Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

intimated that he had exercised the discretion conferred upon him by Standing Order No. 1 (Private Bills) and had permitted the Bill, while retaining the form of a private measure, to be proceeded with as a public bill.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

During the Second Reading debate I appealed to hon. members to keep the Defence Force out of the political arena. It was for that very reason that I decided not to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. [Interjections.] It was also for that reason that I studied and analysed the amendments of all the parties very objectively. Certain clauses in the Bill probably received less attention than others. Some clauses were discussed more extensively than others. I believe that clause 9 was the clause which received by far the most attention and which also provoked the most discussion by hon. members of all parties in this House. Clause 9 deals with people who have real religious objections to national service.

However, I should very much like to emphasize that we are not referring only to Jehovah’s Witnesses here, as the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North contended. We are referring here to everybody who has religious objections. Indeed, there are many of them who are not Jehovah’s Witnesses. I believe that we should consistently take this into account, otherwise we are going to make incorrect deductions, for example, by thinking that everybody who has religious objections is a Jehovah’s Witness. If the legislation before us applied only to Jehovah’s Witnesses it would have been unnecessary. In that case we could just as well have retained the present legislation as it is worded at present. Then we could have made administrative arrangements to improve or facilitate matters for Jehovah’s Witnesses. This would merely have required a very simple administrative adjustment and, moreover, we would not have needed to devote all the time, attention and energy to the matter that we have done in order to effect this statutory amendment.

The futile and poorly motivated efforts by the PFP to make provision for moral and ethical grounds to be included as well, makes it very clear to me that the motive behind this is of a political nature.

Keep the Defence Force out of politics! [Interjections.]

I was not prepared to allow this group of religious objectors, the people who we are really concerned with here, to become a political football. Indeed, I believe that it is also correct that we should not allow people with certain religious convictions to be dragged in here and exposed to the political arena. Therefore I should like to thank hon. members of the CP and hon. members of the NRP for their support of the legislation. For that very reason I have already made certain concessions even to hon. members of the far left wing of the PFP, as well as to the hon. member for Jeppe, a person with whom I have had violent differences in the past. I must point out that the hon. member for Jeppe put forward with certain amendments with great responsibility, amendments which substantially improved the legislation. I want to thank him for it. I was not aiming to score a single political point at the cost of religious objectors. My sole objective, Mr. Speaker, was to ensure only the best possible legislation. The PFP also acknowledged this by way of certain utterances made by the hon. member Prof. Olivier as well as the hon. member for Wynberg. At a certain stage they said that this legislation showed that reason had prevailed. Even in this morning’s Cape Times I see that reference is made to reason prevailing.

Thank me for that. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I think that is just where the hon. member for Wynberg is making a mistake. Reason has indeed prevailed, but only because I did not concede, on the strength of the hon. member for Wynberg’s argument, that this legislation be referred to a Select Committee so that a debate on moral and ethical values, or moral or ethical or even political objections relating to this matter, could be conducted there. [Interjections.]

I want to make it clear that the amendments of the hon. member for Wynberg and the hon. member for Sea Point furnish the clearest proof of this statement of mine. When we look at clause 16, which was discussed long after clause 9 had been discussed, we notice clearly—and hon. members of the NRP expressed that so beautifully by saying that the hon. members of the PFP were here trying to slip in through the back door—how they tried once again to obtain an advantageous bargaining position for political objectors; actually even more advantageous than that intended for the religious objector. If one really had to judge the matter extremely objectively I should say, on the strength of the amendments moved by hon. members of the PFP in regard to that clause, that religious objectors are discriminated against to the advantage of those with political objections.

So, to review the whole debate, I should say that if there is one party which has to be accused of having wanted to entangle this measure in politics, that party is the PFP. [Interjections.] They planned to do this by means of a Select Committee. However, when they did not succeed in their efforts they came up with hordes of amendments. I believe it must have been the first time in the history of this House that such a horde of amendments was moved in respect of a single clause. [Interjections.] However, the motives of hon. members of the PFP were exposed very effectively by hon. members of the NP, the NRP and the CP. I do believe that the public at large will have to take note of this. They will have to take note of the fact that it was the PFP—and I say this absolutely objectively—who wanted to drag the Defence Force into the political arena. [Interjections.] I did what my predecessor always did and arranged a briefing for the defence groups of all parties. This has been the practice for many years and everybody knows about it. At that briefing I addressed an invitation to the various parties and told them that if they experienced any problems with the legislation they should not hesitate to come and see me about it so that we could perhaps try to solve them. The spokesmen of the NRP and the NP did come to see me and we held long sessions on this legislation. The CP informed me that they had no problems of principle with this legislation and consequently there were no further discussions with them. However, the spokesmen of the PFP suggested that they would in fact do so, but to this day they have not arrived and I do not know why not. It is probably because of the serious dissension in that party with regard to this legislation. [Interjections.]

I should like to thank hon. members of the NP, the CP and the NRP sincerely for their positive contributions. I should also like to thank certain hon. members of the PFP for the positive amendments they put forward in order to have improved legislation on the Statute Book. I trust that the hon. member for Wynberg will now support me with the Third Reading of this legislation and that he will show that responsibility, especially in view of the number of mistakes which were made during the debate on the Second Reading.

In conclusion I want to say that I regard these statutory amendments as very positive, since they make provision for facing the challenge of the day. They are welcomed by young men from all quarters and are regarded as a giant step forward.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the hon. the Minister of Defence acted here like a man in whose mouth the proverbial butter would not melt. He made a few statements which I found truly astonishing.

I know he has every right to do so, but in the first place I want to say that I was astonished that the hon. the Minister chose to participate first in this debate. This proved to me that the hon. the Minister found it necessary to make a few points before the hon. members on this side could participate in the debate, to which he would then reply at a subsequent opportunity. When the hon. the Minister says that it is his premise that politics should be kept out of Defence Force matters and Defence Force discussions, then I want to say that I think this is something in which the hon. the Minister really believes. However, as far as this legislation in practice is concerned, it will definitely have the opposite effect. It was in fact this party which requested that this legislation be referred to a Select Committee prior to the Second Reading so that all parties in this House could solve our problems and reach consensus on most of the points on which we differed. We could then have come back to this House with legislation which, according to the combined ideas of all of us together, would have been best for our S.A. Defence Force. Consequently I do not accept that ploy of the hon. the Minister of Defence.

The hon. the Minister also accused my colleague, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North, of imagining that this legislation related only to Jehovah’s Witnesses. When my hon. colleague participated in the debate yesterday, he made it very clear that he was only referring to the category 3 objectors and that he accepted—and I think the hon. the Minister must agree with me—that the vast majority of people comprising these category 3 objectors are in fact Jehovah’s Witnesses. However, he also made the point that there were also other people among their number who would apply to the board to be exempted from military service under category 3 and then perform community service.

The other point which the hon. the Minister made was that he referred to the PFP as the party in South Africa which was furthest to the left. I just want to tell the hon. the Minister that he does not know what is happening in South Africa if that is what he believes. I am not accusing students of being far left. Yesterday, together with others, I made a public appearance at the University of Cape Town. There I stated my party’s standpoint in regard to this matter. Those students differed radically, if not completely, with me. If I compare myself to the group which participated in that meeting, I am absolutely verkramp, relatively speaking. The same goes for my party. We are not far left; as far as these matters are concerned, I think we are absolutely in the centre of South African politics. [Interjections.]

I refer next to clause 16, in respect of which the hon. the Minister alleged that we tried to bring in certain concessions concerning the things in which we believed through the back door. I put it to the hon. the Minister that we were merely being absolutely consistent. We said throughout the debates that we should like to involve those who objected to military service on moral, or ethical or religious grounds, so that they could render community service provided they could persuade the board that they were in earnest about their cause. We adhered to that standpoint consistently; it is no secret. We need not come in by a back door, because we made our standpoint very clear throughout the debates.

I come now to the most interesting remark which the hon. the Minister made. He spoke about a horde of amendments. I have not been in Parliament for very long …

Longer than the Minister, though.

I became a member of the House in 1977, but never since I became a member have so many amendments been accepted as were in fact accepted in this case by the hon. the Minister in regard to this Bill. What does it mean if such a horde of amendments are not only moved, but accepted as well? It means that there was something wrong with the Bill. [Interjections.] I shall come back to this later.

What I say next to the hon. the Minister I say as an agriculturalist. One can lead a horse to water, but one cannot force him to drink. The hon. the Minster, figuratively speaking, was led to water when we moved that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee prior to Second Reading, but this horse refused to drink. The result is that amendments had to be accepted by the hon. the Minister in an unprecedented way, at a gallop like a horse that had taken fright and had bolted. This kind of thing is foreign to the House, and I would even go so far as to say that it is a little unseemly. The fact of the matter is that approximately 50 amendments were accepted.

To my way of thinking, this proves, firstly, as far as the hon. the Minister is concerned, that the contents of the legislation were unconsidered; secondly, that the necessary research had not been done prior to the drafting of the Bill; thirdly, that the hon. the Minister had not studied the draft legislation in full; fourthly, that the implications of the Bill had not been fully appreciated by the hon. the Minister; and fifthly, that the hon. the Minister did not consider the politicizing of the S.A. Defence Force to be undesirable to the same extent as we did. Our point of departure demonstrated throughout and very clearly that we accepted that the basis for objection should have been extended to include moral and ethical objections.

And political objections.

We did not say that.

He knows that that is not true.

I ask the hon. the Minister whether any hon. member on this side of the House requested that political objections should be included. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister need only answer yes or no. If one says that, one is trying to politicize the Bill and the Defence Force, and that is in fact the accusation I am levelling at the hon. the Minister. During the course of the discussions the hon. the Minister said that the only reason why these additional objections could not be included was that the intensity of such objections could not be gauged and, furthermore, that guidelines to the exemption board could not be defined. The hon. the Minister did say that. In my opinion that is not a valid argument at all. Considering our motion that the board should consist of a judge and assessors and that such a board should be as objective as one could possibly make it, that argument of the hon. the Minister falls away completely, unless of course there are people in this House who doubt the objectivity of our courts and our judiciary. Late yesterday afternoon the hon. the Minster was his own prophet of doom when he said that although there was no definition in connection with mercenaries, the courts themselves could decide what a mercenary was. If the courts are therefore able to decide that issue, surely the courts can also decide whose moral and ethical objections are in earnest and sincere. If a judge can therefore decide what a mercenary is, why not also give him the responsibility of deciding whose moral and ethical objections are as strong and as serious as those of a religious objector.

Now I want to say something positive of the hon. the Minister. The recognition of the objections of religious objectors to military service is something new, and we welcome it. It is a step in the right direction. Other important amendments which had perforce to be accepted, will also contribute a great deal to ensuring greater justice for this small group, without in any way slighting the young man who is prepared to discharge his military obligations.

I just wish to refer to a few of the positive amendments now. The reduction of the period of service from 8 years to 6, is positive and we welcome it. The open proceedings of the exemption board we also welcome. The acceptance of the fact that costs should not be borne by the applicant is also a good one and we welcome it. The fact that there may be promotion in the Public Service after two years of community service is something we also welcome. That amendments were moved in connection with the fact that one may not buy oneself out—which was a motion of the hon. the Minister and his party—we also welcome, as well as the acceptance of those amendments.

After this legislation has been passed today, all the problems will by no means have been solved. The Government has failed in its task of coping with the potential conflict between State and church. I believe that the letter of the Archbishop of Cape Town will be the forerunner of an ongoing struggle between State and church. When I say this—and I put this to the hon. the Minister—I am not saying that I agree with everything contained in that letter. To tell the truth, there is little of the contents of that letter with which I personally agree. However, I must put it to the hon. the Minister that it is going to be the forerunner of an ongoing struggle between State and church. I therefore request the hon. the Minister very earnestly—before it is too late—to do everything in his power as Cabinet head of the Defence Force to make contact with the churches, to open up a dialogue with the churches, so that it is possible to negotiate with them in a responsible way and on a continuous basis to ensure that the struggle between State and church does not get out of hand.

There was also the motion, which we put forward, that the recruiting of mercenaries should be curtailed. We on this side of the House put it to the hon. the Minister in all earnest that it was not to the benefit of South Africa that the Act should remain as it was. We proposed that that clause should be changed in such a way that no recruiting of mercenaries could take place in South Africa. We are all aware that in this country of ours there are many citizens from other countries, citizens of Rhodesia, citizens of Angola and citizens of Mozambique, who have a quarrel with the countries from which they had to flee and who are seeking vengeance. If scores are going to be settled on a basis of mercenaries, it is going to harm South Africa, harm it very badly. Yesterday the hon. the Minister had an opportunity to put a stop to the recruiting of all mercenaries, but he did not avail himself of that opportunity. If South Africa is again embarrassed as a result of these people who cross our international borders to launch attacks on governments or groups in other countries, in our neighbouring states, then my party and I will hold that hon. Minister absolutely accountable for what is happening in that case, because he had an opportunity to put a stop to such activities.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Wynberg made a series of remarks which amounted to criticism of the hon. the Minister of Defence.

Oh no!

I want to tell the hon. member for Wynberg that we on this side of the House do not want to politicize the legislation on the defence of our country, our military set-up or our Defence Force, either. However, the hon. member for Wynberg should not lose sight of the fact that we are aware that members of his party have advocated the release of ANC leaders. He should take note of the recent reports and the behaviour of Chief Minister Buthelezi and his remarks to the ANC. We should be aware of the fact that we have a danger in our midst that is seeking in a covert way to get at our country, our Government and our Defence Force.

The hon. member criticized the Minister, implying that he had introduced legislation here of which he had not made a thorough study, which he did not understand and which was not carefully considered. The motivation the hon. member gave for this was that so many amendments had been moved and that so many of them had been accepted.

“Horde” is the word you should use. There were a horde of amendments. [Interjections.]

Their party may consist of a horde of members, but their numbers are dwindling. The study group of the NP and the hon. members of the other parties here, the NRP and the CP, studied this legislation in depth and the amendments they moved attested to this. I thank the hon. the Minister for giving the study group the opportunity to study this legislation meaningfully and in depth and to put forward ideas and suggestions. That is what the members of this House are here for. This House is implementing the mandate of the voters to participate in the activities here. This is an opportunity one should not be denied. Now the hon. member is complaining. It is incorrect to say that only the legal draftsmen, the legal people, and the Cabinet are responsible for legislation. This House is responsible for the details in legislation. We have now had an opportunity to thrash out the legislation and we made proposals to the Minister. Now we can look over the amendments that were accepted and see which parties made meaningful inputs to the changes in the legislation. [Interjections.] Then we can see which amendments were accepted after the full House, including the hon. members themselves, had listened to them. If we page through the amendments we see that the inputs of the hon. members of the official Opposition were not well considered. They made inputs after the principle of the legislation had already been determined.

There was a horde of inputs.

All we need do is delete their horde of inputs. I think the Standing Orders should make provision for a tax on those hon. members for the unnecessary work they gave the secretariat of this House.

The hon. member for Wynberg said that there was a conflict between the State and the Church. I think this was an erroneous and irresponsible statement, as well as being inappropriate. I do not know what the hon. member’s ulterior motives were, but it was an unfortunate statement. This legislation has absolutely nothing to do with a conflict between the State and the Church. I am able to give the hon. member the whole hearted assurance that the church to which I belong has absolutely no difficulty with this legislation.

But it is not the only church.

How can the hon. member then refer to a conflict between the State and the Church? At most there may be individuals who do not feel very happy about a specific situation or certain provisions in the legislation. However, the hon. member’s statement was unfortunate, and I think it is going to cost him dear.

The hon. member also said that one can lead a horse to water, but one cannot make it drink. The horse of that hon. member’s party cannot even walk. There are so many left feet and right feet in that party that the horse cannot move. Its legs are tied on both sides.

This legislation or the principal Act on defence does not in itself guarantee the continued existence of law and order in the country. This legislation, along with all the other legislation, is merely a support to ensure good order and the continued existence of an orderly community in this country. The continued existence of our people and all the peoples living here, depends on the quality of our people. In our history books we come across ancient laws which were drafted to perfection by the Romans. Roman-Dutch law teaches us this. The administration of justice is correct. We are still applying these laws, although that nation vanished from the earth many years ago. This legislation is the pillar supporting order in the community.

Our young men are called up by this legislation in conjunction with the principal Act, to give up their time in unison. It costs them dear. We interfere in their lives. We take two years of a young man’s life. That is a large slice out of his life, out of his dynamic vitality, that we are talking in service of the country. We do this to be able to ensure security so that there can be peace within which we may develop and within which the quality of life of our people may be enriched. We should therefore see military service as an investment for our freedom. That is why the hon. the Minister is correct in trying to make arrangements by means of this legislation to involve all our people. We simply cannot make provision for the humanistic ideals of that party by making provision for moral and other objectors. We simply cannot afford this. We cannot do this. We have now created an instrument for the genuine religious objector by means of which he will be able to develop his need and can feel free to express them.

We on this side of the House want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on this wonderful piece of work. Our country needs it.

Mr. Speaker, the central theme of this amending Bill concerns the position of the citizen who refuses to render military service on the grounds of his religious or his moral and ethical objections. At the end of the Second Reading the principle was endorsed that provision may be made for the religious objector but not for the moral and ethical objector. The CP agreed with the principles approved during the Second Reading and voted in favour of them. We shall also vote in favour of the Third Reading.

In the course of my speech I shall indicate briefly why the CP is of the opinion that provision should be made for the religious, but not for the moral and ethical objector. The main point of contention remains the question of whether there are justifiable circumstances in terms of which the authorities may compel one citizen to undergo military service while exempting another. Closely linked to this point is the critical factor of risk, the risk run by the citizen who undergoes his military training of being killed, maimed, taken prisoner, etc. It is already common knowledge that the CP standpoint is that it should be made more difficult for a person to evade national service rather than easier, because national service is the duty of every citizen.

We feel that provision should be made for the religious objector. We feel that in the case of the religious objector, there are unique and exceptional circumstances that justify an exception being made. Those exceptional circumstances are that the religious objector links his objection to his relationship with his God. His relationship with his God is probably the most serious matter imaginable for any living creature. It is a relationship which means more to many people than life itself. That is why in the history of mankind so many atrocities have been committed, voluntarily, in the name of religion. People were voluntarily burnt at the stake, crucified and tortured. Some individuals endured all these things voluntarily because they felt that their Creator demanded it of them. The relationship between man and his Creator is the most important relationship that can exist on earth. It includes aspects such as the individual’s concept of a Hereafter, of a realm of the dead and of a hell, beliefs regarding the struggle after death, where the soul or the spirit will spend eternity, possibly even in eternal hellfire. We simply cannot discount these emotional factors. They are part of a person’s life, and a very important part at that.

It is on the basis of this extremely important relationship between the individual and his God, the most important relationship in which man can ever find himself, that we feel that an exception should be made in the case of the religious objector. If an exception is made of him, the individual who does not render military service must make another sacrifice for his fatherland, a sacrifice which is so constituted, so loaded, that it compensates for the risk the soldier runs when he renders his military service while the other person does not. We are convinced that provision has in fact been made for this loading and that provision has also been made for good safeguards to separate the chancers from the sincere people. Chancers cannot pretend to be religious objectors merely to evade military service. We feel that the constitution of the board for religious objectors is of such a nature that it will at the same time be an excellent watchdog to deal with chancers. We feel that no further clemency can be displayed with regard to that citizen who does not abide by this legislation.

We also feel that no provision should be made for the citizen who wants to evade national service on moral or ethical grounds. As far as this issue is concerned, we listened very attentively to the standpoints adopted by members of the PFP, but we found nothing in their arguments that persuaded us to abandon our standpoint. One of the arguments raised was that there were people who were opposed to any form of violence. But that is a general attitude. Any civilized person abhors violence. It is only human not to want to cause a fight; not to want to commit murder and have blood on one’s hands. Violence and murder are in fundamental conflict with man’s essensial nature. But sometimes one finds oneself in a situation where one has no choice. Take the example of the householder whose house is under attack and whose life and the lives of his loved ones are threatened. Must that householder simply surrender? Should he tell his attackers that they may continue to rape and murder, to steal and rob, or should he defend himself? Even if he is opposed to violence as such, is he or is he not going to defend himself in this case? I maintain there is no such thing as absolute pacifism. Why can this principle not be extended from the farmer who is defending home and hearth to the people who have to defend their country? This remains the question as far as I am concerned, and herein lies the proof that moral and ethical objectors are not consistent and may want to evade national service for reasons other than moral and ethical ones. This is where the PFP exposes itself to criticism. One gets the impression that the PFP is not pleading for moral or ethical objectors as such, but for other reasons. What other reasons can there be? I suggest that there are political reasons. What other reasons can there be?

This brings me to the age-old issue of a “just war”. This is a question which has been debated for centuries. In the East there are even compulsory religious wars where the leaders of a religious group may declare war and order their people to wage war. The CP has no difficulties in this connection. We believe that the S.A. Defence Force is involved in a defensive struggle. The Republic is not acting as an aggressor and does not have a lust for power or land. The S.A. Defence Force merely wants to defend the Republic and all its inhabitants. In contrast, the aggressor against the Republic is godless communism. The destruction of the existing order in the Republic and its substitution by a Marxist State will mean the end of Christianity in the Republic. We therefore believe that the S.A. Defence Force is waging a just war, a war to which every citizen must make a contribution. In the words of the national poet, the man who refuses to participate is the man who murders his nation. He is the man who can be compared to a thief, and the basic characteristic of a thief is that he arrogates things to himself that do not belong to him. What does the national service evader do? He is not prepared to run the risks of national service, but is at the same time anxious to enjoy the benefits of a peaceful society. In other words, he is stealing the benefits arising from the risks being incurred by other citizens in the defence of their country.

Sir, it is necessary yet again to pay our respects to the unknown national serviceman. It is necessary to tell him here: Thank you for the risks you are running; thank you for your share in securing our country’s borders so that we can live in a peaceful society; you are the true citizen of the Republic of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, it was a pleasure to listen to the speech of the hon. member for Jeppe. I think the hon. member for Jeppe made a very good speech. I want to say to the hon. member for Jeppe that we on this side of the House appreciate the metamorphosis he has undergone; we hope that he will persevere with it in future. I should also like to thank him for his positive contribution to this debate as well as his party’s support for the legislation before us.

This legislation is very effective in effecting order in regard to many S.A. Defence Force matters. We have also seen evidence here once again that the Government does not restrict freedom of worship in this country. It is also written into our constitution that we acknowledge the freedom of religion of the individual. However, the Government will not allow anarchy and political resistance to be condoned; nor will it allow a small minority to dominate the vast majority in future. However, in view of this the reaction and the approach of hon. members of the official Opposition was obviously very interesting and also most illuminating. I want to put it to hon. members of the PFP that during the course of this debate the eyes of South Africa, the eyes of everybody in this country, were fixed on the PFP—and not without reason of course. It is a fact that over the years the PFP has built up a reputation for itself, not only a reputation for boycott politics, but also for being soft on security; for always adopting either a dangerous or a passive or even a negative attitude in respect of matters affecting the security of this country, and of course also in respect of matters which are of the utmost importance to the S.A. Defence Force; and this whilst we in this country are facing a tremendous onslaught and while all right-thinking people are looking to the Government in the expectation that it will see to it that order and justice is maintained in this country, and that South Africa’s borders will be sufficiently protected.

The reaction of the official Opposition to the legislation before us was, as I said, very interesting. The row kicked up by hon. members of the PFP during this debate, was nothing but a continuation of the opposition they put up last year as well to national service legislation. This is only a continuation of that. They tried once again, under the pretext of other things, under the pretext of ethical and moral grounds, to get the political objector, too, accommodated in this legislation. Hon. members of the PFP can try to shy away from this until they are blue in the face; indeed, their whole effort was so transparent as to be ludicrous. In fact, the hon. member for Berea admitted as much. He admitted it in reply to questions put to him here by the hon. member for Helderkruin.

He never said it.

The hon. member for Berea then admitted that he * wanted to see people such as Yeats and Moll accommodated in this legislation.

He did not say that.

Since its establishment the official Opposition has built itself a reputation which, as far as security legislation is concerned, has brought it into conflict with certain factions within the ranks of that party itself; a reputation which has brought the PFP into conflict with all the patriotic people in this country, irrespective of their political links and irrespective of race or colour. However, time after time this also brings them into conflict with other hon. members of this House. This happens particularly due to their way of going about things, as well as their sticking up for people who are not well disposed towards this country.

In the ranks of the PFP the tail has always wagged the dog. However, now the position has changed considerably. That tail has now become very short and the dog has begun to show its teeth. The first proof of this was the way in which the hon. member for Yeoville was summarily dismissed from his post as PFP’s chief spokesman on defence. This is very clear to everybody. I do, however, believe that the hon. member for Yeoville—and I am sorry that he is not present in the House today—did make his influence felt there very strongly. That is why the hon. member for Wynberg was subsequently appointed the PFP’s chief spokesman on defence and not a person such as the hon. member for Constantia or the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens. That proves that at least there are still some moderate people in the ranks of that party.

Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. member for Kroonstad?

I do not have the time to reply to questions now, Mr. Speaker. My time is extremely limited. If I have time later on I shall reply to the hon. member’s question with pleasure.

†Mr. Speaker, at that point in time the hon. member for Yeoville had to make a choice. The choice he had to make was whether to join the leftists in his party or fight them. Obviously, he did not join them. This was evident from the speech he made during the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill. The hon. member for Yeoville has the sympathy of most hon. members in this House because he will have to come to terms either with the leftists in his party or with himself. His conscience will have to dictate to him in this regard.

Is there such a thing as a conscience?

On the other hand one cannot help feeling very sorry for the hon. member for Wynberg. We cannot help it because one can reasonably accept what one’s conscience dictates. It was very clear that that hon. member was in tremendous conflict with himself during this debate. It was very clear that his heart was not in what he had to propagate in this House on behalf of his party.

The hon. member for Berea said that he wanted people such as Moll and Yeats, who are political objectors, accommodated in this legislation.

Oh no, they are not. Why did you recognize Moll? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, my personel point of view and that of most of the hon. members in this House pertaining to these people is that they are not really political objectors at heart. They are people who lack the moral fibre to fight for South Africa in a war …

You do not know what you are talking about.

Have you ever spoken to one of these young men?

… against people who want to destroy civilized standards in this country … [Interjections.] … as well as everything we hold dear in South Africa.

Have you ever talked to one?

During this debate it was equally clear that the hon. members of the official Opposition did not have the moral courage to stand up and to speak up and to try to assist our South African Defence Force to get rid of people who are conscientious, moral and ethical objectors.

*In conclusion I want to exchange a few ideas with the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North. There is a saying that one is known to someone by the company one keeps, and today I want to identify a few of the friends of that member. To start with, I should just like to ask the hon. member a question, and I hope that he will show me the courtesy to answer that question for me.

You would not answer a question just now.

I want to inquire from the hon. member whether the person on whose behalf the hon. member gave evidence in a court martial and for whom he pleaded is a member of the PFP? The hon. member is silent. From his silence I gather then that this person is in fact a member of that hon. member’s party. What did that person say? I have with me a verbatim report of the proceedings of that court martial. In his evidence this person said—

These are the friends of that hon. member—the people whom he joins in giving evidence. We also hear the voice of Mrs. Di Bishop here, we hear the voice of the hon. member for Constantia, of the hon. member for Pinelands and of all the hon. members in the left wing of the PFP. [Interjections.] However, who are the other friends of that hon. member? I want to mention the name of the Rev. Dr. Boesak. We should have liked to believe that this reverend doctor would occupy himself with his primary task viz., to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ. However, he gave evidence in a court martial on behalf of a self-confessed political objector. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North also dragged the hon. the Minister into his evidence. He says here—

[Interjections.] I am not going into the merits of the case, but I think the mere fact that he also wanted to drag the hon. the Minister into evidence he gave in a court martial in order to make petty political capital out of it, is a disgrace. I say that hon. member should examine his conscience in respect of many of the things which he said in this debate.

Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes I have at my disposal, it will not be possible for me to react to previous speeches, but I want to summarize briefly the attitude of this party.

†I want to say at once that when we saw this Bill, we had reservations about some of its contents. The two main principles which were involved, viz. the provision of the alternative community service instead of only non-combatant service and the restriction of that alternative to persons who held religiously based objections, however, were acceptable to this party. We therefore supported the Second Reading and proceeded with the other stages of the Bill. We regarded those two principles as the key.

Whatever one used to feel—I make no bones about it that I used to be a supporter only of non-combatant duty as an alternative—and despite the lessons of Germany, the USA and other countries where political motivation and manipulation and the plain evasion of military service became large scale, one has to accept the futility of keeping young men wasting years of their lives in detention, young men sincere enough in their religious beliefs to undergo that period in detention or in gaol. So it was time that we had to rethink alternative service and not only non-combatant service based on the tenets of a church to whose members it should be allowed.

We also watched the orchestrated campaign by organizations overseas and their fellow-travellers in South Africa of discouraging and inciting the rejection of national service by young South Africans. The NRP was neither wittingly nor unwittingly prepared to become a tool of that campaign by opening the door to the undermining of the defence effort of our country and endangering the motivation or strength of our defence capability. We would be untrue—I believe anyone would be untrue—to those fighting for South Africa today if we were to do that. I say this because this party comes from a long line of tradition of parties which fought for South Africa. Since we have been in Opposition we have sincerely striven to take defence out of politics and to obtain a universal non-political approach to the whole question of the defence of our country. It is also true that we would be untrue to those’ who fought for South Africa in the past knowing what they thought of persons who refused to fight for South Africa when the time came. We are not prepared to see ourselves as an Opposition smeared with that same brush at this time.

I am sure that the hon. the Minister will agree with me that in all crises of recent time from Sharpeville to Soweto, from “Savanha” to the present time, regiments which are primarily Opposition orientated in their composition—whose members are largely people who support the Opposition—have fought loyally, have done their duty loyally and have created a proud record for their regiments and themselves. I heard the hon. the Prime Minister speak with praise of kilts and the skirl of bagpipes in the dust of Owambo and regiments which have fought nearly a century or more for this country and its interests. I believe that it would be an unforgivable disservice if we in this House were to create a political atmosphere in which that motivation of the young men who make up those regiments, whatever the regiment may be—whether most of its members support the Government or the Opposition, is immaterial—were lacking. It is our duty to show those young men and the units to which they belong that they have the firm backing of their representatives in Parliament. We would therefore not be prepared to be part of opening any door—however small the crack might be—to the infiltration of resistance to military service on politically motivated grounds. [Interjections.] That, we believe, would undermine the motivation of the men themselves.

There was a compromise by the Official Opposition in their saying that they would fight for moral and ethical grounds but that they rejected political grounds and an unjust war. Moral and ethical grounds they accepted and fought for, but they stated that they opposed political grounds and the unjust war concept. I believe that the debate revealed how thin was the paper that papered over the crack and formed that compromise.

I do not have the time to quote in full, but there was another debate in this House nine years ago on another Defence Bill which, at the time, made it an offence to incite or encourage people not to perform military duty. The hon. member for Sea Point, who spoke in this debate, referred to the discussions going on all over on the morality or immorality of violence. He said that debate: “reflected civilized mankind’s dilemma on the legitimacy of violence, whether it be in maintaining the system or in destroying the system, or whether it be in defence of a State or in an attack on a State.” Those were his words and he continued—

That was the same debate that continued here in this debate on the moral issue, the right of moral conscientious objection.

There was, however, another difference between ourselves and the official Opposition, and that involved how to approach differences involving defence. We in this party believe in negotiation, in seeking agreement wherever this is possible. The hon. member for Durban Central—I have his Hansard here—referred to that as “creeping and crawling to the Government.” If ever there was a political creepy-crawly, however, it is that PFP, wriggling and squirming down in the depths of the slime at the bottom of the pool, trying to suck up all that it can and spew it out into the air. [Interjections.] In dealing with this question I want to quote an authority on the question of attitudes to defence. I want to quote somebody who said—

That was our view and it remains out view, and the speaker who expressed that view was the hon. member for Yeoville, who has been conspicuously absent from this debate. He described it as the technique or mastermind of the hon. member for Houghton at work. He asked, too, why someone is not encouraging the terrorists to be conscientious objectors. I agree with those sentiments, and we will continue to negotiate and seek agreement.

The hon. member for Wynberg made a great to do about their contribution to the debate and their amendments, the “horde” of amendments. I have done an analysis. On the main clause, the main issue, the heart of the Bill, i.e. clause 9, the PFP introduced 72 amendments. Of those, 34 were out of order and could not be debated, five were accepted and the other 33 were rejected or lapsed because they were in conflict with others. That was the magnificent contribution of the official Opposition. The NP introduced 14 of which ten were accepted while four overlapped or lapsed because of duplication. We introduced 18 of which 15 were accepted while one was rejected and two lapsed because of others. [Interjections.] So, out of 106 amendments on one clause, the PFP introduced 72 and had five accepted while we introduced 18 and had 15 accepted. [Interjections.]

Now where are the morning newspapers?

Then the PFP speak of taking credit for what they achieved in this Bill. I want to say that this party makes no apology for the stand it has taken on this Bill. We took that stand in the interests of, and because of what we believe to be, our responsibility to the young men fighting to defend this country against armed violence on our borders.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak after a person who, although he differs fundamentally with the Government in respect of many matters, nevertheless remains a patriot in the true sense of the word. One has appreciation for the standpoint which he and his party adopt in respect of defence matters.

An interesting feature of the debate up to now has been the fact that it has not been restricted to this House only. During the course of the debate certain standpoints have also emerged strongly from circles outside Parliament. I want to point out two of these standpoints. One standpoint which has emerged very strongly from circles outside Parliament is the standpoint that a specific war in which South Africa is engaged, is an unjust war. This standpoint was adopted yesterday afternoon during a meeting at the University of Cape Town by a student leader. This standpoint may more or less be summed up as follows—in this afternoon’s debate reference has already been made to this specific approach: This war is an unjust war; the Government is simply cloaking it in patriotism under the guise of South Africa being attacked from the ouside by a so-called communist aggressor. Actually, the agrument goes—and this has been pointed out by the hon. member for Kroonstad as well—that this is in fact a civil war and that the Army is being used to suppress people who are fighting for their freedom. This is the one extra-parliamentary standpoint which has emerged very strongly.

The other is that religion alone should not be the only ground for objection to and refusal to do military service, but that it should be extended to include ethical and moral, as well as political grounds. The standpoint was also reflected in a report in The Cape Times of this morning, to which the hon. member for Wynberg has already referred. This way a standpoint adopted by Cardinal McCann, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Cape Town. In this regard I also want to refer to a remark made by the hon. member for Wynberg to the effect that a conflict was allegedly being unleashed between Church and State. This was also referred to by the hon. member for Standerton. How the hon. member for Wynberg is specifically able to infer any conflict between Church and State from the report in question or letter written by the Cardinal to the hon. the Minister of Defence, is beyond me. What is happening is that the State is meeting an objection which might be raised by the Church by making provision for a religious objector to do alternative national service. In other words, this very legislation is obviating any element of conflict between Church and State.

It is interesting to note that the Archbishop also laid down criteria for a just war. Now, if we measure the war in South West Africa against the criteria laid down by the Archbishop, it becomes very evident that it is a just war. One of the criteria for a just war is that it must be a defensive war. Surely South Africa is not engaged in attacking anyone in South West Africa. The Archbishop points out that a declared war is also a just war. But these days nobody declares war any longer. The war in Afghanistan has been waged for four years and to this day war has not been declared.

I have pointed out these extra-parliamentary standpoints which have emerged strongly. I think the advocates of these standpoints must be rather disappointed at the failure of their representatives in the House of Assembly to state these two standpoints strongly. They probably are particularly disappointed that the first standpoint, viz. that South Africa is allegedly engaged in an unjust war, has not been stated here. One wonders, however, whether these standpoints would not have surfaced if this debate had taken place at another juncture when a byelection was not being fought in Waterkloof.

I also think that these extra-parliamentary bodies and persons must be a little disappointed in the PFP in that the party did not want to develop the second standpoint to the extent of saying openly that politics, too, should serve as a ground for objection. However, listening to the debate it became clear that that was actually the real intention of the PFP.

From the debate which has been conducted up to now, three positive aspects in particular have emerged, especially in regard to the legislation. The first one affects the religious objector himself. A possible consequence of this legislation is that these people need no longer be kept unproductively in military detention, but that it will henceforth be possible for them to render meaningful alternative community service. Moreover, I am of the opinion that this specific concession deprives certain religious groups of their propaganda. In its entire handling of and attitude towards this matter South Africa is in line with other Western countries in their handling of religious objectors. It is significant that in totalitarian States, religious objectors are actually regarded as political criminals, and harsh treatment is meted out to them, which has exactly the opposite effect.

I wish to address an appeal to that large group of religious objectors to whom this concession is being granted, that group of religious objectors who see the State as such as satanical in its origin, not to regard the Department of Manpower, as a ramification of the State, as being satanical and to start the conflict anew, as it were. I think the Government has gone out of its way to accommodate these people in accordance with the principle of freedom of worship, and we trust that they will act accordingly. Another positive aspect which has emerged here, is that the message has clearly emanated from this House that South Africa is not engaged in an unjust war, but that it is only defending itself, in South West Africa as well. I think one need not be so naive as to imagine that the onslaught in South West Africa is confined to that territory only. We must always take into account that the Republic is the ultimate target. Another positive aspect is the fact that those who are doing their national service at the risk of losing their lives, can do their national service knowing that the Government has left no possibility for people to avoid their national service under the guise of deference, morality or politics. In conclusion, just this one remark. I think the onslaught on South Africa has crystallized very clearly into two strategies. Firstly: Present this war as an unjust war and then undermine the principle of national service. Moreover as far as this is concerned, organizations have consequently seen the light which made them intent on undermining the system of national service, organizations which even publish documents have accordingly come into being. I want to quote from one of those documents. It was reproduced in a report in Die Vaderland of 25 March 1980 and reads—

This, in brief, is the campaign being waged against South Africa.

I think it would have benefited South Africa no end if there could have been unanimity amongst all political parties in a debate such as this. I think this could have strengthened South Africa’s arm in its struggle against the outside. Consequently one has appreciation for the standpoint of the CP and the NRP, and one can only hope that in future the PFP, too, will show this positive attitude in respect of defence matters.

Mr. Speaker, the speech of the hon. member for Randfontein was actually very interesting. Personally I would say it is the best speech we have had so far from that side of the House in the Third Reading. What the hon. member said was interesting. He said that the people outside—referring to the comments that had been made about this Bill from outside— would actually be disappointed with the viewpoint of the PFP in this debate. I think I understood him correctly. However, what is interesting is that the other parties in the House spent their time blaming and attacking the PFP for the viewpoints held by people outside. But the hon. member for Randfontein comes along, quite correctly, and actually says that those people would be disappointed because our viewpoint was not the same as theirs. He referred to a meeting that took place yesterday at the university where the hon. member for Wynberg was attacked for his particular standpoint.

I should now like to come to the point made by the hon. member for Standerton about the relationship between Church and State and what the hon. member for Wynberg said. I want to read from his speech what the hon. member for Wynberg actually said. He said: “Ek wil dit aan u stel dat hier-die wetgewing nog geensins alle probleme opgelos het nie. Die Regering het gefaal in die taak om die potensiële konflik tussen Staat en Kerk die hoof te bied.” I think we are all agreed that critical to this debate is this question of the relationship between Church and State. In South Africa it is a very critical question because we have such a tremendous diversity of people. I had a look at the official Yearbook for the Republic for 1983 in order to determine the church affiliation of the White group in South Africa. The D.R. Church has the greatest membership, about 1,6 million. On the other hand the Anglican Church, the Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church and the Roman Catholic Church amongst them account for about 1,4 million Whites. If one looks at the position of the other race groups the situation becomes even more complicated. Take the Coloureds for instance. I was surprised to see how many Coloured Anglicans there are. As a matter of fact almost 1 million Coloureds are members of the Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian and Roman Catholic churches. In my Second Reading speech I told the hon. the Minister that the PFP believes that we should take the religious diversity amongst the people of South Africa into account. That is why we are concerned about anything which could lead to a conflict between Church and State. It will be wrong for the State in South Africa to favour any particular religious denomination over another. In fact the Government of the day should not be hostile to any religious group nor should it try to promote the one above the other. This is desirable not only politically but also from the point of view of the type of threat that is facing us. The hon. the Minister will remember that Sir Henry Gurney said in Malaya that we are in a war for the hearts and minds of the people. That is the type of war we are involved with in South Africa, and it is no use only paying lip-service to our religious diversity. We must show in our actions that we take this into account.

Here let me tell the hon. the Minister that I think in his handling of the Bill he let a great opportunity slip in this regard. Religion is a sensitive issue. In his speech the hon. member for Umbilo referred to what happened in Vietnam. I do not want to get involved into an argument as to why that war failed. But what was interesting about that war was the tremendous criticism levelled at the Diem Government, criticism which ultimately led to its downfall because of its intolerance towards the Buddhists. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that a comment was made by the leadership of that party about barbecued Buddhist monks. That eventually led to the downfall of that Government.

Given the type of threat that faces South Africa it is essential that every effort should be made to enlist the support of the various churches, and I am sure the hon. member for Standerton will agree with me on this. In this Bill the Government has gone out of his way to placate, to accept, the viewpoint of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. I think the viewpoint of these people has been accommodated in every possible respect. But I do not believe the Government has shown the same measure of tolerance towards some of the other churches. The Bill started off on a bad footing. I do not want to criticize the qualities of those who served on the Naudé Committee but all three church representatives came from the Dutch Reformed Church. No other church was represented. I think there should have been at least one representative from the ranks of the Anglican, Presbyterian, Methodist and Roman Catholic churches. It must be remembered that these churches after all account for one out of three White Christians in South Africa. It is well known that certain of these churches were unhappy about the fact that they were given no representation on the committee. For example, in August 1981 the Presbyterian Church I am told wanted to discuss the question of the composition of the Naudé Committee. I believe it would have been fair and sensible to have included one representative to represent the predominantly English-speaking churches. Seeing that that was not granted, it is inexcusable that these churches will now not have the opportunity of putting their viewpoints to a Select Committee of this House.

The PFP may not necessarily agree with those views but we nevertheless believe that they should have been given the opportunity to express them. Failure to do so, intentionally or unintentionally, meant a slap in the face of those churches. Let me say that I can understand that the Government’s views are different from ours because the vast majority of members of the Government party are members of the D.R. Church. But what I find difficult to understand is the attitude of the NRP to this Bill and to the feelings of the churches towards this Bill. For instance, in his Second Reading speech the hon. member for Durban Point said—

I can accept that point of view, but what I find difficult to accept is why that party was not prepared to allow the churches to come before a Select Committee to put forward their points of view. You see, Sir, it is not only the PFP who felt that this Bill should not apply to religious objectors alone. Many of the leaders of the Roman Catholic, Methodist, Presbyterian and Anglican Churches have asked for a different approach to the Bill. In 1981 for instance the Presbyterian Church of Southern Africa spoke of—

Sir, it seems that when one comes to the question of religion, hon. members of the NRP know better than the leaders of the churches themselves. For instance, religious leaders themselves called for legal representation on the board. Against that the NRP and the Government argued that it was unnecessary. Yet the leaders of the churches themselves have indicated that there should be legal representation. The ultimate insult against the English-speaking churches came from the hon. member for Durban North by way of an interjection when he said that if the hon. member for Yeoville asked for conscientious objection to be allowed also on non-religious grounds, he was pleading for anarchists. In other words, those church leaders who wanted the scope of the Bill widened so as to include moral and ethical considerations are pleading for anarchists. Mr. Speaker, while in this party do not necessarily hold the same view on this subject as those church leaders, we nevertheless respect their right to hold those views and we reject with contempt the view of the NRP that those church leaders are anarchists. I challenge them to say that in public.

Mr. Speaker, after everything that has been said during the past four days of the debate, it is still a problem for us to ascertaining exactly where the PFP stands as regards this point, and I shall tell you why I have this problem. The Bill provides that as far as objectors are concerned, in the first place, their objections should be on religious grounds and, in the second place, they should be universal and not selective. As far as the first point is concerned, the PFP made it quite clear that in addition to religious considerations they also want to allow moral and ethical grounds.

As far as the second point, namely the non-selective or universal aspect, is concerned it was less clear what the standpoint of the PFP was. However, I shall return to this later. I first want to make a statement with regard to moral and ethical objections. The problem in that regard is that people who make political objections—and I feel that in this regard there is a relatively outspoken unanimity among us that political objections cannot be accommodated—are usually those persons who base their political objections on ethical and moral grounds. Then the differentiation between political grounds on the one hand and moral and ethical grounds on the other becomes very difficult.

However, it goes somewhat further than that. It seems to me the PFP has the inherent problem that it is placing emphasis only on one side. On the one hand the PFP has stated quite clearly in this House, in the person of the hon. member for Yeoville, where it stands in this connection. The hon. member for Edenvale has no difficulty with the standpoint adopted by the hon. member for Yeoville either. On the other hand we nevertheless find that the hon. member for Berea, the hon. member for Pinelands and the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North consort with people who are obvious political objectors; selective political objectors. Of course this makes it difficult for us to ascertain where the PFP stands with regard to this extremely important aspect of our politics. However, the PFP must make a choice; they cannot have it both ways. They would not seem to be able to choose. They are trying to be “a party for all seasons”. Perhaps they are trying to be a “party for all objectors”. Perhaps they are trying to do this in the sense that when a person rejects the selective objection, they can accommodate him. However, when they are faced by a political objector, there are also people in the ranks of the PFP who are able to tell those people that they are welcome to join them, that the PFP is sympathetic towards them. [Interjections.]

There is another matter which also worries me, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Edenvale referred to the struggle between the church and the State, and so on. During the Second Reading I quoted the standpoint of the S.A. Council of Churches here, and asked hon. members of the PFP to dissociate themselves from this. After all, it was clear that the S.A. Council of Churches had adopted a selective political standpoint with regard to what they wanted conscientious objection to be based on. I did not hear a rejection of this from the ranks of the PFP.

This also brings me to the meeting held by the hon. member for Wynberg yesterday. I find it so typical of this problem. Unfortunately I do not see the hon. member for Wynberg in the House at the moment. If one must go by a report which appeared in this morning’s Cape Times, which creates the impression—if one were to accept this as the truth—that … Mr. Speaker, I see the hon. member for Wynberg is now entering the House. I was just referring to his meeting yesterday. On the one hand one notices that quite clearly a selective political objection was being stated here. It was said—and I am quoting—

He then went on to give a definition—

In this report we do not find a denial by the hon. member for Wynberg. He does not tell these people that they are wrong. He does not tell them that they cannot be accommodated. All that is stated in this report is the following—and I am again quoting—

What he is saying is therefore not incorrect, but what he does not say—according to this report—is what is giving us problems. It is stated here: We have political objections. On the other hand, the hon. member for Wynberg is saying: People, we say moral and ethical objections should also be included. However, there was no rejection of the pernicious standpoint which is being stated on the other side. That is why I have a problem. I was not present at the meeting but that is the impression being created in the outside world by the Press which is sympathetic to the PFP. It is that lame attitude of theirs which is bothering me—the problem that one cannot get a clear standpoint from them and that there is no clear denial of political objections but only emphasis on moral and ethical objections.

This brings one eventually to something approaching the lame standpoint of the person who is at present the PFP candidate in Waterkloof with regard to the Maseru attack. He said that if there were bases the Government would have been justified in its actions. However, he went on to say: I do not know whether there really were grounds for the attack and for that reason I cannot decide whether it was a good thing or not. Here we have this lame standpoint in respect of this tremendously important consideration. We get this lame standpoint from the PFP inside and outside Parliament and we should like to ask them to adopt a firm standpoint at some stage or other.

Mr. Speaker, in the course of my speech I shall reply to the hon. member for Helderkruin with regard to what he said in his speech.

When we consider the situation that will arise from this amending Bill, then we know that its object is to cause the S.A. Defence Force machinery to function more smoothly and efficiently, particularly now that the entire White population is being involved in a national defence force. Mistakes in the existing legislation are being rectified. The situation of apparent inequality in the commandos in comparison with other arms of the Defence Force has also been rectified. The important amendment is, however, that provision is being made in a meaningful way for religious objectors to be accommodated within the Defence Force, which will lead to the greatest degree of satisfaction both from the point of view of the Defence Force and the objector. The fact that the hon. the Minister is also prepared to make further concessions, as he in fact indicated in his speech this afternoon, and to make them in favour of the objectors, attests to the greatest degree of goodwill on the part of the S.A. Defence Force towards those persons who are really experiencing religious problems. It is for that reason that we on this side of the House are going to call on the hon. the Minister and other Defence Force authorities to guard stringently against the so-called ethical objectors or ordinary conscientious objectors finding a loophole in this legislation in order to evade their civic obligations to this country. I should like to remind you that in America, within a period of six years, the total number of objectors grew from 17 900 to 40 000. We should never lose sight of the fact that the Republic of South Africa owes its origin as a State to the tactical strategic factors in the then world trade of circa 1652. The discovery of gold and the tremendous wealth of strategic minerals such as chrome and uranium, the sea route around the Cape, our infrastructure, our strategic position and the threat of conflict between the major powers place us in an eternally threatened position. For that reason we must have a formidable national army and every citizen, including the religious objector, who is physically able to play his part, must do so, even if it is in a non-combatant capacity or in other forms of service to the State.

I think it is a great pity that the hon. member for Wynberg referred to this service in a non-combatant capacity as being so drastic that it could be compared to slave labour in South Africa. The official Opposition cannot escape the impression it left in this debate with its moving plea to include the so-called ethical or conscientious objectors in this legislation. It will not be able to escape the impression it created that it is also sympathetic towards those persons who do not mean well by South Africa. Every objective onlooker has to come to the conclusion that it is sympathetic towards those persons who feel that the existing order in South Africa cannot be justifiably defended, those persons who may have political motives in the guise of ethical and conscientious motives for refusing to participate in the defence of this country. This is a fact; we cannot view it otherwise.

Let us consider the reference by the hon. member for Helderkruin to the meeting yesterday afternoon. I am quoting from what this morning’s Cape Times reports the chairman of the student council to have said—

Even if the hon. member did not agree with him …

Why are you implicating me if I did not agree with him? [Interjections.]

It implicates people with political motives who could be included in the legislation on the pretext of having ethical or conscientious objections.

Biblical or religious grounds were frequently cited in arguments concerning the principle of waging war. The hon. member for Pinelands is unfortunately not here at the moment, but he, for example, alleged that there is no such thing as a just war. I should have liked to have asked him: If a war is being waged by the anti-Christ, by unbelievers, by communists against an order supporting Christianity, is a war in defence of Christianity unjust?

The hon. member talked about having to choose the lesser of two evils.

Fortunately our churches are generally very positive as far as the S.A. Defence Force and our national service are concerned. That is also the reason why the major religious denominations are represented in the Defence Force. The hon. member for Edenvale remarked that only members of the D.R. Church served on the Naudé Committee. That is true, but they obtained evidence from every other religious denomination in South Africa. I do not think we have any reason to cast suspicion on findings of the Naudé committee. As an example of the attitude of the churches with regard to the question of refusal to render compulsory military service, I shall quote from the church publication of 16 March of the Reformed Church on this specific subject—

One has great appreciation for such official standpoints from our churches. The Bible, the Church, and religion remain the anchors, the foundations on which a nation’s spiritual power is built. They must therefore of necessity play a key role in equipping the South African soldier spiritually for his task. The spiritual support of our churches builds up the morale of our soldiers to do only their very best in their operational tasks in the interests of South Africa. That is why the CP is strongly opposed to any form of national service evasion and we therefore take pleasure in supporting the amendments incorporated in this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the official Opposition takes it amiss of the hon. the Minister for having accepted so many amendments. I can attest to the fact today—and I have been in this House for several years—that seldom has a study group given more attention to a piece of legislation than this piece of legislation before us. To us religion is a serious matter. Hon. members should just remember one thing, and that is that we are spiritual descendants of the Huguenots. It is in our blood, and accordingly we regard religious matters as being of importance, and that is why so many amendments to this piece of legislation have been accepted.

Now that we have reached the end of the discussion of this legislation—the Third Reading—I am still as convinced as I was during the Second Reading debate that the official Opposition wants to destroy national service. [Interjections.] They convinced me of that by way of the amendments they moved and their attitude here. The late Prof. E. C. Pienaar always said: It is not the “what” of things that counts, but the “how”. What they did in this House was to show us the “how” of things. In fact they showed us how a thing should not be done.

In point of fact, this piece of legislation has only one important provision, viz. that relating to religious objectors, and after all, the whole argument in the Committee Stage revolved around that. Surely that is what this piece of legislation is all about. It is not about anything else. However, what did the official Opposisition do? They came along with the question of moral and ethical objectors. What board on earth do they want appointed to determine who objectors of this nature are? How does one determine moral and ethical grounds? [Interjections.] How does one determine moral and ethical principles? How does one determine a person’s conscience? [Interjections.] There is no one who can determine that. There is not even a single psychologist in the whole world who can determine that. [Interjections.] Those hon. members come forward with this kind of thing because they want to destroy national service. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister bent over backwards to accommodate everyone, but if the hon. the Minister were to leave this loophole open—and here I agree with the hon. member for Durban Point—that would mean the end of national service. [Interjections.] If we know anything about the Opposition, they will flood that board with political activists. One board would never be able to deal with everything. I doubt whether five boards could deal with it. It is the object of those hon. members to destroy national service. I want to give the Opposition some advice today. I cannot help it; I see them as the heirs of the old Unionist Party, and the old Unionist Party destroyed the old “Sap” Party. It devoured it from within.

Tell us about your war record.

Those hon. members of the official Opposition devoured the United Party from within until it died of anaemia. [Interjections.] The country cannot trust the official Opposition with the security of the State. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon. members a secret. [Interjections.] It is for this reason that the official Opposition has not put forward a candidate in Malmesbury. It is for this reason that the official Opposition has only put forward a candidate in one of five by-elections.

Why do you not put forward a candidate in Houghton?

They cannot say that Malmesbury is a rural constituency because it extends almost to the front door of Parliament. Much of the municipality of Milnerton falls under Malmesbury, but nevertheless they do not put forward a candidate there. They know that the voters are not monkeys and know a jingo when they see one, let alone hear one.

What is a jingo?

A jingo is the descendant of the old Unionist Party. One could not leave South African interests in the hands of those jingos, nor will the voters leave the interests of South Africa in the hands of these jingos.

Mr. Speaker, I really do not wish to reply to what the hon. member Mr. Van Staden had to say, except to say that his accusation that we wish to destroy national service, is so devoid of truth that I really do not wish to react to it. It is a foolish and irresponsible standpoint, as well as being groundless.

Since we have reached the Third Reading stage, in my opinion, there are three questions we should ask ourselves. What have we achieved with this debate? What are the further effects of this debate and the decisions which have been taken here going to be? Finally, what is the impression the outside world has gained from this debate and this Bill? As we have stated very clearly, we welcome the fact that in principle, statutory provision is for the first time being made for religious objectors. We have certainly made progress. We on this side welcome it. We have also expressed our appreciation for the fact that the hon. the Minister was prepared to accept certain amendments, amendments which represent improvements in a number of respects. It is a great pity that the others were not accepted, but I shall leave it at that.

On our part we tried to include other categories of people as well, people who had serious and honest moral and ethical objections. That is besides the people who have mainly religious objections. The hon. the Minister and this House would concede that when one thinks of Mahatma Gandhi, there certainly is a category of person who, because of serious and honest moral and ethical objections, refuses to participate in wars and other things. The hon. the Minister cannot deny that there are such persons. Now the hon. the Minister has come forward with the accusation—thereby setting the tone for the Third Reading debate—that we tried to include other categories in a dishonest way. I do not think this was worthy of the hon. the Minister, since we have repeatedly made our standpoint very clear.

With your permission, Sir, I should like to leave the official standpoint of the PFP which has been stated here at that for a moment and raise a matter which I do not often raise in this House, viz. my personal view on this matter. I wish to emphasize that this is my personal view. As the debate in this House has progressed, I have become increasingly alarmed, since what the hon. the Minister and other hon. members opposite have said, has, in fact, been a personal indictment of me and my past. That is what it was. It was also a personal indictment of some other hon. members of my age in this House. It was also a personal indictment of the fathers of some hon. members.

What is this all about?

I am talking about the attitude I adopted in respect of the declaration of war in 1939. I was unable to associate myself with that declaration of war, not on the basis of religious objections, nor on the basis of moral or ethical objections, but on the basis of political objections. [Interjections.] I was not the only one. There were hundreds of thousands of Afrikaners, supporters of the late Gen. Hertzog and Dr. Malan, who refused to abide by the decision of Parliament on 4 September 1939 to enter the war.

Was the war on our borders? [Interjections.]

There were hundreds of thousands of Afrikaners who were not prepared to accept and to abide by the decision of Parliament in 1939. I was one of them, and I have never been ashamed of the standpoint I adopted in 1939 and afterwards. At that stage I was honestly convinced that for me it was the correct standpoint. I did not judge others because they disagreed with me. There are many hon. members in this House, even in my party, who had different opinions in 1939. That was their right.

Forget about the past now.

I shall come to the point in due course. The hon. the Minister and other hon. members have placed me in a personal dilemma. In 1939 I said that I was not prepared to accept that decision, since firstly, I believed that the interests of South Africa were not at stake at that stage. I truly believed that. Secondly, I truly believed that it was not correct for us to enter a war automatically whenever England became involved in a war. That was the second basic standpoint I adopted.

The standpoint which the late Gen. Hertzog stated at the time was the standpoint many of us adopted. I should like to read what Gen. Hertzog had to say in that debate. During that historic event I was sitting in the public gallery as a young student of the University of Stellenbosch. Gen. Hertzog said on that occasion (Hansard, Vol. 36, col. 20)—

What was this all about? The issue was a refusal to participate in the war. As far as I and thousands of other Afrikaners were concerned, this stemmed from political considerations and not from religious or ethical/ moral reasons. Those things were proof of the tremendous division which existed in our country.

Now I think it is a pity that the hon. the Minister and hon. members on the opposite side of this House are adopting a kind of head-in-the-sand political attitude by wanting to deny that today there is still a great deal of division in this country. Basically, this is what it is all about.

I wish to ask the hon. the Minister seriously once again, since he knows what I am talking about, that firstly, for the sake of the Defence Force and for the sake of unity in South Africa, we should accept and acknowledge that there is serious political division in this country. We cannot get away from that, and I wish to ask the hon. the Minister to reconsider how this matter can be dealt with in this country. I truly believe that we have had an opportunity here of attaining something, not only for the Defence Force, but for unity in South Africa. I believe that on this occasion we could have done something which could unite South Africa in harmony and unity, despite the political division in our country. I am afraid—I am saying this in all honesty; it comes from my heart—that as has happened many times in the past, before this Government came into power, we do not wish to accommodate those people who honestly and sincerely disagree with us. Therefore I wish to make an appeal once again, even if it is at this late stage, that we should not allow these opportunities to pass one by one. We must not take steps which will make this division even worse instead of bringing about reconciliation and harmony.

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to what the hon. member Prof. Olivier said. He began by saying that the official Opposition did not want to destroy the system of national service. However, I want to give hon. members the assurance that if the amendments to section 126A moved by the official Opposition were to be accepted by this House, then what the hon. member Mr. Van Staden said would have been quite true, and the system of national service would have come to nothing.

The hon. member also countended that I had said that the official Opposition had acted in a dishonest way. At no stage did I say that. If I did say it, I withdraw it. I said that the PFP had deliberately acted in that way. That is what I said. I said that the PFP had deliberately moved amendments to section 126A in order to rob that provision of its effectiveness. That is why I opposed the amendment. I cannot permit the system of national service and with it, the security of our country, from being destroyed by ill-considered acts and decisions here.

The hon. member for Wynberg said that he accepted that there had to be a close link between the churches and the Defence Force and he referred to an article written by the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Cape Town which appeared in The Cape Times this morning. I want to put it to him that the contact between the churches and the Defence Force has been constant and has been taking place for years. Let me give the hon. member an idea of the means to stabilize this contact that are at the disposal of the Defence Force. There are more than 1 350 Chaplains in the S.A. Defence Force. This is the biggest organization in which the churches are represented. There are more than 105 denominations for which the S.A. Defence Force makes provision. I therefore ask: What body is in a better position to solve this problem? What body has its finger more on the pulse of the country as far as religious views are concerned? I think that this represents the best possible liaison between churches and State.

The hon. member for Durban Point referred to the number of amendments accepted.

I do not think that a political party should bluff itself by counting how many of its amendments are accepted. After all, it is the quality that counts. However, one statement that the hon. member made which I believe is quite correct is that one ought to count how many of one’s party’s amendments are rejected. That does give one an idea of the basis of the contribution one has made with regard to these statutory amendments. In passing I must say that I was particularly pleased to note that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is present in this House. If I am to judge by the reaction of hon. members of the PFP during this Third Reading debate this afternoon I must say that they are backing down. They are backing down towards the right, or at least in the direction of a more moderate attitude. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the reason for that is to be sought in the presence in this House today of the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition or whether it is perhaps the result of the two poles that are lacking today—the Helen and Harry, both of whom are absent today. During the Second Reading stage, I am sure, it was an entirely different story.

Mr. Speaker, I have never wanted to drag politics into this debate. That has not been my intention. However, hon. members of the official Opposition tried time and again to involve me in that way. However, I have not referred to terminologies such as slave labour. The hon. member for Pietersburg referred to that again a moment ago. I did not say that anyone who was a religious objector, a person with strong religious convictions, was a slave labourer. Nor did I insinuate that the S.A. Defence Force was the slavedriver. However, that is what was inferred from this by implication.

That is untrue.

I find it regrettable that politics is being dragged into this matter.

That is not true.

At no stage did I say that this system, for which the statutory amendment being discussed is to make provision, is unjust. The hon. member for Berea said that it was unjust; not I. I did not drag politics into this. To tell the truth, that insinuation that was made in fact means that this statutory amendment as, I hope, it will be approved by this House, makes provision for an unjust system. I believe that is wrong. That can only be described as playing politics with statutory amendments and debates concerning them.

Mr. Speaker I am convinced, however, that there is division in the ranks of the PFP.

That is what you hope.

They are vociferously trying to intimate that they are very happy. However, the division is highly visible.

I now want to come back to another aspect. In the no-confidence debate this year I put a question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. To this day he has not given me a reply. I want to know from him whether he agrees with Mrs. Di Bishop who said that terrorists—the terrorists of Swapo—are freedom fighters in this country. He has not replied to me in that regard, Mr. Speaker.

She never said that. That is not what she said.

Of course, there are other aspects, too, of this division in the ranks of the PFP that is now becoming perceptible. [Interjections.] They are now trying to have ethical and moral grounds included in this legislation. I wanted to know from them on what basis they want this done. What do they regard as ethical and moral? As soon as I contend that politics has crept in here I detect a definite sensitivity on the part of the PFP as the hon. member Prof. Olivier displayed here this afternoon. That is why I say that they have dragged politics into this. In fact the hon. member Prof. Olivier confirmed this in the speech he made here. At no stage did I say that an amendment should be proposed in terms of which there should be discrimination against religious objectors, as hon. members of the Opposition have done by way of their amendments. However, the hon. member for Sea Point made a plea for reduced punishment for people with political, ethical or moral objections in comparison with those relating to religious objectors. I did not place a higher premium on moral and ethical values than on religious convictions. These are aspects that were raised by hon. members of the official Opposition. I have always said that religion is terribly important in this country. Indeed, that is why that is stipulated in the constitution of this country and that, too, is why we must make provision for religious objectors.

However, let us consider some of the people who could be regarded as objectors on this ethical and moral basis, or even on the political basis. Let us consider what hon. members of the official Opposition have said about these people.

The hon. member for Berea referred to Yeats. He said that Yeats could be accommodated in this regard. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North went to give evidence in court for a political objector.

In mitigation.

The hon. member for Berea said that he could foresee that in the proposed system of the official Opposition, Moll could also be accommodated.

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

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I am unable to reply to questions now. The hon. member for Yeoville has said that he does not see his way clear to accommodating these gentlemen. I say that there is division in that party. [Interjections.] Let us consider what Yeats has said on occasion. This is what he said at a stage when he was being interrogated about South Africa. His answer in this regard was—

The following question was then put to him—

His reply to this was “yes”. There are hon. member here who make pleas in respect of these aspects and want to accommodate these people, whereas there are other hon. members in that party who say that these people cannot be accommodated. This is the division in the PFP I speak of regarding important statutory amendments such as those embodied in this legislation.

Will the hon. the Minister take a question now?

I shall reply to a question, Sir, but at the same time I should like the hon. member for Berea to answer this question of mine: How are they going to reconcile this division of theirs in Waterkloof? I should like to refer to that in the words used by the PFP candidate in Waterkloof himself. He referred to it as the “Houghton versus Waterkloof clique”.

The hon. the Minister has mentioned the name of Peter Moll. I should like to ask him why when he was Head of the Army he eventually recognized Moll as a conscientious objector after Moll had spent 126 days in solitary confinement? Why did he recognize him?

Mr. Speaker, my answer is that I was sorry for the man. However, I am the only man who tries to determine what a religious objector is. I became personally involved in that case. I can tell the hon. member the whole story. I ascertained that there were certain political objectors who wanted to use this channel to be identified as religious objectors. I then said that we should test the man. In the first place I gave instructions that he should appear before the board. The finding of the board was that he was by no means a religious objector. I then gave instructions that he should be dealt with as if he did not want to carry out an order; in other words, he did not want to comply with the instructions of the detention barracks. He was punished accordingly. After he had been detained for that period I said to myself: Let us say the board made a mistake. Let us say I made a mistake. The hon. member for Berea came to speak to me because he had sympathy with such people. Of course, I do not take it amiss of him.

It was on behalf of his parents who were naturally very concerned.

Quite right. I appreciate that. I am not accusing the hon. member of that. However, I then said: Let him go. What happened then? Then he went to the Netherlands and they then began to issue publications about the “unjust war in South Africa”. That is what is unfortunate about this matter. He is prepared to serve out his punishment but as soon as he comes out, he says: No, I was there for political reasons and not for religious reasons, and I am now going to talk politics. I do not want to accuse any of those fellows. I simply think that the system did not work correctly. As a result we came forward with these statutory amendments to amend the legislation in such a way that we could accommodate the true religious objector without allowing the man who wanted to ride on the back of the so-called religious objector or who objected on moral-ethical grounds—which are in fact political grounds—to use that as a loop-hole.

I am sorry about this shift in emphasis from right to left that is taking place in the PFP. I predict that the hon. member for Wynberg will not remain the PFP’s chief spokesman on defence matters for very long. [Interjections.] The hon. Chief Whip on this side refers to Haas Das, but I want to refer to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North. [Interjections.] He is already taking over there. I do not foresee that that will be the only change. As soon as that congress convenes and the “Young Progs” come forward and the leftist and rightist elements are there, then I predict trouble for them in the year that lies ahead.

I have just been referring to the hon. member for Wynberg. He is a good friend of mine and I should like to indicate to hon. members how he has changed in the past few years since 1978 with regard to these religious objectors. I should like to quote from Hansard. This was at a stage when similar legislation was before this House. I quote from Hansard, 1978, col. 3307—

Let us see what the hon. member for Bloemfontein West, the present hon. Minister of Justice, had to say to that (Hansard, 1978, col. 3474)—

The hon. member then said: “Yes, I did.”

Here, then, we have the situation. In 1978 he said that they should be dealt with, but after that he said: No, they are going to be many; we are going to have a great many of these cases. Now he wants to go further and by way of his amendment to the proposed section 126A he wants to say: Throw open the gates; let them in. That is why I am objecting. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North then said: “It will only be a tiny group”. Therefore they are contradicting one another.

Let us consider what another member of that party said about the same aspects. What he said we find in Hansard, 1978, col. 3480. He is not present at the moment and therefore I shall not refer to him by name. This is what he said—

The legislation that is now being piloted through makes provision for that, but the official Opposition is voting against it. That is what they said they advocated in 1978. We should really be consistent in regard to these aspects if we are to counter the dangers facing our country.

I could go further back to 1974. I think that this is an identical problem. At the time there was a similar debate. The issue was that people could be prevented from performing national service or that they could be encouraged to come forward with religious objections. I now quote from Hansard, 1974, col. 1469—

It is exactly the same thing. That is the division which is dominating that party at the moment.

I conclude by repeating once again that this is absolutely vital legislation. I want to thank the CP and the NRP in particular for having supported this side of the House as they have. The Bill is in the interests of the Republic of South Africa and is generally welcomed.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Mr. Speaker, I referred yesterday to the surprising contrast between the views held by the hon. the Minister about ten years ago in respect of the Coloured people and the standpoint of the present hon. Prime Minister. At that time the hon. the Minister said—

The entire debate that has been conducted over the past year has revolved around the standpoint adopted by the present hon. Prime Minister. The present hon. Minister said in a speech—

That is what the debate has been concerned with over the past year. This side of the House was presented with a fait accompli and had to make a choice with regard to the approach to the constitutional situation in South Africa. Yesterday, however, the hon. the Minister said by way of interjection that he still supported the standpoint of the hon. Prime Minister, Mr. Vorster. I want to tell him that this is becoming an absurd kind of argument where, while accusing us of having made an about-face, he adopted a specific standpoint ten years ago in his view of the Coloured people, changed that standpoint during the past year or the preceding years and is now adopting a standpoint which differs materially from that of his leader. I should very much like the hon. the Minister to give us an answer once again in respect of these matters because this is becoming an absurd debate in South African politics. The hon. the Minister is now being described by the Press as the so-called one-man think tank of the NP. This is an astonishing thing to say. That hon. Minister is the one-man think tank. Ten years ago, when the hon. the Minister adopted a specific standpoint on these matters, the NP dealt with him so severely that the hon. the Minister had to make an about-face as far as his standpoint was concerned. After his Robertson speech about a Coloured homeland and the role of the Coloured people in the South African situation with regard to our diversity of nations, the hon. the Minister wrote a letter to the Press—to Die Burger, to be specific. I want to remind the hon. the Minister of the way he concluded his letter in Die Burger. He wrote—

I want to tell the hon. the Minister that the vehemence with which the National Press and its group attacked him and his conservative standpoint at the time does not seem strange to me. The same applies today, i.e. when one disagrees with them in South Africa in one’s view of the Coloured people and the Indians, they, the National Press, attack one just as vehemently. We on this side of the House say that as regards the approach to cultural diversity and the way in which it should be accommodated, we do not adhere to the standpoint of the old NP that separate provision should not be made for the Coloured people geographically in their cultural dispensation. In that respect we have changed our views and we now adopt a different standpoint. However, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that the principle of non-integration is still the principle to which this party adheres. As far as that principle is concerned, we have not changed, although we say today that a geographical content for this cultural group is in fact a possibility. However, that hon. Minister is sitting in a party today which not only says that this is impracticable today, but which accepts the principle of an integrated culture for Coloured people, Indians and Whites. [Interjections.] I state this categorically.

I want to conclude by saying to the hon. the Minister that we on this side of the House may be regarded as the last of the backvelders, but that we are starting a new movement in South Africa, not only with regard to conservative views but also with regard to the survival of our people and of White civilization in Southern Africa, and in such a way that not only we ourselves and our culture will survive, but all the other cultural groups in Southern Africa as well.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset the hon. member for Rissik saw fit to attack the hon. the Minister in an extremely pious way and to accuse him of using hurtful language, and he then sanctimoniously stated that he, the hon. member for Rissik, would never use that kind of language. If we were to read the speech of the hon. member for Rissik, we would find little in it on the promotion of culture as such. However, the hon. member was definitely disparaging, acrimonious and personal, not only towards the hon. the Minister of National Education, but also towards the hon. the Prime Minister. I therefore wish to say to the hon. member for Rissik that he should first put his own house in order before levelling such an accusation at anyone else in this House.

What is this all about? During the course of my speech I shall try to indicate how the statements of the hon. member for Rissik conflict with those of the hon. member for Koedoespoort and the hon. member for Germiston District. If there has ever been an occasion in which it has been clearly indicated how the various hon. members of the CP, simply to score political points, disagree with one another, it has been in this very debate. I shall prove this. What are we dealing with here? We are dealing here with a Bill in which we are extending an existing Act, which only made provision for the promotion of the culture of the Whites, so that the promotion of culture could also be undertaken in respect of the various other cultures. This is one of the cornerstones of this legislation. At a later stage I shall point out how the hon. member for Koedoespoort agreed with this and spelt it out in so many words in the speech he made.

The second aspect is the establishment of regional councils with the specific purpose of confirming the first objective of this legislation, viz. equal rights for everyone in respect of the promotion of culture. This will take place through these regional councils. Therefore it is an absolute untruth if the hon. member for Rissik says that we are on the road to cultural integration. That is an absolute untruth, and the hon. member is aware that if he raises such an argument, he is only doing so to try and tell the general public things which are very far from the truth. Let us analyse what the hon. members had to say. I am referring, in the first instance, to the hon. member for Germiston District. Inter alia, she said (Hansard, 3 March 1983, col. 2287)—

Then further on in the same column she said—

What is the truth of the matter? Meanwhile, the hon. the Minister had already stated specifically in this Second Reading speech that there would be separate promotion of culture for the various population groups. Consequently the hon. member for Germiston District is morally obliged to support the Third Reading.

Unfortunately, the hon. member for Koedoespoort is not present here today. He acknowledged that this legislation was being extended or broadened to include the culture of all population groups. Today, however, the hon. member for Rissik is speaking about cultural integration. He should rather talk to his colleague who has indicated that this legislation is aimed at making provision for the culture of all population groups. But what is more the hon. member for Koedoespoort went on to say (Hansard, 15 March 1983, col. 3133)—

Today, however, the hon. member for Rissik is arguing in direct conflict with this. It seems to me as if the hon. member for Rissik has lost his bearings. This hon. member is so frustrated that he no longer knows what he is saying. He has undergone a complete metamorphosis. Let us take a further look at what the hon. member is doing. I have the hon. member’s Hansard here, and he said (Hansard, 28 March 1983)—

The hon. member for Koedoespoort pointed out in his speech that this legislation was indeed making provision for the survival of the various cultures. Yet, the hon. member for Rissik was arguing that there would be no similar opportunity for the survival of the Afrikaans culture. Moreover, the hon. member for Rissik went on to say (Hansard, 28 March 1983)—

I wish to say with all the conviction at my disposal, Mr. Speaker, that not one hon. member of the CP would give more for the preservation of the Afrikaner culture than a single hon. member of the NP.

Hear, hear!

I hope I can make hon. members of the CP understand that now. It is no use their pretending to the people outside that they are the protectors of the Afrikaner culture. [Interjections.] The fact of the matter is that the NP and present hon. members of the NP—not only the representatives of the NP, but all the Nationalists outside—are just as intent on preserving the Afrikaner culture as they have ever been. However, there is an important difference. The hon. member for Rissik emphasized in his speech that, in the first instance, the issue was White culture. That is where the big difference lies. We on this side of the House say—just like the hon. member for Koedoespoort; and I shall quote his Hansard in this respect as well—that it is the right of the Whites, as well as of the Coloureds, the Indians, and the Black people, to pursue their culture as well. In the past, the hon. member for Rissik himself has held the standpoint that one should grant the various population groups the privilege of having their own culture, of preserving, fostering and extending it.

When have we denied that?

The hon. member for Brakpan would do well to keep quiet for once. [Interjections.]

However, the hon. member for Rissik went further and quoted the hon. the Prime Minister in his speech. He said that the hon. the Prime Minister had, on occasion, referred to the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians as being one nation—relatively speaking. I now wish to quote what the hon. member for Rissik said here. (Hansard, 28 March 1983)—

I now wish to ask the hon. member for Rissik where he got this from. He must tell us where he got it from. I wish to challenge him to tell me precisely where he got this quotation from. The hon. member went even further and said—

This was the next statement the hon. member for Rissik made. What are we dealing with now? As a former clergyman, the hon. member will forgive me for saying that his exegesis is becoming muddled and that, like certain groups, he is now only taking only one brief passage, quoting it out of context, and using it to try and support his argument.

I wish to refer to what the hon. the Prime Minister said in this House on Friday, 16 April 1982. I am referring to column 4628 in last year’s Hansard. What was being dealt with on that occasion? The question of self-determination; the meaning of that term. That was what it was all about. I quote what the hon. the Prime Minister had to say in this House on that occasion—

The hon. the Prime Minister went on to give an explanation, and he used the USA as an example, where it is relative in the sense that a particular people has to maintain its right of self-determination, as well as the right it has to determine its own destiny. Then the hon. member for Pinelands put a question to the hon. the Prime Minister. Referring to the hon. the Prime Minister, the hon. member for Pinelands said the following—

Then the hon. member for Pinelands put the following question—

Of course, we should compare this with what the hon. member for Rissik told this House. I maintain that what he said was a distortion of the true facts. The hon. the Prime Minister then replied to the question of the hon. member for Pinelands as follows—

Then the hon. the Prime Minister referred to the fact that for the Whites to exercise the right of self-determination, thereby determining their own destiny, it was necessary for them to take into account the 2,5 million Coloureds who live with them in the same area. In that sense it is relative for any people to exercise its right of self-determination because it is also in contact with the various other peoples. However, the hon. the Prime Minister went on to explain the matter further. During the afternoon sitting (Hansard, col. 4632), the hon. the Prime Minister had this to say—

What was being referred to here was minority groups such as the Italians, the Portuguese and the Greeks, minority groups in this country. The hon. the Prime Minister went on to-say—

Surely this is the situation we are dealing with. Of course, it is true that in this country we also have minority groups such as English-speaking people, Germans, Portuguese and so on, who all want to preserve their own culture but who meanwhile constitute a single South African nation. The hon. the Prime Minister went on to say—

I wish to state categorically that the hon. member for Rissik is trying to state the facts in such a way here that they really do not convey the correct image to the general public. The hon. member is in the process of using things here so that they may be conveyed to the general public as it suits him and his party. I want to say that this is absolutely disgraceful. It is disgraceful that the hon. member for Rissik is taking this opportunity, while we are in the process of discussing sound legislation, the objectives of which are extremely commendable according to the hon. member for Koedoespoort, to come forward in this debate on the Third Reading of this legislation and to say, in effect, that the hon. member for Koedoespoort was not telling the truth. He said that it was not true. He said that that was not the standpoint of the CP. I wish to say to the hon. member for Rissik that, firstly, it does not befit him as a senior member of this House to disparage his own colleague who belongs to the same party in that way. Secondly, it does not befit him to allow such an incorrect image to be conveyed to the general public in respect of a fine piece of legislation which genuinely seeks to promote the culture of the Afrikaner, the Coloured, the Black man and the Indian. No right-minded person could have any objection to this objective of the legislation.

I wish to conclude by indicating once again that this legislation does not seek to promote an integrated culture. This legislation is aimed at creating a fair and just opportunity for all the various groups to preserve, promote and extend their culture. I maintain that the way in which the hon. member for Rissik is behaving is a disparagement of the very Afrikaner culture he would so much like to foster.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Virginia said that he wanted to tell the CP that this party was not the only custodian of the culture of the Afrikaner. We have never said that Mr. Piet Clase and others are not custodians of the Afrikaner’s culture. We have never tried to say or maintain that. [Interjections.] I want to say to that hon. member that the public at large no longer have confidence in that member and his party as far as the culture and political future of South Africa are concerned. [Interjections.] He can ask the hon. member for Roodepoort, who apparently suffered a motion of no confidence last night when he awaited to turn “Witpoortjie” into “Bruinpunt”. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Virginia tried to present my hon. colleague, the hon. member for Rissik, as a person who supposedly twists words. However, the hon. member for Rissik quoted from the Hansard of the hon. the Prime Minister. He also quoted from a speech by the hon. the Minister of National Education. I should like to tell the hon. the Minister of National Education that the speech he made at Robertson was one of the most important and most illuminating speeches made about the Brown people in the ’seventies. We profoundly appreciate the standpoint adopted by the hon. the Minister in that speech. Because at that stage the hon. the Minister also put forward a different solution for the Brown people to that of integration, he was attacked and disparaged by Nasionale Pers.

Was that also Mr. Vorster’s standpoint?

Mr. Vorster said that the Coloureds were a nation-in-the-making.

Was a Coloured homeland his standpoint? [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Vorster said that the Coloureds were a nation-in-the-making and that hon. member was elected to this House of Assembly under Mr. Vorster’s banner. I ask him …

Do not run away from my question.

I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether the Coloureds are a nation-in-the-making.

What do the Coloureds themselves say? [Interjections.]

Order!

I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs—he works with the Brown people—whether the Coloureds are a nation-in-the-making, as the hon. Mr. Vorster said?

No.

But the hon. the Deputy Minister who is now saying that they are not a nation-in-the-making, has to say so, because the hon. the Prime Minister says they are not a nation-in-the-making.

That is not why I say it; it is my own standpoint.

At the time, under the leadership of the hon. John Vorster, the hon. the Deputy Minister said that the Coloureds were a nation-in-the-making. [Interjections.]

Order!

I now turn to the hon. the Minister of National Education. In his 1961 speech he says—

I ask him whether he still regards the Coloureds as a people.

No.

But according to the words I quoted, the hon. the Minister said that the Coloureds were a people. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs agreed with Mr. Vorster in saying that the Coloureds were a nation-in-the-making, but now those hon. gentlemen are the people who say that the CP are the people who are performing a somersault. Never in my life have I seen people who have performed such a political somersault as the hon. the Minister of National Education and the hon. the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs.

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

No, Sir. I say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that it is because he has performed so many political somersaults that he has so many problems in Oudtshoorn. It is because separate development is being undermined.

No, I do not have problems. [Interjections.] You should have come and stood in Malmesbury. [Interjections.]

Order!

We should like to assess the Bill on the basis of pronouncements by the governing party because we have just heard certain pronouncements by that party. For example, the hon. the Prime Minister said that the Coloureds were part of the South African nation. The hon. the Prime Minister also said that he was closer to Mrs. Alathea Jansen than to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. the Prime Minister said that he was closer to Mr. S. V. Petersen, the Coloured poet, than to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. members must give the hon. member for Kuruman the opportunity to make his speech.

I should like to quote what Die Burger said on 3 February after the hon. the Prime Minister has conveyed this message of his—

[Interjections.] With emphasis, it is said.

Nationhood!

It goes on to say—

[Interjections.]

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

No, I am sorry. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said at the NP congress in 1981 that the Whites and the Coloureds were in a crucible of nationhood, (“’n smeltkroes van nasiewording”). [Interjections.] If I am to assess this legislation and determine its consequences with reference to the statements by the hon. members of the governing party I must simply say that it is crucible legislation. [Interjections.] Nowadays the NP is such a middle-of-the-road party. It stands for separation but also for communality. [Interjections.] That is exactly what the situation is.

I should now like to put a question to the hon. the Minister. In the Committee Stage I put a question to the hon. the Minister concerning a rugby clinic held recently in my part of the world. It was arranged by the South African Rugby Board in co-operation with the Directorate of Sport Promotion, which provided assistance in organizing this function. All schools in the vicinity—White, Brown and Black—were invited to this clinic.

Do you object to that?

The hon. member for Bellville asks whether I object to that. There were Coloureds there, and young Blacks from primary and high schools. When photographs were taken Dr. Craven said: “No, fellows, it must not be a photo of White children only; bring a Black child too. [Interjections.] Hon. members must please listen now. Dr. Craven told the primary school children: Come and stand here next to Oom Abie, referring to Abe Williams. I want to ask the hon. member for Bellville: Do you object or do you not object to this multiracial primary school rugby clinic that took place there?

Order! The hon. member for Kuruman must please address the Chair.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.

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

No, not now. Then I put the question to the hon. member for Kimberley North, because at Warrenton a similar meeting was held. Does he approve of it? [Interjections.] He is silent! [Interjections.]

You are a racist.

I shall come to that hon. member who says I am a racist. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Turffontein reminds me so much of the song “Daar is ’n hele spul brakke in Turffontein” because there is so much barking and fussing going on behind my back that I am barely able to address you, Mr. Speaker.

Order! I just want to point out to the hon. member that his colleagues in the CP who sit around him are also conversing a great deal. [Interjections.]

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. A precondition for presenting this clinic was that all schools and all clubs of all population groups should be invited to take part in the clinic. This was a precondition for attendance at the clinic. When I asked the hon. the Minister about it he said that it was the Government’s policy that normal school sport which was organized as part of the educational programme of the school should be practised separately, in the same way as schools and education were separate. He said—

What does that mean?

Just what it says.

As long as the child participates for his school, that is separate sport, but what happens the moment the same children, teachers and coaches are invited to a course? The moment the child takes part at the sub-provincial or provincial level he is compelled by national sporting bodies to take part in multiracial sport and multiracial courses.

But who forces him? [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member for Kimberley North asks who forces him. The condition for participation in this clinic was that it should be multiracial. Those who were not in favour of that simply had to stay away.

Yes, they could stay away, after all.

That is interesting.

Let us look at school sport, if we want to consider the consequences of this. The school has its team, with a teacher as coach. The sub-union of schools has its selectors, management and coaches who are teachers. The coaches, selectors and management of the school’s provincial teams are teachers. Organized school sport is an extension of the school because it is still the primary school or high school child and his teacher who take part in the sport.

I want to say that the CP regards school sport at the subprovincial and provincial level, as an extension of school sport. The hon. the Minister said that sports actions outside the school context presented by national sporting bodies could be multiracial. Then, when such a clinic is presented, the school is asked whether it objects to participating in a multiracial meeting. If the school does object, that school is eliminated.

That is correct.

The hon. member of the PFP can understand that. He says that that is correct. That hon. member is honest when he says that multiracialism should be permitted at all levels, and at the school level as well. I have ho problem with that hon. member when he says that.

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

No, Sir. The hon. member wants to ask me what Jaap has to say about that, because that is all that the hon. member has on his brain. [Interjections.] Therefore I do not wish to answer his question.

But what does Jaap say about that?

If the school decides to participate in such a multiracial course or clinic, the children are asked whether they object to participating.

What do your children say?

If the child or his parents object, then that child is eliminated and is refused participation in that clinic. He is told: If you are opposed to such a multiracial clinic, then you are not welcome there.

[Inaudible.]

The child who wants to practise sport separately is isolated and turned away. Is the hon. the Deputy Minister of Co-operation opposed to that?

Go on with your speech. [Interjections.]

Sir, that hon. Deputy Minister has been walking around outside and has just entered the House. Now he makes interjections although he does not know what is going on. [Interjections.] Schools or children that are not in favour of multiracial meetings are prevented by national sporting bodies from taking part. Such children may be prevented from representing their province at sporting level. They have multiracialism imposed on them by national sporting bodies. In Die Transvaler of 26 March 1983 there is a report entitled “Hokkieskok vir skole in Wit liga”. Here we have the finest example. I quote the report—

Why was this refused? I read further—

I want to ask the hon. member for Mossel Bay whether he approves of that.

I may not answer you.

I want to ask the hon. member for Smithfield whether he approves of it.

Yes.

Therefore the hon. member for Smithfield approves of White schools being deprived of their right to practise their sport separately.

That is not what you asked me.

That is what I asked. Do not run away now. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member asked me whether I was in favour of mixed …

That is not a point of order. The hon. member for Kuruman may proceed.

Mr. Speaker …

You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

If the hon. member wishes, I can repeat the question for him. I asked whether he is opposed to these schools being refused participation in the South African hockey tournament.

I shall not reply to you because you distort my answers. You are a scoundrel (“skelm”).

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

I withdraw it. Sir.

The hon. the Minister referred to separate schools and separate sport and the outcome is as I have just sketched it. If I take this as an example and also consider the pronouncements of the hon. the Minister of National Education and the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs, I want to say here today that we cannot support this legislation. In view of the pronouncement that Whites, Coloureds and Asians are in the crucible of nationhood, we cannot support the legislation. In his reply the hon. the Minister said that there was separation but also communality, that there was a group-specific culture and also a common culture, and that school sport could take place separately but also multiracially. This multiracialism is now being forced down the throats of school children. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether separate development…

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: What the hon. member is saying has nothing to do with the Bill. Clause 3(5)(c) reads as follows—

The hon. member is talking about rugby.

Order! The hon. member for Kuruman may proceed.

If separation in education is right, if separate schools and separate school sport under the control of the provincial administrations is right, I want to ask the hon. the Minister … [Interjections.]

Order! I appeal to all hon. members to afford the hon. member the opportunity to complete his speech.

As long as separation of education in primary and high shcools and separate sport for primary and high schools apply under the jurisdiction of the provincial authorities, how does the hon. the Minister explain that integration and multiracialism are right when national sporting bodies take over? The hon. the Minister must reply to that.

I want to say to the hon. member for Virginia that this legislation, seen in the light of the pronouncements of hon. members on that side of the House and the actions of the governing party, is also heading for cultural integration. The CP recognizes the diversity of peoples, each with its own culture and traditions, and the CP would like to see each people being put in a position to practise and promote its own culture undisturbed. In our opinion, South Africa is a rich country, due, inter alia, to the diversity of cultures, and this diversity of cultures, each in its own right, must be preserved, protected and promoted. When we say that we want our people to be able to stand aside on occasion and be concerned with our own affairs, we want this for the Brown people, the Indians and the Black people who live with us in this country.

Mr. Speaker, the tail end of the speech by the hon. member for Kuruman was a considerable improvement on the body of his speech, where he not only digressed by talking about sport but also showed signs of a faulty memory. Because it has nothing to do with this Bill, I only want to deal very briefly with the speech by the hon. member for Kuruman. Unfortunately, I do not have the specific information with me, but I recall that the previous Prime Minister, Mr. Vorster, was asked, in connection with the radical new sport policy which the NP has submitted to the congresses at that time—if I remember correctly, the question was asked at the Free State congress as well as the Transvaal congress—whether the autonomy that was being given to sport control bodies to allow participation on a multinational basis would be applicable at school level as well. [Interjections.] Mr. Vorster replied that it was the policy of the NP that school sport which formed part of the normal curriculum of the school—this is still the standpoint of the NP—should be practised separately, just as the school system itself is separate. He also said that with regard to the promotion of school sport outside the curriculum, which was in the hands of the various sport control bodies, at the provincial as well as the national level, the position was the same as for other sports. When misgivings were expressed, he said that we of the NP were confident that the teachers responsible for management and guidance in connection with school sport on an extramural basis would act sensibly and would handle the matter correctly. I should like to go into this matter in detail and to come back to it when my Vote comes up for discussion.

In the first place I want to point out that this Bill is important because it provides a basis for State support for the promotion of culture among all population groups, including those among which the promotion of culture is still inadequate and has to be remedied. With this Bill, Mr. Speaker, we are therefore advancing towards the objective of equal opportunities for all population groups, in this sphere as well. In doing this, we are moving away from negative and unjustifiable discrimination, and in this sense the Government is pleased as well as proud to be able to lay this measure before the House.

In the second place, I want to point out again that this Bill recognizes the interdependence that exists between formal education—i.e. education in institutions such as schools, colleges and universities—on the one hand, and informal and non-formal education on the other; an interdependence which is very clearly spelt out and emphasized in the HSRC report on the provision of education, which showed, among other things, that we could not make the desired progress by means of formal education in any of the educational systems without giving proper attention to the development of informal and non-formal education. In this respect, I believe, the HSRC introduced an important perspective by warning us against the excessively and exclusively formal approach in our education. Greater attention which is now being given to informal and non-formal education is contributing, among other things, to an improved literacy among parents at home, especially among the less developed population groups. Furthermore, the improved quality of the cultural life of the community, together with the improved literacy of the parents, also raises the level of school-readiness of the child who comes from that home and from that community. When he is more ready for school, the child is also better able to make optimum use of the educational service which is made available to him, and in which large amounts of money are invested.

Prof. De Lange, the chairman of the HSRC work group, has repeatedly emphasized that a lot of money invested in education for Blacks and Coloureds is actually being wasted as a result of the fact that a considerable percentage of the pupils are not ready for school, and never really become acclimatized, as it were, in the educational system. He has therefore urged that more attention be given to informal and non-formal education, which could also enrich the background of the parent and the background of the community, so that the pupil might stand a greater chance, thanks to an improved standard of living, of being successful in his utilization of formal education.

As far as promotion of culture in the sphere of non-formal education is concerned, this Bill will also help to narrow the gap which exists, especially among the less developed population groups and the less developed sectors of the community, between increasingly well-educated children on the one hand and, on the other, simple, illiterate or semi-literate parents, who find, because of their low level of education, that their children are becoming increasingly alienated from them because of the progress they are making in education. This gap between parent and child, which undoubtedly has a negative effect on family life, and therefore on community life as well, will be counteracted by the successful implementation of a programme of culture promotion in the sphere of non-formal education, and can be remedied in this way. So in this respect, too, Mr. Speaker, I believe that this Bill will make an important contribution to improving the quality of life of the various population groups in this country.

In the third place, we have also referred to the fact that this Bill offers greater scope for the promotion abroad of the culture of all the population groups in this country, and not only that of the Whites, as has mainly been the case under the existing legislation.

In the fourth place, I want to point out that by virtue of the emphasis it places on the promotion of culture in a regional context, this Bill recognizes the contribution made by those local or regional workers of the Culture Promotion division of the Department of National Education who have been doing extremely important and valuable work for the benefit of the White population group over a period of many years, and who are continuing this work. The regional offices with their staff have actually remained rather anonymous and have attracted little attention, but under the new dispensation they will occupy a more central position, they will receive more recognition, the focus will be on them, and the informally constituted regional Councils which used to advise the department will be properly converted into statutory regional councils for the population group for which the Department of National Education is responsible, and, where the need exists, for the ministries and departments responsible for the regional promotion of culture with regard to other population groups as well. This will lead to a more active promotion of culture at the local or regional level. I am convinced that it will also lead to a better utilization of the staff already employed there. It will also lead to the involvement of more leading figures from the various cultural spheres in the community of the population group involved, and in this way a closer bond will be forged between the responsible department and the community, and the interaction between them will be increased and intensified.

In the fifth place, I want to emphasize again—and I apologize for repeating this for what must be the eighth or ninth time—that the basis of the promotion of culture in terms of this Bill is that of differentiated promotion with regard to the various population groups, which will each have its own Minister and its own department, and, where regional councils are considered necessary, its own regional council as well. In addition, I want to emphasize again that there will also be liaison with the separate local authorities of the population groups involved, and in the case of the Black population in particular, consisting as it does of various ethnic groups, it will be very important to bring about liaison with the Governments of the various peoples in their national States, in addition to liaison with the local authorities. Apart from the differentiated promotion, however, the Bill also provides for and recognizes the points of contact which exist between various population groups in their cultural interests, so that it will be possible to involve members of other population groups in a specific cultural project, where this is deemed necessary, and the responsible organizations of the various population groups may even consider embarking on joint projects.

I repeat for the umpteenth time, in response to a question which has been asked repeatedly, that in my opinion, these points of contact will occur primarily in the sphere of the creative arts—literature, music, the visual arts—and in the sphere of the performing arts. One has only to look at the programme of any good choir. I think choral song is one of South Africa’s finest assets in the sphere of the performing arts. One has only to look at the programme of any good choir to see the diversity of the cultural heritage which is reflected in the musical programme of such a choir: universal common property which is shared by many cultural groups or peoples, as well as things which are unique to that particular population group, to the people represented by that particular choir; but often, too, there are unique things from the culture of other population groups, because these are beautiful and stimulating and enriching. Another sphere is the popular promotion of the natural sciences and technology, which also enables points of contact to be found for co-operation with members of other population groups. I want to emphasize again, therefore, that this is differentiated promotion, but that there is scope for points of contact where the people in the various population groups who are responsible for this matter may deem it desirable to involve others as well and even to initiate joint projects.

In the sixth place, I want to say that culture, including the culture which is most characteristic of a people, is not something which one wants to guard jealously and to reserve for oneself only. In fact, I am proud of the best things in my own culture, and I take pleasure in allowing others to enjoy it and to share in it. However, it should not be done in such a way—nor will the Government endeavour to have it done in such a way—as to make one feel that one is being ousted from one’s own culture or that all cultural diversity is being allowed to disappear, that everything is being assimilated or acculturated into a nondescript neutral sameness. There is beauty in the diversity of culture, and that is why I agreed so wholeheartedly with the sensible remarks made by the hon. member for Kuruman towards the end of his speech.

Between neighbouring cultures, between adjoining cultures, there is inevitably some competition and even some tension, but that competition, that tension even, are life-giving, dynamic, like the power in the taut string of a bow.

In the seventh place, I should like to refer to the repeated request put to me by the hon. member for Rissik to say what the difference is between a people and a nation and how I view the matter. I find it surprising that it should be considered necessary to ask this question at all, but it is a fact—one has to concede that—that these two expressions are used by some people in an inexact way ‘and in a way which seems to imply that they are interchangeable. A people is an intimate, a more exclusive concept, and it is essentially a cultural community, a community which is united by a preponderance of uniquely characteristic cultural elements, such as its own language, its own religion and its values and way of life. But a people is not formed by its culture only; there are other factors as well, such as the common destiny shared by the members of a people; the mutual acceptability of groups and subgroups within the people is another important factor in constituting the cohesion of a people. I may say, therefore, that while culture characterizes a people as a cultural community, culture is not always exclusive; culture does not always exist only in its capacity of characterizing a separate people. I want to repeat that culture often takes the form of the universal, the shared possession, the bridge-building element which creates links and participation between sometimes very different and distinct cultural groups or peoples.

For the sake of completeness I want to say that obviously, not every cultural group is a people. A cultural group may exist without becoming a people, as in the case of the various minority cultural groups within the White nation in South Africa. One could point to a similar example as far as America is concerned. In America there are various ethnic groups which are cultural groups, but which are not peoples.

While the people is the more intimate cultural community, therefore, a nation, on the other hand, is a constitutional concept. A nation is a combination of all the people, groups and subgroups who, as fellow citizens, have a more or less equal share and say in the operation of the same political or constitutional system. So a nation, consisting as it does of a group of people who all share the same constitutional system, may include various peoples; it may also include various population groups. It has repeatedly been said that while the Afrikaners are a people in the cultural sense, they, together with the English-speaking people and many other cultural groups, form the White nation; that is to say, the Whites who, as fellow citizens, presently participate in the same constitutional dispensation in the constitutional machinery which handles that dispensation.

Let us be very clear about this: Under the new constitutional dispensation, in which the Whites as well as the Coloured and Asian population groups, as fellow citizens, will all be equal participants, they will all become part, therefore, of the same nation consisting of the same collection of people who are integrated into the same constitutional dispensation. When the previous Prime Minister said, therefore, that the Coloured people were a nation in the making, that was exactly what it meant: “The Coloured people are a nation in the making” I am quoting exactly what the hon. member for Rissik read; I am quoting from that same document. It means that at that stage, the Coloured people were being actively integrated into a constitutional dispensation.

Which Prime Minister are you talking about?

The previous Prime Minister.

Then why did you not say so?

But I did say so. The hon. member should talk less and pay more attention.

When I agreed with the previous Prime Minister ten years ago, it was correct to do so, and I still agree with him today. I admit that my use of the word “people” with regard to the Coloureds was inexact, in the light of the diversity which characterizes them. A short while ago I admitted this by way of interjection as well.

Are you implying that Mr. Vorster’s choice of words was also inexact?

No; I have said what he meant, after all, and I do not wish to repeat it. If the hon. member cannot understand it, he should take his Hansard and read it again, and if he still cannot understand it, he should ask his wife to read and explain it to him. [Interjections.]

He is a real blockhead. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Virginia has given a masterful analysis of the words used by the present hon. Prime Minister. The hon. member for Virginia caught the hon. member for Rissik with his pants down, as it were, when he explained the matter so clearly in his speech. Let us suppose, however, that the present hon. Prime Minister has said that the Coloureds, the Asians and the Whites are in a relative sense members of the same nation. Surely this is an eminently logical statement, for in a relative sense this is indeed what they are, since they are becoming participants in the same constitutional dispensation. They are not yet full participants, however. They are moving in that direction. The present situation is still relative, therefore, and th are still waiting to become full-fledged participants in the new system. In that sense, the use of the word “nation” is indisputably correct.

I should just like to refer, for the sake of completeness—because I do not think the hon. member for Rissik insisted on this—to another term which is also used in this House, apart from “people” and “nation”. I am referring to the term “population group”, which is used in common parlance in this House. This is a predominantly ethinic concept. Various population groups may belong to the same nation in the constitutional sense—just as various peoples may belong to it—but because of the comprehensive nature of a population group, such a group can in turn consist of various peoples, as in the case of the Whites and several cultural groups within the Coloured and Asian population groups.

Allow me to convey a brief word of thanks to the hon. member for Gezina and the hon. member for Virginia for their support. The hon. member for Gezina admirably exposed the sanctimoniousness of the CP. I have already thanked the hon. member for Virginia for the way in which he dealt with the manipulation of facts which the hon. member for Rissik was guilty of. I also thank the hon. member Prof. Olivier, although it was with some reluctance that he accepted this Bill.

Finally, however, I want to come back to the hon. member for Rissik. With pretentious presumption he tried to show me up. He was in effect asking me: What are your credentials? I do not like to blow my own trumpet, but the first time I can remember working for the NP was during the 1938 election, when Mr. Wilsenach was standing as an independent Nationalist in Pretoria East. I also remember working for Mrs. Enid van der Lingen in 1943. [Interjections.] I think the political affiliation of the hon. member for Rissik at that time led to some muddled thinking on his part with regard to the politics which my parents and I supported at that time. [Interjections.]

Before he fell into the fish-pond, therefore.

In 1948, I was a member of the team of workers of the member for Gezina at that time, the late Prof. Malan, and my earliest membership card dates from the late fifties, when I was a member of the Piet Keyter branch in the Innesdal constituency. At the time I began, I think, the hon. member for Rissik was still in his political infancy, let alone wandering down misguided paths. What concrete achievement does he have to show? What concrete achievement can he show for his years of service, except the fact that he represents a constituency? What does he have to show? In the light of the innuendos he made about me, I confidently invite all those who wish to judge the matter to assess what has really been accomplished by us, what has really been achieved, not only in the cultural field, but in the political field as well. [Interjections.]

I should also like to refer to the way in which the hon. member for Rissik uses words. To explain my so-called about-face, he quoted, in the first place, from the speech made ten years ago in connection with the Coloured as a nation, which I have already dealt with in pointing out that there was nothing in respect of which I had made an about-face. He also quoted from the translation of Georges Pompidou’s book Om ’n knoop deur te hak. He tried to lead this House by the nose by implying that I had said things in that book with which I would not agree today as a self-respecting politician. He quoted, inter alia, that I had said in the book—

What is this? Here sanctimonious Daan, honest Daan has read the House a passage from an introduction to a translation of this French stateman’s book. I was asked to write the foreword, and in it I tried to interpret the essence of the thinking of this Frenchman, Georges Pompidou. It is clearly stated—and if the hon. member had honestly wanted to read it to us, he could have done so—that this book tries to make the work of Pompidou accessible to the Afrikaans reader. That was what I wrote there. I also wrote: “Dit is ’n kort begrip van Pompidou se moraal van politieke handeling.” A little lower down in the summary it says: “Tog tref die boek deur …”, and then the opinion is repeated. Then it says: “Pompidou behandel …”, and then it is quoted. Further on it says: “Maar Pompidou stel dan as sluitsteen …”. It goes on in this way. It says: “Pompidou gio …” and “Pompidou bieg …”. So the hon. member for Rissik presented the words I had written as though they expressed my own convictions, while he knew perfectly well that this was not so, that this was in fact a summary, an introduction…

Shame on you, Daan!

Order!

So this is the way in which that epitome of upright, unshakeable adherence to principle deals with the facts! Apart from the way in which he manipulated the words of the hon. the Prime Minister, as pointed out by the hon. member for Virginia…

No, nothing was manipulated.

… he also made some reference or other to something I was supposed to have said about Kissinger. I do not know what he is talking about, but I want to say that it was an irresponsible contribution which cannot be substantiated in any way.

I wish to conclude. What I found most upsetting—after all, we share the same culture—was the fact that the hon. member for Rissik said that in the light of the standpoints of this side, there could no longer be any certainty about the survival of the culture of the Afrikaner people.

It is true.

He went on to say that this was going to lead to the destruction of that culture. When a man says, on the basis of this Bill, that it is going to lead to the destruction of a culture which has held its own in this country for more than three and a half centuries, then I say that he suffers from acute cultural enuresis. I want to tell him to grow up. We must get away in this country from this obsessive anxiety, which means that the moment we see something which seems strange to us, we raise the cry that this culture is going to be destroyed. Culture, and Afrikaner culture in particular, is made of sterner stuff than he supposes in coming to this conclusion. Under much more difficult circumstances in the past, the creators and bearers of this culture never reached the point of saying anxiously that it could not survive, that it was going to be destroyed. All of us in this House, Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking members, are privileged to be able to share in this culture and to enjoy it, and therefore I want to appeal to all of them to abondon this obsessive anxiety.

Yes, you are talking just like Jan Hofmeyr did, and Piet de Wet. [Interjections.]

While we must be prepared on the one hand, to protect and even, if necessary, to form a laager, we must also be prepared, on the other hand, to move outwards and to make contact, to enrich and be enriched. In this spirit, this side of the House will proceed with the support we are getting—we are grateful for that—to pass this Bill and to implement it in practice.

Question agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to emphasize again that the CP is going to vote against this clause. The hon. the Deputy Minister made a rather unintelligable statement in his reply to the Second Reading debate on this Bill. We must bear in mind that up to now, the Council for the Environment has met only once. The Council for the Environment has not had any opportunity of properly examining the task that has been entrusted to it or the extent of its task or any aspect of its work …

Order! I want to point out to the hon. member that this clause deals only with the increase in the membership of the Council for the Environment.

That is correct. That is exactly what I am talking about.

The hon. member must confine himself to that.

I am talking about that, about the question of why the hon. the Deputy Minister wishes to enlarge the Council for the Environment. I am saying that this council has not even met properly and has not even been able to form an impression of the magnitude of its task. The hon. the Deputy Minister admits this. He said—

So the hon. the Deputy Minister is asking us to take an arbitrary decision, a decision which has not been properly motivated at all. The hon. the Deputy Minister has not convinced the CP that there is sufficient motivation for enlarging this Council.

We in the CP wish to record once again that on the Select Committee and subsequently on the commission which had to report on this Bill in its original form, the question of the size of the council was thoroughly discussed on more than one occasion after evidence had been heard. After thorough discussion and hearing evidence in Pretoria, it was decided that the Council for the Environment would consist of 20 members. Afterwards we met again in Cape Town, and the hon. member for Maitland raised the matter again, to the dismay of the chairman, because it had already been decided that the council would consist of 20 members only. In spite of that, however, the hon. member for Kuruman allowed the matter to be debated again, and afterwards it was once again decided that the council would consist of only 20 members.

If one has to make provision on the council for all groups and organizations, it would consist, not of 20 or 25 members, but of 50. Therefore one should try to create a small, expert and streamlined body which is able to give assignments to the expert committees, and which can then co-ordinate the results and advise the hon. the Minister on the basis of that. Just think of all the various departments and organizations in the private and public sectors that could be consulted on these matters. If one has to accommodate them all, where is one going to draw the line? Just think of health, mining or city councils. One may also think of the question of pollution, including pollution of the ocean, pollution of the land, freshwater pollution, littering, pollution in industry, commerce and agriculture, noise pollution, etc. The list is never-ending. Where is one going to draw the line? It is precisely as a result of this that the commission decided that a small body should do the co-ordinating and that it should then appoint technical and expert committees to advise it.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.