laid upon the Table:

as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Standing Select Committee on Provincial Affairs: Orange Free State, dated 11 June 1987, as follows:

as Chairman, presented the Second Report of the Standing Select Committee on Provincial Affairs: Orange Free State, dated 11 June 1987, as follows:

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it proper to move the Second Reading of a Bill of which hon members do not have copies?

Order! Is there any reason why it should not be moved without copies being available?

Mr Chairman, how does one move the Second Reading of a Bill if one does not have a copy of it? There is no Bill before us. Perhaps other hon members have been favoured over us—I do not know if the hon members of the Official Opposition have the Bill. As far as I understand one cannot move the Second Reading of a Bill unless hon members have copies of it.

Order! Let me ascertain what the factual situation is.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: If I remember correctly, the documents are traditionally tabled immediately after the delivery of the Budget Speech, and my information is that the officials are ready to distribute them.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: We are not talking about the documents that are being tabled, because those are being tabled now, as the hon the Minister said. However, one cannot move the Second Reading of a Bill unless the hon members of the House have the Bill.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I should like to know why the hon member is raising this point of order at the end of the speech if he has been aware of it throughout.

Mr Chairman, I have been asked to answer that question and I would like to tell you why I did it. I thought that maybe during the course of the speech the Bills would be handed out to us, but we still do not have the Bills. There is a precedent for this. We have raised this issue before. There is provision in the rules as to what is to happen, because we now no longer have the First Reading of a Bill. Therefore, with great respect, I think this whole thing is now a ridiculous exercise because now the Second Reading has been moved of a Bill that nobody in this House—except presumably the members of the Ministers’ Council— know the contents of.

Order! I have taken cognizance of the hon member’s point of order. I realise that the hon member for Yeoville has stated a problem. However, I am informed that over the years the practice has been that the debate is not continued forthwith but is adjourned until a later stage specifically to enable members to prepare themselves for the debate. In view of that practice I rule that the Second Reading can be moved.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: You say that there is a practice in respect of this matter but, with great respect, I dispute that practice. The Bill has always been put before us. In the past we always received Bills the day before the First Reading. That has always been the case. If you have been informed otherwise, I think you have been misinformed, Sir. Before we debate a Bill we are entitled to receive a copy of it. The spokesman on finance of the Official Opposition is now expected to rise and respond to the introductory speech on this Appropriation Bill without knowing the contents of the Bill. He may be able to do so because he may have very special talents—I am sure he has—but he is expected to debate a Bill of which he does not know the contents. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare is the only one who knows the secret of what is contained in the Bill. However, one cannot expect the hon member for Barberton to debate a Bill now of which he does not know the contents. He is being made a fool of.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member for Yeoville is circumventing the ruling you have given.

Moreover, no one could possibly be prejudiced by this. If misunderstandings should arise, the Committees on Standing Rules and Orders could give consideration to laying down definite procedures in this connection or specifying what is customary and what is not. I contend that there is no question of prejudice and that hon members should abide by your ruling.

Order! The hon the Leader of the House is quite right, of course. I have given a ruling. The hon member for Yeoville has indicated that he intends to dispute that ruling of mine. I think the hon the Leader of the House is also right in arguing that the proper way of disputing that ruling would be to refer it to the Committees on Standing Rules and Orders.

Under the circumstances, however, the position is that I have already given my ruling. I put the question.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I am not disputing your ruling. What I am saying is that we cannot debate a Bill which is not before the House. That is the crux of my new point of order. There is no Bill before us to debate. How, Sir, can you allow a debate on a Bill that is not before us? You cannot allow that, Sir. The hon the Leader of the House is quite wrong in his submission.

Order! I understand that the Bill is now going to be distributed among hon members. If hon members will just sit patiently for a few minutes, this will be done. I suggest, however, that a more practical way of handling this matter would be to proceed with the debate, and while the official spokesman of the Official Opposition is addressing the House copies of the Bill will be distributed. That is my ruling.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I do not think that would be in the interests of orderly procedure in this House. Under the circumstances I suggest that the hon the Leader of the House move the suspension of business. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I think the test should be whether or not anyone is likely to be prejudiced by this. Furthermore, there is a factual dispute about what the normal practice is. None of the hon members opposite has referred to any rule which specifically requires the Bill to have been tabled already under circumstances of this nature. The hon members are therefore requesting your ruling in a matter which involves a factual dispute. They are asking you to rule whether it is really necessary or not. Furthermore, they are asking for your ruling as to what the tradition actually is. They are asking you to rule that since no one would be prejudiced, the debate should continue. However, if it would satisfy hon members, I am willing, as an alternative, to move that the debate be adjourned to enable them to examine the Bill before any of them have to speak on it.

Order! Before we go any further, I suggest that we consult the rules. The hon member for Yeoville obviously wishes to direct my attention to a specific rule.

Sir, I should like to refer you to Rule 23 … [Interjections.] Well, Sir, maybe if we talk long enough to points of order we may find that by the time we have had enough of that discussion each one of us will be in possession of a copy of the Bill. [Interjections.]

Order! I must point out to the hon member that Rule 23 refers to Public Bills on general affairs.

Yes, Sir. The same rules apply, however, in this particular instance. When we look at the rules that apply to own affairs we see that the identical rules apply in respect of Public Bills on own affairs. I submit, Sir, that it is not possible to debate a Bill that is not before us.

Order! Will the hon member kindly refer me to the particular rule so that I can consider it.

Sir, it states here that a Bill should be introduced by submitting it to Mr Speaker. I quote:

Sir, if a Bill is deemed to have been read a first time, how could that be the case when one does not have it in one’s possession and when it has indeed not been laid upon the Table of the House? Therefore, Sir, the Bill has not been read a first time unless you say you have it in your possession and you are holding it back and not placing it on the Table. I doubt whether you would do such a thing, Sir. [Interjections.] On the assumption therefore that that is the position I submit that the Bill has not been read a first time. In spite of that, Sir, you are asking the hon member for Barberton to comment on a Bill without having seen it, without anybody having seen it, without you having had it in your possession, without it having been read a first time and without it having been laid upon the Table of the House. It may just be that such Bill does not even exist, Sir. [Interjections.]

Order! I would like to ask the hon member for Yeoville a question. What does he suggest would be the correct procedure in the circumstances he has outlined?

I think the House should adjourn until we have the Bill. Then, when we have the Bill, the hon member for Barberton can debate it. If not, this matter cannot go on. In fact, I think that as it has not been tabled, and you do not have it in your possession, the hon … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Leader of the House must give the hon member for Yeoville a chance to complete his argument.

No, Sir. What I say has happened is that the Bill cannot be deemed to have been read a first time. Therefore what has happened up till now is a nullity. All I am saying—I do not want to put us through the ordeal of having to listen to all this a second time—is that I think we should adjourn until we have the Bill, and then proceed, dealing with the matter as it should have been dealt with. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, in response to the hon member’s argument, in so far as there may be a technical problem, I want to argue that the Bill has been properly submitted to Mr Speaker. The only difference is that it is not upon the Table at the moment.

There is no obligation on hon members to debate the Bill at this stage. I therefore think, Sir, that if we are not to waste the time of this House and the country’s money, you should give a ruling as to whether you will now accept a motion for the adjournment of the debate. We shall then have achieved exactly what the hon member is pleading for without adjourning for 10 minutes.

Mr Chairman, what the hon the Leader of the House has said is basically what I wanted to suggest. Therefore I shall leave it at that.

Mr Chairman, may I draw your attention also to Standing Order No 53, which states:

Today has been appointed for the Second Reading …

Today has not passed yet.

I am saying “appointed for the Second Reading”, not “passed at the Second Reading”.

Today is the “appointed” day.

Yes, today is the day that has been appointed, and so what I am saying is that there is no way in which this Bill can be deemed to have had a First Reading. The Bill is not before us and, in fact, there is nothing for us to debate at this moment.

Mr Chairman, the Bill is in the process of being distributed. Consequently I wish to move that the debate be now adjourned. [Interjections.]

*The CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE Order! After the additional arguments that have been raised I think I should reconsider this matter. The fact of the matter is that the hon member for Yeoville has referred to Standing Orders Nos 51 (1) and (2). Standing Order No 51 (1) provides very clearly:

I understand that this has been done. Standing Order No 51 (2) provides:

In other words, only after it has been laid upon the Table by Mr Speaker shall the Bill be deemed to have been read a first time. The hon member for Yeoville’s argument is that the Bill has not been tabled and that it has therefore not been read a first time. I believe that the hon member’s argument is correct.

It remains for me to give a ruling on the matter. Since the hon member has said that he does not wish to listen to the introductory speech a second time, I believe that the debate should be adjourned for practical reasons. Hon members will have to abide by my ruling. The debate is therefore adjourned.

Debate adjourned.

Mr Chairman, we have now come to the end of a very long series of debates on the Transport Services Appropriation Bill. All the relevant Bills were placed on hon members’ desks in good time and are still there. So we may now conclude. [Interjections.] It has been an interesting debate, with speeches of exceptionally high quality delivered by hon members on this side of the House, in particular. The hon member for Soutpansberg, who is the Official Opposition’s chief spokesman, informed me that he would not be present today. In the Third Reading debate he again referred to the question of strikes and alleged that we had had no “guts” in handling this matter. He endorsed the hon member for Roodepoort’s view that we had not used sufficient strong-arm tactics.

But what are the true facts? Many of those Transport Services’ workers brought their bedding to work and slept there so that they could continue working. Because they eventually gave in to intimidation and death threats, the hon member expects me to use strong-arm tactics and show that I have the “guts”.

The following code of conduct would take no, or the least amount of, “guts”: I should photocopy a letter of resignation and give this to the workers, telephone the police to have them removed from the premises and locked up, and when they become emotional or violent because they are under pressure from both sides, issue instructions for firearms to be used. That is that party’s idea of “guts”. [Interjections.] That is the way they would do things.

That is the message you are propagating amongst the electorate.

I choose to be assessed by other standards. I choose to be judged in accordance with the reasonable attitude I adopt towards people who have served me faithfully over many years, the majority of whom were forced into this strike against their will. I prefer to be assessed by conduct that testifies to common sense and to be judged by the results I have achieved. The things I have just mentioned here take “guts”, and I can therefore, without any hesitation, thank our security forces and our Transport Services for the responsible way in which they dealt with this extremely volatile situation.

Hon members went so far that the CP virtually became a propagandist for Cosatu. [Interjections.] They sided with Cosatu against the SATS and the security forces.

The following two banner headlines appear in this morning’s Cape Times: “Black Strikers Won Victory Over SATS” and “A Cosatu Victory”. That is what the hon member for Carletonville said in the House yesterday. By his conduct he is therefore siding with Cosatu, whilst he knows full well that those are not the facts. [Interjections.] Let us just take a brief look at the conditions under which it is claimed that a victory had been won. In the advertisements that were placed—in the Cape Times again this morning—it was stated:

The following “demands” were met: “All workers to be reinstated.” They did not add that this did not include those found guilty of committing offences, but let us leave it at that.

I said exactly the same thing in my Budget speech. Long before the settlement was reached I said that we would take these people back. The General Manager of the SATS said, as far back as 21 April, that there would be no break in benefits for those who returned to work. As early as 21 April he said that he would recommend to the Minister that this be done. To tell the truth, I think that was before that court case began.

The second point on which the so-called victory was based, reads as follows:

Those are privileges that already exist. We have already entrenched that system. Then there is this important condition:

What privileges are now being referred to? As I have said, they were all enumerated by the General Manager and also by me in my Budget speech, and include aspects such as pension benefits and leave, as well as travelling and medical benefits.

In the advertisement not a word is mentioned about workers’ earnings during the strike. I now challenge Cosatu to place another advertisement stating what is going to happen to the R40 million that workers lost during the three-month period. Secondly they should indicate who is going to compensate the workers for those tremendous losses. If those organisations are such prominent supporters of the strikers, they must offer to compensate the workers for the loss of R40 million. In this advertisement they can also show their true colours so that the workers and South Africa as a whole know who Cosatu is, because on page 4 of issue No 64 of 1986 of their magazine Workers’ Unity—I have already referred to it—they state:

That is, of course, a downright lie. One need only look at the people to the north of us. Not only are they unemployed in that socialist set-up, but they do not even have food either.

I want them to tell the workers and South Africa as a whole what they mean by what they go on to state in this publication. For example, they state:

Let Cosatu say this to the workers in unequivocal terms. Let them tell the employers and also clearly tell the country as a whole.

Another very important point resulting from this agreement is that workers who are re-employed must sign a new contract. That was agreed upon in the agreement entered into with the three applicants. That new contract entered into with the three workers will provide inter alia that the SATS is entitled to dismiss an employee summarily, without even affording him an opportunity of being heard, if such a worker participates or has participated in a strike, as set out in the Conditions of Employment Act, since the signing of the agreement.

It is a special agreement which is been entered into with those who are being re-employed and which they will sign.

I have never seen a winner spending thousands of rands—it must cost many thousands of rands to place all these advertisements— merely to say he has won. [Interjections.]

What about PW in the last election? [Interjections.]

In that case there was no disputed action involved.

There was an election dispute. [Interjections.]

You people lost! [Interjections.]

Oom Boy Louw used to say “Look at the scoreboard.” If one looks at the scoreboard, it tells one that such a winner actually lost. The fact is that this strike was a futile exercise which brought the workers no fundamental benefits they did not previously have, but which left them with pitiful losses— we all regret that—amounting to R40 million which these inciters are not prepared to make good. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Primrose referred to the transport cost aspect under the Official Opposition’s policy of partition. The hon member for Soutpansberg, who is not present at the moment, undertook to have the costs of such a policy argued and spelt out during the Third Reading debate of the Minister of Finance’s Appropriation. It is very easy just to shout: “The solution is a bullet train.” [Interjections.] The question is what costs are involved and who is going to pay for it. [Interjections.] Just by the way, the name of the train accords very well with the political philosophy of that party. [Interjections.]

†That party should tell us what else the CP wishes to resolve with a bullet. [Interjections.]

What are you insinuating?

Just listen carefully and you will hear what I am insinuating. [Interjections.]

Will they resolve border issues under the policy of partition and will they effect the removal of people by means of the bullet?

*That is very important. The CP must tell us whether they are going to use the “bullet”, because in this debate hon members of that party said that negotiation was out because it got one nowhere. [Interjections.] Yes, the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke said it, and the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis made a remark that also sounded very much like that to me. [Interjections.] It is important to argue these points at greater length during that Third Reading debate.

The hon the Deputy Minister spoke rather comprehensively about the White Paper on deregulation, because there were questions about it from the hon members for Port Elizabeth Central and Soutpansberg. I am therefore not going to go into it any further.

I also want to congratulate the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central on his speech in Afrikaans. The two of us had an argument about that the other day. I never knew the hon member could speak such good Afrikaans. [Interjections.]

As has previously been the case, the hon member objected to writing off additional depreciation on fixed assets. This practice of writing off additional depreciation is aimed at the eventual replacement of an asset at an increased cost, when necessary. This is already acknowledged by major authorities as good business practice. In the SATS this actually makes an important contribution to a lower cost structure. The hon member should just remind himself of what I also said to the hon member for Wellington yesterday, and that is that it made a difference of approximately R300 million for the past year.

The hon member also referred to airfares and alleged that we were so much more expensive than other international airlines. Let me give a few examples for comparable distances: Between Johannesburg and Cape Town 18,10c per km, as against 42,84c per km between Chicago and Baltimore in the USA; between Johannesburg and Port Elizabeth, 21,45c per km, as against 28,45c per km between Brisbane and Proserpine in Australia; between Cape Town and Port Elizabeth, 23,26c per km as against 43,05c per km between Mahizaki and Naboya in Japan—I am sure I am pronouncing the names absolutely correctly—and between Johannesburg and Durban, 24,80c per km as against 48,70c per km between Paris and Brest in France.

[Inaudible.]

If the hon member at the back there is alleging that the figures are not comparable, I do not know what he wants, because I have now given him the tariffs in terms of rands.

With the exception of that of the central Government, the total Budget of the SATS, of more than R11 000 million for the 1987-88 financial year, is the largest in the public sector. Not only does the SATS have a great positive influence on the economy as the major supplier of jobs and a major consumer and investor, but it also plays an indispensable role in the country’s economy as the major conveyor of goods and passengers. As far as the latter is concerned, at present it is the only organisation that has the necessary infrastructure to transport mass loads for export and local consumption in a relatively short space of time. As a conveyer of 70 million tons of coal, 21 million tons of iron ore, 6 million tons of manganese and chrome, as well as 52 million tons of other low-rated traffic per annum, the SATS can quite rightly be regarded as the main artery in the South African economy.

The expenditure of more than R10 million per annum, inter alia in the form of salaries, pensions, the purchasing of materials and energy, will have a major effect on the economy of the Republic. Bearing everything in mind, the 1987-88 Transport Services’ Appropriation will place the emphasis on high productivity, and this is proved by the average tariff increase of only 6,7% per annum, as against an expected inflation rate of 16% per annum. When all aspects are considered, this Budget, emphasising as it does on high productivity and consumer spending, and focusing on domestic production and employment, will have a positive effect on economic growth and stability in the Republic.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

When the Defence Amendment Act, 1983, in terms of which the current dispensation for religious objectors was placed on the Statute Book, was passed by Parliament, it was provided that all so-called category 3 religious objectors who have to render community service instead of service in the Citizen Force, must do so during a single continuous period. The intention was that this period be one-and-a-half times as long as the aggregate of the maximum of all periods of service during which they could otherwise be compelled to render service in that force.

Similarly, the formula for the period of imprisonment which has to be served by persons who are not religious objectors and who refuse to render military service, is based on the same one-and-a-half times formula.

In a recent court decision, however, the one-and-a-half times formula was interpreted in a restricted way which, if it were applied in practice, would result in those concerned having to render community service over a much shorter period than was originally intended, which period would probably never exceed three years. Such a situation would result in these objectors’ being in a more favourable position than persons who render service in the Citizen Force. Clause 1 will rectify the situation and bring it in line with Parliament’s original intention.

Similarly, the position regarding the period of imprisonment which has to be served by objectors to military service who are not classified religious objectors, is being rectified in clause 2.

†Clause 3 provides that the provisions of the first two clauses will be of retroactive effect. This is necessary to ensure that administrative acts which have been carried out in good faith in accordance with the original intention of Parliament, will remain in force.

Finally, the Minister’s authority to determine that community service may be completed during a shorter period, is being extended by clause 1 to all circumstances which may give rise to a person’s having to render such service.

I should also, Mr Speaker, like to avail myself of the opportunity to thank all hon members who served on the Standing Committee on Defence for their contributions during the sessions of the committee. I also wish to thank them for giving this Bill its final shape and having it accepted.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Chairman, in discussing the Defence Amendment Bill, I should like, first of all, to congratulate the hon the Deputy Minister on his appointment as Deputy Minister, and to express the hope that we shall work well together and develop a good team that will put its shoulder to the wheel in the interests of defence in this country.

As far as this amending Bill is concerned, the CP supports the legislation. It deals with only a few clauses, the details of which were set out in the hon the Deputy Minister’s Second Reading speech. The amending Bill is of a purely technical nature and no principles are involved. It deals with religious objectors and the period of service during which they must render community service.

The Defence Act makes provision for three categories of religious objectors, and it is interesting to note how many religious objectors have come forward during the past two and a half years since the Act was amended to make provision for this. There have been approximately 755 of them over a period of two and a half years.

The amending Bill deals with religious objectors in category 3, namely those who refuse to do any military service. Such a religious objector must render community service for a period equal to one and a half times the period during which he would have rendered military service. The amendment before the House simply dispels any uncertainty by stating clearly that the religious objector is to serve not just one and a half times the duration of his call-up periods, but in fact one and a half times the maximum period that he could have served. When a national serviceman in the Citizen Force is called up in terms of section 22 of the Act, he must initially do two years of national service, and subsequently he must also serve for a further six periods of 120 days each. This means that under normal conditions the national serviceman will render 1 450 days of national service.

The relevant punishment of the religious objector means, without a doubt, that he must serve for one and a half times the 1 450 days, and not just one and a half times the two years for which he was originally called up. His punishment is therefore to render 2 175 days of community service.

As far as clause 1 is concerned, this empowers the hon the Minister to determine, during the religious objector’s period of service, to impose a shorter period of service instead of the longer period, depending on the circumstances.

We do not have any objections to the Bill; we are happy to support it. It was originally drawn up at the request of the Defence Force due to a court judgement in which some doubt arose in regard to the service periods in question. This uncertainty has now, without any doubt, been dispelled, and we support the measure.

Mr Chairman, we thank the CP for supporting this amending Bill.

In the nature of the matter it is an amending Bill and we shall not therefore place great emphasis on the principles embodied in the Bill. It is a fact that the original intention of a legislature is not always clearly expressed either in the formulation of the Act or in its practical implementation. A very good example of this is the confusion to which the hon member for Overvaal referred concerning the period for which a category 3 religious objector has to do community service. We on this side of the House wish to state very clearly that there is no doubt in our minds that it was the original intention of the legislature that a category 3 religious objector should do community service for a period one and a half times as long as the total maximum period of service imposed on a member of the Citizen Force by the Act. As the hon member for Overvaal correctly said, this amounts to a period of approximately six years.

Now, unfortunately, this matter has been interpreted differently in the areas of jurisdiction of certain law courts. It now happens in certain areas that certain religious objectors only have to perform community service for three years, while religious objectors in other provinces and areas have to perform community service for six years. It goes without saying that this is an untenable situation. The matter must be rectified, and this is primarily what is being done in terms of clause 1. We also endorse the idea in clause 1 that the Minister should have the discretion to curtail this period. In any event the Minister has that discretion to curtail periods of national service—in the case of ordinary members of the Citizen Force as well—and we think it is as well that this should be specified in the amending Bill.

Nor is there much to say about clause 2. It, too, is only concerned with the period of prison service that a non-religious objector must serve should he refuse to do military service.

As far as clause 3 is concerned, this is a clause which makes this legislation retroactive. In the nature of the matter one sometimes feels that one should not make legislation retroactive but in this case there is no other way of rectifying this inequity as far as religious objectors are concerned. We therefore endorse clause 3 as well.

Finally, I wish to say that it is true that the standing committee received numerous representations in connection with national service. These representations concerned the period of community service, the extension of possibilities with regard to community service and the better remuneration of persons performing community service. The standing committee was not able to consider these matters under its terms of reference. We on this side of the House just wish to say that all legislation passed in Parliament affects the lives of people. It is undoubtedly true that this legislation drastically affects the lives of people. In the light of the representations submitted to the standing committee, one could not adopt the standpoint that the last word has been said about this matter. However, we just wish to state clearly at this juncture that under our terms of reference we were unable to deal with these matters.

I want to emphasize once again that we are not saying that we have said the final word about these matters; there are other methods that could be adopted if any of these matters were to be broached again.

Something about which we on this side of the House have indeed said the final word and which I want to state very clearly is that any attempt that a conscientious objector might make to do community service under the guise of a religious objector will certainly be resisted by this side of the House. We on this side have no doubts on that score.

On this occasion we should also like to pay tribute to, and thank, the previous chairman of the standing committee for the way he ensured that the proceedings in that standing committee were conducted in a correct manner. We take pleasure in supporting this amending Bill.

Mr Chairman, I should like to congratulate the hon member Dr B L Geldenhuys upon his appointment as chairman of the NP study group on defence. I hope we shall be able to co-operate on a reasonable basis; I am sure that we shall be able to support one another in the role that we fulfil.

When I consider the history of spokesmen on defence matters in my party it seems to me as if most of them occupied these positions for a very short period of time. [Interjections.] They were either replaced, or they resigned or lost in the election. I do not hope that my appointment is another way of getting rid of me as well! I intend to convey my party’s standpoint as clearly as I can at all times.

As I have already mentioned, this amending Bill follows on the legislation which was passed in Parliament in 1983.

†It was a fairly controversial Bill in that it dealt with the question of conscientious objectors. I think it is probably opportune to restate what my party’s attitude was towards the question of who falls into the category of objectus conscientus.

We maintained at that stage that the definition ought not to be confined only to religious objectors. We argued that as is the case all over the world it ought to be expanded to include ethical and philosophical reasons. As we put it at that stage, we maintained that the definition of a conscientious objector had to include—

That was the attitude expressed by our party and that is the view we still hold. However, I am not here today to debate that principle because it is not within the scope of this Bill.

What happened then was that on 21 August 1986 the members of the Standing Committee on Defence were summoned at very short notice to appear at a meeting in the auditorium in the building next door in order to discuss a subject in respect of which they had not received any notice whatsoever. We had not received a Bill. We went to this meeting and there a presentation was given to the members of the standing committee about a Bill which we were still going to see. A totally one-sided, in my opinion, explanation was given as to what the Bill was all about. It was made quite clear that the matter needed to be rushed through. I raise this because I think it was a most unsatisfactory procedure to adopt for the consideration of a Bill which still had to be produced. I believe it was a clear attempt to influence all members of the standing committee on the question of urgency and to implant a particular version into their minds as to what the Bill was all about before they had had the opportunity even to see the Bill. I believe that that procedure should not be followed again, because it would naturally put hon members—certainly of my party—on their guard if they were to be summoned again to a meeting where a Bill which they had not seen was to be discussed.

At that meeting, for example, we became aware of the original clause 1 of this Bill which attempted to define religion in such a way that it would exclude Buddhists. A fundamental issue was contained in that Bill and we were expected and we were asked to co-operate in order to get the Bill through quickly.

Let me say again to the hon the Minister that if that procedure is followed again we will be on our guard, irrespective of what is contained in the Bill.

Let us look at the issue before us, viz conscientious objectors. I believe the spirit in which one discusses and debates the question of conscientious objectors is not the one in which the hon member for Overvaal dealt with it when he spoke about “straf vir hierdie mense”. The purpose of providing alternative service for conscientious objectors is not to “straf” them. It is a multi-pronged purpose which, in the first instance, is to serve as a deterrent to those who wish to make use of alternative service for reasons other than religious, moral or ethical ones.

I think the spirit in which one ought to deal with this Bill was probably best laid down in the judgment given by Mr Justice Hiemstra in the case of the State v Farber, 1984. In his judgment he said the following:

I believe that that is the approach which one ought to have towards people who have been classified as religious objectors and the ones who apply for classification.

The hon member for Overvaal referred briefly to the number of applicants or classifications that there have been over the past few years. I did not hear him mention any particular figure.

755.

He mentions the figure of 755. It is quite clear that when the original Bill was discussed in 1983 the hon the Minister of Defence could not anticipate how many applications there would be for classification into category 3. It is clear from the debate at that stage that he did expect a rush. He thought that many potential national servicemen would see this as a loophole and make use of it. Let me refer to Hansard, vol 106 of 1983, col 4007 where he said the following:

What has happened is that there has not been a rush. I am informed—I am subject to correction—that on average about 40 objectors per annum have been classified into category 3, that is, over and above the ones we refer to as Jehovas Witnesses. In other words, whilst a far greater number have been classified, only about 40 plus who do not fall into the Jehovas Witness category have been classified as objectors in terms of category 3. That is a very small number. One is perhaps talking of no more than a 100 or 200 objectors who are not Jehovas Witnesses at whom this Bill is aimed.

When we look at clause 1 of the Bill we see it attempts to deal and to grope with the judgment to which the hon member Dr Geldenhuys referred—the case of State v Lotz, in which Mr Justice Stegmann came to the conclusion that the proper interpretation of the relevant section meant that the period of alternative service or community service ought to be one and a half times the period for which the particular serviceman had been called up. The department’s and the Government’s argument is, however, that the correct interpretation of that section should be one and a half times the maximum period for which such a serviceman could be called up.

Mr Chairman, during the debate in 1983 there was quite clearly a flexible approach on the part of the hon the Minister of Defence because whilst we suggested a period shorter than one and a half times he was prepared to accept an amendment to change the figure from two to one and a half. I do not believe when one looks at the judgment handed down by Mr Justice Stegmann that it was necessary to introduce this Bill because in his judgment Mr Justice Stegmann indicates how this aspect could have been dealt with without effecting an amendment to the Act. There is a suggestion by Mr Justice Stegmann that if the Defence Force was to fix a period for which the person called up was likely to serve, that period could be applied as the standard and be multiplied by one and a half times for the purpose of the religious objector. On page 20 of the judgment handed down by Mr Justice Stegmann he said the following:

Why, Sir, was it necessary to introduce an amendment which removes all flexibility from the existing section in the Act? Why was it necessary to introduce an amendment when the suggestion made by Mr Justice Stegmann in this case could have been accepted and applied with far greater equity, I believe, than will be the case if this amendment before us is accepted? Mr Justice Stegmann went on to say:

I ask this question, Mr Chairman. Why were the department and the Government not prepared to accept this provision rather than the hardened attitude we find in the amendment now before us? You see, Sir, the position is that very, very few servicemen ever serve the maximum period for which they can be called up. According to the Geldenhuys Commission Report, which was tabled in 1985, the average serviceman only serves 48% of his camp liability after having finished his two-year period.

It may be that since 1985 that percentage has increased slightly. The fact remains that on average the national serviceman serves only a fraction of the time for which he can be called up. We know that in order to call up a national serviceman for his fifth cycle of 120 days the approval of the Chief of the Defence Force is required. To call him up for his sixth camp the approval of the Minister of Defence is required. I am told that this happens very seldom, if at all.

Why then do we have a situation through this Bill in which the conscientious objector is obliged to perform community service for the maximum period possible? In other words he has to serve one and a half times the period the national serviceman himself very seldom serves. I believe this is inequitable. It would be much fairer, and closer to our intention when we debated this Bill in 1983, if the hon the Minister were to be given the power to determine an average continuous period for which a serviceman is likely to be called up in practice. That period could then be multiplied one and a half times in order to determine the period for which the conscientious objector has to perform community service. This is more or less the approach suggested by the judge in the case of The State v Lotz.

For these reasons we cannot accept that the amendment provided for in clause 1 is necessary or that it accurately reflects our attitude in 1983 when this matter was debated.

The second clause deals with the sentence of imprisonment. In effect it lays down a six-year period of imprisonment for someone who has not been classified as a religious objector and who refuses to perform his military service. I think we have to bear in mind that six years’ imprisonment is an extremely harsh sentence, and not only in terms of what we see in our courts in South Africa. This is a sentence imposed on people who have been convicted of murder, rape, sedition etc. It is also an extremely harsh sentence if we take a comparative view. In order to find some form of comparison we have to look to the Eastern Bloc countries, because in none of the Western countries will we find anything that comes close to this.

In Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia the prison sentence for someone refusing to perform his military service is 10 years; in Bulgaria—a very hard, authoritarian Marxist state—the sentence is seven years. We now come to the moderates, the Russians, whose sentence is six years. That is what we are modelling ourselves on. Hit them for six years and teach them a lesson! Not even in Poland or East Germany do they provide for such sentences; there it is five years. The point I am trying to make is that an excessive sentence is being provided for in clause 2 of this Bill. We cannot agree with the provision for such an excessive prison sentence. We therefore cannot support this clause.

When we look at clause 3 we see that provision is made for the Bill to be retrospectively effective from 1983. When the department motivated the need for this Bill at our standing committee meetings they referred to various memoranda that had been received from, inter alia, the Department of Manpower and the Attorney-General of the Transvaal. We were provided with copies of those documents, but in none of the memoranda to which the department referred in motivation of this Bill, was there any suggestion that the provisions of this Bill should be made retrospective. In motivating and explaining the retrospective effect of the Bill in his Second Reading speech, the hon the Minister mentioned the following:

What the hon the Minister is saying, therefore, is that for the convenience of administrative procedures in his department, they want these provisions to have retrospective effect. The Attorney-General of the Transvaal certainly did not suggest that, neither did the Department of Manpower insist on it. We on this side of the House believe that the administrative convenience of a Government department, irrespective of which department it is, is not sufficient reason to make legislation retrospective. In principle, we have always held the view that legislation ought not to have retrospective effect unless extraordinary circumstances exist which would justify it. We do not believe that there are any circumstances in this Bill or that form part of the background to the Bill that would justify the provisions being made retrospective.

We know that, relatively speaking, only a very small number of individuals have been classified into category 3, the category of conscientious objectors. Why should we go as far as making this Bill retrospective in order to deal administratively with the very small number of individuals who have been classified until now?

While I am on the subject of conscientious objectors and community service, Sir, may I just raise one aspect which relates more to their activities once they have been classified? Only a few Government departments accept them and they sometimes work under very difficult circumstances when in fact I believe as Mr Justice Hiemstra has said, they ought to be fully utilised and their potential ought to be fully utilised. I have here, for example, a copy of a letter from the Department of National Education. The department states, in short, that they are not prepared to accept objectors in their department.

When this aspect was debated in 1983 the hon the Minister indicated that once this law—the Act of 1983—had been implemented for a few years, he would review the different categories of employment into which objectors could be placed. In response to an amendment moved by the hon member for Greytown the hon the Minister said the following (Hansard, 25 March 1983, col 4015):

We asked whether these people could not be used in occupations and institutions where they could potentially offer very valuable services. I think of institutions such as Nicro where there is a tremendous shortage of social workers, and the Red Cross. I do not wish to present an exhaustive list, but I ask the hon the Deputy Minister to give us an indication as to what the thinking in the department is. Now that the system has run for two to three years have we not reached the stage where we can widen the categories and perhaps place religious objectors who have been classified, in non-governmental institutions where their qualifications and aptitudes can be used more productively and where they can further themselves in those jobs? I would appreciate an indication from the hon the Deputy Minister on that score.

For the reasons that I have mentioned, we on this side of the House are not in a position to support this Bill. We believe it is unnecessary and that the sentence concerned is unnecessarily harsh and extreme. The retrospectivity which is provided for in the third clause is unjustified and unnecessary and we cannot support it. We will therefore oppose this Bill.

Mr Chairman, the NP wishes to remain loyal to South Africa and support this legislation.

Where were you when the big war was on? [Interjections.]

He was nine years old.

The hon member for Durban Central, who has just resumed his seat, referred to the possibility that his career as the PFP spokesman on defence would be a short one. I agree with him that his career there will be short, because it did not escape the notice of this House that he referred to the Russians as “moderates”. I shall come back to the PFP’s image on national security.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member who made that remark had better wait his turn to speak. We shall be crossing swords again in future. I hope he participates in the discussion of the Defence Vote later this year because if he does so we shall unmask him and show him up for what he really is. [Interjections.]

The hon member objected that very short notice had been given in August when the standing committee had to deal with this legislation. He added that it seemed “as if they expected a rush and there has not been a rush”. But surely we cannot negate and fail to fulfil our responsibilities towards the Defence Force and the country by waiting until the situation has gone completely awry and then coming forward with legislation when it is too late.

When we make legislation retroactive, as is the case in clause 3, the hon member also objects. One almost gets the impression that he wants to create some leeway for members of Parliament or from his party who do not wish to do national service and therefore relinquish their citizenship. Why does the hon member only quote from the finding of Mr Justice Stegman? No, Sir, the hon member knows full well that there was another finding as well. In the Free State there was another finding that was in line with the intention of the legislator when this legislature was initially introduced. It is strange that the hon member only quotes from the legislation those sections that suit himself and his party.

One sometimes wonders whether the PFP is not making an effort to exercise a negative influence on the loyalty of our youth to the Defence Force. I think we in this House agree in principle that an effective South African defence force should also be backed up by well-considered legislation. There is no doubt that our Defence Force is a force to be proud of. The fact that the South African Defence Force was able to grow into the mighty fist it is in Africa is specifically due to the fact that the NP has seen to it in the past that the legislation in terms of which our Defence Force is constituted was overhauled from time to time.

Our Defence Force is made up of loyal men and women who do not hesitate to serve the best interests of our country. It is our obligation in this House to cover the backs of these men and women by means of legislation that will make it possible for them to duly carry out an exceptionally difficult task at an exceptionally difficult time. This amending Bill is also directly concerned with the ability of the Defence Force to function effectively, and for that reason we take pleasure in supporting it.

However, when we consider the image of the PFP, which is one of being soft on national security, and we consider the damage that that image caused it in the recent election, the PFP has just allowed a fine opportunity to destroy that image to slip. It was a golden opportunity to prove their loyalty to the Defence Force and the country to the electorate. However, the PFP has today confirmed afresh that a strong defence force and the resultant national security is not its first priority. If we fail with this legislation, it will be the thin end of the wedge, and we shall be allowing the white-anting activities aimed at undermining our Defence Force to gain momentum and eventually succeed. There are many thousands of young men who do their national service with great patriotism and loyalty. If we were to permit the interpretation being attached by certain courts to this legislation to become the rule …

Do you regard those courts as part of the total onslaught?

No, that hon member is part of the total onslaught. If those judgements become the rule then this loyal effort on the part of thousands of young men will have suspicion cast on it and will even be made ridiculous.

The hon member wanted the court to retain the right to determine the amount of punishment imposed in each particular instance. However, we are changing the situation around in order to make provision for changed circumstances, in that we are vesting in the Minister the power to reduce the period imposed from time to time as the need arises. Therefore the hon member’s argument is in fact being met.

We did not expect the PFP’s support for this legislation today. We really did not think that they would support the legislation, because the PFP is opposed to national service as such. Their resistance today is in fact an effort to tell those loyal men who do their share for South Africa that they are acting incorrectly. [Interjections.] The strategy is clear, namely to lead those people to believe that resistance to national service is right and that they are in the right. They are elevating resistance to national service to the status of a principle. Therefore it is clear to me that the PFP does not wish to debate the cause or even the principle here for the sake of the cause or the principle. They are doing it for the sake of Hansard and in order to pacify the clique that controls the PFP outside this House.

Therefore, in my opinion the PFP’s resistance to this legislation is purely academic or symbolic. It constitutes nominal resistance purely for the sake of the record.

I say that everyone who refuses to perform national service for his fatherland is behaving like a parasite towards those loyal people who do their share for their country.

World War II as well?

Order!

Mr Chairman, I listened very attentively, of course, to the hon member for False Bay.

I wonder why.

I want to say at once that I reject, with contempt, the allegation he made, not only by way of innuendo, but also in so many words in regard to the loyalty of this party and its members to South Africa and the SA Defence Force.

Let me say that I want to lodge the strongest possible objection to that because he spoke in such general terms about the people involved. In itself it had nothing to do with the principle he stated here. That is not what the Bill is about.

He is a bit of a dunce.

In due course I shall be responding to some of the aspects to which the hon member referred. I want to say at once that he professes that the flexibility granted to the Minister in terms of the Bill already meets the objections raised by the hon member for Durban Central halfway. Then surely it is not a question of principle. The hon member presented his entire speech as being one relating to a matter of principle involving loyalty to South Africa and the loyalty of our young people who are being trained.

He cannot make both statements. He cannot speak about flexibility on the one hand, flexibility which is indeed embodied in the Bill and which grants the Minister those powers, flexibility which also meets the hon member for Durban Central’s objections halfway, while on the other hand making a principle of the issue. If it is a matter of principle, however, I humbly want to tell the hon member for False Bay that he cannot allow flexibility, even as far as the Minister is concerned.

He called them all parasites.

In this connection I cannot quite understand the hon member for False Bay. I object, however, to the language he used in regard to the fact that every objection to the Bill was merely intended to pacify the extra-parliamentary clique; that that is also an allegation directed at the loyalty of the thousands of young people who carry out their task with dedication. I include in this all the strange statements made by the hon member for False Bay.

A despicable speech to make.

I want to say at once, however, that I object to it in the strongest possible terms. There are several ways in which one can regard the defence force of a country and the functions of that defence force. The hon member for False Bay ought to know, because we have consistently stated the fact, that there is a need for a strong Defence Force in South Africa.

What we have said, and what we believe, is that there should not be compulsory national service, but that the permanent force should rather be expanded. In doing so we would, in fact, also have a more efficient defence force arm in the form of a permanent force.

The hon member for False Bay did not refer to that problem, nor did he consider its merits.

The defence force of a country ought to be a consolidating and a unifying force in a country. That is pre-eminently what our Defence Force should be.

In a country in which there are sharp political and other differences, one should think twice before implementing conscription. That is what is involved here owing to the provision that such a person should perform community service equal to the length of ordinary national service or one-and-a-half times the normal national service.

In that debate about the Defence Amendment Bill two years ago I said that I was one of those who, in 1939, had been opposed to the declaration of war and to South Africa taking part in the Second World War. That is why I did not join the Defence Force at the time. [Interjections.] Yes, some people could perhaps hold it against me that I did not do so, but I acted in accordance with my sincere convictions, ie that the interests of South Africa were not at stake, and that it was therefore not a good thing, at that stage, for South Africa to enter the war.

We are now fighting for ourselves.

Let me state very clearly that I did not base my objections on religious convictions or conscientious objections. My objection was of a political nature. Many of the hon members sitting here who were at that stage, as I was, old enough to be called up, also objected to the declaration of war on 4 September 1939, because they also felt, from a political point of view, that the interests of South Africa were not such that South Africa’s participation in that war was essential. I am not offering any apology. It is still my belief. The Second World War has come and gone. I therefore cannot understand why our friends on that side of the House are now adopting such an implacable attitude towards people who, owing to political convictions, really have serious objections to national service. [Interjections.]

Now it is only South Africa’s interests that are at stake.

I think that in 1939 the hon the Deputy Minister was on the other side.

No, no, you are telling a falsehood! [Interjections.]

Then I apologise.

On a point of order, Mr Chairman: Is the principle involved in doing national service or not doing national service relevant to the discussion of this Bill?

Order! The discussion has ranged fairly widely and I must give the hon member an opportunity to react to what has been said.

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

All I actually want to say is that this involves that category of people who have to render community service. The legislation provides for a special arrangement having to be made for those who object to conscription. This inevitably focuses on the whole question of conscription as a pertinent element in our discussion of this Bill. I want to make that quite clear to the hon member Dr Geldenhuys. I do not, in all honesty, think that we can divorce these two elements from each other.

The hon member for Durban Central stated the problem very clearly. There are three facets in this Bill that we regard as problematic. The one is the measure which, at the outset, places someone who has objections in the position of having to perform community service for six years of his life. The second aspect to which we object is the provision that someone should serve a six-year term of imprisonment and the third objection lies in the last portion of the Bill, ie the retroactive nature of the measures.

Let us briefly look at the whole situation. I want to emphasize that I am stating my case against the background of my own basic view of things. I believe, in spite of what the legislation provides, that if someone has serious political objections, those political objections should apply. The legislation does not make provision for that. I understand that.

When we discussed that Bill, the hon member for Durban Central rightly indicated that at the time there was possibly the legitimate fear that if one threw open the doors to political objections, there would be a stream of young people who did not want to do their national service. I found it strange that that argument was used at all, because basic to that argument there is a mistrust of our youth. If we really believe, however, as the hon member for False Bay said here, that our youth have that loyalty, I do not think it would have been necessary to introduce conscription, nor would we have had to fear having a flood of people looking for a way out.

The hon member for Durban Central mentioned the figures here. I just want to repeat them. According to information at one’s disposal, in the period from the beginning of 1984 to July 1986 there were a total of 755 applications approved by the board. Of those, 137 were in category 1, 7 in category 2 and 611 in category 3. Of those 611, it would appear that 500 were, in fact, Jehovah’s Witnesses. Whether one agrees with them or not, it was because of fundamental, deeply-rooted religious convictions that these people were compelled to perform community service. There has been merely a handful of people who have since then asked for exemption, except for the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

If we take this fact into consideration, and if we also take into consideration that in a national serviceman’s cycle of six periods of service—ie 120 days in each period—it seldom happens in practice that a national serviceman is called up all six times, whilst it is said at the outset that the people in these categories, regardless of the number of times a national serviceman is called up, have to serve a period of six years, it does seem to me to be the worst kind of unreasonableness. As was indicated yesterday, it has to be the Head of the Defence Force or the Minister who calls up national servicemen for the last two camps.

The assumption is nevertheless being made now that every national serviceman is going to be called up six times, and that people who fall into these categories have to be punished by being told that it does not matter what is expected of the others; they will have to serve their six years in the Department of Manpower or six years of imprisonment or whatever. I am not in all honesty convinced that it is correct to say that this kind of punitive element is justified or necessary under these circumstances. I have not been convinced either by what the hon member Dr Geldenhuys or the hon member for False Bay said. Nor did the picture presented by the hon member for Durban Central convince me that it was necessary.

The Minister may, after all, reduce the period.

The Minister may reduce it, but it is arbitrary.

There are hon members in this House whose children have serious objections to compulsory national service. The children of most of us sitting here—mine included—do not have those fundamental objections. I want to tell the hon member for Overvaal, however, that in the times in which we are living there is always the possibility that our children will say to us: “Dad, I do not see my way clear, whatever the circumstances may be.” I do not then want to place that son of mine in the position of either having to go to jail for six years or having to do community service for six years of his life. It is the human element that we cannot get away from in this connection. For a young man who has just completed his studies at university, a young man of 21 or 22 years of age, to have six years of his life limited to such an extent that he is unable to do the things which he ought to do and for which he has been trained …

But what about the fellow who has to do four years of national service?

But it is not four years of military service; it is two years plus one year, a total of three years. We are speaking about the other period of 720 days. Why can we not uphold the principle laid down by Mr Justice Stegmann in the Lotz case? In other words, the hon the Minister should not have the right to determine, in advance, that everyone is going to have 720 days’ service and that they are therefore going to multiply that period by one and a half times at the outset. We are therefore going to tell that person that he will have to serve the initial three years plus half the length, and then a further two years plus half the length. That gives a total of six years we are going to take out of his life from the start, the result being that he will not be able to do those things which he has to do and which make life meaningful for him.

I want to appeal to hon members opposite. I am merely arguing from the fact of its being humane: If one can prevent it, one does not have the right to ruin a young man’s life for six years on that basis. I do not think there ought to be a punitive element. I believe— this is what the judge also said—that one ought properly to meet those people halfway who do, in fact, have serious objections. [Interjections.]

If we want to punish them, however, why a period of six years? Why not ten years? Why is the period one of six years, or one and a half times the normal period? We must clearly decide whether it is our intention to punish those people. I want to say again—and this is also where I stood in 1939—that I cannot endorse a punitive element in this matter. In the light of that fact I just want to say that I am honestly convinced that an injustice is being committed when, in advance, one tells a young man who has serious, justified objections—I have already said that valid objections, in my view, do not only include religious or conscientious objections, but also others—that regardless of the length of the period of service of the other people, he will have to do community service or serve a term of imprisonment for the full six years. I just want to say that I honestly think that it is an injustice for us to have the right to subject those young people to something of that nature. [Interjections.]

With reference to the retroactive effect of the measure, I just want to say that in principle most of us ought to be opposed to any legislation which is retroactive in effect. It is a matter of principle. I do not think this is the way for one to correct matters that have gone wrong.

In these circumstances I want to say, in all honesty, that together with my colleague, the hon member for Durban Central, I have no option but to oppose the Bill.

Mr Chairman, it is really with mixed feelings that one sometimes listens to the hon member Prof Olivier, and the same applies to the hon member for Durban Central. They are both very decent people and I personally like both of them very much.

What?

No, that is true. They are very decent people and I personally like them. They are good friends of mine. When they start speaking about policy, however, one sometimes gets a bit edgy, and that is why I am saying that one listens to them with mixed feelings. [Interjections.]

The hon member Prof Olivier said that the PFP advocated the expansion of the permanent force with a view to abolishing the system of national service, or so-called conscription. I do not think anyone finds any fault with the principle of expanding the permanent force into as large and strong a force as possible, but if we think that in South Africa we shall be able to build up so large a permanent force that we no longer need a system of national service, we are making a terrible mistake. For many reasons, which I do not want to debate now because they are not relevant, it is not possible to do so in practice.

He also said that it was not possible to separate the conscientious objectors from the religious objectors, and he elaborated on that. Consequently we on this side of the House have no other choice but to reply to that. I am not going to do so, but one of our other speakers will do so at a later stage.

He went on to say that there were Only a small handful of people who objected, but that is precisely the point. This legislation does not make provision for punishing people, but it is, in fact, punishment for those who want to do nothing at all.

The hon member for Durban Central was just as naughty—or mischievous—because he regularly used the terms “religious objection” and “conscientious objection” as if they were one and the same thing. He said that clause 2 of this legislation made provision for conscientious objectors. That is not true at all. As a legal man he ought to know that. Clauses 1, 2 and 3 make provision for religious objectors. In this legislation conscientious objection is not at issue. He intentionally used the terminology in such a way as to equate conscientious objection and religious objection. They are not the same.

I agree wholeheartedly with the hon member Prof Olivier. Here there is no question at all of punishing a person who is a religious objector. They used the word “conscientious objection” so often that I almost used it myself. This is a matter of religious objection. I shall be coming back to that at a later stage in my speech. What I am saying is that this is a matter of certain principles, the last being the principle of what is right, just and fair. In other words, when a person does his national service, he does his national service. When, because of a religious objection, a person does not do his national service, we accept and acknowledge it. There must, however, be a reasonable and balanced attitude. That is what gave rise to this legislation.

We can argue at length about the one-and-a-half-times formula, but it is a question of being fair and just to both the religious objector and the non-religious objector. I agree; it is not a question of punishment, except in the case of those who want to do nothing. It is specifically because we are bringing about a just and fair dispensation that there is so little objection. The people who are now objecting are those who are really aggrieved. If one does not include the justness, the fairness and the balanced attitude in the legislation, one is specifically going to have a deluge of applicants, because then one is opening the gate to all the end conscription campaigners and similar people who, for all kinds of negative reasons, amongst them communistically inspired reasons, do not want to do national service.

Let me perhaps just add, in passing, that the hon member for Durban Central referred to Czechoslovakia and Russia, trying to compare us to these countries. Let me tell the hon member that in 1913 Lenin wrote the following:

I want to tell him that we on this side of the House register serious objections—much more serious than those the hon member Prof Olivier lodged earlier—to that sort of thing, to his wanting to compare our standpoint to that held by people such as this. In 1892 Friedrich Engels wrote:

I just want to tell that hon member once again that we on this side of the House object very strongly to being compared with people who adopt that kind of attitude and take steps against people specifically because they believe in God.

That is precisely what this legislation is not about. This legislation specifically makes provision for people who have such a firm belief in God that they have religious objections to doing national service.

I just want to make a few more remarks. The hon member Prof Olivier spoke of those six years in which a person’s life is ruined. That is really not the case. If one does six years of community service, whilst in the process of leading a normal life, does the hon member want to tell me that one’s life is ruined? Surely that is not so. The person doing two years of national service frequently has certain opportunities withheld from him. He cannot, for example, attend evening classes. He cannot enrol in courses at Unisa whilst he is doing national service. The person who is rendering community service, however, can enrol in classes at a technical college; he can study through Unisa and even obtain a degree. That is specifically where the one-and-a-half-times formula comes from. He is exposed to far fewer physical dangers, and he has many more opportunities. He specifically has an opportunity to make use of those six years.

There are, for example, doctors who lodged objections. A doctor does hospital service and builds up his own profession. He can, for example, attend special classes and do many other things which the ordinary national serviceman cannot do. Let me leave the hon member at that for the moment.

The hon member for Durban Central objected, saying that the standing committee had been convened very suddenly. That is not true. The hon member wrenched it out of context. The Defence Force had a wonderful approach, that of calling the members of the standing committee together informally even before the standing committee was to have sat and giving its members a briefing. What more does one want? One can thank them very sincerely for this. They did not wait until we formally convened as a standing committee; on the contrary, the briefing personnel and the legal personnel of the Defence Force gathered all the parties together in the small auditorium and gave them a briefing there. The legislation as a whole was explained to us there.

If I understood the hon member correctly, he also said that on that occasion it was not stated that the legislation would be retroactive in effect. Did I understand the hon member correctly?

No!

Very well, then I misunderstood him, because it was stated there that the legislation would be retroactive in effect, and specific reasons for this were furnished. I have already dealt with the terminology, the equating of “religious objection” and “conscientious objection”, as if the two were one and the same thing.

From a different angle I now again want to spell out the NP’s philosophy and standpoint on the principles approved in the principal legislation and also the principles which are merely being elucidated more clearly in this amending Bill. There are certain basic facts and principles we should take into consideration.

The first basic principle is that of religious freedom. We on this side of the House and, in fact, the vast majority of people in South Africa, believe in religious freedom, and this is recorded as such in our Constitution. I am not going to debate that point any further at the moment.

The second fact I want to emphasize is that it is unwise, impractical, unbalanced and virtually impossible to want to absolutize anything. Today the CP supported this legislation, and we appreciate the fact. In other cases however they, in particular, are inclined to absolutize things. Nor should we, for example, absolutize something like religious freedom and elevate it to a position above any other principle or aspect of life.

The third point is that any principle, for example that of religious freedom, automatically imposes an obligation on one. If one therefore believes in religious freedom, one is also compelled to keep that religious freedom intact. Then one also has an obligation to fight for that religious freedom, and by “fight” I do not mean just militarily, but in fact in military terms too. If one does not believe in fighting, in the military sense of the term, one can do so in the non-military sense of the word, fighting to maintain a certain principle, for example that of religious freedom which is at issue here.

A further fact is that in South Africa at the moment there is a struggle in progress which will be absolutely decisive in determining our destiny. This legislation deals with the military and religious aspects of that struggle, but it is important to remember that this struggle is taking place in all spheres. This does, it is true, include the military and religious spheres.

I want to make the important categorical statement—I am not going to debate the issue at the moment—that the struggle in South Africa is not taking place between Whites and Blacks. I am mentioning this fact because those who are part of the End Conscription Campaign, etc, specifically speak of the “unjust war of Whites against Blacks”. There is not, however, a struggle being waged in this country between Whites and Blacks; it is quite a different struggle about which I do not want to debate any further at the moment.

I have referred to the obligation one has to keep freedoms intact. A further principle—it has already been dealt with briefly—involves the question of what is right, just and reasonable. This legislation specifies that it is one and a half times …

Cheers!

Yes, it takes little to satisfy me, sometimes just a little water. Here, however, I am not satisfied with just a little water; the only thing that will satisfy me here is having every man in the country do his duty in such a way that what is right and just will prevail. Since a problem has now arisen about the question of what is meant by one and a half times—do we mean six years when everything is added together or do we, as one judge has said, perhaps mean just three years—I want to refer to Hansard. When the originally proposed legislation was introduced by the hon the Minister, the period was to have been one of twice the length. The then hon member, for whom we all have a great deal of respect, Mr Vause Raw, proposed that this period of twice the length be changed to one of one-and-a-half times the length. What did the hon the Minister then say? I quote from Hansard of 25 March 1983, col 4006:

The hon the Minister went on to say:

The hon the Minister says here that the one-and-a-half times will work out to approximately six years, and in my mind there is not the slightest doubt about that. With all due respect, to the legal men, to those who decided that there was some doubt about whether it was the one or the other, let me say that I have no doubts. The hon the Minister said here that that period of one-and-a-half times the length would mean a period of approximately six years. With all due respect to the court, which decided otherwise, those of us who do not understand the law all that well say that we cannot quite understand how the Supreme Court’s decision could be the very opposite of that of the others. As politicians, however, we go according to what the hon the Minister said, and that was approximately six years. Mr Chairman, you are also a legal man, and I am not going to elaborate on this matter any further.

There is something specific I want to tell the hon member Prof Olivier. He is angry about this period of six years, but the very important point is that the proposed legislation specifically makes provision for the fact that where circumstances permit, the hon the Minister may reduce the period. Passages were quoted from the Geldenhuys Committee report. The Geldenhuys Committee found that at the time there was a certain average period of service performed by a national serviceman. With circumstances prevailing at present, however, we have national servicemen, some of whom I know in Johannesburg, who have already done more than one hundred per cent of their service time. So what was true then, is not altogether true now. The point I want to make is that the legislation very definitely provides that the period does not need to be six years or one-and-a-half times in cases which merit a lesser period. It could be less.

Mr Chairman, I am grateful to the hon member for Langlaagte for bringing this debate back into perspective by dealing with the specifics of the Bill we have in front of us. That is in stark contrast to the contribution or non-contribution of the hon member for False Bay.

This debate is not a conscription debate. Our views on conscription are well-known, but that is a separate debate and we can have it on another occasion. It also does not have anything to do with whether or not we are in favour of a strong Defence Force. We have never said that we are not. We are in fact in favour of an appropriately strong Defence Force to defend this country’s borders against outside aggressors. That is not the issue at stake here today. It also has nothing to do with what the hon member for False Bay called “vaderlandsliefde”! That hon member should go and read Dr Johnson who said that a resort to patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.

This debate also had nothing to do with conscientious objectors. It is a discussion of the categories of religious objectors that have already been accepted by the NP.

Are you talking to the hon member for Durban Central?

What I am saying is that the specific issue this Bill deals with, are the penalties applying to the specific categories that have already been accepted to be catered for by that side of the House. We ask the question: Are the provisions being made for these people fair, reasonable, equitable and appropriate?

That is the issue. We have accepted, on previous occasions, that some element of deterrent is appropriate and that one could not have a simple choice between conscription service and alternative service. We accepted that principle. It is, however, a question of how stiff the penalty should be, ie what is appropriate, fair and equitable.

Let us look at the facts. In practice the average national serviceman serves more or less three years. That information can be obtained in the Defence White Paper of 1985. Therefore, this Bill is in contravention with the logic of that side of the House, viz that the deterrent should not be more than one and a half times as much because this Bill calls for a penalty of six years. That is double the service period which the average national serviceman serves in practice.

The second fact is that the actual number of servicemen who were categorised from 1983 to July 1986 is only 755. It is less than 1%— in fact 0,2%—of the total number called up. It is an absolutely insignificant number. This raises the question of whether the penalty presently being applied is not excessive because the number of people who have been categorised in this way is certainly insignificant. According to these figures there is no urgent need to shut the gates in a dramatic way.

A third fact is that life for the people in these specific categories is far more difficult now than before 1983. In those days they were faced with a prison sentence of one year whereas they are now faced with a six year commitment. The hon member for Langlaagte says that six years is not so bad. I wonder whether he has spoken to any person who has suffered under this category.

Yes.

Well, he certainly has not spoken to a large number. The people who are made to suffer under this provision are desperate in many cases. Their lives have been disrupted and seriously affected. Many criminals convicted for violent crimes are sentenced to far less than six years imprisonment. This is an extremely heavy deterrent penalty which is being applied here.

Another fact is that we are out of step with European countries. I am now talking about Western European countries. Eight out of 21 European countries have no conscription at all. The 13 that do have conscription all have a broader basis for alternative service, conscientious objection or religious objection than we have. Most of them have far less than a one and a half times deterrent penalty. Nowhere is the penalty as much as six years. Only in Greece and Denmark, I am advised, is it more than three years.

In our view legislation in general which punishes people for their sincere beliefs is not acceptable. All of the objectors I have ever spoken with or met are absolutely sincere in their beliefs. As we heard from the hon member Prof Olivier, many South Africans took a stand against military service throughout the First and the Second World Wars.

Therefore, we oppose this Bill on three principles: Firstly, we say that where conscription does exist—because in principle conscription does not offer any choice—the concomitant principle should be accepted that some accommodation be made for people with very deeply held convictions against such conscription.

Arrangements to accommodate objectors should go hand in hand with conscription wherever it is applied and at whatever time. We do further accept that such alternative arrangements should also imply obligatory service to the community in a constructive way. We accept that there should be this hand-in-hand principle and alternative.

The second principle on which we are opposing this Bill is that we believe the deterrent punishment should be appropriate and equitable. We do not believe that the present six-year formula, which in practice amounts to more than 1½ times, as I have already shown, is equitable or appropriate at the present time. We believe that the penalty as it presently exists could be considerably shortened without the danger which seems to transfix the NP—that of a so-called opening of the floodgates. The figures do not show that that is a serious problem. Therefore we believe the present deterrent penalty could be considerably reduced with no ill effects and without departing from the principle of retaining a deterrent of some kind.

The final point I want to make is that we believe that non-religious conscientious objectors should be treated on the same basis and in the same way as religious objectors. That, however, is another debate.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Constantia must pardon me for not reacting immediately to his arguments. I shall, however, reply in the course of my argument in this debate.

I am participating in this debate this afternoon not merely because I am a member of the Defence Study Group of the NP, but also because before my entry into active politics two and a half years ago I was a commanding officer of a Citizen Force unit and worked intensively with the young men who defend our borders. I must say here today that it is those young men of whom South Africa can be very, very proud today. I had hoped that in the few minutes allowed me by the Whips I could confine myself to the merits of this legislation. Unfortunately the previous speakers of the PFP, particularly the hon member for Durban Central, the hon member Prof Olivier and the hon member for Constantia all objected to the word “religious objectors”. They introduced a new principle here. To begin with I want to refer specifically to what was said by the hon member for Durban Central. He said that this should be extended to, in his words, “ethical and philosophical reasons.” He referred throughout his speech to “conscientious objectors.” Let us look at what the hon member Prof Olivier said. He said that it should also be possible for a person’s objection to doing national service to be of a political nature. Towards the end of his speech the hon member for Constantia said so too. He said that the exemption should be extended.

There is just one thing I want to say to them today. They who are on that side of the House know that if that extension is incorporated in this Act one will surely be giving the End Conscription Campaign a blank cheque. Surely they know that. They neither want to argue the point nor do they want to admit it.

I shall prove it to them today.

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

Mr Chairman, I do not have the time to answer a question. Let us consider the End Conscription Campaign, because they spoke about other reasons. I again raise the important point that if in this legislation we permit the other words “other reasons apart from religious objections” to be introduced, we will be giving the End Conscription Campaign a blank cheque.

Let us listen to who these people are. I shall quote from a document in which they announce that this is a broad front organisation, an alliance of community organisations …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: It appears to me that the hon member is not in fact discussing the amending Bill in question in front of the House; he has embarked upon a totally different subject which is not included in the amending Bill.

Order! As I interpret the hon member, he is responding to an argument previously raised by another hon member in the debate. I shall, however, listen carefully and I shall not allow the hon member to deviate too far from the Bill.

Tell us on what basis the Coloureds and the Indians are excluded.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Durban Central must now sit very quietly and listen to me.

It has got nothing to do with religion!

He must now sit very quietly and listen to me. I did not interrupt him when he was making his speech. I am putting the point to him now. I have worn the uniform of the South African Army for more than eight years. I say that I know what it is all about. The hon member should just give me a chance. [Interjections.] I now wish to quote the hon members from an article in the Aida Parker Newsletter. The report concerns the End Conscription Campaign and has to do with objections. This is the very point I wish to raise here. The title reads as follows:

What follows now is important:

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: The hon member is now really not even replying to the debate by the hon member on the submect.

The hon member need not dwell on the point. I was about to call the hon member Mr van Gend to order.

*The hon member really must not digress too far and discuss the End Conscription Campaign. I think that by doing so he would be going too far. I have now permitted the hon member to react to the argument of the hon member for Durban Central, but in the process he must not digress too far from the Bill. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I shall abide by your ruling. I just want to say to the hon members of the PFP that they know what the End Conscription Campaign is all about therefore I shall not spell it out to them any further. I shall spell it out in the debate on the Defence Vote. Then we shall conduct an argument with each other. All I still want to tell them now is that they must not campaign for a blank cheque for the End Conscription Campaign because they are trifling with South Africa. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: The hon member is deliberately disregarding your ruling. [Interjections.]

Order! I take it that the hon member Mr Van Gend is now finished with the End Conscription Campaign. The hon member may proceed.

Then I, too, just want to react to the comparisons of the periods drawn for the House by the hon member for Constantia. He quoted the example of Sweden and several other countries.

Do you not know the difference between Sweden and Denmark? [Interjections.]

Sir, I am not going to reply to the hon member for Cape Town Gardens now. All I want to say to them is that one surely one cannot draw comparisons from throughout the world; after all, one’s defence force is based on the enemy one has to fight. Was the hon member unaware of that? The greater the threat, the greater the enemy. [Interjections.] Therefore I say to the hon member for Constantia that the comparisons he drew are not relevant to this legislation. [Interjections.]

I want to conclude by saying that we in South Africa believe in a just cause. Our situation is difficult and quite unique, but with strength from Above we are already finding the solution. We must believe and we must support and encourage national service. That is what this legislation is about—it is about the encouragement of national service, not about punishing people. That is why we on this side of the House support it.

Mr Chairman, I am only rising on this side of the House because the turn of events in the debate is such that the PFP has seized the opportunity to raise the whole issue of religious objectors and conscientious objectors once again, this having in fact been debated here by the hon member Prof Olivier and the hon member for Durban Central. The hon member for Constantia rightly pointed out, however, that there were no principles at issue in the legislation before us, because that debate had already been conducted in this House.

Clause 1 deals with those people in category 3; in other words those people who are truly religious objectors and who refuse to have anything to do with the SA Defence Force. Over the past two and a half years there have been some 611 of these people, 503 of whom belonged to one specific religious group.

We find it regrettable that the PFP has actually misused the Bill before us in the sense that its members are in fact pleading the case of the so-called conscientious objectors on an ethical or philosophical basis. We on this side of the House hold the view that if one enjoys civil rights in South Africa, one must also do one’s civic duty. [Interjections.]

We are deeply committed to establishing a defence force of the people in this country, one which is imbued with a sense of nationalism and a love of the country and its people. We want that civic duty to be compulsory, and that is why those people who refuse to perform that duty for reasons other than religious beliefs, should definitely be penalised. We have no problem with that.

Are Blacks also citizens?

The hon member for Parktown’s question brings me to the second argument I want to put forward here. All three clauses of the Defence Amendment Act deal with national servicemen. The only national servicemen in the SA Defence Force are the sons of the electorate of this House. If this legislation were to be rejected in one of the other Houses—it has not yet been finally passed by them—the ultimate decision on this matter, which has to do with national servicemen, would probably have to be taken in the President’s Council, a non-elected body. Since this legislation has to do with the sons of the electorate of this House, we on this side of the House are convinced that this legislation ought to be an own affair. [Interjections.] We believe that every people should ultimately have its own defence force and that the individual peoples of Southern Africa …

Order! The hon member must not carry that theme too far.

… should be able to form an allied front against the enemy. [Interjections.]

I just wanted to draw hon members’ attention to the aforementioned points. We fully support the amending Bill and shall therefore vote in favour of it.

Mr Chairman, I want to begin on a personal note by conveying my sincere thanks to those hon members who congratulated me and conveyed their good wishes. I, too, would very much like to extend my congratulations to the chief spokesman of the NP study group, the hon member Dr Geldenhuys, the other members of our executive, the hon member for False Bay and the hon member for Langlaagte as well as the chairman of the study group of the PFP, the hon member for Durban Central and the hon member Prof Olivier who also made a contribution here this afternoon. The chief spokesman of the Official Opposition has for years been his party’s spokesman on defence affairs and I want to thank him in particular for his personal congratulations to me and for his and his party’s support of this legislation. I found it wonderful that the hon member and I were able to agree in such a fine way today. I believe that in future we may be able to differ in the same way.

I want to thank all hon members who took part in the debate, and particularly the hon members on this side of the House, for their contributions. The hon member Dr Geldenhuys and the hon members for False Bay and Langlaagte have for the most part replied to most of the arguments raised by the opposition in this debate. Major ideological and political differences were clearly visible in the debate between hon members on this side of the House, the Official Opposition, that agrees with us on the legislation, and the PFP opposite. There were no new arguments among those advanced by the PFP. These arguments of theirs were advanced ad nauseam in 1983 when the original Bill was discussed and special emphasis was laid on the so-called conscientious objections of hon members on that side. However this legislation expressly concerns only the bona fide religious objectors. Therefore I do not want us to become involved in a discussion of this nature.

In appearing here today in his new capacity the hon member for Durban Central sounded almost a prophetic note. He foresaw that he may take the same course as some of his predecessors. If I am not mistaken, the hon member had better tread carefully. There are grave and profound differences.

While he is still here I want to wish the hon member everything of the best. However, there is just one matter about which I should like to address the hon member, and that is that I think he made an unfair reference to the standing committee and to the briefing which preceded it. It really was not the intention to compel the standing committee to steamroller the legislation. The hon member for Langlaagte referred to this. It was an honest effort on the part of the department to inform all hon members about the nature of the legislation before the standing committee began its proceedings.

I also wish to say to him that our department is at all times at his disposal and at the disposal of all parties as regards the provision of this information. I think that that was a somewhat unfair allegation.

†Mr Chairman, the hon member dealt mainly with matters concerning principle when in fact the Bill only deals with technicalities. It is not the aim of this Bill to reopen the 1983 debate. The Bill is necessary for the creation of uniformity and to remove the possibility of differing interpretations arising from the various provinces. I repeat that in this case we are dealing with a technical point concerning legal uniformity.

*I want to point out to the hon member that this legislation is being made retroactive to ensure that everyone who has been involved in this since the inception of the Defence Amendment Act on 2 December 1983 is dealt with in the same way. This is by no means merely an administrative or departmental need that has to be satisfied. As regards the period of the community service to be rendered, we must not have a situation in which some people have to serve for three years and others for six.

I should like to leave the matter at that. I shall reply later to some of the arguments advanced by the hon member for Durban Central.

I want to express my sincere gratitude to the hon member for False Bay. I think that when he sets a cat among the pigeons, something always emerges as a result, or else some people even start wailing. The fact is that there are strong ideological differences between our parties and these will continue to exist in future.

In my opinion the hon member Prof Olivier missed the point entirely. Basically, he raised the same points as did the hon members for Durban Central and Constantia. I find it interesting, however, to hear that this has nothing to do with the merits of national service or the nature of the Defence Force.

Nevertheless the hon member gave us a very interesting insight into his own past.

I just wish to bring to the attention of the hon member Prof Olivier the fact that during the Second World War it was not only South Africa’s interests that were at stake. He will surely concede that. That was why one could then permit voluntary participation in Defence Force activities. He was fully entitled to refrain from taking part in that war. However, in these times South Africa’s interests alone are at stake. Our actual survival in this country is at stake. Therefore that makes a big difference as regards the participation of South Africans in the war effort.

Only the Whites?

The hon member should take the opportunity to go and see who is serving in the Defence Force. Let us drop that argument. I am speaking to the hon member Prof Olivier. It is our interests, South Africa’ s interests, that are at stake and our freedom that is being threatened. This country’s survival is at stake. That is why we have national service. Very well, I concede the point that this only applies to Whites at present, but we are getting enough volunteers from the other population groups to take part in the defence of our country.

The hon member Prof Olivier made a statement here that really did not go down very well with me. He said that we could ruin a young man’s life by way of national service or, as an alternative, the community service he has to perform or even the prison sentence he has to serve. Surely we cannot distinguish among those who do not want to perform national service, and tell one he has to perform national service and the other, only because he feels different politically, that he need not do it. I believe that they should all be treated equally.

The hon member for Langlaagte spoke about reasonableness, justice and balance. I want to thank him most sincerely for a well-considered speech and for the effective way in which he replied to some of the statements and arguments advanced by hon members on the other side of the House.

I want to dwell on an argument advanced by all three of the spokesmen on the PFP side. They referred to the unfairness of the six years, the period of one and a half times for which alternative service has to be performed. I shall come back to that in a moment, but I think that the hon member for Langlaagte reacted very effectively to it.

In this regard the hon members are looking no further than the Geldenhuys Committee. I think that they themselves conceded that the percentage of people mentioned there, the 48%, is a fluctuating figure. Of course it is a fluctuating figure. It has been lower and also much higher than that. If, therefore, as the hon member for Langlaagte said, we have to act in accordance with the judges’ findings, then we should have to determine these periods of national service in such a haphazard and fluctuating way that we would really make no progress. I think that hon members can trust the hon the Minister in this regard. He stated very clearly that he had understanding for this matter; that if credit had to be granted, he would grant credit as far as possible. I want to give hon members on that side of the House the assurance today that the hon the Minister will also consider with great compassion cases of religious objectors in so far as community service is concerned. He will consider the circumstances to see whether the religious objector’s period of community service could not be curtailed. We do not want to punish them by making them perform community service for six years.

†The hon member for Constantia repeated most of the arguments advanced by the hon member for Durban Central and the hon member Prof Olivier. I do not think he brought anything new to the fore, except that I think the hon member seems to be stuck, like his colleagues, on the matter of conscientious rather than religious objectors. Where do we draw the line in this respect? We have the mechanism to classify the religious objector. However, if we have to make provision for the so-called political and conscientious objector, how are we going to determine what the hon member for Constantia termed the “sincere beliefs” of these young men? I think the possibility exists that some of them—I think the hon member Mr Van Gend referred to this—plainly lack the moral fibre to defend this country. I think we must consider that possibility.

*I want to thank the hon member Mr Van Gend for his contribution. The hon member’s contribution hit the target. One could infer that from the reactions of hon members on that side of the House. It hurt.

I also want to thank the hon member for Pietersburg for having corrected the hon member for Constantia. In reality the PFP only wanted to misuse the legislation to advance their own political philosophy. He also referred us to the aspects of civil duty and civil rights. However, he might as well have left out the final piece of his speech; had he done so, the debate would have ended on a far higher note as far as the Official Opposition was concerned.

This legislation concerns that group of persons who perform alternative national service in the form of community service, on the grounds of the fact that they are bona fide religious objectors and also classified as such by a board for religious objection. I wish to state clearly that the community service rendered by these bona fide religious objectors, which is performed for a period one-and-a-half times as long as ordinary military service, should not be regarded as a penal provision. Hon members may differ with me in this regard, but we must and may not regard it as a penal provision because that is really not the intention. It has never been regarded as a penal provision. In the preamble to our Constitution, Act no 110 of 1983, it is expressly provided that freedom of religion and worship must be recognised and protected. On the occasion of the passing of the Defence Amendment Bill in 1983 the hon the Minister emphasised this aspect and at the time the necessary mechanisms, for example the boards for religious objections, were created to give effect to this.

However, full-fleged military service is subject to risk factors. Surely we cannot disregard that. There are the risk factors such as tension, possible loss of life or injuries and very stringent discipline, as well as many other sacrifices that our young men who perform military service are subjected to, in contrast to those who perform alternative community service after they have been classified as religious objectors.

Indeed, they perform this community service in a far more relaxed milieu and are not subjected to anything like the same tensions and risks as the ordinary national servicemen. I find it regrettable that some hon members want to create the perception that they are the people who are having such a hard time of it.

It is true that those people are under a certain obligation to serve one-and-a-half times as long as the normal national serviceman, but most of them perform that service in a milieu which in my opinion is far more acceptable to the majority of young people in South Africa than pure military service.

To ensure equal treatment, therefore, there has to be compensation for this. Moreover, this is an accepted principle in the majority of other countries. Reference has already been made to this and I have the tables before me. It is true—I concede the point immediately— that there is a longer period of national service in South Africa than in the majority of other countries, but I contend that the period of alternative service set down for objectors in the majority of other countries is in many instances double the period of military national service. It is not merely one and a half times the length, but double the length of military service, and sometimes more. I can make these tables available to hon members if they want to peruse them. Therefore, as I have said, this is an accepted principle in the majority of other countries.

What is more, some of the churches, and the objectors themselves—I believe that the hon members have spoken to many of them— have suggested and accepted the principle of compensation. That is why I once again state clearly that the longer period of service should not be regarded as a punitive measure because a person is a religious objector. It should rather be regarded as a compensatory measure. Having said all this, I also wish to state clearly that national service as such is not a punishment. I am gratified to say that my experience shows that that is certainly not the feeling of the vast majority of national servicemen. Indeed, it is my experience that the majority of young men in South Africa regard their national service as a wonderful privilege, as their opportunity to make a meaningful contribution to the safeguarding of this fine country we live in, to maintaining the Christian values and civilized norms in this country and to protecting and safeguarding the inviolability and liberty of our country with the utmost dedication. I can state on the basis of first hand experience that this is the feeling of the vast majority of national servicemen with whom I come into contact. I should very much like to express my heartful thanks on behalf of the Government, the loved ones of these national servicemen and all the people of South Africa, including those who are so opposed to national service, to our national servicemen for this service they render their fatherland. I thank all the hon members who have participated in this debate.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Order! The hon the Leader of the House has asked me to grant him an opportunity to make a statement. I now grant him the opportunity of doing so.

Mr Chairman, concurrently, or more or less concurrently with the reading of this statement in this House, the Chairmen of the Ministers’ Councils of the other two Houses will make a similarly worded statement in those two Houses.

The Government has decided to make an amount of R10000 per annum available per constituency for secretarial and administrative purpose, subject to certain conditions. Members will be provided with full particulars on or before 26 June 1987. The most important effects of the conditions laid down are:

1. (1) No member will gain financially. Rents and salaries will be paid direct to lessors and employees from a payments office under the control of the Speaker and his staff.
2. (2) Other expenditure such as telephone costs will be reimbursed only upon submission of acceptable proof.
3. (3) Any expenditure exceeding R10 000 per annum will be for the personal account of each member.

The sole purpose of the allowance is to ensure that voters will enjoy a continuous service from, and access to, their elected Member of Parliament.

†This decision has been taken against the following background: At the end of 1985 the Committee of Inquiry into the Structure of the Remuneration and Conditions of Service of the State President, Ministers, Deputy Ministers and Members of Parliament and of the President’ s Council brought out a report in which fundamental adjustments were recommended. Approximately a year ago this report was only partly implemented in respect of salaries and allowances. On that occasion the Government indicated that the report and the recommendations had been accepted but that they would be fully implemented only when the economy of the country made this possible.

Almost a year later and more than 18 months since the completion of the report, the Government is still of the opinion that circumstances do not allow full implementation. However, one aspect of the report, the introduction of an office and secretarial allowance for each constituency, cannot be delayed any longer.

The office of Member of Parliament has become a highly specialised one. The new system of standing committees obliges members to work outside their constituencies throughout the year, often for considerable periods at a time. In addition, since there are no longer provincial councils, constituencies and voters have been deprived of regular access to an elected representative. Contact between voters and members is becoming increasingly difficult.

*Against this background the Government has decided to implement the recommendation concerning administrative and secretarial expenditure made by the above-mentioned committee.

Further particulars of the scheme are the following:

1. (a) The allowance will be payable only in the case of directly elected members of Parliament who apply for it in writing to the Secretary to Parliament.
2. (b) The scheme will come into operation on 1 July 1987 and members who apply on or before 31 July 1987 can enjoy the full benefits from 1 July 1987. If a member applies after 31 July 1987, the benefits will come into effect only from the date of the written application.

Finally, consideration was also given to the salaries and allowances of Members of Parliament. Some weeks ago the Government announced a general increase of 12,5% with effect from 1 July for all employees in the public sector. In the light of this, the Government has decided that the salaries and pensionable allowances of Ministers, Deputy Ministers, Members of Parliament and of the President’s Council, including all political office bearers in Parliament and the President’s Council, will also be increased by 12,5% with effect from 1 July 1987.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.