides behind other things. The French stateman, DeBré, said—

And on another occasion he said—

Once again this brings me to the question of conscience and of objections on ethical or moral grounds. What is conscience? Conscience is seen and defined from the point of view of the particular school of thought in which a person finds himself. That is why conscience, as a norm, is a risk. The fact is that conscience has to do with the total being and the total consciousness of man. As a highly personal phenomenon, conscience is always with man; man is never without it. It is conceded that it does not function with equal strength in different individuals and that it is influenced by particular religious and social norms, educational standards, etc. Conscience does not always even function in the same way within the same person. One moment one’s conscience may react acutely in respect of a particular matter, whereas at a later stage, one’s conscience may become blunted in respect of that same matter. Here we refer to the blunting of conscience. I allow for abnormality in this respect. Apart from that, the conscience of one person functions differently from that of another person in the same situation, depending on how each experiences that situation, and depending on the influence of factors which have had a prior effect on the conscience of each.

Conscience came into being in this world as a result of sin, and it is intended for this world of sin. It must function as a warning mechanism to warn people about what is good and what is evil. Conscience also functions in terms of the concepts of good and evil. Once again it is a question of what one’s interpretation of good and evil is, and this, too, makes conscience a risky norm to use.

There are different views about what conscience really is. Some say conscience is the direct mark and revelation of God in man, so that conscience may rightly be called the voice of God in the life of man. Then there are others, the more modern kind of person, who believe in the autonomy of conscience. Here the voice of God is replaced by the “better self’ of man. Then there is a third group which says that conscience is the voice of the community, with its particular set of norms, which have become indicative of the moral code which applies within that particular society as a remnant of the moral nature of man.

If, then, various groups adopt such different standpoints as to the nature of conscience, how can conscience be advanced normatively as an objection to the performance of one’s duty? This becomes a problem, and one which cannot be summarily dismissed. This bring us to the question: Is conscience the judge within one which makes judgments about attitudes, thoughts or actions, or is it perhaps the prosecutor which addresses one and accuses one with regard to one’s attitude, thoughts or actions? Ultimately conscience comes up against attitudes, thoughts and actions in society and here one is faced with the question: What may I and what may I not do? The moment one is faced with this question in society, the reaction varies from person to person to such an extent, that the one may say I may do that, whereas the other may say I may not. Therefore they disagree on the same point. That is why I say that to me, conscience can never be normative in respect of a matter such as the performance of one’s duty in the S.A. Defence Force, the performance of one’s duty in respect of the protection and defence of one’s fatherland, of property and of the people who live in that fatherland.

Sir, I wanted to say a great deal more, but unfortunately my time has expired.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Koedoespoort has made a very calm and positive speech, and we thank him for that. The hon. member, could just as well have made that speech on this side of the House.

His conscience prevents him from doing so.

I now come to the hon. member for Wynberg, the chief spokesman of the PFP on defence matters. He has been soundly berated for his objectionable remarks concerning slave labour, namely that the S.A. Defence Force is now going to make use of slave labour. I predict that this remark is going to become a milestone around the hon. member’s neck and that he and his party have by no means heard the end of this. It is quite clear to me that the hon. member’s choice of words has already caused some unhappiness in that party, and it would not surprise me if the hon. member had already been admonished by his caucus.

You are absolutely wrong.

Do all members of the PFP agree with him?

Yes, absolutely.

The hon. member said that if you study the provisions of the Bill then … [Interjections.]

So the hon. member for Bryanston agrees. Then all I can say is that both that hon. member and the hon. member for Wynberg are going to suffer for that statement for a long time to come. There is only one way in which the hon. member can avoid this and that is to stand up in this House and apologize for making such an ill-considered statement.

But let us test this statement of the hon. member against the facts. When we do that, we find that his statement is devoid of all truth. Let us consider the facts. The people who are still being held in detention because they have religious objections to military service can in future be productively and meaningfully used in the fields in which they have been trained and in which they are interested, instead of twiddling their thumbs in detention for years. Some of these people are very competent and well-trained. Of the 351 people at present in detention, six are graduates, 13 have diplomas, and 103 are engaged in further studies. Here we have a valuable labour force, therefore, which can be put to good use. From discussions with these people it was clear that they had no objection to rendering community service. As a matter of fact, they would prefer to do so. In view of this, why should we deny them the opportunity to render such service? This also means that the criminal stigma at present attaching to those people will now be removed. In future those people will no longer be criminals who are locked up in detention; they will be people rendering productive community service which will benefit their country. I do not know how the hon. member for Wynberg could have made that statement. I simply cannot understand what he based his statement on.

There is an increasing threat against South Africa. The onslaught on us is growing in magnitude. Under such circumstances South Africa demands the greatest loyalty from all its young men capable of doing military service. We shall also have to live up to the sentiment expressed in our national anthem—

The motives of people who are not prepared to make the supreme sacrifice for South Africa, who are not prepared to do military service, must be very seriously questioned. These people should not be treated leniently. It is regrettable, therefore, that certain churches and groups are aiding and abetting those people. We have a beautiful country. We have a civilized country, a country with highly civilized values. This civilization, this orderliness, these Christian values must be protected, and for that we need a Defence Force which is strong and ready to deal with any eventuality. We cannot have a strong Defence Force when our Defence Force is being weakened by able-bodied young men who are trying to avoid doing military service in all manner of ways.

After all, the individual is part of the community. He is supported and protected in many ways by that community. He is protected by the Police. His safety is guaranteed by the Defence Force and he also has the protection of security services. He cannot expect to receive and enjoy all this without making his contribution to society as well. One of the individual’s responsibilities and obligations is to render military service. This is one of the cornerstones of the community in which he lives, and it must be maintained. People who refuse to make a contribution in this regard are doing the community a very great disservice.

When people have so little loyalty, the State has no option but to take action against those people and to find ways and means of teaching them to submit to the discipline of the Defence Force.

This brings me to another very important aspect, namely motivation inside and outside the Defence Force. In times such as these, it is of the utmost importance that our people be properly informed about the threat against South Africa, and that they be strongly motivated so that they can act in concert and with enthusiasm, particularly in times of emergency and war. This motivation is seriously harmed when people have no loyalty to the Defence Force. This spinelessness is contagious. It leads to indifference, as well as reluctance and unwillingness to do military service. It also creates an unhealthy spirit. It is an offence against the State, which cannot be condemned too strongly, and which cannot be tolerated either. People cannot be allowed to undermine motivation in this way. This plays right into the hands of South Africa’s enemies, who would like nothing better than for South Africa’s strong military fist to be weakened. In the name of Christ, in the name of brotherly love and in the name of free democracy, tremendous pressure is being exerted at this very moment to bring about disarmament in Europe and America. Here in this country, in the name of Christ, in the name of brotherly love and in the name of free democracy, a shelter is being sought behind which evaders of military service can take refuge. The number of religious objectors is not large. They represent approximately 0,026% of all persons called up. What really alarms one, however, is the wide publicity which is being given to these people and the impression which is being created that this is a large and influential group. Surely this seems rather suspicious; and in fact one has good reason to be suspicious. It seems more like planned agitation. The publicity is very clearly aimed at gaining sympathy for the behaviour of ideologically inspired conscientious objectors. What is alarming—it goes further than this—is that in this campaign an attempt is being made to encourage others to follow the example of the objectors. This does not only involve bonafide religious objectors. It is very clearly a campaign to demotivate, with the obvious aim of weakening the South African Defence Force. Not only that, however; it is also an attempt to undermine the political system in South Africa. To this end the charge of our enemies is being used, namely that we have a so-called “unjust society” in South Africa. The people who are conducting this campaign have gone even further, however, and have said that our Defence Force is involved in an “unjust war”. That is the reason for the objection to rendering military service. The hon. member for Yeoville is not here at the moment, but yesterday he had the courage to say in reply to a question in this House that he did not believe that the Defence Force was fighting an unjust war.

That is a personal point of view.

I am willing to bet that he has little support for his standpoint in his party. I am almost certain, too, that he is going to be flayed alive for his standpoint by that party, if that has not already taken place in the caucus this morning.

I have told you about the caucus already; so come off that now. [Interjections.]

Hon. members opposite are shying away from these things.

We all agree with him.

Why are they so sensitive when one mentions this? [Interjections.] They should tell us if they do not agree with the hon. member for Yeoville. [Interjections.] Can the hon. member for Wynberg tell me whether he agrees with the hon. member for Yeoville?

Is it necessary to ask me such a question?

So the hon. member agrees with him? [Interjections.] I can understand that that hon. member should agree with the hon. member for Yeoville. But other hon. members in his party will not agree with him.

No, I would not say that.

It is blatant hypocrisy to suggest that South Africa is an unjust society, to say that our Defence Force is waging an unjust war …

Who said that?

… and to elevate terrorists to the status of freedom fighters and symbols of freedom and justice.

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

No, I cannot reply to a question, because there is not enough time. However, I shall reply to the question the hon. member has just asked. It was not the hon. member who said that.

No one said that.

The hon. member’s friends outside are the ones who say this. [Interjections.] There are people in the official Opposition who have become champions of the demotivators. That is unforgivable, because it weakens our Defence Force. It demotivates people when they are told that they are waging an unjust war. Ideological political objections to military service cannot be tolerated under any circumstances. No country in the world, except Denmark, tolerates ideological political objections to military service. Even the UN manifesto recognizes a State’s right to armed self-defence against armed onslaughts in terms of international common law. For that reason I want to say that the hon. the Minister had no choice but to introduce this legislation so that action could be taken against evaders. The penalties in the legislation are obviously aimed at controlling a dangerous and growing evil. In view of the circumstances prevailing in South Africa, they cannot be considered excessive.

Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention today to use my time by attacking hon. members on either side of the House. Neither is it my intention to attempt to glorify war and the motto of dying for one’s country. Personally I prefer to live for it. However, I should like to make a few points in regard to war per se. Those who have endured war, those who have seen their comrades blown to bits beside them, those who have dragged bodies and men from the sea covered in oil or blinded, and generally destroyed, those who have had their homes overrun by an enemy, those who have had their families, friends and relations sent away to another country as slaves hate war, if they are at all logical and rational. I am one who has endured this. I think I can go so far as to say that I am a true pacifist in so far as war is concerned. However, having said that and having seen what an aggressive enemy can do to your country, pacifist in war though I may be, I will fight to protect my country and I expect any man with red blood in his veins to do the same.

With that perhaps somewhat melodramatic introduction, I want to talk further on this very issue in respect of our own circumstances. As a consequence of National Party policies which we have followed in this country since the last war, I believe we have created a fertile ground for conditions where communism stands a chance of making headway. The communist onslaught has a fair chance of succeeding unless we can hold it off. In South Africa today we are at war; not at war with Swapo, not at war with the ANC, but I believe we are at war with international communism which, for one reason or another, would wish to suppress us. Again, going back into my past experiences, even as allies the communists were a peculiar lot and rather sullen and repressive. I do not think I have to make much mention that even as victories in the last war they have shown themselves to be ruthless, merciless and utterly cruel. If this is the sort of enemy we are fighting, then I believe we have to ensure at all costs that all of our peoples, whether they appreciate the implications of a communist victory or otherwise, defend our country. We are at war and all must be prepared to serve. The sole exception that we in these benches are prepared to accept are those with convincing religious objections.

There was a great deal of talk on this issue yesterday and today. I believe most religious objectors refuse to carry arms largely because of specific readings in the Scriptures, such as “Thou shalt not kill” from the Ten Commandments, or Christ having said that if somebody smacked you on one cheek, you should turn to let him have a go at the other one too, although not quite in those words. However, I think those are misinterpretations of what is intended because I firmly believe that “thou shalt not kill” means that one must not commit murder. As far as I am concerned, it does not mean that one cannot defend one’s family, one’s home and one’s country. Under no circumstances can I stretch my imagination to believe that that is the case. As far as the Old Testament is concerned, I believe that it is a collection of the greatest adventure stories regarding war that has been compiled anywhere in the world. In most of these passages they virtually glorify the armies of Israel and the man who takes up arms. In this regard I can refer to the fall of Jericho and David and Goliath which constitute a collective and individual example of what I am saying. For the life of me, therefore, I cannot personally see where it is stated in the Bible that one should not defend one’s country. What is more, in all the religious books I have read—and I have read many such books over a long period—I have not found anywhere any denigration of the forces of law and order or of military forces either by Christ or any of the apostles. I have not found these denigrated anywhere in the religious Scriptures. Certainly in the Holy Koran much is made of honouring the people who fight for their religion. Therefore, I do not believe that there can be any validity in using the Scriptures as a reason for having religious objections. In spite of that however, we do accept the fact that there may well be people who believe that by killing in any shape or form they are committing a mortal sin. If they truly believe that, although they believe it as a consequence of their misinterpretation—at least, that is the way I would consider it—of the Holy Scriptures then we are prepared to accept it. However, if that is the case, then I do not believe that such people should be involved in the killing of any form of life because all forms of life should in fact be sacred to them. They should not even be prepared to defend their families, their homes or their country and obviously, if they are not prepared to defend their country, they will not be prepared to kill to protect their homes or their families. However, as I say, we are prepared to accept the fact that people could believe this to be a mortal sin.

In so far as the question as to whether a person is a bona fide religious objector or not is concerned, I believe that this should be relatively easy to establish. Such a person can establish his bona fides as such beyond reasonable doubt. However, I also believe that an objection on the grounds of morality or ethics or conscience—call it what you will—apart from religious grounds, is a totally different matter, and it would be very, very difficult to establish the true bona fides of such a person. How does one establish the bona fides of an objector on non-religious grounds? Both morality and conscience stem from one’s religious training and one’s belief in God. I truly believe this. I would have very little morality and possibly very little conscience if I had not had a certain religious training and background. I believe that most people who believe in God believe in the divine spirit imbued in man and that man is created in the image of God. I believe this to be so; this is the teaching that I was given as a child. I believe it is too important a point to forget that we are supposed to have the divine spirit and that we are created in the image of God. Unless one believes in that, then the concept of morality and ethics is nonsense. Does a dog believe in the divine spirit, does a horse, does a cow? They do not have a divine spirit. To the best of our knowledge they do not at any rate. [Interjections.] Well, those hon. members may believe so; they are stupid enough to do so.

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

Sir, I am sorry; I have only a very limited time. [Interjections.]

Order!

As I have said before, I believe that the question of conscience, ethics and morality, is the result of one’s religion. As far as the concept of nonreligious objection is concerned, I believe that if we were to accept it, we would be opening a terrible can of worms. I believe in those circumstances …

Does a worm have a conscience?

Ask yourself! [Interjections.]

Order!

If people were able to choose whether they believe a war is just or unjust because that would be against their code of ethics, morality or whatever, or if they do not like the Government or its policies, they would be able to object. The enemy would then be able to subvert the forces as I believe was done in Vietnam. It was shown that that mighty nation, the U.S.A, great as it was, with colossal forces could not stand up to and win against a bunch of perhaps glorified bushfighters. That is what the attitude of the hon. members of the official Opposition does. Further I believe there could be incitement to object for any number of reasons.

I should like to give this thought to the hon. members of the House. Morality and ethics which in any case as far as I am concerned are man-made concepts largely based on a question of time and geography can cover a very wide spectrum. The Immorality Act for example is a question of immorality in South Africa; it does not apply anywhere else. Before the last war it did not apply in even South Africa; maybe in 20 years’ time it will not apply here, but that is a question of time and place. Again with ethics there are certain ethics in the medical profession today which did not apply many years ago. So do not give me this driveabout ethics and morality being matters that should be taken into account; the only one which I say is reasonable, is that of religion.

But religion can also change.

I firmly believe that in so far as the board is concerned which is mentioned in this Bill they, being primarily a religious group with a judge at the head, will look after all questions of religion. At this stage I should like to make the point that I believe it to be very important that the minister of the person concerned should either be allowed to be present with him or be co-opted to the board. I would hope that the hon. the Minister of Defence would bear that particular point in mind. I believe that any religion should have the opportunity of having their own particular representation before the board.

It would seem that my time has run out. Like everybody else, there is a lot more that I can say. I will, however, say that, as regards representation on that board, to me it is utterly preposterous to think that a proper job can be done by the legal profession, to think that the legal profession can do a better job than the ecclesiastical calling, because the people who are brought before the board are not criminals but people who have a religious point of view. It is just possible that, if it were in the hands of the legal profession in toto, they would be able to do as they in fact sometimes do with the law, viz. use the law to subvert the ends of justice.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Umbilo for his contribution, which I sincerely appreciate. I have no fault to find with his positive contribution, the seriousness with which he put his case or the sincere and balanced way in which he dealt with a matter in respect of which we are in agreement with him.

Today we have heard the harsh words spoken that we are fighting a war. Very few, if any, of the hon. members want to be involved in a war. If we could choose, we would all prefer to stay at home or be happy in our jobs. What is important is the stage at which we find ourselves in the war which we are waging. We have reached the stage where we are fighting for the part of the world in which we live. This war has been going on for many years and has affected the lives of many people. I am afraid the point has been reached where we are bearing the brunt of this attack. Bearing in mind these circumstances, I want to analyse the speech of the hon. member for Wynberg.

The hon. member for Wynberg complained that a certain component of the Defence Force, namely the Citizen Force, was too large, whereas the Permanent Force was too small. According to the policy of the PFP, they want to recruit Blacks to the S.A. Defence Force, giving them equal pay, in free competition with private enterprise, in order to have a voluntary group of professional soldiers to defend our country in the circumstances I have just sketched. That is their policy, and if that is their solution for South Africa, so be it.

However, what I cannot forgive the hon. member is that he then set off on a landmine which will have serious consequences for us in this House. Up till last year, the predecessor of the hon. member for Wynberg kept defence debates outside the political arena. On this occasion, however, the very first words of the official Opposition took us right into the political arena, and we find ourselves conducting a political debate this afternoon. The national serviceman must now play a lesser role in the S.A. Defence Force. The hon. member would prefer more political changes in South Africa rather than military action. He alleges that the NP is using the S.A. Defence Force to achieve its own ends. In this way, he worked his way round to the matter which has been under discussion in this House for the past two hours, namely the attempt to justify the standpoint of moral objectors and objectors other than religious objectors and to accommodate them in this Bill.

What does my party stand for? I want to base my reply on what I have learned during the years I have been in this House. The NP stands for a national army. The NP stands for economic stability so that everyone can enjoy a high standard of living, so that there is enough for everyone to live in peace. It is fostering an awareness among all the country’s inhabitants of the dangers which threaten us and the need to resist them. It is extremely irresponsible against this background to seek to condone pacifism and to condone civil disobedience and to try to find reasons for excluding certain people from this struggle. Our party is absolutely opposed to pacifists, and we blame the PFP for condoning political resistance to the S.A. Defence Force and trying to defend those people who do not want to serve in the Defence Force. Can the official Opposition not realize that they are giving ammunition to our enemies in Moscow and that eventually they will in effect neutralize the S.A. Defence Force? It is Moscow that wants to destabilize this country. It is Moscow that wants unrest in this country. It is Moscow that is causing insecurity, economic decline, poverty and chaos in order to make us capitulate in the end.

This party has a precious cornerstone on which it rests. In its fundamental principles it is written that it believes in the supreme authority and guidance of Almighty God. This party and its predecessors have written into the constitution of this country—which should be our common property—a humble acknowledgment of Almighty God, ruler of the destiny of nations and the history of peoples. Bearing in mind this cornerstone, I want to turn to the conscientious objector. I believe that the Christian in South Africa came to this country with a clear calling. When one looks at the history of the world, one finds that after all they did right or wrong, our forefathers eventually brought peace and order to this part of the world. They eventually put an end to barbarism and laid down civilized norms. They eventually brought God’s Word to this continent. Often they forcibly interposed themselves between warring parties and stood between such factions to bring about peace and order. They used many methods. We know of the incident in our history when a man laid down his weapons at the gate and entered the kraal of his enemy empty-handed. We lost them all. Not one of them returned alive. We must take up arms again to do what must be done, whether we like ir or not. If we cannot do this in an orderly way, this is unavoidable. In order to show that this matter oppresses me, I must speak seriously to my hon. countrymen this afternoon and say to them: Think again. Not one of us likes this. Not one of us wants to make use of these methods. However, if we cannot do otherwise, if we are being threatened, if we know that these forces are being unleashed and cannot be stopped, which will have unmentionable consequences for our women and children, we reach the point where we have to make use of conscription. When a man says that he refuses to serve, he may fall into any of the following five categories. I have only written down five categories. He may be a genuine religious objector who is absolutely convinced that he cannot participate in this matter on the basis of what he reads in his Bible.

How tenuous is the dividing line between this group and the second group! In the second group we find those persons who are openly afraid, or who have been so brainwashed by their parents that they do not have the courage to go anywhere near the battle-front. How tenuous is the dividing line between this group and group number three, the group containing the egoist, the person who is only interested in making money and who does not want to make any sacrifices for his country; the person who is only interested in enriching himself and does not want to set aside two years or four years to give something back to his country. How tenuous is the dividing line between this group and group number four! This group is the one in which we find the leading activist, the person who is too cowardly to show his true colours. In group five we find the hypocritical activist who, under cover of our most precious spiritual forces, is making a calculated attempt to undermine what we want to maintain.

This is the position in which our Defence Force finds itself. This is also the spirit in which this legislation has been put before us here today. It is only aimed at offering an alternative to the person who is absolutely convinced, on the basis of what he reads in the Scriptures, that he cannot adopt this course. We must offer him an alternative so that he can also make a contribution to this country and its history. I went and read up what Calvin had written about this matter. According to Calvin, a government is obliged to protect its subjects; to punish criminals who want to harm other people. Calvin also made the following statement. He said the authority of the State must be obeyed even if the people in authority are unworthy.

However, when we gather together this conglomeration of objectors and I include the moral objectors of the PFP—the science of psychology tells us that no criteria have ever been found for measuring the genuineness of conscientious objections and subjectiveness. It is for this reason that we have concentrated on religious objection, because we can establish a criterion for this. For this type of objector we can appoint an independent judge, a man who can hear a case according to certain norms. Such a judge is an authority, a person who knows the Scriptures. After all, religion is a personal matter between the individual and his God. This independent judge can therefore evaluate the views of an objector with regard to his religion and accept those views or put it to him that he has not convinced him.

However, a tendency can arise in this case which we must guard against. I am not quite sure whether, in the case we are dealing with here today, and in the way in which we are dealing with it—sometimes rather irresponsibly—this most precious cornerstone of the South African nation, namely its religion, its stability, its devout religious feelings and its awareness of its calling, is not being assailed by our enemies. We must deal with this matter very carefully.

In Amos 7 verse 8 we read the following words, and it is the Lord himself who is speaking—

I am not being fanatical when I say that we have been called upon to Christianize the people in this country. We have been called upon to spread the Word in this country. The forces we are fighting, the forces we are waging war against—perhaps even worse; heaven forbid!—have nothing to do with this matter. They want to destroy it. We all have an important contribution to make to this struggle. If one cannot do so by taking up arms, this legislation affords one an opportunity of making a meaningful contribution in a spirit of sacrifice. If a person is exempted from doing duty on the border in a dangerous situation, even if his period of service is doubled to a period of eight years, he can at least, without endangering his own person, make a contribution over a period of eight years which will benefit his country and which will not be of benefit to himself only.

I should like to draw attention to the hard work that went into this legislation, particularly clause 72F, which makes it possible to reconsider a man’s case in the light of all the available facts without the person concerned having to apply for this. I want to express my gratitude for this entire piece of legislation as it stands, for its balanced approach and its leniency, for all the concessions made to those persons who have genuine objections in this regard. I am grateful for the fact that we are able to find a place for these people in South Africa so that they may also make a contribution to this country.

I am very grateful for this and it gives me great pleasure to support this piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I shall deal with some of the comments made by the hon. member for Brentwood during the course of my speech, but at the outset I want to compliment the hon. the Minister on the manner in which he introduced this Bill the other day. I think that the hon. the Minister showed that he was conscious of the delicate nature of the subject of conscientious objection, and I think that within the parameters of the content of this Bill, he handled the matter with a degree of sensitivity which should have set the tone for a thoughtful and objective debate on this issue during the discussion of this Bill. [Interjections.] I am satisfied that that tone was echoed by speakers of the official Opposition, if not by speakers from other parties in this House. [Interjections.]

All the slave-labourers.

I have heard constant squawking from the nest of hungry hawks since this debate started. They are hungry for political relevance, and I am not going to waste my time on them.

Order! There are only hon. members in this House, not nests of hawks.

Well, what about an hon. nest of hawks?

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it, but I am still not going to waste my time on them.

What are you? A bunch of hon. pansy-pushers?

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I said “honourable”.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that remark in toto.

I withdraw it, Sir. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Berea may proceed.

I would hope to make my remarks in the spirit in which the hon. the Minister introduced the Bill the other day. I want to say immediately that I do not see this as an occasion for emotional party-political speeches, nor for patriotic breast beating, and less still for accusations and counter-accusations amongst hon. members about these issues. I believe that it is time for hon. members in this House to recognize that whatever our differences in approach and policies may be, we are all motivated, in our own way, by a love of South Africa and a desire to do what is best for the country and its people. When we deal with matters involving military service, we must be conscious of the fact that we are dealing with issues that should transcend normal party-political differences, and that we are dealing furthermore with issues which, in our present situation, touch every single White family in South Africa, irrespective of the political affiliations of the people concerned. It is in that spirit that I want to deal with the issue before us at the present time.

In his introductory speech, the hon. the Minister said that this Bill should be seen as a positive step in the right direction. Those were his words. He was referring, at that stage, to the attempt to accommodate that small group of people who, because of their strong religious beliefs, find it impossible to be associated, in one way or another, with the armed forces. He told us, quite correctly, that these people—again his own words—are not criminals and that many of them possess qualifications that should equip them to make a meaningful contribution to society. The hon. the Minister was, of course, absolutely right in that assessment. There has long been a need to face up to this problem, and I think it has been a significant defect in our defence legislation for a long time that no adequate provision was made for genuine conscientious objectors. I know the hon. the Minister was conscious of this fact even before he became a Minister, when he was still a professional soldier, and I believe other members on all sides of the House have been conscious of this defect. Of course, the effects of a tough and an ever-demanding system of compulsory service or conscription have manifested themselves and have shown up those defects, even more as time has gone along, both for the individuals concerned and also for the Defence Force. Therefore one has been encouraged over the past few years in the knowledge that the Defence Force was applying its mind to the problem and looking into the situation, not only in South Africa but beyond our borders as well, to see how other countries approach this very sensitive problem of conscientious objection. Obviously the problem is not a new one, nor is it a problem which is peculiar to South Africa. We know that in recent years America has had to face up to the situation, as have other Western European countries. One had hoped that the investigations of the Naudé Committee would result in the Government coming forward with realistic amending legislation which, while recognizing the manpower needs of the Defence Force, would also reflect an overall consciousness of the causes of insecurity and instability in South Africa and the variable contributions which individuals can make towards minimizing or eliminating those causes within the framework of some sort of national service. I must say against that hope the Bill in its present form is bitterly disappointing.

The Bill addresses the problem only very obliquely and then it comes down heavily and drastically on those who fall outside its narrow parameters, and even on those who fall within the parameters. It comes down so heavily and drastically that its overall thrust is harshly punitive rather than enlightened and accommodating. The provisions of the Bill relate only as we know to religious objectors, those whose objection to military service is based only on their strongly held religious beliefs and convictions. In this regard we know that those convictions are to be tested by a board comprised largely of theologians whose brief will be strictly limited to testing the strength of the applicant’s objection on religious grounds to performing military service. Even in regard to those people, I believe the effect of this Bill is harshly punitive. There is no provision at all, as we have stressed on this side, for testing those who have bona fide moral and ethical objections to military service. I believe this is a basic defect in the legislation which we are dealing with at the present time.

Hon. members on that side of the House again this afternoon asked how one could possibly include moral and ethical grounds as a basis of objection. They—I am specifically talking about the NRP now—have said that it is nonsense to suggest that one should go beyond mere religious reasons for conscientious objection. I want to remind hon. members of the House that certainly the majority of English-speaking churches have taken the view that it would be arrogance on the part of the churches simply to believe that conscientious objection can only be based on religious reasons. The churches have taken that view. Since this Bill has been published they have said it, and they have said so time and time again. The hon. the Minister has said that religious conscientious objectors …

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

No. My time is very limited. The hon. the Minister has said that religious objectors are not criminals. I want to put it to him that it is quite correct that religious objectors are not criminals, but nor are those who object on moral or ethical grounds. They are not criminals and yet they are being treated like hardened criminals in terms of this legislation. They are being treated to a situation where, if they object on these grounds, they face a gaol sentence of eight years as a result of their conviction. What is the difference on this basis? The hon. the Minister says religious objectors are not criminals and I say people who object on moral or ethical grounds are certainly also not criminals. We know that already there have been a number of people in South Africa who have suffered as a result of their strongly held convictions. I know some of them and I know some of their families. For the most part, and certainly the people I know, these are fine young men. They are young men with strong convictions. They are certainly not cowards and are certainly not unpatriotic South Africans. They have strong social consciences and they have the ability to make a meaningful contribution to society in South Africa. Yet, in recent years these people have been subjected to totally unreasonable punishment at the hands of the State. There have been some who have been subjected to solitary confinement for periods in excess of 120 days for the sake of their convictions. What are these convictions? Their convictions are that they are opposed to killing. For that reason, we have had some young men in South Africa locked up in solitary confinement for periods in excess of 120 days. [Interjections.] I was not going to mention names in this debate, but it was the hon. member for Sasolburg, who yesterday cited the case of Charles Yeats, an outstanding young man from an outstanding family, an outstanding academic, an outstanding sportsman, a young man with a great contribution to make to South Africa. He was working and studying overseas, and he could have stayed there, but he had the courage to come back to South Africa in order to face up to his obligations to this country. He came back to South Africa not to earn a great fortune, although he was equipped to do so, but came to South Africa in order to do community service. He found that it was against his conscience to do military service. The result was that this young man has had to spend a time in a civil jail in South Africa. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that the court martial at that stage when they sentenced him to a jail sentence, said that he was being discharged from the army with ignominy. I want to say that I believe that the ignominy belonged not to Charles Yeats but to the system that was in operation at the time.

If one looks at the effects of this Bill, one finds that the Minister is giving people of this kind, people with ethical or moral objections to national service, two options. The one is to look forward to a period of eight years in a South African jail and the other is to leave the country. That is what the hon. the Minister is saying to young people of this kind.

Nonsense.

That hon. member can say it is nonsense, but what are the alternatives? People who have this sort of objection, can either go to jail for eight years or if they do not want to go to jail, they must get out of the country, the country of their birth, the country they love, the country which they can serve. I believe it is a myopic and totally unreasonable attitude to adopt in legislation of this kind. I believe it is equally unreasonable to commit even the religious conscientious objectors for which this Bill is ostensibly making provision, to alternative service of eight years, i.e. twice the period of normal military service. It is alternative service which is twice as long and which carries with it the strictest limitation during that period as regards what they may and may not do. It is alternative service which makes use of their skills, which makes use of their talents, their expertise and their efforts during that period, but the Bill also provides that during that period they shall be totally restricted and their advancement must remain stunted throughout that period. There have been hysterical responses both yesterday and again this afternoon to the reference which the hon. member for Wynberg made to this aspect and his description of it as slave labour. I believe he was absolutely right in drawing attention to the conditions attached to this form of alternative service in the manner in which he did. One has only to read the Bill to recognize that the conditions applying to people during this form of alternative national service are in fact conditions of bondage. That is what they are. I want to refer to the proposed new section 72G which is inserted by clause 9 of this Bill and which imposes the harshest possible restrictions on these people. The proposed new section 72G, on page 20 of the Bill, deals with the regulations the State President may make in respect of religious objectors. It provides inter alia that the State President may make regulations relating to their employment, training, qualifications or obtaining of qualifications at the expense of the Department, unsuitability for service, transfer, duties, powers, classification, grading and promotion. It also provides that he may make regulations relating to salaries, wages, leave and sick benefits, subsistence and travel and the circumstances under which, the manner in which and the beneficiaries to whom such payment shall be made, as well as the prohibition of the granting of additional benefits by employers. One can go on throughout page 20 and page 22 and discover that he may decree what uniform they have to wear and what protective clothing, equipment, tools and other articles are to be worn or used by such persons. He can also decree the extent to which such persons may participate in political activities and so forth and so forth.

Whom do you suggest should do it then?

This is a totally unreasonable and illogical situation. It is unreasonable and it is illogical because it is common cause—it has been said often—that the solution to our security problems is 20% a military one and 80% a political one. We know that there are threats to our borders and we also know when we look for real security in South Africa that if we were a stable, contented and united nation of 25 million people, our security problems would be minimal.

That is precisely the point.

We also know that one of our prime objectives should be to improve the quality of life of the masses in South Africa because by so doing we will be going a long way to ensure that their loyalties are not attracted by foreign influences and that they will feel less compelled to resort to violent action from outside or from inside in order to improve their lot. We also know that there are so many things that are needed on the home front. We know that to maintain an army in the field it is necessary to maintain a contented and efficient home base. For these reasons the battlefield to preserve our security is as much in the socioeconomic field in South Africa as it is on our borders. In these circumstances, to make alternative national service in these areas of activity so punitive and unreasonable is in effect a contradiction of our national priorities. I can understand that it may perhaps be in the interests of manpower requirements that the hon. the Minister wishes to avoid a soft option for people in these circumstances. However, I believe that in the first place the hon. the Minister and his advisers, in order to put matters in their proper perspective, must have a proper appreciation of what the attitude is of the vast majority of citizens in South Africa to compulsory military service. They do not enjoy it despite what some hon. members have said. They do not enjoy having to do national service. They may see it as their duty to do so and they are in fact compelled by law to do so but they do not enjoy it. The attitude of most of them is: If we have to do it, let us get it over and done with. They find it irksome, they find it disruptive of their family and personal lives and disruptive of their careers. Therefore, the vast majority of them are only too anxious to get it behind them and the sooner the better. In these circumstances I believe that in practice only persons with the strongest possible religious, moral or ethical beliefs against involvement in military service will opt for a longer period of national service, even half as long again. In this situation we are not dealing with callous or cowardly draft-dodgers; we are dealing with a comparatively small group of people who are prepared to accept the tougher option and make a meaningful contribution to society but who must not be punished for exercising that option. That is what this Bill does and it does so very drastically indeed.

I believe that these are some of the matters which should receive the attention of a Select Committee before the Second reading of this Bill is taken. I also want to say that if in practice the hon. the Minister were to find far too many who were exercising that option, that would then be the time to make such option a little more difficult. However, I believe that if one wants to deal with the situation sympathetically one should start on a smaller base and not go for options which are as totally punitive as they are in this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I shall come to the hon. member for Berea in the course of my speech. In fact, I shall come back to him very shortly. I should also like to address a few remarks to some of the other hon. members of the PFP in the course of my argument.

I think the gist of the difference between the attitude of this side of the House and hon. members on the other side revolves around the definition of a conscientious objector in the sense that in terms of the measure before us a conscientious objector has to fulfil two requirements. His objection has to be universal and not selective. That is the first requirement. The second requirement is that it must be based on religious grounds and not on ethical or moral grounds. I think that is the basic difference because the PFP argues that objectors on moral and ethical grounds should also be included. The hon. member for Berea mentioned that he had close contact with many of these people or a number of them. In fact, he mentioned the name of Yeats. He said that they were fine people. I want to ask the hon. member whether he believes that the law must be such that it will make provision for alternative services to be done by a person like Yeats. Does he believe that? Well, it is clear that he does. I shall return to Yeats later on.

There is another case in which the hon. member for Berea was involved. I refer to the case of Peter Moll. Would the hon. member also say that the law should be so wide as to make provision for a person like Peter Moll?

He was very badly treated.

That is an evasion of the question.

I am not under cross-examination; you should make your speech.

We must decide in this House whether we ought to make provision for a certain category of people or not, but the hon. member for Berea is not helping us. [Interjections.] It seems that the hon. member says that the law must make provision for a person like Peter Moll.

I should like to ask the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North a question. That hon. member is not paying attention at the moment.

Stand for election against him, and maybe he will pay attention.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South is not hearing me. I should like to ask him a question. I believe that yesterday he appeared in a court case where such a person was on trial. I should like to hear from him whether he would like to see the legislation amended so that it would make provision for the person whose case was heard yesterday. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South is not paying attention and I think he does that very, very purposely.

Pietermaritzburg North.

Yes. Pietermaritzburg North.

Does he appear in court cases?

Do you think we want to listen to somebody who does not know his north from his south? [Interjections.]

My information is that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South or North, whatever the case may be, yesterday said in open court that he was of the opinion that the authorities should make provision for a person such as the one that was on trial yesterday, Mr. Hathorn. I believe that is what the hon. member said yesterday.

Lawyers appear for murderers, rapists, thieves …

I shall develop that argument as I go along.

We have it on record now that hon. members of the official Opposition would like to see the legislation amended in such a way that the cases of Moll, Yeats and Hathorn can be accommodated.

You are talking nonsense. [Interjections.]

Order!

Sir, I can see that there are problems now, because if one reads the speech of the hon. member for Yeoville—I have done so, and I have great appreciation for that speech—one can see that in his speech there is no place for Yeats and these other people. He does not want to make provision for them. The hon. member for Berea, however, does want to make provision for them, and yesterday in open court the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North expressed the opinion that the authorities ought to make provision for such people. Let us take a look at who these people are. Before doing so, however, I should just like to refer to a statement made by the hon. member for Wynberg in the course of his speech, a statement that we cannot allow to pass unchallenged. What he said was that hon. members on this side of the House saw the Defence Force as a shield behind which the status quo could be maintained.

Yes, some of you.

This may seem a very small bone I want to pick with the hon. member, but in fact this matter goes very deep. I contend that on the one hand that statement by the hon. member for Wynberg is a distortion and creates a false impression. Within a few days, or perhaps weeks—but not in months or years—we in this House hope to begin looking at legislation that will drastically change the status quo. That is what we are using the shield of the Defence Force for, as the hon. member for Yeoville put it so well. However, the hon. members on that side disparaged this and said that we wanted to maintain the status quo. By doing so they strengthen the hand of the political objectors—I am not referring to the conscientious objectors now—because the political objectors base their objection to a very large extent on the argument that the Defence Force is being used to protect the status quo. Because in their opinion the status quo is unjust, they accordingly argue that they are unable to participate in this war in which the S.A. Defence Force is involved. That is how they argue, and now the hon. member for Wynberg is supporting them in their mischief.

That does not follow at all.

Let us just leave that point for a moment and briefly consider a different point of view, because there is a different point of view as to why conscientious objection should be maintained. I now refer to the South African Council of Churches. I do not believe the hon. members of the Opposition are going to answer, but I should like to ask them whether they agree with the motivation or the S.A. Council of Churches for conscientious objectors. Do they agree with it? They will not reply. They know that they are already in trouble.

Make your own speech. Read to us what they say and we shall reply to you.

Will the hon. member for Green Point, who is now so talkative, tell me whether the PFP supports the arguments of the S.A. Council of Churches in favour of the maintenance of…

That is a ridiculous question. Read what we have said. [Interjections.]

The hon. members are now evading this. I have in my hand a report on “Conscience in Conflict”. It is described as “a historical case study”. This document was accepted for publication at a meeting of the “executive committee of the S. A. Council of Churches” on 17 and 18 March 1977. In the minutes of their meeting they say—

They therefore accept this report. They had it published. Let us just take a look at what is stated in this report about conscientious objectors. In the first place it refers to a resolution passed in 1974 by the S.A. Council of Churches. However, it also refers to a conference held abroad in 1974. It then states—

They go on to say—

In other words, this representative of the S.A. Council of Churches went abroad to speak to representatives of the so-called liberation movements and they mentioned what they would like to see and what demands they made of South Africa. But now the SACC states—

In other words, they want to react to the liberation movements. They then go on to say in their document that the church as such cannot do certain things that must be done for the liberation movements. However they must do what they can. What is it that they can do? They say—

They then go on to say about this 1974 resolution—

In other words the motivation of the SACC is to rise in the estimation of these so-called “liberation movements”. They go on to say—

In other words, one must consider this, bearing in mind that in fact they want to assist these so-called “liberation movements”. The picture becomes still clearer. They go on to say—

Now hon. members must please listen carefully—

Here it is clearly stated that the motivation of the SACC is not primarily concern for the conscientious objector. That is not their primary concern. Their primary concern is that they must rise in the estimation of these so-called “liberation movements”. And who are these “liberation movements”? It does not require magical powers to guess that we are dealing here with the ANC, the PAC and the Communist Party. These are the people we are dealing with. Now, surely, we can see what is behind this. There is something else too. This did not end there. They say that the people who have to take this decision are very young. They say—

It is therefore the task of the S.A. Council of Churches to approach these young people and influence them to become conscientious objectors.

However, leaving aside for the moment the S.A. Council of Churches, let us consider briefly those people for whom the official Opposition want to make provision. We find among them a man like Peter Moll. Let me quote from the Sunday Express of 17 August 1980. The article in question states—

1. (1) In terms of Christian moral standards the South African society is fundamentally unjust.

Here we are no long dealing with a universal conscientious objector. We are dealing here with a selective political objector, someone who does not want to serve in South Africa and in the Defence Force because this Defence Force serves a “fundamentally unjust society”. That is Mr. Moll, someone for whom we must also make provision, according to the hon. member for Berea.

Then, too, there is Charles Yeats, another person for whom we must make provision according to the hon. member for Berea. Yeats is a person who had the following to say in the course of his trial. He was asked—

He replied—

So far, very praiseworthy—

Excellent.

Then the inquiry goes on and a little later the following question is put to him—

He replied—

This is the Lord who is supposed to have said that—

They, of course, are the “freedom fighters”, Mr. Speaker. Then he is asked—

To that he replied—

And now hon. members must listen very carefully—

He was then asked—

His reply to that is “Yes”.

Mr. Speaker, we are dealing here with a man who regards the South African forces, when they lull terrorists on our border, as criminal offenders. However, the hon. member for Berea said of him that we should accommodate him; that we should make provision for him. The hon. member for Berea says he is a fine person. What I want to know is: What has become of the fine speech made here yesterday by the hon. member for Yeoville.

I could of course refer to the third instance as well. Unfortunately, however, my time has expired. In a nutshell, these things all go to prove once again that when one opens that slight gap between conscientious objection and religious objection, all manner of monstrosities begin to slip through that gap, whereas there are people who are standing ready to help them through as quickly as possible. Where would we end up then? That is the question that I put to the hon. member for Yeoville as well. He, too, asked where we would end up then, and in that regard I want to agree with him.

Mr. Speaker, Gen. Constand Viljoen, the Chief of the S.A. Defence Force, once said: “We cannot afford to allow the valuable image of the S.A. Defence Force as defender of the country and protective shield for orderly and peaceful progress in the community to be harmed.” I am sure everyone agrees with this extremely significant statement by Gen. Viljoen and I think we all support it. I think Gen. Viljoen emphasized a very important truth, namely that the S.A. Defence as the defender of the country is as it were a protective shield over our country so that there can be peaceful and orderly progress. I also think that all hon. members will agree with Gen. Viljoen’s statement that we feel a need to ensure that this image is not harmed. I think everyone will agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment. That is why I think that the Defence Force should be organized in such a way that it can make an effective contribution to discouraging attacks on our country.

In this debate a good deal has already been said about the onslaught on South Africa. It is an onslaught aimed at destabilizing South Africa and all its people. The fact that we have recently given particular attention to the tightening up of our legislation so as to ensure maximum security in the country, and that last year, by means of legislation, we made the manpower position of the Defence Force more prepared than it has ever been before in the history of our country, must be an indication to all of us that every able-bodied man and every able-bodied woman must become closely involved in helping to protect our country. The steps which were taken last year to mobilize our manpower to the maximum were of course described as conscription in certain circles, something which was not true of course. Still, it suits certain people to raise the spectre of conscription from time to time. For the same reason—when the possibility of this legislation was mooted—there were vehement objections and opposition, from those same circles, to this legislation being introduced in this House. For the vast majority of those of us participating in this debate the central issues are contained in clauses 9 and 10. The essence of these two clauses has already been spelt out clearly during the course of this debate. What it amounts to in the main is that the Defence Force must be able to utilize our country’s manpower to the maximum for the purposes of defending the country. We are really not interested in making it easier for a very small sector of our available manpower to avoid doing military service. On the contrary. When we are reduced to using a debate which is going to last for about 12 hours to see how we can make things easier for those people who want to sit back and do nothing, it will indeed be a sorry day. The legislation before us is also concerned, inter alia, with ensuring that a fair and just opportunity is given to people who for satisfactory religious reasons wish to be classified in a specific category of bona fide religious objectors. Of course this debate also afforded dissenters an opportunity to raise their objections here. Although one differs in principle from those persons who do not want to do military service because they are conscientious objectors, I am afraid that the arguments they raised usually had a shadowy side. One cannot shake off the feeling that those people whose cause the official Opposition is championing have politically inspired and politically orientated reasons for not being prepared to bear arms for South Africa. Those people who have such a fifth-column mentality must not expect the rest of South Africa to fall in with their wishes. When it comes to the defence of one’s fatherland one is either for one’s fatherland or against it. If one is against it, one must expect to be treated differently. When one then refers to slave labour in one’s arguments, as the hon. member for Wynberg did, for which he was thoroughly berated by hon. members in this House, one is playing the role of devil’s advocate and that does not befit the hon. for Wynberg.

Someone once said: “Wars are better won than lost, better avoided than won; they are not an excuse for stupidity and carelessness”. I think there is a great deal of truth in this saying and it applies to a great extent to the matter we are debating today.

We should all prefer our country not to become involved in an armed conflict with any people or country. However, if this does happen, we should prefer to win this struggle rather than to lose it through “stupidity and carelessness”. To sit back with folded arms, and to be indifferent and wilful and to raise all manner of conscientious objections, whether they be moral or ethical, and to expect other people to defend one’s country, is asking too much. To people with this attitude we want to say in the words of the verrifier: “Lamsak, ou maat, gee my jou hand; ons is burgers van Papbroekland”.

I should like to say something about the proposed new section 72C(4) which provides that an applicant is not entitled to legal representation before the board. Initially I was of the opinion that because a judge or former judge would be chairman of the board, legal representation should be allowed. I have re-considered this. I want to give this House two reasons why I feel we cannot support that idea any further. The first reason—this has already been demonstrated in the House—is that the board is not a court of law. In the second place I feel that it could give certain legal representatives a pretext for engaging in undesirable political practices. This would not be proper for the good climate in which the board must hear applications. [Interjections.]

I should also like to refer to another important amendment, namely the supplementation made by clause 19. Clause 19 makes provision for the inclusion of a new section 149ter which makes provision for a right of recourse in favour of the Government against third parties. This amendment is to be welcomed because the State has suffered major financial losses owing to an inadequate right of recourse against third parties. An hon. member pointed out that as a result of this the State is losing R150 000 annually, for example, as far as hospitalization and pay are concerned. For that reason the introduction of this right of recourse is a definite improvement.

I should also like to refer to the fact that section 149ter makes provision for a preferent right of action. This right of action shall enjoy preference above any other non-preferent claim against the estate of the third party or the other party in the event of insolvency. I think this is a good provision that has been introduced in this connection.

I now want to refer to clause 15 of this Bill. I should like to give more attention to this very important amendment which deals with the treatment of mercenaries. Owing to the very emotional content of the debate surrounding conscientious objectors I do not think that sufficient attention has been given to the introduction of legislation affecting the mercenary and his world has received insufficient attention. To tell the truth, I think the entire matter of mercenaries has only been dealt with by two or three hon. members in this House; in my opinion for understandable reasons, particularly as far as the Government is concerned. I say “for understandable reasons” because I think one touches a very sensitive nerve, particularly as far as Cabinet members are concerned, when one refers to mercenaries. That is because mercenaries and their affairs still tend to remind one of the Seychelles debacle. This is a subject which in my opinion the Government would prefer to forget. However, it is not that easy, because there is an old saying that one’s sins catch up with one.

It is necessary to refer briefly to this particular proposed section 121A now being added to the Defence Act. Although one is very tempted to score political points with regard to the matter of mercenaries and the Seychelles affair, I should like to say that I am not going to do so. I feel that the Seychelles affair will probably come into prominence again of its own accord.

I should like to congratulate the Department of Defence for introducing this important proposed legislation on this matter. It was quite clear, after the Seychelles affair, that legislation to declare the recruiting of South African citizens as mercenaries to be an offence was essential, and that it was also necessary to take a closer look at the position of the person who is thus recruited. There would not seem to be any legislation whatsoever in our legal system to regulate the mercenary and his behaviour. If there is such legislation I do not know about it. This proposed legislation is doing our legal system a favour. However, one thing is certain, namely that our country’s laws are inadequate in this regard. This shortcoming and lack of legislation to regulate the legal position of the mercenary has done our country harm, and the question that now arises is whether this legislation goes far enough. The hon. member for Yeoville also adopted the standpoint that in his opinion this specific legislation does not go far enough. I feel the same way. I am of the opinion that the provisions of this legislation should be extended so that not only members of the Defence Force are involved. I think the hon. the Minister of Justice should introduce legislation that will apply to all South African citizens as well as to all non-South Africans who are guilty of recruiting mercenaries or who allow themselves to be recruited as mercenaries, and the sooner the better. We all know that war clouds are gathering all around us and everything indicates that the recruitment of people from South Africa for use either in South Africa or in neighbouring States has become an urgent matter.

South Africa also found itself in the dock in connection with the Seychelles affair. Considering the role our country plays in Africa as well as the special role our country plays in Southern Africa, I think it is important for us to extricate ourselves. We know that there is deep rooted suspicion towards South Africa and we must at all times ensure that our country is not implicated further in matters of this kind. We must ensure that the necessary steps are taken in our legislation not only to protect the Defence Force and its members, but also to involve all South Africans in some or other way in what is contemplated in this specific legislation for Defence Force members.

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my thanks to the hon. member Mr. Theunissen for at least supporting this Bill.

Except for the bit of nonsense at the end.

Mr. Speaker, I think I shall leave that bit of nonsence at the end for the hon. the Minister to react to.

During the past few days we have listened to quite a number of contributions on this Defence Amendment Bill. In my humble opinion there were many constructive and good contributions which gave me the impression that the vast majority of hon. members in this House have great respect for our Defence Force and are very grateful for what it is doing in the interests of South Africa. I also want to say to our Defence Force: Thank you for what you are doing. We appreciate it sincerely. Unfortunately there were also a few discordant notes and unfortunately we had to concentrate on those, which was actually unnecessary. It is not to our advantage to have discordant notes such as, for example, that we are making use of slave labour in this country. I feel the hon. member for Wynberg committed a major blunder when he made that statement. The way he put it was that we have a return to slave labour, the only exception being that the slave is entitled to vote.

I want to devote the time at my disposal to the three categories of religious objectors. The hon. member must now tell me where, in any of the three categories we are dealing with, he can show me any evidence of any type of slave labour. While I am discussing this I also want to refer, although not in the same context, to the hon. member for Jeppe who said that the period of service was inadequate particularly as regards persons in category 1. I hope I understood him correctly. He was of that opinion because there was no compensation with regard to category 1.

Yes.

The hon. member for Durban Point said that there should not be three categories. In his opinion there should only be two, if I understood him correctly.

What is the main object? The main object is to use religious objectors more meaningfully or more productively and that is why the hon. the Minister was correct when he said that these amendments were a positive step.

The Bill makes provision for service in and out of the Defence Force, depending upon the nature of the objection. There are three categories for religious objectors who would otherwise be liable to render military service. Let us consider the first category. Category 1 is defined in the Bill as being applicable to a religious objector with whose religious convictions it is in conflict to render service in a combatant capacity in any armed force; or to put it another way, a person who does not have religious objections to doing service in a non-combatant capacity in any defence force. He therefore only objects to doing service in an armed force. That is his only objection.

At present we already have people falling into this category in the Defence Force; there are already non-combatants in the Defence Force. At present the Act makes provision for them as well. Apart from these people, owing to their religious convictions, not being prepared to be trained in the use of military weapons or to be used in this capacity, they are prepared to subject themselves to all other aspects of military training and service, whether on the home front or in the operational area. As a matter of fact this category does not constitute a new principle in the legislation. They render service within the S.A. Defence Force in a non-combatant capacity but they may perform maintenace tasks of a combatant nature in a non-combatant capacity. They do service for the ordinary period of time because they are full-fledged members of the S.A. Defence Force, although in a non-combatant capacity.

I have no fault to find with this and I cannot see any signs of slave labour in this either. On the contrary. It attests to the humanity and compassion with which the Defence Force is prepared to deal with these people.

I now come to people in category 2. This category is defined in the Bill as being applicable to a religious objector with those religious convictions it is in conflict to render service in a combatant capacity in any armed force, to perform any maintenance tasks of a combatant nature therein or to be clad in a military uniform. This person’s religious objections go further than those of the person in the first category and for that reason there must be a differentiation between category 1 and category 2. What is the difference? In addition to his objection to serving in a combatant capacity—i.e. training in the use of military weapons and his use in a combatant or armed role—he has two additional religious objections: In the first place, to the peforming of maintenance tasks of a combatant nature or tasks of a military nature and in the second place, to the wearing of a military uniform.

He is however prepared to perform nonmilitary tasks in the Defence Force provided he is dressed in a non-military uniform. That is why he is placed in another category. The tasks of this group will be prescribed maintenance tasks and must be of a non-combatant nature, for example maintenance of military premises, buildings and sport-fields. This group may not wear a military uniform, but may wear prescribed clothing other than a military uniform. This group is therefore still involved in and subject to the discipline of the S.A. Defence Force. The period of service of this category is one and a half times that of the ordinary period of service. The element of compensation is at issue here. This person’s service, although it is performed in the S.A. Defence Force, involves only maintenance tasks of a non-combatant nature which in practice restricts his use to the home front. There is a vast difference between category 1 and category 2. The moderate sacrifices on the home front made by the ordinary serviceman do not fall to his lot either. In addition these religious objectors who would otherwise have to perform Citizen Force duty, for example, are exempted from further military obligations in the S.A. Defence Force and I cannot see any sign of slave labour in this either.

The third category is defined in the Bill as being applicable to a religious objector with those religious convictions it is in conflict to render any military service or to undergo any military training or to perform any task in or in connection with any armed force. These people are absolute pacifists who have religious objections to anything to do with the Defence Force. They must be used outside the Defence Force. What are the tasks of this third category? They will have to perform community services which must be completed during a single uninterrupted period of service outside the S.A. Defence Force, for example, as clerks, male nurses or firemen in posts with the State Departments, Provincial Administrations and local authorities as determined by the Minister of Manpower. This service must be completed during a single uninterrupted period of service twice the length of the ordinary Citizen Force service they would otherwise have had to perform. It can for example be twice four years, i.e. a period of eight years. This extra period of service done by persons in categories 2 and 3 contains an element of compensation because these people are for all practical purposes restricted to the home front and therefore do not have to make sacrifices or undergo the severe physical training for the operational area that fall to the lot of the ordinary soldier. Once their period of service has been completed they are also absolved from all further obligations. This must also serve as a deterrent for those persons who want to take a chance in order to evade military service.

The proposed amendment makes provision for alternative service, but also demands compensation from those persons who are performing alternative service. Through the principle of compensation the Government merely wants to be fair to those thousands of young men who must undergo their military training in the midst of many risks and all kinds of factors arising from the nature of their service. If compensation is not demanded for risks and these factors, this would mean that the State was making unreserved compromises on its mandate to call up people to defend the country and this would be nothing less than a denial of the seriousness of the matter. After all, what is at issue here is keeping the country in good order and peaceful so that there can be a more just society.

I have no fault to find with the principles underlying the Bill. However, I do have certain faults to find with aspects of the proposed section 72E(6)(c). I shall probably move certain amendments during the Committee Stage. Other than that I support the Bill wholeheartedly.

Mr. Speaker, I think we in this House owe a debt of thanks to the hon. member for Wynberg, the main speaker on defence matters on the Opposition side. We have always wondered where the PFP stood on the matter of military service. However, in spelling out his credo the hon. member for Wynberg spelt out that they intended abolishing military service. [Interjections.] Before I react any further to the hon. members speech I want to first say a few things in general about military service.

What you have just said is not true.

I shall quote it for you.

You may quote it if you wish; it is not true.

I have the hon. member’s Hansard here.

I should now like to say something in general about military service. We as a nation have reason to be profoundly grateful that military service was introduced. In the early sixties this country began to prosper. Many tourists came to this country and some of our people travelled abroad. It was then that we inherited what at that stage were called the “ducktails”. It was a ghastly phenomenon in those days. Our prosperity meant that students could attend universities, but not to study. They were there for the extramural things. I maintain today that military service straightened our young people out. Without it our morals in this country would have gone down the drain. For that reason we, as a nation, have reason to be grateful. It seems as if the Almighty had to inflict sabotage and terrorism on us.

That is sanctimonious.

Order! The hon. member for Wynberg must withdraw the word “sanctimonious”.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.

Without terrorism and sabotage and the introduction of national service things would certainly have gone wrong for us in South Africa and particularly for our young people. I maintain today without fear of contradiction that national service straightened our young people out. Without national service our economy would already have ground to a halt. During a war the home front may not be neglected, because otherwise the front collapses. National service did this for us.

The hon. member for Wynberg had a great deal to say about the two world wars. However, one cannot compare South Africa’s position today with that prevailing during the two world wars. When war is declared there is a specific battle-front, but in the war in which we are now engaged, fights break out in all manner of places where one least expects it. The two world wars to the hon. member for Wynberg referred were totally different. War was declared. South Africa also declared war. The hon. member said that those wars were fought by volunteers. I disagree with him as far as that statement is concerned. In the First World War there was what was referred to as the Defence Force, which was comprised of young men between the ages of 17 and 21. They were the first people who were conscripted and were obliged to wage war. When the war broke out in 1914, all those young men between the ages of 17 and 21 were conscripted. They formed the frontline of the war in South West Africa. The troops of General Manie Maritz, who were stationed along the border with South West Africa, were all from the ranks of those young men. When General Maritz surrendered to the Germans those men all returned to the Union. The young men of South Africa have therefore always been responsible people.

The hon. member went on to say that the Second World War was also fought by volunteers. When a total war breaks out in a country, most other things grind to a halt, and specific and concentrated attention is given to the war itself. When the war broke out people were obliged to join up. It was not voluntary. Factories closed, industries ground to a halt, and people lost their jobs. In order to have food to eat they simply had to join up. They were therefore obliged to join up. It was certainly not a voluntary war. It was not a war waged by volunteers. [Interjections.]

Where were you in 1939? In Ecuador or somewhere? [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member take a question?

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but it will serve no purpose.

*Hon. members of the PFP have now shown us that they trifle with the security of South Africa. We can therefore never entrust the security of this country and of the State to them. As a matter of fact the electorate of South Africa will also take cognizance if this debate. The electorate will take cognizance of the fact that the PFP cannot be entrusted with the security of South Africa. [Interjections.] The PFP, with the exception of the hon. member for Yeoville, has always been lukewarm about military service. Right from the outset they were opposed to military service. Now they have really acknowledged this openly for the first time.

The legislation under discussion concerns religious objectors. That is mainly what is at issue. I feel that we have found a good solution in this legislation. After all, South Africa is a country with religious freedom, and we therefore feel great sympathy for people who are sincere about their religion. That alone is sufficient reason for every hon. member on this side of the House to hold the statement made by the hon. member for Wynberg in connection with slave labour, very much against him. I think it was a disgraceful statement. For whom was it really intended? It was intended for consumption by the outside world. It was aimed at harming South Africa. By means of that statement the hon. member did not denigrate the NP; he denigrated South Africa. [Interjections.]

Everybody knows the difference outside. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I now come to the credo of the hon. member for Wynberg; the things in which he believes. He says the PFP believes the Permanent Force should be enlarged by means of professional soldiers who join up voluntarily. In the second place, he said, provision had to be made for volunteers on a temporary basis. [Interjections.] In the third place, national service had to become a less important component of the activities of the Defence Force.

Let us take a closer look at this volunteer force of the hon. member for Wynberg. We are not engaged in a declared war. When one is engaged in a declared war, the course of events is quite different. However, we are not fighting here, but far from here, on our borders. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, can the hon. member tell me whether the present Chief of the S.A. Defence Force joined the Defence Force voluntarily or not?

He joined voluntarily. He has been in the Defence Force from an early age. He joined voluntarily and made the Defence Force his career. [Interjections.] That hon. member should first listen to my argument. We have a tremendous shortage of manpower in this country. [Interjections.] We have a tremendous shortage of trained manpower. Therefore, if we were to have a voluntary Defence Force here, private initiative would buy all the Defence Force’s men. [Interjections.] Hon. members must realize that war has not been declared. We are prosperous, our industries are doing well and everyone is making money. The same thing would happen to such an army as is happening to the Public Service. People who are employed by the State are also volunteers.

Then you must introduce conscription for the Public Service.

All the people in the Public Service are volunteers. The State trains those people and this takes time and money. However, time and again the private sector lures those people away because it can pay them more. The same thing will happen with an army of volunteers.

It is because you are not prepared to pay those people what they are worth.

The hon. member for Wynberg asks why the Air Force and the Navy consists of volunteers. I can reply to that question with ease. There is no large private airline in this country. There is no-one who can lure those people away with money. Nor is there a large merchant navy that can lure those people away. That is why they are in those services voluntarily.

How many private Defence Forces are there?

There are none, except perhaps the Defence Force you have in your home. [Interjections.] Our manpower position is such that we cannot establish a voluntary army, because we would simply have no army at all. We would simply be leaving South Africa to its enemies.

What, then, has become of the loyalty of the Nats?

The hon. member said they would change the country politically. They want to change the situation in the country politically and not militarily.

Is that not the policy of the Government?

If that kind of Defence Force were to be established, that kind of politics would eventually lead to there being only one vote, and no man, and that vote would be Moscow’s.

Mr. Speaker, the Hon. member Mr. Van Staden has managed to project quite a few of the figments of his imagination here, particularly in so far as they concern volunteer soldiers. During the course of my speech this afternoon, I shall return to the few points of substance that he did mention. There seems to have been only one point of real agreement during the course of this debate, and that is that sensible provision for conscientious objectors is required. The problem is the definition of the word “sensible” and which people should be classified and accepted as conscientious objectors. If that is the intention of this Bill I believe it misses the mark by the proverbial mile.

We have asked for a Select Committee before Second Reading because we believe that a Select Committee could hear evidence, seek out whatever common ground exists, even if there is not a great deal, and help resolve the very real problems that some people have with this matter. The Government, unfortunately, has taken up a take-it-or-leave-it attitude and is quite happy to ram its views down people’s throats, irrespective of those persons’ individual beliefs.

Some questions have come to mind in the course of this debate. For example, what do hon. members on the other side, in particular the hon. the Minister of Defence, believe would have happened in South Africa if there had been conscription in the Second World War? What does he think would have happened if there were conscription then?

It was not necessary then.

An hon. member says it was not necessary, but what does he think would have happened if in fact we had it? Would it have been a desirable thing to have? What in fact would the hon. the Prime Minister himself and his colleagues at that time have done? Do hon. members on that side think that if we had conscription in 1939 the right way to have handled the hon. the Prime Minister would have been to put him in gaol for eight years? Is that what hon. members are suggesting would have been a wise way to handle a sensitive situation? Do hon. members on that side believe that Prime Minister Smuts was wrong not to have conscription in 1939?

The circumstances were different.

Of course the circumstances were different in certain respects, but I think it does give some perspective.

The hon. the Minister appointed a committee to look into this matter. I do not doubt the integrity or intentions of the gentlemen who served on that committee, but if one looks at the committee one sees that three SADF chaplains, all from the Reformed churches, served on it. There was nobody from the so-called English-language churches on that committee. There was also a law officer on that committee.

In my view a committee of that sort was unsuited to investigate this matter. They had little personal experience within their church lives because of their churches’ doctrines and because those people who have had the problems do not belong to their churches. So I think they were inappropriate investigators. We have heard the claim that gentlemen from those churches represent more than 50% of the people in the Defence Force. I believe to talk in terms of them representing the majority, in relation to this matter, is irrelevant. It is like saying we appoint five men to investigate the conditions of work of women in the Defence Force and then say that the commission represented more than 90% of the Defence Force. Obviously they were unable to represent the views of objectors and they did not have experience of them. Unfortunately the bad start made by that investigation is now reflected in this Bill.

It has been recognized that this Bill does contain some improvement. For example, the option of community service is recognized for the first time and secondly, the tenets of the individual and not necessarily that of his church, can be considered. But as a whole this Bill is a heavy-handed attempt to intimidate and to persecute. Clause after clause contains provisions that deny elementary justice to the individual and prescribes horrendous penalties.

Let us look at the question of the limitation of objections to religious grounds. I do not believe it is morally or logically justifiable. Non-religious people can be equally sincere in having objections based on moral and ethical beliefs. The hon. member for Durban Point during the course of his speech said that the NRP supports religious objection to military service but not conscientious objection. Further on in his speech he said that he found it difficult to understand how one could have ethical or moral standards if they are not built upon a religious basis. That is probably a perfectly honest statement, and I accept it as such. But I would suggest that it shows ignorance. The churches themselves do not agree with him, and I want to give hon. members just two examples. The Presbyterian Church says the following in terms of who should qualify—

So they give their view and also a certain justification for it. The Anglican Church Synod passed a resolution, which is very long, but in it they said the following—

It furthermore “regards as inadequate any provision of National Service which is not available to all conscientious objectors, whether or not it is upon moral, ethical and/or religious basis upon which such objection is made”. These are the views of two denominations. They accept that there are grounds that do not need to be based on religious belief. I am no theologian, but I think the hon. member for Durban Point might concede that perhaps the churches have a better view of what could be religiously based.

In terms of what he was talking about I might also mention that there have been some people in history such as Jean-Paul Savtre, Socrates and Plato—of whom the hon. member may or may not have heard—who also had certain pacifist views that were not based on religious belief. In this sense I believe that a Select Committee could possibly not only help us reach consensus, but could in fact be educative for some members.

I believe there are no grounds for granting limited privileges for the religious as a justification for intensifying the persecution of others. This unjustified discrimination must go, and I do not accept that it is any more difficult to ask a man in a tribunal or a board the reasons or the basis on which he has moral or ethical problems as opposed to a man who has religious problems. The one may produce his Bible and extract the excerpts which he supported and another man may bring some other learned work which—he says—sets out the philosophy that he has.

By what yardstick do you measure morality? [Interjections.]

You have no morality.

Order! The hon. member for Greytown must withdraw those words.

I withdraw those words, Sir.

The hon. member can read from what I read about the comments of the Presbyterian Church. It sets out fairly fully how you can do that.

Let us have a look at these board hearings. They are to be held behind closed doors. The individual there has no legal representation; there is no publication of the proceedings and there is no appeal against the decision. Let us consider the circumstances. We are not talking about a debate between university professors. We are talking, very often, about a 17 to 19 year old boy. He is sitting there and facing, unaided, six highly qualified adults adept in various fields. He is not accompanied by anybody—not a parent, a friend, a lawyer or a minister of religion. He is at the mercy of the board and nobody will ever know what happened inside there when a decision is made. In addition, that young man sitting there, if he holds very strong beliefs, faces the possibility of eight years in gaol.

Is that a fair hearing for a young person? I say it is not. The proposed system reeks of injustice. It is structured for intimidation and covering up rather than giving young people a fair chance to explain their religious conviction.

I want also to refer briefly to the penalties.

There are many of them that are problematical, but I would like to focus on two. Firstly there is the eight years continuous community service for certain categories of religious objectors. A lot has been said about the words of the hon. member for Wynberg, and I will quote them—

Various people have taken exception to that, including the hon. member for Durban Point. He said, amongst other things—

That is an interesting comparison. When the hon. member for Wynberg likened this to slave labour, he was using it in a metaphorical sense.

It was a caucus decision.

The hon. member for Durban Point must bear in mind the fact that going to boarding school is a voluntary decision by the parents. [Interjections.] That person enjoys school holidays and the activities there are prescribed in a number of ways. I would suggest that a person who finds himself in this situation has more in common with a banned person in South Africa than he would have with a person in boarding school.

What rights does the person who is doing the eight years’ community service have left? I challenge hon. members opposite to tell us what rights such a person has left. The proposed new section 72G covers all aspects of the conditions of employment. It covers remuneration, board and lodging and, the use of official transport. It removes his rights in almost every sphere. It can also remove his rights in regard to the exemption of the department, institution or body where he is working, from liability. He also has to register. All aspects of clothing and equipment are also determined. In terms of the proposed new paragraph (i) the State President may make regulations relating to the application of any law to community service or any matter in connection therewith whereas the proposed new paragraphs (j) and (k) make up all the rest, namely—

1. (j) All matters which in terms of this Act shall or may be prescribed;
2. (k) generally, all matters which he may deem necessary or expedient to prescribe in order to achieve the aims of this section, …

The proposed new section 72H then goes on to limit his political activities as well as what he may publish and what may have been published before.

May I ask a question? [Interjections.]

No. It simply amounts to total control by the State of such person during his period of community service. Some of these provisions do not apply to the Public Service and neither do they apply to Permanent Force members nor national servicemen. Some of them do not even apply to banned persons.

Banning has been described as civil death. The hon. member for Wynberg described conditions in regard to the period of eight years of community service as being able to be likened, in terms of these regulations, to slave labour. I believe that that is a valid metaphorical analogy. The objector is stripped of virtually all his rights while he is being forced to render service in terms of this section.

What is more, the intended eight years’ imprisonment for all objectors other than those on religious grounds is in my opinion unbelievably harsh. Both of these penalties are unnecessarily severe because these are people who are not criminals. As far as the university graduate is concerned who is a sincere conscientious objector on moral or ethical grounds, this Government wishes to gaol him for eight years. This Government wishes to wipe out his life until he is 30 years old. This is iniquitous and will spell disaster for many individuals. Most people who hold these views will of course leave the country as symbols of the Government’s intolerance. South Africa will therefore lose many fine young men, often educated at great expense to the State and often young men of great talent and character.

This Bill has been described as repression in the guise of reform. If the Government seriously wishes us to accept the fact that it is trying to find solutions, then this Bill must be referred to a Select Committee before Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens expressed serious misgivings at the fact that there is no voluntary national service system in South Africa. He has objections to a compulsory military service system. It is very clear that the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens—and I think to a certain extent even the hon. member for Wynberg as well—does not understand the nature and magnitude of the specific war being waged against the Republic. It is alleged that for every terrorist who is sent into the field, one needs at least 10 men to confine that bush war to a specific place, and that is very conservatively reckoned. Consequently, if we were to apply the system which the hon. member for Wynberg advocated here, of having a Permanent Force instead of the national service system, then one would have to expand one’s Permanent Force to such an extent that virtually every available man would have to serve in that Permanent Force in order to wage that bush war effectively. Two years ago the hon. member for Wynberg complained about the Defence budget which escalated every year. I wonder what the Defence budget would look like then.

The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens expressed misgivings at the work done by the committee of the S. A. Defence Force which investigated this entire matter. To his way of thinking, the committee was not competent to carry out the task. However, the members who served on that committee were people who had had years of practical experience of religious objectors. I think that if ever there were suitable people to carry out an investigation in this connection, they were the members of that committee. We on this side of the House wish to thank them for the excellent work they did. The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens also objected strenuously to the possibility that some people were going to be stripped of all rights for eight years. In this connection I have only one question to ask: What rights does any person who has been killed in a war have left? No rights at all. These eight years should in fact be seen against the risk which a person incurs of being killed in a war, and I think that if one does so, then these eight years are not as terrible as the hon. member made them out to be.

In the glorious days of the Roman Empire there was a certain Maximilian who refused point-blank to do any military service. He motivated his refusal as follows: I cannot be a soldier. I cannot commit myself to this evil because I am a Christian. Almost 2 000 years later, this Maximilian is held up as a prototype for military service evasion in South Africa by no less a person than a well-known military service evader whose name has already been mentioned in this House this afternoon. He did so in a pamphlet which he distributed among students at the University of Cape Town. The pamphlet is entitled “Selective conscientious objection—the non-combatancy option and the disobedience option”. I shall come back to this pamphlet later.

The fact of the matter is that it was for a specific reason, because of his Christian convictions, that Maximilian did not see his way clear to discharging military obligations. Military obligations in the Roman Empire were very closely associated with emperor worship, with idolatry. There was a direct link between idolatry and compulsory military service; hence Maximilian’s attitude. Surely that is not the situation in South Africa. However, I shall leave the matter at that. The fact of the matter is that Maximilian may be regarded as the father of absolute pacifism, which began to gain ground strongly at the beginning of the 20th century in particular. Here in South Africa this absolute pacifism also has its adherents. In order to make a better arrangement for these people, the Bill now provides for alternative community service which has nothing to do with military obligations.

I want to make it clear—here I wish to associate myself with other members who have already mentioned this—that I do not think that, even on Scriptural grounds, a case can be made out for absolute pacifism based on religious convictions. In this connection I also wish to refer to the Bible and to a portion of the Scriptures which the hon. member for Yeoville has also quoted. One finds in the Scriptures precepts for war, warfare laws—one does not find laws and precepts in the Bible to commit murder or theft. One does find them for waging war. I think an argument may be made out that war per se is not contrary to the principles of Scripture. In these laws for warfare one may in specific circumstances be exempted from compulsory military service. I quote—

And then—

The point I want to make—and this is interesting—is that certain grounds are mentioned here on which one may be exempted from military service. However, no religious, political, ethical or moral grounds whatsoever are mentioned. The fact that this legislation does in fact make provision for absolute pacifism, should in my opinion be seen as a good testimonial to religious freedom in South Africa. South Africa has not merely written the words “religious freedom” into its Constitution Act.

I am also convinced that since what we are still concerned with is the bona fide religious objector, the instruments which are going to be brought into existence to assess the genuineness of these religious objectors will function very well indeed. Objections have been raised from various quarters to the composition of the board for religious objectors. The hon. member for Jeppe thinks that the theologians who will serve on the board will be too soft. The hon. member for Wynberg, on the other hand, thinks that the theologians who will serve on the board will be too hard.

I did not say that.

The hon. member for Edenvale alleged that these theologians would be incapable. If the point of departure is religious objection, then theologians are pre-eminently suited to pass judgment in that regard.

I agree with you.

I am pleased that the hon. member for Jeppe agrees with me.

I think this board will prevent two things in particular. I think that on the one hand it will prevent a rush to join church groups or church societies whose articles of faith are opposed to compulsory military service. Admittedly, the number of religious objectors at present is not high, as has also been said. It was two per 1 000 in 1977, and 2,6 per 1 000 in 1981. Now, it has already reached-my ears that persons who are liable to compulsory military service who are following this matter with interest, are saying that they will simply join a church which makes provision for this and sever their ties with that church afterwards. Perhaps one should just inform them of the real facts. I want to explain the matter on the basis of an example. In West Germany one does not contribute voluntarily to the church. This is deducted from a person’s salary by the State and then distributed pro rata. The only way of avoiding this deduction is to declare that one is an atheist. Now there has been a remarkable growth in the number of atheists in West Germany. The very fact that at least four theologians will serve on the board for religious objectors will frustrate this possibility. On the other hand, however, I am also convinced that it will not Unnecessarily disqualify a person from coming into consideration as a religious objector.

There is unanimity in this House on the fact that allowance is being made in good faith for religious objectors. However, there is no unanimity on the fact that this concession is not being extended. There are people who say that this concession should also be extended to people who, on the basis of their religious convictions, do not see their way clear to particpating in a specific war. This argument has been developed in particular by theologians of the theological faculty of the University of the Western Cape. I think we should deal with this. The argument goes as follows: If one refuses to afford a person an opportunity to refuse on the grounds of his religious conviction to participate in a specific war, one is in fact making a form of State absolutism an integral part of the legislation. The argument continues that a principle which forms the basis of a law should be able to apply universally. Consequently the principle should be able to apply under all circumstances to all people in all countries. Then one eventually reaches a position where, for argument’s sake, a Christian will not have the right to refuse to do military service in a communist country. I do not know whether one can simply accept that a Christian has the right to refuse to do military service even in a communist state, and I know that I am skating on thin ice here. When Paul called upon the Roman congregation to obey the state, he was not calling on them to obey a Christian institution. Not at all. The hon. member for Yeoville referred to this, and I want to associate myself with it. Citizenship implies privileges and protection, but citizenship also entails responsibilities. One cannot enjoy the privileges of citizenship and evade the responsibilities.

Therefore I cannot agree that one can simply say that a Christian can refuse to do military service under certain circumstances. In this connection I also wish to refer to David. He went to seek protection among the Philistines in his struggle against Saul. Then war broke out between the Philistines and Israel, and who took to the field with the Philistines against the Israelites? The very same David, and if it had not been that the Philistines distrusted him, he would have taken part in that battle. However, I shall say nothing further about this.

I want to come back now to the other part of the argument. I do not think it is necessary that a law which applies in one country should inevitably apply under all circumstances in other countries as well. I think legislation relates to a specific situation. And what is the specific situation in South Africa? Surely we do not have a godless régime in power in this country, which with its armies wishes to enforce atheism or oppress Christians. Surely the opposite is true, and it has been demonstrated here. Surely South Africa is the target of Soviet imperialism. Surely there are people here who wish to overthrow the existing order and establish a Marxistic régime here. Surely this is true; surely it is a fact. Surely a Defence Force is essential in order to combat this violent onslaught. I think we should get away from this one-sided idea that one can also combat communism in a non-violent way. One cannot. By virtue of their ideology all changes which they envisage must take place through violent means. Therefore one must also have an instrument such as a Defence Force to meet this violent onslaught that is being made against one with violence. Therefore, if we were to make an element of voluntariness an integral part of our Defence Force, we shall be bringing our Defence Force to its knees. I do not think the question is whether this legislation should apply everywhere, but whether the application of this legislation in South Africa can pass the test of justice and of Christianity. To that my reply is an unequivocal “Yes”.

There is another group which maintains that a person should also have the right, on the grounds of his Christian convictions, or on the grounds of his ethical convictions, or moral convictions, to refuse to participate in the South African war because this situation in South Africa is a situation of injustice. If one wishes to use justice or injustice in a community as a criterion or to serve as a touchstone for participation in a war which affects that community, it will be possible for anyone to prove that he did not participate in that war. Surely there is no such thing as a perfect community. Let me illustrate this relativism or subjectivism on the basis of two extreme cases, just to demonstrate to hon. members that people of the so-called rightwing spectrum and people of the so-called left-wing spectrum both, on the grounds of their Christian consciences, depict this community as being an unjust community. During a political meeting held in Pretoria by the CP, during question time, the female leader of a certain commando rose and said: “Any true Christian ought to object to doing compulsory military service under Mr. P. W. Botha”. Then, on the opposite side of the spectrum, I want to quote from this pamphlet what I have already quoted here in the words of a military service evader, who said—

Personally, of course, I find this far-fetched, Mr. Speaker. The argument I wish to develop, however, is that when a person wishes to use the justice or the injustice of a specific community as a criterion for the concession of refusing to perform military service, we will all find a way out. We should not create a loophole in our legislation for people who, in the name of religion, in the name of morality, in the name of ethics, in the name of conscience, or in the name of anything under the sun, wishes to demolish this existing order. Surely we are aware that this is happening.

No one is demolishing things in this country more drastically than the NP itself!

I only hope that everything which is demolished by the NP, will look like the hon. member for Bryanston. Surely that will be the most conclusive proof to us of the exceptional success which the NP has achieved. [Interjections.]

Unfortunately it is true that there are church organizations in South Africa which have already committed themselves to the so-called freedom struggle in South Africa. This was pointed out by the hon. member for Helderkruin. Surely it is also true that church organizations in South Africa have gone even further. One such church organization has even committed itself openly to the establishment of a classless society in South Africa as the only guarantee of human rights. Surely it is also true that a church organization has also committed itself to violence in order to establish that classless society in this country. Therefore I wish to emphasize that if one ventures into the sphere where one simply begins to apply alternative grounds, apart from bona fide religious grounds, arbitrarily as a reason for refusing to do compulsory military service, one is going to regret it.

Lenin said religion was a very important breeding-ground for communism because religious people believed anything provided it was offered in the name of religion. That is why one should be careful of things of this nature.

In conclusion, I just wish to make one further remark. There is a tendency among certain church groups to choose violence as a last-ditch possibility; violence then as a counter to what they consider to be the existing structural violence in South Africa. They wish to employ violence as a final option. Seen from my point of view, surely this final option has not yet arrived. Surely it is true that progress is being made in South Africa, also in the sphere of political rights for the Black population groups. Surely it is true that the NP is also leading the Black peoples to self-government and to independence. Surely the aim is also a confederation of Southern Africa. It is therefore not necessary to employ this final option of violence.

We on this side of the House fully support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker I want to begin by referring to the hon. member for Berea who said this afternoon that someone who objects to national service can exercise one of two options. He can choose whether he wants to go and sit in gaol for eight years or whether he wants to leave the country. I want to put it to the hon. member for Berea that such a person also has a third choice. He also has the choice of rendering a service to South Africa. If such a person wants to render a service to South Africa and does not in any way want to handle a rifle, he can go and peel potatoes and in that way see to it that those who are prepared to go and fight for this country have enough to eat. That man can also offer his services to South Africa by working in an office. I think that anyone who lives in this country and who shares in the fat of the land, also has the task of helping to defend the country; even if it is in another field.

They can, for example, plant potatoes.

It is a pity that we have to conduct a debate lasting 12 hours in this House because we have a party here who that intercedes for those who want to evade national service. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is an hon. member allowed to say that there are hon. members here who intercede for those who want to evade national service? [Interjections.]

Order! Could the hon. member for Kuruman please tell us what he meant by that?

I say that the PFP intercedes for those who want to evade national service. The argument of that party is throughout that not only religious objections should be valid, but that other conscientious objections should also be taken into account in order not to have compulsory national service in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a further point of order: If we on this side of the House were to intercede for the military service evades we would be advocating the contravention of the Act, and that we may not do. The hon. member must therefore withdraw those words.

Order! Was that the intention of the hon. member for Kuruman? Was the implication that that party is advocating that people should contravene laws?

No, that was not the intention. [Interjections.] What I meant is that that party creates the impression that they are interceding for people who want to evade national service. [Interjections.]

It is the same thing.

Order! I think the hon. member should rather withdraw those words.

I withdraw the words, Sir. [Interjections.] It is a pity that we should have to talk about such a subject for such a long time. We should rather talk about the young men, young national servicemen who are prepared to sacrifice two years of their lives to go and fight for South Africa, to go and stand watch on the borders of the Republic of South Africa where there are people who want to cause the downfall of the existing order of the White nation here at the southernmost point of Africa.

The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens says that South Africa is going to lose outstanding people as a result of this measure because they will leave the country. It is exactly the same kind of thing the hon. member for Berea said, namely that one of the options was to leave the country. It would be a pity if this were to be the case.

They are doing it already.

The hon. member for Hillbrow says that there are people who are doing it already. [Interjections.] If there are people who are doing it, we can only say good riddance.

The speakers of the CP have already made it clear that we support the underlying principle of this Bill and that we are also opposed to the amendment of the PFP. Now that numerous speakers have already taken part in the debate, the real point at issue has emerged clearly. The point at issue is not so much the position of the religious objector. In principle there is no fundamental difference in this regard. All the political parties in this House agree in principle on that. The real point at issue is whether the Bill should also be extended so that provision will not only be made for religious objectors, but for conscientious objectors as well. On this issue the CP has already stated its view very clearly. We reject the idea of making provision for conscientious objectors. In this regard the hon. member for Koedoespoort has already made a valuable contribution. In my view the most general so-called conscientious objector is a person who is in fact a chancer. For his own reasons he does not want to do compulsory military service. He is looking for an excuse so he hides behind his so-called conscience in an attempt to evade national service. [Interjections.] If his obejction cannot be traced back to the Creator I do not think that there should be any scope allowing an objector to evade compulsory military service. The board which has to consider the applications of religious objectors is not regarded by us as some kind of interrogation board. We see the proceedings rather as a kind of fraternal conversation between six sympathetic members who talk informally and in depth about the applicant. Four of them are theologians who, together with the chairman who is a judge, will surely merely be seeking the truth. We believe that it is a wonderful method of trying to establish the truth under these circumstances. The policy of the CP differs fundamentally from that of the PFP and under those circumstances we agree with the principle of religious objectors and we also agree that no provision should be made for ordinary conscientious objectors.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, we have almost reached the end of a very long debate. We have listened attentively to all the speeches that were made. If we want to be honest with ourselves, I must say that as far as the official Opposition was concerned, it was not clear at all what case they were trying to make out. We are grateful that the CP and NRP agree with us. If one conducts such a long debate, one would like to make out a case with those who differ with you. As far as the NP is concerned, the case before the House was stated very clearly and plainly, but the official Opposition was not sure about its own case at all. They floundered about around the amendment to have the Bill referred to a Select Committee before the Second Reading. We listened to a few shocking remarks, such as those made by the hon. member for Wynberg who tried to delve into the past and wanted to associate slavery with this legislation. We obtained nothing constructive at all from that side.

The phenomenon of resistance to compulsory military service on the grounds of religious objections is something one does not wish to skim over lightly, precisely because it affects a person in the depth of his being, viz. his religion, and because we in South Africa accept and recognize religious freedom. Consequently it is important that this aspect should be dealt with very carefully and correctly. Any law which is made should recognize religious freedom and should also be aimed at averting the abuse of religious objections. With that I mean that one cannot allow any objection to be elevated into a religious objection for the sole purpose of being able to evade military service in that way. Consequently when we talk about religion, we mean the Christian religion, that for which we as a nation and each one of us individually has the greatest respect. Therefore we are not indifferent to any person’s religion.

What is the essence of Christendom? It is not a dogma, an ideology, an ethical movement or a philosophical system. The Christendom includes all of these things, but its essence is not situated in any of these things. The contents of the essence of Chritendom is situated in the religion which we are concerned with, the religion which is situated in the person, God in human shape, viz. in the avowal of Chirst. For this we have respect. For that reason we must be careful when a person says that he refuses to take up arms on the grounds of his religion. On the other hand, arguments against compulsory military service on the grounds of religious objections could multiply and arguments of this kind could gradually assume the form of agitation. Individuals are usually encouraged in such cases to object to compulsory military service and to accept the consequences of their action.

Last year legislation was passed in terms of which every White male person up to the age of 55 years was liable to render military service. The intention with that legislation was to impose a fair national service burden on everyone and now one should guard against creating an opportunity for people to evade or abuse this obligation. That is why the legislation which we are now dealing with is aimed at affording people with religious objections an opportunity, by means of some form of community service or other, to bear the same burden as all other citizens. The legislation is aimed at making this enforceable. It is necessary to guard against the sickly view that we are now allegedly punishing people because of their religious convictions. On the contrary, the intention is in fact to recognize a person’s religion and to afford him an opportunity to render his service in some other way. Consequently, penalties prescribed in the Bill are not penalties which can be imposed upon a person because he holds certain religious views, but—and here we must be very specific about this—because he refuses to perform a community service. The issue here is the utilization of manpower, and to give everyone an equal chance to serve.

When we talk about the use of manpower in the S.A. Defence Force, we must view this matter against the background of the real threat to the RSA, which we are discerning more clearly all the time. If all of us, all the inhabitants of this country, are not seriously conscious of the reality or think that our military preparedness against foreign onslaughts is not of the utmost importance to our country, then we are making a grave error, an error which we will never be able to rectify. If we do not win the present struggle, we will not be given a chance to recover and try again. The individual remains the most important component of the Defence Force. The manpower needs of the S.A. Defence Force are measured against the inputs which are necessary to cope with the threat, i.e. the number of people who are available at a given juncture to deal with the circumstances. That is why it is necessary, at any given juncture, to have the correct numerical strength available. Consequently, to satisfy everyone and to ensure that the abuse of objections will not cause resistance to build up among other people, we are creating opportunities for religious objectors to render community service. In this way the manpower shortage, which arises because of the withdrawal of manpower from other sectors, is being supplemented, which in its turn ensures that economic activities can function normally. Everyone in the RSA ought to be given an equal opportunity to bear the burden of compulsory military service. One cannot say that the burdens and costs should simply be borne by others. We must all share in the only chance we have to fight and to be victorious. We can safeguard this country for ourselves and ensure a good future for our children. This legislation is aimed at creating stability in the manpower needs of the S.A. Defence Force.

It is true that the S.A. Defence Force intervenes and has to intervene on a large scale to obtain the necessary manpower from the economic sector. We cannot afford our people to be detained unproductively in detention barracks. I believe that with this legislation in respect of religious objectors we are going out of our way to accommodate them in such a way that they will not be detained, but will be capable of rendering service in a non-combatant capacity. Where will one find a Government which is so thoughtful as to accommodate people by relieving them of war duty and affording them an opportunity to render other service? Any person who refuses to render such service, one may justifiably say, is not concerned about the RSA’s welfare or its safe continued existence.

It is pleasant to support this legislation, which has been very well elucidated from the NP side.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat covered the same ground as that covered by his colleagues. I shall therefore reply to him on that basis in due course.

Mr. Speaker, one does not have to be a pacifist or a conscientious objector oneself in order to have a tolerant attitude towards those who are pacifists or conscientious objectors.

Are you tolerant of the terrorists too?

As a political party, one does not have to adopt an attitude of pacifism in any way in order to advocate and argue that wise and practical laws should be framed in order to deal sensibly with the issue of conscientious objections which is an issue in most countries of the world. It is our conviction that religion cannot be seen as the only ground for conscientious objection. We do not accept the fact that religion is the sole custodian of morality in this world. We believe it is totally wrong to attempt to argue as hon. members opposite have attempted to argue, in a most unpersuasive way, that moral and ethical objections from secular individuals are somehow unacceptable whereas similar moral and ethical objections from religious people are suddenly acceptable.

On a group basis.

If that is the only test of the hon. member for Durban North then he is on very shaky ground. [Interjections.] He has never moved off shaky ground. It is our belief that both religious and secular individuals are equally entitled to hold strong ethical and moral beliefs sincerely and with a conviction that should be respected.

Based on political grounds.

I shall deal with the hon. member for Durban Point later. Would anyone care to argue that a world renowned philosopher like Bertrand Russell who was a pacifist and who was gaoled during the First World War, a man who was a universal pacifist and whose beliefs were rooted in secular philsophy, was somehow less deserving than a person who argued to the same conclusion but who based his methodology and his reasoning on secular rather than ecclesiastical grounds? I cannot accept that dichotomy. This side of the House has not been persuaded that that dichotomy should be accepted. Not a single good argument has been advanced in that regard and the churches themselves do not accept that dichotomy. That is a point that this House must bear in mind.

Which churches? Name them. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. member for Constantia the opportunity to complete his speech.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer to an article that appeared in the Sunday Tribune last Sunday in which it is stated specifically—

Therefore, if the churches themselves are saying this, on what grounds do the NP argue otherwise? [Interjections.] The only argument that hon. members opposite advanced—and it is not a philosophical argument but a political one—was advanced inter alia by the hon. member for Helderkruin, who is not in the House at the moment. He said that we cannot open this door even a little to non-religious objectors because hordes of people would then try to get through the loophole. [Interjections.] I ask that hon. member: What kind of confidence does he have in his cause and in his support from the electorate if he can say that opening a loophole to pacifists is going to open a loophole for hordes of people to slip through?

May I ask a question?

No, I do not have the time to answer questions.

Gen. Smuts in the Second World War had far more confidence in his cause than it seems today that party has. Gen. Botha in the First World War equally had more confidence. The hon. member for Kroonstad said that that was different—those were two wars on another continent. I ask the hon. member for Kroonstad—any hon. member can answer on his behalf—because he said this was a “oorlewingstryd”, whether the Boer War was a “oorlewingstryd”. That was a war fought on this soil.

That was an unjust war.

The hon. members are “tjoepstil” now.

You are asking us questions now but you are not prepared to answer questions. [Interjections.]

I want to point out to the hon. members on that side of the House that Pres. Kruger himself did not need to force people into his commandos. The people came. He was confident in his cause. Not only that, but the people who joined the commandos of Pres. Kruger were free to come and go. They used to go back to their farms. They were also free to leave a particular commando and to join any other commando. [Interjections.]

Order!

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

No, because I do not have enough time. The hon. Chief Whip should give me some of the time of his side.

Let us turn away from South Africa and let us consider examples elsewhere in the world. The hon. member for Durban Point argued the position of the USA. He quoted from an article—I have his Hansard here—

I believe he tried to give the House the impression that the position in the USA was that only religious objectors would be acknowledged.

I said before the court case.

What he failed to say was in that same article … [Interjections.] In that same article it is stated—

Had he been a lawyer he could have been struck off the roll. [Interjections.]

Federal law recognized two different types of conscientious objectors and those are still recognized today—non-combatants and non-militants. While I am busy with the hon. member for Durban Point, let me say that he made a remark during yesterday’s debate, and again I have his Hansard—

[Interjections.]

Order!

It is the kind of comment one expects from the lowest, thickest, most irresponsible elements of society …

Read the whole sentence.

… and not from the leader of a parliamentary party. That hon. member should be ashamed of himself.

Let us consider the example of another country. Let us consider West Germany. West Germany is a country which has a hot border with the Warsaw pact countries. They have the Russian Bear glaring down at them, but what do they do in West Germany?

Are they waging war in West Germany?

They have nuclear war hanging over them.

Are they waging war? Do you not know?

Order!

Is the hon. member afraid of the example of West Germany? Article 2 of the basic law of West Germany adopted in 1949 declares—

There is nothing about religion—it is a straightforward matter of conscience. Then we can take the example of Australia. Subsections (4) and (5) of section 29A of the Australian National Service Act according to my information provide that—

So we see that some major Western countries have tackled this matter in a sensible way. They have not arrived at the dichotomy the Government is attempting to suggest exists here. We see no grounds whatsoever to accept that dichotomy.

Now will you answer my question? Do you accept political objectors?

Order! Does the hon. member for Durban Point want to put a question?

Yes, Sir.

In that case the hon. member must stand up and ask the hon. member for Constantia whether he is prepared to answer a question. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question? [Interjections.]

No, Sir.

Why not?

That hon. member is disgraceful. [Interjections.]

There is another matter I should like to touch on, and that is the question of mercenaries. This Bill serves to prohibit SADF personnel from serving as mercenaries and to prohibit the recruitment of SADF personnel to serve as mercenaries. I want to say that this does not go far enough at all. It does not prevent another Mike Hoare from doing his thing and recruiting among the general public outside of the SADF.

Or another NRP candidate from doing his thing.

They pay for their votes.

Order! Hon. members of the official Opposition must not interrupt the hon. member for Constantia. [Interjections.]

Thank you, Sir. The biggest problem we have had with mercenaries in recent times—it was a grave embarrassment to this country—was in the Seychelles affair. That mercenary force was recruited by Col. Hoare who is outside of the SADF. He recruited people from inside and outside the SADF and left South Africa with his whole squad under false pretences, taking with him dangerous weapons—and we still do not know where those weapons came from.

We do.

They went to interfere in the affairs of another country. This Bill does not prevent that from happening again. It only prevents recruitment amongst members of the Force. That is unacceptable. If one is not going to stop Mike Hoare, how is one going to stop Eugene Terre’Blanche from setting up a private army and running amuck?

The other thing the Bill does not do is that it does not prevent the SADF itself from recruiting mercenaries from all around the world. Africa has had too much of mercenaries. For 22 years they have popped up all over and caused trouble. They popped up in the Congo and in many other countries. We do not need them. We do not need them in our Forces. We hear of Vietnam vets, on the market. We hear of ex-Rhodesians on the market, ex-Angolans and ex-Northern Irish all prepared to be gun-happy and sell themselves for a price. We hope that the hon. the Minister will clarify this matter. It is a serious matter. It would be extremely dangerous and undesirable and a declaration of a complete lack of faith in the cause we are fighting for if we need to go out and buy our soldiers on the world market. We cannot see any advantage in not closing that door completely. We want nothing to do with mercenaries.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a tremendous amount of noise. I tried to listen through my earphone, but I was unable to hear which hon. member of the official Opposition was speaking.

I shall refer to some of the matters raised here by the hon. member for Constantia. I just want to begin by referring to a remark he made at the outset. The way in which he did so will not please the majority of hon. members in this House. What he said was that he did not accept that religion was the only custodian of the world. I want to ask him in a friendly way to be careful. The majority of hon. members in this House accept that God—I am now referring to the triune God—is, for the Christians here, really the custodian of the whole world for all people.

I now turn to a second aspect. The hon. member was angry with the the hon. member for Helderkruin for having supposedly advanced the only argument as to why a distinction should be drawn between religious objectors and conscientious objectors.

[Inaudible.]

I cannot hear what the hon. member for Bryanston is saying and I prefer not to hear him. I do not have the Hansard of the hon. member for Helderkruin before me, but if I understood him correctly—and I took this matter up with him after his speech—the objection he advanced here was that opening the way for conscientious objectors created just that further possibility, that loophole for conscientious objectors to make the jump to selective pacifism, in other words, the selective war. The hon. member had better go and read what the hon. member said; then he can discuss the matter with him again. I want to ask that hon. member: What is he really doing now? He has not told us where he stands. He argued with us about several matters but he did not state his standpoint. He took great care to avoid stating his party’s standpoint. I want to ask him whether he associates himself with the hon. member for Berea in terms of the question put to him by the hon. member for Helderkruin. Does he share the ideas of the hon. member for Berea or does he stand by what the first speakers on that side of the House had to say about this Bill at the beginning of the discussion?

Of course.

I am not speaking to the hon. member for Wynberg now. I shall deal with him in due course. The hon. member for Constantia is not saying a word now. An extremely difficult time is awaiting the hon. members on that side of the House. They know what that involves. They recall the struggle they had at their congress concerning this very point. However, the hon. member has now once again fired the first shots in that battle. I want to tell those hon. members that the issue on which they differ here is a matter of principle. It is truly a matter of principle. I predict that at its next congress that party will not survive this point of contention.

I also just want to react briefly to the argument relating to mercenaries. We can discuss that during the Committee Stage. In any event, as formulated in clause 15 of the Bill, this involves at this stage every male person between the ages of 18 and 55 years. Now, I do not know whether the hon. member is concerned about the female person as a mercenary or about people outside these age groups. However, we can debate the matter further during the Committee Stage.

For my part, let me just say here and now that I understand the problem of the hon. members of the official Opposition, and I am now referring to the conservative wing. I regret to have to put it like this, but it is only in order to deal with a group, viz. the hon. member for Wynberg, the hon. member for Yeoville, the hon. member for Edenvale and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I understand their problem because I can also understand—and I think that we on this side of the House also understand it—that it is really difficult from the point of view of a Christian philosphy to distinguish between the man who says that he is a religious objector but that he worships a God who, according to the theology in which I believe and which I preach, too, is a deity that he has in fact created from himself, while the other man with the conscientious objection can indeed endure considerable qualms of conscience. I can understand this, with reference too, to the Welsh case which the hon. member for Edenvale referred to. However, it has on several occasions been said on this side of the House that it is difficult to draw that distinction in terms of the test. And it is a valid test. Indeed, in the USA the law stipulates that only religious objectors are recognized. It is the court that extended this in its interpretation.

There is a second reason, and I think it is in fact the valid reason, and that is that we have evidence that to date, the pacifist who has applied for exemption on conscientious grounds has not yet appeared as a phenomenon in this country, has not yet come to the fore. Therefore we are in fact arguing about an idea. Against this background this would mean—and I want to place the greatest emphasis on this point, because I want to base my argument on this—that in fact we have reached agreement on the principle of this matter as far as accommodating the religious objector is concerned. Against the same background it is also, I believe, unnecessary to comply with the request to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. It is indeed true that the debate we are conducting about the religious objector, the conscientious objector and the pacifist is not the full debate. The debate in progress outside, which is attracting a great deal of publicity, is in fact the debate we are conducting with hon. members like the hon. member for Berea and the hon. member for Constantia. It is the debate on whether those who are unable to support this specific war, purely on conscientious grounds, should not also be accommodated. That is the real debate.

In this regard I can also refer to the evidence of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North in the case against Peter Richard Hathorn, the report of which we read in today’s newspapers. As far as I know, this is the first time that religious conviction has been directly involved in a debate in this House as a concept, as theological argument. What is significant, however—and I want to emphasize this—is that it is also being involved in legislation on defence. Against this background and against the background that we have in fact reached agreement on this principle which we must put forward here, we have here the opportunity to convey a tremendously positive testimony from this House. This occasion which certain hon. members did, it is true, try to utilize, almost passed us by, particularly during today’s debate. I want to state that against the background of what we suspected happened when the debate began, we thought that we could leave here in agreement on the relationship between church and State. I believe that the majority of hon. members accept that government is an institution of God, that it is He who has clothed that office with authority, but that the wielder of authority is also charged with ruling justly over all his subjects. To be able to do this, to be able to comply with this directive, this duty, he must be entitled, and is indeed obliged, to protect the integrity of his jurisdiction—in other words, State security.

In addition, as the Government, he also has the task, due to the fact that he has to govern justly, to consider and deal with the unjust situation. However, this is a choice which has to be made from moment to moment. It is certainly a difficult choice. It is not merely a choice between justice and injustice; it is also a choice between justice and justice and between injustice and injustice. The task entrusted to the Government is a tremendously difficult one.

If there were to be dogmatic guidelines in accordance with which action could be taken summarily, on the basis that everything has been stipulated in advance, then everything would have been terribly easy. However, that is not the case. Therefore it is extremely difficult.

There is another point of departure I want to touch on, a point of departure concerning which many people in this country are mistaken. When I say this I do not wish to refer to specific individuals or groups. The point of departure that we are a Christian country and a Christian people and that for that reason everything will go well with us and everything that we do is right, is a mistaken one. It is by no means true. We have never been a Christian country or a Christian people. There have been many Christians among us, people who, as Christians, have been actively involved in affairs in this country, in various capacities. The Bible teaches us that those who are saved, are few. If we take the Lord at his word, then that is indeed true. However, from here on we must specifically consider the war itself and the debate being conducted here by certain hon. members of the official Opposition.

The hon. member for Wynberg spoke about individuals in this House who supposedly hid behind the shield of the Defence Force, as he put it, for the sake of the status quo. I think that was an unfortunate choice of words. Moreover, it was an extremely unfortunate choice of words on his part to refer to slave labour. That is not the kind of statement I would have expected from the hon. member as I have come to know him personally. I believe, too, that the majority of hon. members on this side of the House would not have expected that of him. I honestly believe that we must give him the opportunity—and if he agrees with this, he must avail himself of it at the earliest opportunity—to stand up here and admit that it was an unfortunate choice of words and that he did not mean it like that. [Interjections.] As regards this situation of war that we are faced with, there is not one of us who stands for the status quo. We do not hide behind the shield to maintain the status quo. After all, the Government has said that it seeks justice, and it has launched various efforts specifically in order to get away from this status quo. There is not a single party in this House—and I include the CP—that wishes to maintain the status quo as such. Therefore I think that that was a very irresponsible remark.

The other problem we have is in fact that all of us—all the hon. members in this House—consider structures when we want to assess the status quo as against the ideal structure. In terms of Plato’s philosophy there is an ideal image and everything that does not measure up to the ideal image, is wrong. That is an un-Christian approach. Personally I think that Plato, and the philosophy he formed in our Western World—his line of thought—is the greatest curse as far as a truly positive life as a Christian is concerned. We must not think in terms of these ideal images. We have to make choices from day to day, from moment to moment. I have also said that the Government has the right to promote State security, to protect the State, but it must also do so in accordance with its directive. It is not merely its right. It is also its duty. If it does so by virtue of that, then it can also lay claim to the obedience of its subjects. In contrast, the church in fact has a prophetic calling. We see this when we read the Bible. At one place or another, every prophet addressed a specific socioeconomic or social evil in the community of which he was a part. For that very reason I ask that we, too, should adopt a positive attitude. We must be able to take cognizance of an honest question. The hon. member for Randfontein referred to the letter from the theologians of the Western Cape which appeared in Die Burger the Friday before last. There, too, we must be prepared to accept that there are indeed honest questions, even that the World Council of Churches and the S.A. Council of Churches, with all the negative motives that are indeed to be found in the major portion of that institution, can also ask an honest question, and that a person like Dr. Allan Boesak can also ask an honest question. Things are not black or white. Things are more complex, things are grey. We must analyse and we must choose.

One of the greatest German theologians of this century, Bonhoeffer, was a man who endured the pangs of problems about which he had to take decisions. The decision he had to take, was whether he should support a specific war effort or not. Not only did Bonhoeffer decide against it, he even decided to become actively and militantly involved in the resistance to national socialism. I do not think we can question his integrity as a Christian in any way. We can differ with him. We can say that we believe he is wrong, but I do not think we can condemn him. After eventually being taken prisoner, this man died shortly before peace was declared. I should just like to quote a piece to indicate what his attitude was, as against the attitude we encounter in the Press. In a journal that he used to keep, Bonhoeffer wrote—

These are words that grip one when one reads them, but at no stage did Bonhoeffer ever doubt the right of the authorities to act.

We can also refer to Calvin, who also teaches us that we must obey the authorities. He adds that there is a point at which we must obey God more than the authorities, the people. At no stage does he question the right of the authorities. Against this background we must also consider whether honest questions cannot be asked by the authority and whether the Government or parties in this House do not have honest and positive standpoints. I want to say to the people who are conducting the debate against us in public that we are prepared to consider whether they have honest questions. Indeed, we are attempting to do so. Moreover, we believe that this is very often the case. A truth does not become an untruth simply because a liberal has uttered it. Therefore we are trying to ascertain the truth. But then they, in turn, must not reject a truth that we are trying to convey simply because it comes from the Government.

So often we speak about a just or an unjust war. Our sons in the operational area must not be taught to hate the enemy, and indeed, they are not so taught. Those of us who often come into contact with those in command will be able to attest to the fact that they are not taught that. Indeed, they are taught to love and to pray for the enemy. Quite honestly, we are not oriented towards making war. Every Christian is a conscientious objector to war. However, we must create the opportunity to serve the right. We are guarding our borders precisely in order to have the opportunity to seek justice.

Against this background I also wish to refer to the image in Revelation 6, the vision of the rider on the white horse with a bow, the rider who holds the crown of victory and who, as the conqueror, rides out to victory. Let us all be honest witnesses. We are not all necessarily in possession of the truth, but no one will be able to say that we tell lies. We must be prepared to speak to one another in a bona fide discussion. I therefore believe that hon. members will understand why it is indeed the principle that only people who are pacifists on the basis of religious objections may be accommodated and why we certainly cannot accommodate the people who oppose this specific war effort for ethical, political reasons.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Randburg will pardon me if I do not react directly to his speech. I shall, however, deal with some of the points he raised in his speech.

However, I should like to refer to remarks made by the hon. member for Constantia.

†The hon. member mentioned that he felt that the hon. leader of this party, the hon. member for Durban Point, should be ashamed. I should like to suggest that if anybody should be ashamed of their actions and of the political remarks they make on sensitive matters, it is the official Opposition. That party cares nothing for the damage that it does, for the results of its announcements and for the language it uses. They are only concerned with their own image and their credibility in the eyes of the Blacks, regardless of the effects it has on South Africa. There are no words that describe that political party other than “political carrion pickers”. They are political scavengers. They revel in scavenging on South Africa’s misfortunes.

I should like to restate the position of this party. Firstly, may I say that by far the strongest motive for the existence of a human community goes back to the need for security against violence. That is the strongest motivating reason for a human community to get together and form a State or an organized body in which they can care for one another. The problem that confronts the religious conscientious objector is the conflict between his duty to the State which involves not only protection from violence but his education, his training and his upbringing in his traditions—in fact, the whole of the moral environment, spiritual and physical, which makes him what he is—and his loyalty to a creed which he believes to have supernatural authority and bids him not to take lives. We on these benches accept that it is not the weak man knowing the right course and being tempted, but rather the strong man torn between the conflicting duties that are at stake. This Bill before us recognizes and accommodates this conflict in a manner which will be even further enhanced by the amendments as printed on the Order Paper in the names of members on these benches. In regard to the amendment appearing in my name I should like to say that I and all the members on these benches feel that every able-bodied man should be prepared to fight for his country. That is the starting point in the question of the defence of a community which gets together with the real motive of counteracting violence. Those who are accommodated on religious grounds by this Bill, should fall into two categories only, the first and most acceptable of which is that of serving in uniform in a non-combatant capacity. That is what real religious objectors should do, people who as a result of their principles and their religious beliefs cannot take lives. We believe that the two categories as reflected in the clauses concerning them should be combined into one category in which service to the community should be rendered in lieu of military service and also that the periods of such community service should be the same. The question of the periods of such service will be dealt with by the leader of my party during the Committee Stage as indicated by the amendments which we propose to move.

We in this party have no illusions about the torrent of misinformation which permeates South Africa regarding the church in the guise of liberation theology, and the efforts to undermine the youth, particularly by the World Council of Churches. Sin is no longer seen as the evil in man’s heart but the evil in man’s world. Change the world, they say, and all men will become good. They do not say change the hearts of men and you will have a better world. Phillip Potter, the General Secretary of the World Council of Churches, said that biblical salvation means liberation from political, economic, racial, social and male oppression. It is from there that human rights demands are made for moral freedom such as legislation for the free use of harmful drugs, pornography, homosexuality, radical feminism and for the easing of the lot of criminals, revolutionaries and radicals.

The question of the support of the churches was very glibly passed over by the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens. He is not in the House at the moment, but he happened to use a quotation from a newspaper which I have here before me, the newspaper of the Church of the Province of South Africa, the 6 January issue. This issue contains three articles, one on pacifism, one on rejecting unjust wars and one on conscientious objection. One particular article that I want to commend to that party and particularly to the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, was written by the Dean of George, Derek Damant, who wrote that many Anglicans found their consciences directing them to serve in the Forces. This article contains extremely interesting points of view which are completely unrepresented by the opinion of hon. members of that party who made use of selective quoting. This article should be read by hon. members of that party because I believe that in that party there are many members with their suitcases packed in case their policy and their attitude fails because their attitude in regard to defence matters is in keeping with their capitulation politics for which there is no alternative. When it does not work they and many of their supporters will be the first to say; well, that is it chaps, we are on our way. [Interjections.]

I want to come back now to a statement that was made by the hon. member for Edenvale. I have his Hansard here. The hon. member said (Hansard, 22 March 1983)—

To this my colleague, the hon. member for Durban North interjected: “What is their philosophy based on?” The hon. member for Edenvale then replied—

To this the hon. member for Durban North again interjected: “Give us an example”, to which the hon. member for Edenvale replied—

As far as that remark is concerned, I have a letter here from the Humanist Association of South Africa. I presume that other hon. members have also received copies of this letter.

I was not referring to the Humanist Association of South Africa.

In the third paragraph of this letter from the Humanist Association of South Africa, dated 12 January, the association has this to say—

[Interjections.] There is an unnatural lack of clarity about this debate and I put it down to the fact that we have not really got down to the crux of the opinions of that party. I think the hon. member for Helderkruin made some very telling points in the excellent speech that he made. In his address to the House, he pointed out the circumstances surrounding certain political conscientious objectors whom that party had supported. They supported requests for political conscientious objection. I believe too that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North has similarly supported an application on the grounds of conscientious objection from a young man who is brave enough to say that he does not hide behind religious objection but in fact believes that the war that is being fought in this country is a civil war, and that the S.A. Defence Force is being used to fight South African citizens in that civil war. That hon. member of that party supports that person’s application for conscientious objector status. [Interjections.] I believe that we in this House must have clarity on this issue. We have the situation where nobody in that party has been brave enough to come out and state quite clearly where they stand in respect of political conscientious objectors. I believe, as I believe every hon. member in this House believes—and I think the public have the right to know—that as true liberals they should stand by the best of liberal traditions and speak what is in their minds and in their hearts whether what they say is acceptable to the public or not. [Interjections.] They must in fact tell this House that they support the concept of our unjust war in Namibia and also that they support the allegation of the Black Sash—to which many of their members belong—that South Africa is in Namibia illegally. That is what this debate is all about. [Interjections.] It has nothing to do with ethical and moral objections. That is simply a smoke-screen. Nobody in this House can lay down substantive guidelines on which to exempt objectors on ethical and moral grounds from military service. [Interjections.] Even the greatest philosophers indicate that it is not a science and there is no way to lay down directives. The official Opposition has used it to cover up the situation because they are not brave enough to come out…

But you do not count. [Interjections.]

We know you too well; you were treacherous to us.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is it permissible for an hon. member to refer to hon. members in another party specifically and to say that they are treacherous?

Which hon. member said that?

Perhaps the hon. member will be man enough to stand up to say what he has said. It was the hon. member for Umbilo.

What did the hon. member for Umbilo say?

Sir, I just indicated that we knew them well enough because their history of treachery to us in the past was enough, [interjections.]

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

Let us consider the programme of the S.A. Council of Churches—

Does the PFP agree with that stand taken by the S.A. Council of Churches?

But those are religious grounds.

Does the PFP agree with religious objection and civil disobedience based on those premises? [Interjections.] That party chooses to ignore the words of Fetrinelli; the leader of the Italian Red Brigade, that the need was not just for terror, but also for intense provocation. And then when the State intervenes as a result, it will be easy in the courts to denounce its harshness and repressive dictatorial tendencies.

It is the opinion of the hon. members in these benches that the air has not really been cleared and in the debates to come in the Committee Stage and Third Reading we hope that that party will hear the finality and the truths in respect of exactly what is going on.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he believes that it was for religious principles and because he was against all wars that the hon. the Prime Minister did not fight in the 1939-’45 World War?

I did not participate in foreign wars and the hon. member knows it. I fight for South Africa which he has never fought for. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend spending much time on the hon. member for King William’s Town, but he did mention that there are a number of hon. members in this party that have already packed their suitcases in case something goes wrong with the country. May I just point out to that hon. member and the House that there are more hon. members in this party who have actually fought a war than in all the other parties in this House together? There are more hon. members in this party who have fought a war and know what they are talking about than in all the other parties in the House together. [Interjections.] Throughout this debate we on this side have clearly set out our view about the principle contained in this Bill. We have stated that we wish this Bill to be referred to a Select Committee before Second Reading so that inter alia the concept which is provided for in the proposed section 72D, which deals with religious objection, can be widened to include all those who due to their deeply held religious, ethical and moral views find it irreconcilable with their conscience to take part in combatant functions in any army or to perform any tasks in connection with any armed force. We stated that clearly.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question? [Interjections.]

No, Sir. We further stated that there may well be an input into the Select Committee which may finally result in a different definition of what conscientious objectors are. There should therefore be a Select Committee to find out exactly how we can agree on what conscientious objectors should be provided for. That we have stated time and time again. The hon. member for Wynberg stated it in the very first speech from these benches. He was followed by the hon. member for Eden vale, and others have mentioned it as well. [Interjections.]

If one looks at the debate and the way in which it started, I can only come to one conclusion as to what happened in the defence group of the NP for example. Quite clearly they anticipated, expected and hoped that we on this side would come with a confused case of just wars and unjust wars.

You have!

All their speeches on the first day and on part of the second day were prepared and written for such a debate. They were unable therefore actually to debate the issues the hon. member for Wynberg had thrown up because they had prepared their speeches on the basis I mentioned. There were allegations before and at the start of this debate of a split in this party. When it became clear that that was a nonsensical suggestion, it was alleged by hon. members on the NP side that we were covering up. There was no talk of a split any more, but we were covering up. It was only this afternoon, really, that there were some real attempts to debate the issue which is at the center of this debate, as we see it, namely whether “religious objectors” should be widened to include objectors on moral and ethical grounds. Interestingly enough, one of the best contributions, although I do not agree with him in this field, came from the hon. member for Koedoespoort who attempted to debate and contribute on that aspect.

What has the response been to our suggestion that religious objection should be widened to include objection on moral and ethical grounds? The Government side has persisted and insisted that religious objection should be the only basis for exemption. The hon. member for Randfontein, for example, stated his views and said: Every citizen of a State receives certain privileges and in return has certain duties; the privileges include, for example, protection; a citizen therefore, in return, has the duty to defend his country, and therefore conscription is justified. I agree, and we all agree, with conscription.

You do not. [Interjections.]

If the hon. member therefore says that every citizen has this duty and should therefore be liable for conscription, let us look at the case of the Coloured citizens of South Africa. We in this House all agree—at least I assume we do—that we cannot justify the conscription of Coloureds at this stage. We agree on that not because of religious reasons, but because we feel that it would be immoral. Why the limitation to religious exemption only? Why does the Government exempt Coloureds from conscription when they cannot justify it on religious grounds? I therefore come to the conclusion that even the Government accepts that there are grounds other than strictly religious grounds upon which citizens of a country can be exempted from military service. It has not always been such a narrow definition. May I ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether he recalls the debate that took place in this House in 1974? He certainly, from the quotation I shall read to him, did not adopt this very strict orthodox religious-only attitude at that stage. I am not saying that he advocated that moral and ethical grounds should be included as well, but he did not have this very strict attitude. I now quote from Hansard, col. 6847, of 29 October 1974, where the hon. the Prime Minister, who was then the Minister of Defence, said—

The hon. the Prime Minister then went on to say—

He does not even have to tell him that it is because of religion that he objects; he only has to say that he has genuine conscientious objection. In that case the hon. the Prime Minister says that he is entitled to serve in a non-combatant capacity. [Interjections.] At least the hon. the Prime Minister showed a more relaxed and flexible attitude than most hon. members have shown in this House.

Is he in the Army or not?

Let us examine the attitude of some hon. members towards widening the concept to include objections on moral and ethical grounds. The hon. member for Walvis Bay, for example, said the following, and I quote from his Hansard (22 March 1983)—

*That is his view. If that hon. member is a member of the defence group of the NP, then it seems to me that this subject has not been discussed in depth if that is his information concerning the countries in Eastern Europe and Russia. I shall now refer to the position in those countries. I also see that the editorial of this morning’s Burger also tries to advise us by saying—

The Burger is advising us now, and let us now look at what the position in other Western countries is.

†I shall now refer to the position in Western Europe and the USA. In Belgium provision is made for religious and philosophical objectors and they serve twice the period of the military service in a non-military capacity. The hon. member for Constantia has referred to the Federal Republic of Germany where there is conscientious objection on any basis; it is not restricted to religion.

The position in the Scandinavian countries is the same—not restricted to religion. The position in America is also the same—not restricted to religion. [Interjections.] It includes deeply held moral and ethical grounds. [Interjections.] Let us take a country with which we can perhaps compare ourselves, namely France. In many respects we can use France as an example. [Interjections.] In France they fought the Algerian War of Independence in the late ’fifties and early ’sixties; a war which one can to some extent compare with a war which is being fought now in South West Africa/Namibia. The French society was deeply divided by its participation in that war. Thousands of French people took part in that war. Until the 1960s French law made no provision whatsoever for conscientious objections but because of the Algerian War it became an issue, and the French Parliament did not react by repressing that issue; it reacted by taking evidence and by trying to accommodate the grievances that were coming to the fore because of the Algerian War. [Interjections.]

Then, in 1963, France finally gave legal recognition to religious and philosophical objectors providing both noncombatant and alternative civilian service, with the term of service twice that of the term of military service. In France the position is that the period of military service is, as I understand it, one year and three months. That means that if a person has to serve in a non-military capacity he does so for two and a half years. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, that is the position in Western Europe.

If the hon. member for Walvis Bay had looked up the facts, and, if the Burger had known what the position was, they would not have made this sweet suggestion in their leading article of this morning.

What does the Burger know anyway? [Interjections.]

I may as well then deal very briefly with the question of sentences. This Bill suggests that if someone objects on bona fide deeply held moral and ethical grounds he can be sentenced to imprisonment for eight years. There have been speakers on the Government side who have suggested that there is really nothing wrong with that, that we cannot regard it as harsh. They can see no reason why we should complain about it. However, what is the position in other countries? The position there need not be of a definite standard with which we always have to comply. I merely wish to use it as an indication of where we stand. The position is that in European countries where conscription applies our suggested penalty of eight years is matched only by Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, where they have a ten-year maximum imprisonment sentence. In Bulgaria, a harsh communist State the penalty is imprisonment for seven years. In Russia it is six years imprisonment. In Poland and in East Germany the term of imprisonment is five years. [Interjections.]

In the non-communist countries in Europe…

Rather give McIntosh a chance now! [Interjections.]

There is no single country among the non-communist European countries that provides for a sentence as harsh as our eight-year one. Therefore the suggestion that a term of eight years imprisonment is a reasonable penalty, that we need not be embarrassed about it or ashamed of it, I submit, is a far-fetched one. All the facts disprove that suggestion, Mr. Speaker.

The NRP has tried desparately to climb onto the bandwagon together with the NP because they do not really have their own identity any more. They merely try to impress their hon. colleagues in the NP by out-shouting them in attacking us on points which, they believe, are relevant or valid. [Interjections.]

What did hon. members of the NRP have to say about religious objectors? The hon. member for Durban Point said the following, and I quote from his unrevised Hansard of 22 March 1983

He rejects that view. The hon. member for Durban North, in an interjection during the hon. member for Yeoville’s speech, said the hon. member for Yeoville was lodging a plea for anarchists because he was pleading for a widening of the definition. That is how he sees it. We are lodging a plea for anarchists, he says, if we say that the grounds should be widened, from purely religious grounds, to include moral and ethical grounds. He confirms it now by nodding his head. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Umbilo said that the concept of morality and ethics is nonsense. He says it is drivel to take ethics and morality into account.

Taking things out of context… [Interjections.]

The hon. members for Umbilo, Durban Point and Durban North must go back to their constituencies in Durban and tell the ministers and members of the Presbyterian churches, the members of the United Congregational churches, the members of the Anglican Church and the members of the Catholic Church …

Tell them what?

… that they are anarchists. [Interjections.] Each one of those churches that I mentioned has stated clearly that it wants the concept of religious objectors to be widened to include …

Religious objectors, yes, not ethical or moral objectors.

… ethical and moral objectors. [Interjections.] Let me refer, for example, to the Presbyterian Church of South Africa. Its definition of political, I mean conscientious objections …

It was a Freudian slip.

… reads as follows—

That is what the Presbyterian Church says. The hon. member for Durban North must therefore go back and tell that church that this view is one that propagates anarchy. [Interjections.]

Would you join me on that platform with them?

The Synod of the Anglican Church also had something to say about conscientious objection.

Who constitutes the Synod of the Anglican Church?

Let me quote … [Interjections.]

I challenge you to join me on a platform with them.

Let me quote—

That is what the Anglican Church says. The hon. member for Umbilo however, says it is drivel, it is nonsense, whilst another hon. member says it propagates anarchy.

What church would you like me to handle?

The hon. member for Umbilo says morality and ethics are largely based on the question of time and geography. [Interjections.] Those factors, he says, change. Ethics and morality, he says, change with geography and time.

Do they not? [Interjections.]

If he had listened to hon. members on the other side of the House during this debate, he would have heard from them that for the first three centuries AD the Christian church—or the Christian religion as it then was—adopted an completely pacifist attitude.

Morality changes, remember?

No, that was religion. [Interjections.] The hon. member is obviously totally confused about the concepts of religion, morality and ethics. [Interjections.] There has been a drastic change from those days to these here, in the year 1983, in which the hon. member for Umbilo and the hon. member for Durban Point can say that the Church, as it were, almost encourages wars and anarchy.

Do you agree with the Presbyterian demand for a just war doctrine?

The contribution of those hon. members of the NRP to this debate has been one that has not … [Interjections.]

Do you agree with the just war doctrine?

Do you agree with the wild fig tree?

I am just quoting the Presbyterians.

The Naudé Committee was asked to investigate this aspect, I think in 1980. [Interjections.] I believe it is important—and this has not been touched upon—to look at the Naudé Committee’s composition and its findings or recommendations. It is also important to realize that in 1980 the Breë Moderatuur van die N.G. Kerk came out with its guidelines. Those guidelines were almost holus-bolus taken over by the committee. On the commitee sat, I am informed—I may be wrong—three chaplains who belong to the Nederduitse Gereformeerde Kerk. I do not dispute their bona fides and their knowledge. I do not even suggest that. However, what I am suggesting is that on a Committee like this it is understandable that input from churches who want to widen the concept is not received with an objective open mind. The churches initially, English-speaking churches mainly, pointed out that they wished to change the composition of the board. I am told that was not acceded to. I should like to suggest that if this matter is referred to a Select Committee before Second Reading, these aspects can be looked into again. The churches can make recommendations again and give evidence again. The hon. member for Randburg said that he had hoped that it would be possible to reach agreement between church and State.

I never said that.

The hon. member also said that Boesak had a case and that we had a case here. He said that we on this side of the House had valid questions and that they had valid questions. So why cannot we refer the matter to a Select Committee so that we may discuss it together?

I did not say that either.

That is the only way in which we can actually establish whether we can meet each other on these questions. I therefore support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Wynberg.

Mr. Speaker, I am a newcomer to this House, but I have come to a few conclusions which have really shocked me. I am referring to the behaviour of some hon. Opposition members, the arguments they advance and the arguents they distort to be able to adopt a standpoint and to defend an ideology which they support. The hon. member for Durban Central specifically referred to penalties applicable in other countries. He referred, inter alia, to the USA. What he did not say, however, was that the penalties to which he referred were applicable to every military operation, while the penalties contained in the Bill which is before the House apply to a single period of service which conscientious objectors will have to render. I was unable to discover whether the hon. member was a Houghton Prog, a Pretoria Prog or a Di Bishop Prog. He manoeuvred such a skilful course among all the ideologies that one cannot clearly identify his position. I can say, though, that he made many erroneous statements. [Interjections.]

When the hon. member for Wynberg began his speech, he really impressed me at first. As he went on, however, he shocked me deeply, because I had not thought it possible that one could advance an argument in order to impress people and then draw an analogy with slavery—which, according to him, is what it amounts to. Therefore I believe that the hon. member for Wynberg should apologize. The hon. member’s statement means that the system of compulsory military service in the country is also slave labour. When we consider all the onslaughts that are being made on the Republic’s policy of military service, we must not play into the hands of the enemy in that subtle way, if we sincerely desire the maintenance of peace and prosperity in South Africa. I have a pamphlet in my hand which was circulated among national servicemen in a military barracks and which was intercepted. This pamphlet is called Omkeer. However, it was printed in the USA by people who had run away from their responsibilities in this country. They call it “the paper for call-up age South Africans”. It is specifically intended to try to indoctrinate people where they are being trained to defend this country against alien ideologies and communism. I just want to read a passage from this pamphlet so that hon. members may see how subtle the methods of these people are. This pamphlet was written in the time when our present hon. Prime Minister was Minister of Defence. In it they say—

But then they follow it up with this quotation of what, according to them, was said by Josef Goebbels—

This is the mentality we must guard against in this country in order to protect our sons, who are being trained in good faith, against these alien ideologies and this indoctrination.

Now the official Opposition suggests that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee. At the same time, however, they accept that it was only introduced after thorough research, and some of the hon. Opposition members expressed their appreciation for the research done by the Naudé Committee. Why do they not read the reports, then? Why do they not acquaint themselves with their contents? Ever since compulsory military service was introduced in this country, this Government has had to contend with certain problems in respect of conscientious objectors. And experience has shown us that provision can now be made in legislation for a way of accommodating these people. Now, after all this knowledge and study, they still want to refer it to a Select Committee. The fact is that they do not accept it and will never accept it; that is why they are urging that it be referred to a Select Committee.

Ever since I came to this House, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yeoville has always tried in a very subtle way to save his party when they find themselves in a situation in this House which they cannot handle, but on this occasion he has once again failed to extricate his party from the dilemma in which they find themselves. Therefore I foresee that a Select Committee would not be able to convince a single one of the hon. members of the official Opposition that this legislation is in fact necessary. Therefore we on this side of the House reject the idea that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee.

The CP has pledged its support for this legislation, through the mouth of the hon. member for Jeppe. However, he also took the opportunity of stating his party’s standpoint on the defence of his country. He said there should be separate Defence Forces for each population group. I just want to tell the hon. members of the CP that they should qualify this statement of theirs. It is very popular to make certain statements for the benefit of the public outside, without qualifying them, however. The qualification which I expect of the CP is this: If we get involved in a conventional war, are we going to dig a separate trench for every population group? Are we going to let every population group act on its own in defending this country? [Interjections.] I may be stupid, I admit that, but I am able to understand something when it is explained to me. [Interjections.] However, this matter has not been explained to me. It is simply a bald statement that was made and hon. members have left it at that.

If there are no trenches for the Indians, will they simply shoot standing up? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, this is exactly what I want to know. I want to know whether they want separate trenches for the Indians as well as separate trenches for the White soldiers. They must explain matters to us. They must tell us how they are going to ward off the total onslaught on South Africa in a conventional war with separate Defence Forces. [Interjections.]

The S.A. Defence Force has been created in South Africa as the instrument of the State for defending the RSA. Therefore it is a citizen’s defence force which, in our case, consists of people of divergent religious convictions. We have traditionally accommodated these religious objectors in this legislation, so that they would not be antagonized and so that it would not be made difficult for them to be good citizens in spite of the fact that they do not agree with us on the defence of this country. This is a small group of people constituting 0,025% of our Defence Force, and by the end of this debate, we in this House shall have spent about 700 man-hours in discussing it. Hon. members can work this out for themselves. The Second Reading debate lasts 12 hours, and considering the number of hon. members who are present here, it means that we are spending approximately 700 man-hours on this matter. Therefore it is important that we should discuss this matter thoroughly and that everyone should be afforded the opportunity of stating his standpoint clearly. We have not had that clarity from the official Opposition, and therefore I feel that it is desirable at this stage that we conclude the debate and proceed to do what we believe to be in the best interests of South Africa. Consequently I take pleasure in supporting the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in concluding this debate. To begin with, I want to thank hon. members for the high level at which the debate on this Bill has been conducted. As several hon. members rightly pointed out, the principal element of this Bill is very sensitive, and the subject was dealt with accordingly in this debate. Although there were a few heated moments, the responsible way in which certain speakers approached the matter—and I was struck by this throughout—contributed greatly to the fact that its merits could be debated in a calm and reasoned manner. The contributions made by hon. members on this side of the House in particular, and by the hon. members of the CP and NRP, testify to their insight into the problems surrounding the subject. It was clear that their speeches had been well prepared. Accordingly, I wish to congratulate the hon. members and to thank them for their contributions. I also want to thank the hon. members for Durban Point and Jeppe and members on their respective sides for their support of the principles contained in the Bill.

In particular, I appreciate the support given to the S.A. Defence Force by the hon. member for Durban Point. This has been clearly in evidence for many years and have never been concealed as a result of any extreme left-wing pressure.

The thorough study which the hon. members have made the measure is proved by the fact that several hon. members have already approached me with amendments which were so well motivated that I had to concede that they would improve an already well-thought-out and well-formulated piece of legislation.

I want to thank the members of the S.A. Defence Force and the law adviser who had the task of preparing and drafting the Bill for their months of dedicated and hard work. At the same time, I want to thank Brig. Naudé and the members of his committee, who have been in charge of thorough research and investigation, not only for months, but over a period of years, for the contribution which they made.

This is a difficult subject which is not covered by any other legislation which could have facilitated the task of the people who drafted the measure. In other words, there was no other legislation which they could use as a guideline. In spite of that, they have produced a very comprehensive measure. The amendments that have been proposed are mainly of a technical nature and do not affect the principles of the legislation.

Coming to the amendment of the hon. member for Wynberg, I think it is necessary to examine what it involves. The hon. member for Yeoville rightly point out that once the Bill has been read a second time, the principle contained in it has been ratified and can no longer be changed in the Committee Stage. He also made it clear that the two principles to which his party objected were the following: The restriction of community service and non-combatant service to religious objectors and the restriction of the ban on the recruitment of persons as merce naries to members of the S.A. Defence Force.

Brave attempts were made by members of the official Opposition to motivate their objections to these two principles, but even the most uninformed layman listening to their arguments and to the counter-arguments of the hon. members of the other three parties, which support the principles, would agree with me that the official Opposition failed dismally. My statement is proved by the appeal made to me by the hon. member for Yeoville to act in a statesmanlike way by accepting their proposals, and by the interjections made by the hon. member for Bryanston about who was supposed to have chosen the speakers on this side of the House. As far as his interjections are concerned, he undoubtedly tried very hard to conceal the feebleness of the attempts made by members on his side of the House. Surely this is a clear indication that the conservative group of his party, to which he belongs, must have entered into a compromise in their caucus with the radical leftists. [Interjections.] One of them was absent during the debate to plead the cause of a political objector before a court martial. This was also pointed out by the hon. member for King William’s Town. He asked some very important questions in this connection.

To the hon. member for Yeoville I want to say that I am no longer such a greenhorn in this House as to be swayed by such blandishments as he used yesterday. I would have been less of a statesman—this is a title to which I do not lay claim—if I had accepted his party’s amendment.

Then be a good general. [Interjections.]

Every argument advanced by speakers on that side of the House—I am very sorry that the hon. member for Bryanston did not take part—was convincingly refuted by speakers on this side of the House and by hon. members of the two other opposition parties. They did it so well that little remains for me to say if I am not to repeat arguments which have been repeatedly advanced in this debate. Surely I cannot accede to such poorly motivated requests. If they could not even succeed in defending their case against the arguments advanced by this side of the House, what makes them think that they would be able to do so if we appointed a Select Committee? Or does the catch lie in the fact that they want to call in reinforcements from outside to appear before the Select Committee? This seems likely to me, because they stated very emphatically that people from outside this House should be afforded the opportunity of stating their views. Why they want to afford these people the opportunity of appearing before the Select Committee, I do not know, because these people have already stated their standpoints in the public media. Their views are still being published. If I am not mistaken, another meeting in this connection is to be held tonight. In spite of this, the official Opposition has not been able to make out a convincing case for the acceptance of its motion in this House.

Once the Bill has been read a Second Time, and the principle has therefore been accepted, a Select Committee will serve no purpose whatsoever. The problems which hon. members have with certain aspects of the measure can equally well be debated and dealt with in the Committee Stage. In addition, a Select Committee could only lead to another protracted debate and a delay in passing this Bill, and I think the hon. members will agree with me that one would not want it to be delayed any further if we can possibly help it.

Neither I nor anyone on this side of the House would deny that there may be persons who object to military service or to the bearing of arms on other grounds than religious ones. There are those who say that it is against their conscience. However, this is precisely the dilemma, as was so ably pointed out by the hon. members for Pretoria West, Benoni, Helderkruin, Randfontein, Koedoespoort, Randburg and Pietersburg. To me, the crucial question is—and these hon. members referred to this—how a person’s conscience can be tested in order to find out whether his objections are genuine, especially if the man does not even believe in any deity or anything of that nature. How does one ascertain whether a person’s objections on moral or ethical grounds are genuine? To me, this is the crux of the entire discussion we have been conducting. I think the hon. members for Randfontein and Randburg gave a very competent account of the position in this regard. This is where the official Opposition failed, in my opinion. They failed to produce any real solution which would make it possible to answer these questions.

I believe that Solomon in all his wisdom, or even Gideon, to whom the hon. member for Yeoville referred, would flinch from such a task if he did not have divine guidance. If we have to accept objections to military service on ethical and moral grounds, I predict that we shall be opening the door to widespread abuse. It would mean an enormous increase in the number of objectors.

Not one of the hon. members on that side of the House even tried to propose a criterion for testing a man’s conscience with regard to his ethical or moral objections to military service. How can these things be tested? They diagnose the disease, but they omit to prescribe the treatment. I suppose they want to leave it to the board to give recognition to this opposition to religious convictions as the only valid grounds for objecting to military service. Then they go further: They do not want to be confirmed by theologians. They want to replace theologians with assessors. What kind of person do they believe should serve on the board as an assessor to decide whether or not a person’s objection on religious, ethical or moral grounds is genuine? According to them it obviously cannot be a clergyman. Who is it to be, then? It is quite obvious to me that those hon. members want people on the board who would be able to support persons who wish to hide their political motives behind the smokescreen of ethical and moral considerations. [Interjections.] A clergyman would never do that, after all. In order to assist the assessors and the objector, they want the objector to have legal representation as well. Therefore religious convictions are relegated to a minor role by those hon. members in their plea that the principle should be widened to include conscientious objections. Moral and ethical grounds should take precedence so that the objector to the “unjust society” and the “unjust war” can take refuge behind them and escape his duty to defend his country, to contribute his share towards ensuring the freedom of this country and all its people. I want to thank the hon. member for Umbilo and the hon. member for Heidelberg for having spelt this out so clearly.

As against this, the hon. member for Berea said that there were other objections than merely religious ones, and he alleged that there could be objections on social and on moral and ethical grounds. Summing up the position, I am not quite sure whether I heard him say this, but it was quite apparent, in any event, that he was actually referring to political objections.

That is not true.

The hon. member would like political objections to be included as well.

That is not true either.

Furthermore, the hon. member said by implication that the system of this country was unjust.

It is.

That was the way he put it, and I am not the only one who has said so. The hon. member for Kuruman replied to it. The hon. member went on to say that the political objectors, or those people who could not be accommodated in the system, had to choose between eight years’ imprisonment and leaving the country. The wise reply given to that by the hon. member for Kuruman was that such a person had a third choice. He had the choice of doing what he was in honour bound to do. In other words, he could go and do his national service. Then the hon. member went even further by saying that he advocated even greater leniency; the system should be much more lenient. We should rectify it and we should allow the political objectors to come in, and when sufficient numbers of them have come in, we should close the door. [Interjections.] He said that if the numbers became too great, we should close the door.

That is an untruth, and you should know it.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words.

Mr. Speaker, may I address you on this point?

Yes.

Mr. Speaker, as far as I am aware, in the nine years that I have been here, the ruling from the Chair has been that if it is said that an hon. member has told an untruth and knows it, then that should be withdrawn. But the words “he should know it” have been allowed up to this point.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw it.

Well, Sir, I withdraw it.

The hon. the Minister may proceed.

I am surprised that the hon. member for Pinelands did not participate in the debate, because I should say he would have been able to motivate his case better. Since he objects to what I have said, however, I am quite prepared to say that even if the hon. member for Berea did not say so, he implied that we should first accommodate the objectors on ethical and moral grounds and then we should change the system. I am not indulging in a play on words. I am talking about the principle.

You should know that is not true.

I shall explain why in a moment. The hon. member for Parys and the hon. member for Yeoville explained it very well.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order …

Oh, come off it!

Shut up, you. [Interjections.]

*Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member allowed to say “You should know that is not true”?

That was a most ungentlemanly remark to make.

It was very rude.

Would the hon. member please repeat his point of order?

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member for Sandton allowed to interrupt the hon. the Minister with the remark “You should know that is not true”?

Hon. members must be more careful in their choice of words. If an hon. member says to another hon. member that he should know that it is untrue, it is actually an indication that he is telling a lie.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree. I say … [Interjections.]

I cannot allow the hon. member to argue with the Chair. I have only asked hon. members to be more careful in their choice of words.

And Ministers.

And Ministers. A Minister is a member too.

The hon. the Minister must choose his words more carefully then.

One cannot allow a disease to come into being and then try to cure it. One should rather try to prevent the disease.

The hon. member for Parys and the hon. member for Yeoville quoted typical examples of how one could allow certain cycles to develop, and showed that they had already been established, with the result that we could not change the system. Therefore we cannot make any concessions. Neither I nor South Africa can make any concessions or be any more lenient in order to allow people to escape military duty on ethical and moral grounds. I have said before, and I want to repeat it, that this is an extremely positive piece of legislation. Hon. members should take cognizance of its positive aspects. That is what I found so astonishing about the attitude of hon. members of the official Opposition. They never noticed the positive aspects of this measure, only the negative ones. They kept pleading the case of the 2%. Why do they not plead the case of the many thousands, the 25 000, who come forward every year and who declare themselves prepared to make the supreme sacrifice for the sake of their fatherland? Why did they not talk about the religious objector, about the man who is not a criminal, but who finds himself in jail? I believe that one’s approach to life should be positive, and not merely negative; not merely destructive.

You are quite illogical. Sit down!

Mr. Speaker, we should also look at this …

Order! I think that is a very, very uncalled-for remark. This is the wrong place to tell the hon. the Minister to sit down. The hon. the Minister is addressing the House by my leave, and I will not allow any hon. member to tell him to sit down.

Mr. Speaker, do you mean to tell me it was un-parliamentary?

Order! I will not say it was un-parliamentary but it was nevertheless very uncivil. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I let the hon. member for Pinelands get away with it the first time he used un-parliamentary language in addressing me. It seemed the proper thing to do, since it is the hon. member for Berea who is actually involved in this. Now the hon. member for Pinelands has done it a second time. I must put it to him that I am amazed that he did not participate in this debate. As a former clergyman, he is the man I would have expected to be able to make the most positive contribution from the PFP side. [Interjections.] I am pleading the cause of people who are not prepared to do military duty because of their own religious convictions. These are the people with regard to whom the NP, the NRP and the CP have come forward and declared themselves prepared to try to help them in a positive way. However, the hon. member for Pinelands is the man who is not adopting a positive attitude at all.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: If it is inadmissible for the hon. member for Pinelands to tell the hon. the Minister to sit down, is it not even more inadmissible for the hon. Chief Whip of the NP to tell the hon. member for Houghton to shut up? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I want to come now to other aspects which may be of a less emotional nature. I should like to refer to the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens and the other hon. members of the PFP who complained about the regulations, about the rights or the norms that were being laid down in this legislation with regard to community service. I want to state unequivocally that those rights, those norms, those regulations, are certainly not any harsher than anything applicable to national servicemen. I hope that when we come to the Committee Stage, hon. members of the PFP will be just as assiduous in pleading the cause of the national servicemen. In actual fact they have never made any pleas on behalf of the national serviceman. In this debate, however, they have suddenly started talking about terrible things which are looming on the horizon, according to them.

I want to compliment the hon. member for Randfontein. In my opinion, he highlighted a very important facet of this whole matter. He said that the question we should ask was not what the rights of these people were, but what the rights were of those who had to make the supreme sacrifice. This, he said, should be our criterion in this respect. This is the positive approach we should adopt towards this matter.

We can never allow national servicemen to be given a free choice as to whether or not they want to do military duty, as some hon. members argued that we should. It is not only the right, but the duty of every young man to defend this country. I believe that every hon. member of this House—and I include hon. members of the PFP; I am talking about every hon. member of this House—is proud today of the young men who are performing this duty in a responsible, inspired and extremely competent way. In saying this, I include the hon. member for Bryanston as well, because I see that he feels unhappy about this. These are young men of widely divergent political, ethical, moral and religious convictions, who are fighting together shoulder to shoulder, in close camaraderie, against a common enemy, an enemy which is attacking the Republic of South Africa. To those people, serving their country is much more important than their own convictions or their own consciences. Why, then, should we create the possibility for young people to evade their duty and their privilege of fighting for their country, on so-called ethical and moral grounds—whatever those terms may include? I must say that in the discussion we have been conducting here, I have still not heard any clear, convincing arguments from the official Opposition as to the meaning of these terms and how they should be evaluated.

I also want to convey my very sincere thanks to the hon. member for Standerton for the fine and positive contribution he made, and I want to congratulate him on the admirable way in which he acquitted himself of his task as chief spokesman of the NP’s defence group.

I also want to thank the nominated members, Messrs. Vermeulen, Theunissen and Van Staden, as well as the hon. member for Vryheid, the hon. member for Bloemfontein North, the hon. member for Brentwood, the hon. member for Sasolburg, the hon. member for Ladybrand, the hon. member for Walvis Bay and the hon. member for Parys. I thank them for their contributions.

As regards the second leg of the hon. official Opposition’s objection to the principles of the Bill, i.e. the restriction of the ban on the recruitment of mercenaries to members of the S.A. Defence Force, I just want to say that I am afraid that I cannot accommodate their objection. This provision is mainly intended to protect the good name of the S.A. Defence Force, and for that reason, the provision cannot be widened to include persons who do not belong to the S.A. Defence Force.

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

No, I want to finish first. In fact, I am coming now to the hon. member for Yeoville. Last year this hon. member jumped up in this House and said that I was engaged in total mobilization. He said I was going to involve all White men in this country in the Defence Force. Does he still say that?

Do you not remember what I said?

Yoq said that. [Interjections.]

You are getting mixed up. What is happening to you?

In other words, under the system we are dealing with, all White men are going to be involved in any event. Why, therefore, should I expand the system to include the small number who remain outside the Defence Force?

That is not correct. You know, for example, that foreigners are not included. [Interjections.] I do not think you know your job. [Interjections.] You do not know your job! [Interjections.]

Why is the hon. member for Yeoville so concerned about foreigners? Why is he not concerned about his parry, about South Africans?

I am concerned about what happens in South Africa when mercenaries are recruited here. [Interjections.] You apparently like it. That is what worries me. What has happened to you? [Interjections.]

Order!

The objection of the hon. member for Yeoville in connection with the recruitment of non-members of the S.A. Defence Force—including persons who are aliens in this country—should be raised in a discussion of a measure other than the Defence Act, and I am not concerned with other laws. [Interjections.] Touching pleas have been made from that side of the House to the effect that we should keep defence matters out of the political arena, and I am very grateful for that.

It is too late because you … [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot finish if the hon. member keeps making interjections.

I think there is something wrong with you. [Interjections.] Can I perhaps get you an aspirin?

I paid the hon. member a compliment, and now he is cross!

There is something wrong with you. [Interjections.]

There are other hon. members who asked questions which actually belong in the Committee Stage, and therefore I am not going to elaborate on them at this stage. I have taken cognizance of them.

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. the Minister prepared to answer a question now?

No.

You see, there is something wrong with you. There is no doubt about that!

That hon. member wants to argue with me all the time. However, I am summing things up for him so that he may know what this debate was all about. [Interjections.] I have taken cognizance of the various questions and I shall reply to them in due course. By the way, I want to tell the hon. member for Jeppe that the terms “Adjutant-General of the South African Defence Force” and “General Officer Commanding, South African Defence Force” are still valid designations in the S.A. Defence Force in a juridical sense. In this way, for example, the Chief of Staff (Personnel) is also the AG, that is, the juridical authority of the S.A. Defence Force. The hon. member will find this in the first schedule and the rules.

I want to emphasize once again that the measures with regard to religious objectors are aimed at bringing about a better dispensation for religious objectors. The hon. member for Randburg explained the matter in admirable, clear, very simple and intelligible language. I find it amazing that the official Opposition still does not understand what is involved here. Hon. members on this side made repeated attempts in the course of the debate to explain the matter to the members of the PFP, but they still do not understand what a religious objector is and they still keep harping on moral and ethical grounds.

I should like to refer to what the hon. member for Pretoria West said. Referring to religious objections, he said that religious objectors believed that they should be obedient to God rather than to the authorities, and when their convictions, based on the articles of faith and revelation, forbid them to bear arms or to wage war, they have a valid claim to be exempted from it. I fully agree with that. Unlike the person who bases his objections on ethical or moral grounds, the objections of the religious objector can be measured. To me this is a very important aspect. Hon. members of the official Opposition asked whether they were measurable in terms of his articles of faith and revelation as well as his personal life. We never talked about his personal life. I agree with hon. members that the board where the discussion is going to be conducted will actually have a fatherly role to play. I believe that the general conduct of the person who appears before the board will be equally important.

Most of them are persons whose convictions are such that they see in the new dispensation an opportunity to serve their country and the authorities while at the same time serving their God. Accordingly, they do not object—I want to emphasize this—to eight years’ community service. No hon. member has referred to the well-known expert, Dr. James Moeller. He obtained a doctorate on the question of religious objections and is regarded as the top expert in South Africa. After many studies he declared that the true religious objector was prepared to serve two and a half times the normal period of service, and politically, this is much closer to the official Opposition than to me.

When and where did he say that?

The hon. member should read the newspapers. Then he will see that he speaks of two and a half times the normal period of service. I am getting worried now that the hon. member may ask for two and a half times.

I believe that the religious objectors are not going to thank the hon. member for Wynberg and the hon. member for Berea—the hon. member for Pinelands must forgive me for involving the hon. member for Berea in this—for referring to them as slave labourers. On the contrary, I believe that these contemptible and irresponsible remarks—I am very sorry that they were made by the hon. member for Wynberg; I had not expected it of him—will be just as vehemently rejected by them as they have been by me and other hon. members of this House. We may disagree with them, but I do not think they deserve such an opprobrious label. When we refer to the religious objector as a slave labourer, we are insinuating that there must be a slave-driver. Who is this? The Defence Force? The hon. member for Wynberg will have to make this clear, because the Defence Force is going to put this construction on the hon. member’s words.

I want to come back now to the amendment which is before the House. From the start of the debate I have been open to conviction that a case can be made out for the appointment of a Select Committee, whether before or after Second Reading. However, hon. members on this side of the House, of the NP, of the CP and of the NRP have so convincingly refuted the arguments of hon. members of the official Opposition in support of their motion that I should not be acting responsibly if I acceded to their request. I therefore reject the motion of the hon. member for Wynberg, and I also reject in advance any motion that the measure be referred to a Select Committee after Second Reading.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the Question,

Upon which the House divided:

Mr. Chairman, I went to seek advice on the hon. the Minister of National Education from a former member of the Cabinet. I asked him whether it was really the case that the hon. the Minister was a very clever man. This former member of the Cabinet told me: “Look, let me put it to you in this way. If you pool all the brains of the entire Cabinet, then the contribution of the hon. Minister is approximately 50%”.

Order! Which clause is the hon. member discussing now?

It has to do with culture, Mr. Chairman. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must discuss the clause.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to make it very clear that the hon. Minister does in fact have the qualifications. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to clause 1.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that you do not agree with me in connection with the 50%. In any event this was how he put it, so the hon. the Minister is a very clever person and I shall therefore have to use kid gloves when dealing with him.

At this stage I just want to make one point, and it has to do with the difference in the emphasis which the hon. the Minister placed in his introductory speech and subsequently in his reply to the debate on the Second Reading on the apartheid aspects of the Culture Promotion Bill. I am very concerned. Something has definitely happened here. In his introductory speech, the hon. the Minister moved as far away from apartheid aspects as possible. When he discussed the fact that various Ministers could discharge various obligations and when he referred to the regional boards, I definitely got the impression that the hon. the Minister wanted to create the impression that he was moving away from apartheid aspects and that an opportunity was being created here for the various national groups, ethnic groups and so on to influence one another in the fostering of culture, to participate in cultural activities together, to influence one another, to communicate with one another and to exchange aspects of culture with one another, and so on. But then something happened, for when the hon. the Minister replied to the debate, I clearly got the impression that there were certain people on his side of the House who had hauled him over the coals for not having clearly underlined the apartheid aspects. Then the hon. the Minister came forward with all the old apartheid cliches and platitudes which he trundled out one after the other to make it very clear to his side of the House that he was not prepared to break away from apartheid and that as far as the provisions of the Bill were concerned, he was adhering to them.

I should like to put a question to the hon. the Minister. I should like to receive an explanation from him. The Bill itself makes no provision in clause 3(1) for separate regional councils for the separate population groups. The provision reads—

My analysis of this provision tells me that it means that the regional councils are going to be established on a geographic basis and that they are going to make provision for the promotion of the cultural activities of the entire population of that geographical region. Now it seems to me as though the hon. the Minister envisages establishing a regional council for every national group—it is very clear that what is involved here is not every ethnic group, because a distinction is drawn here on a national basis—within a geographical area, if they prefer it, to see to the promotion of their culture. This is an unnecessary continuation of apartheid.

Perhaps I should put it to the hon. the Minister in this way: I can understand that in many respects and in many cases there is sound motivation for a situation in which an ethnic group would like to foster its own culture and in which other ethnic groups are not necessarily interested in doing so or in participating in that effort, but the hon. the Minister’s emphasis ought to be, if the Government is in earnest about moving away from apartheid, that he will leave it to the people themselves to decide, to the cultural groups, the ethnic groups, the race groups and the national groups in specific geographical areas, to decide whether or not they wish to practise and foster their culture within the ambit of one regional council, because this is not something which should be imposed on the groups by the Government. I think that if the hon. the Minister could just make this concession in terms of emphasis and approach, I would be satisfied with it.

Mr. Chairman, in dealing with clause 1 I wish to refer the hon. the Minister to his Second Reading speech in which he stated inter alia (Hansard, 1983, col. 2265)—

In view of these facts, and also in view of the reply which the hon. the Minister gave to the Second Reading debate, there are a whole lot of things which are not clear and to which the hon. the Minister did not give any attention. I can understand why the word “culture” was not defined in the definitions. By its very nature, and as hon. members also indicated, it is a term of concept which is very difficult to define, particularly in legal terminology. In this clause reference is made to “officer”, “Minister” and “regional council”. Since we are now, with this legislation moving towards the envisaged new constitutional dispensation of the Government party, I want to know from the hon. the Minister whether he foresees that in the new dispensation there will be three Ministers, one for the Coloured chamber, one for the White chamber and one for the Indian chamber. This is in respect of the so-called group-specific matters. The hon. the Minister did not spell out, with reference to culture—this legislation is to a large extent concerned with material culture possessions—what the group-specific culture possessions of the respective three population groups are. Consequently it is uncertain to me at this stage how the hon. the Minister sees the Coloured chamber and the people who will serve in it. Will members of various population groups have representation there? Is it one separate people? Is it a nation? What is the hon. the Minister’s concept of this matter? When it comes to dealing with these matters, we touch upon the most sensitive of matters, even with the interpretation which the hon. the Minister gives of culture, at least from the viewpoint of the Whites and, to my knowledge, from the viewpoint of the Indians as well. I should like the hon. the Minister to spell out to us whether there will consequently be three Ministers as far as these matters are concerned.

Then the hon. the Minister also referred to the fact that there will be overall interests and the culture of the one group will be able to promote the culture of another. Does the hon. the Minister foresee that there will still be a Minister within the Cabinet who will have the responsibility for the overall cultural promotion, or will this fall under another Minister?

How do you see it, Daan? You ask so many questions, but you give so few replies.

I shall tell the hon. member what my view is. I am afraid I cannot defend the standpoint of the hon. the Minister. The hon. member need only listen to my speech here, and to my public speeches. I shall speak in Innesdal.

There is another aspect which is important, in connection with the definition of “officer”. I should just like to know whether there are going to be three sets of officers, one for each of the respective population groups, or whether there will be another set of officers in regard to overall cultural matters. Then, too, I should very much like to know in respect of the regional councils, whether there are going to be regional councils for the three separate cultural groups on the one hand, and a regional group which will look after the overall cultural affairs of the three respective cultural groups, on the other.

Mr. Chairman, in his Second Reading speech the hon. member Prof. Olivier said that the PFP accepted the plurality of our population as well as the plurality of our cultural activities in South Africa. Since the PFP accepts the plurality or, in other words, the diversity, I want to say that surely it goes without saying that in any legislation provision will be made for the needs that diversity give rise to. What is so peculiar or so strange if there should be separate regional councils for Coloureds, Indians and even Afrikaans-and English-speaking groups. Forgive me, Sir, if I speak from personal experience now. With the establishment of the system of adult education and cultural promotion we had in the city of Bloemfontein, for example, a local council for Afrikaans-speaking people, a local council for English-speaking people and a local council for the Black population of Bloemfontein, and this system worked very well indeed without there being any trace of apartheid, for when it comes to fostering a cultural heritage we are separate, whether we want to admit it or not. That is a fact.

So many questions were asked in respect of what the hon. member for Rissik said. To my mind there is only one very interesting phenomenon.

In her Second Reading speech the hon. member for Germiston District said that the CP supported the Bill depending on the reply which the hon. the Minister gave to certain questions which she put. Then the hon. member for Koedoespoort came along a few days later and rejected the whole thing.

The hon. the Minister has already said so.

I found the subsequent turn of events very interesting. First they waited for a reply and then decided, even before that reply was given, to reject the legislation. I repeat what I said in the Second Reading debate: This is not a debate on the constitutional situation. It is a debate on certain cultural activities or certain laws in connection with the fostering of culture. As such it has nothing whatsoever to do with the future constitutional dispensation. To my way of thinking, all the questions which have been asked really have no relevance at this stage. What we are concerned with here, is the fostering and the preservation of culture by every group according to its needs. I think the hon. the Minister will reply further to the objections which have been raised and the questions which have been asked.

Mr. Chairman, in the first place I just wish to offer my apologies to the hon. the Minister for not having been here when, at the end of his Second Reading reply, he referred to the points I had touched upon. I asked my colleague to convey my apologies to him and I am sorry that I was unable to be here. There is one other observation I wish to make before I come to clause 1 as such, and that is in connection with a remark made by the hon. member for Kimberley North the other day in his speech during the Second Reading, in which he referred to a remark which I had previously made in a light vein. He gave to that remark a serious import which I had not intended. This was when I was talking about the other Minister of Co-operation and Development, and the hon. the Minister of Education and Training and said that I did not consider them to be great fosterers of culture. I actually meant that in a light vein. The hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development himself regards many things in a light vein. I did not mean it in a serious way, in any event not so seriously that the hon. member for Kimberley North had any call to react to it in the way he did.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.