Mr. Speaker, I move—

I do not think there is much to be said about this. It was discussed very thoroughly during the Second Reading debate. There I adopted the standpoint that if one did not proceed to define the term “South Africa” or furnish a better definition of it; one would have no option but to delete it from the present Defence Act. I undertook to request an instruction to the Committee of the whole House to effect this change. I am now doing this. In view of the discussion which has already taken place on this legislation, which was very thorough, I do not think it is necessary for me to furnish any further information.

Mr. Speaker, we on these benches welcome the instruction which has been moved. It is a matter on which we have found common cause and which we believe will be in the interests of a better Defence Bill. Like the hon. the Minister I do not believe that this is the stage at which this matter should be debated. We can debate the detail when we come to clause 6 of the Bill itself. I rise now merely to give the full support of this side of the House to the instruction which is now before the House.

Mr. Speaker, I should just like to indicate that as the instruction now reads, we on these benches can have no fundamental objection to it, because it concerns service. It does not concern voluntary service. According to the Order Paper a discrepancy exists in regard to clause 6 where the words “compulsory service” are used in the English version, while only the word “diensplig” (service) is used in the Afrikaans version. Because we have certain objections to the extension of service, we shall raise these objections in the Committee Stage, but the instruction, as it appears on the Order Paper at present, merely reflects what is stated in the Defence Act in any case.

Mr. Speaker, I have a slightly different problem, which I think follows on from what the hon. member for Rondebosch has said. If the words which are used here are as I read them on the Order Paper, i.e. that there is “leave to consider the advisability of making provision therein for service by members of the South African Defence Force anywhere whether within or outside the Republic”, then the present Act provides for that already. There is nothing here then which is new. There will be no point in the instruction whatsoever, because there is provision for service. What does not exist in the present Act, however, is provision for compulsory service both within and outside the Republic of South Africa. Therefore, weigh it as we would—and we will support the legislation in its present wording—I want to draw attention to the fact—and there should be no misunderstanding when the House considers this matter in Committee—that on the present wording of this instruction, it is not open to anyone to move an amendment that there should be compulsory service anywhere in the world. There should be no misunderstanding on that point. In this instruction there is no question of compulsory service at all. Mr. Speaker, if you want support for that all you have to do is consider an amendment on the Order Paper which we are being asked to consider. If you refer to page 41 of the Order Paper you will see that the section which it is sought to introduce, i.e. section 95, refers to compulsory service outside the Republic. If you read the section itself the wording is as follows:

At the present moment I think that the situation is clearly understood, that one is obliged to render service and is required to render service within South Africa, within the meaning of that term. But there is no compulsion to render service outside of South Africa. So if this instruction is moved—and we support it—it will in fact accord with the amendment which we propose to move while the amendment which stands in the name of the hon. the Minister of Defence will be out of order.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot allow the hon. member for Yeoville to hide behind an interpretation which he attaches to the instruction in order to create the possibility that when we come to the amendment of the hon. Minister to clause 6, he would be able to say that the instruction is not in accordance with that motion. This is an artificial interpretation, a technical interpretation with, if I may add this, a degree of wilfulness added. It has been calculated so that it can be said at a later stage that they did not act contrary to the interests of South Africa. In other words, I read in this an interpretation which amounts to there being an alternative possibility therein for them, through which they can keep their options open. Consequently we cannot allow the hon. member for Yeoville and his fellow members of the Progressive Party to attach such an interpretation to this instruction, an instruction which is very clearly in accordance with the discussions in the previous debate. Therefore, when this instruction is interpreted, it should be interpreted in the light of what the hon. the Minister said he intended doing, namely that he would move an instruction which was in accordance with the debate. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Yeoville, however, cannot hide behind a technical point, which is in any case without any substance, and try to force an interpretation on this House which only he and the hon. member for Rondebosch attach to it. For that reason we should understand very clearly that when we consider this matter it is clearly in accordance with the viewpoint of this side of the House and of the official Opposition.

Instruction agreed to.

House in Committee:

Instruction stated to Committee.

Clause 1:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

I do not have to enlarge upon this amendment. It is quite clear that with it we are deleting the words “ ‘South Africa’ Africa South of the equator” in line 16. This is in accordance with the undertaking I gave.

Mr. Chairman, in our contribution to the Second Reading debate, we made it quite clear that we did not feel at all happy about defining ‘‘South Africa” as it was defined in the original Bill, that is without the amendment. My hon. colleague for Yeoville will go into this particular aspect in greater detail at a later stage. As you know, sir, we are in favour of limiting the definition of “South Africa” to a greater extent than was originally the idea, while the hon. the Minister is leaving it open in this case.

I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

I should like to motivate this amendment. What it really boils down to, is that we are asking that the suppression of terrorism should be seen as part of service in defence of the Republic, in other words it should form part of military service in defence of the Republic of South Africa. At the same time we are also asking that the clause which is at issue here, namely clause 1, which defines the new category of warfare with the words “for the prevention or suppression of any armed conflict outside the Republic which, in the opinion of the State President, is or may be a threat to the security of the Republic”, be deleted and the words “the combating and suppression of communism” substituted. The simple reason for this is that this is a category of warfare about which we have not yet received clarity from the hon. Minister himself as to why it should be seen as military service in defence of the Republic. If one examines the present Defence Act, it is clear that different forms of warfare are possible in which people may become involved in defence of the Republic. It is possible that if South Africa is attacked, people will be called up to go to the defence of their country. It is also possible that we may, by means of a treaty or agreement with another State, go beyond the borders of the Republic and participate in warfare there, and if one reads sections 90 and 91 in conjunction with the definition of “time of war” in section 1 of the Defence Act, one finds that one may wage a preventive war outside the borders of the country.

It is in any case possible that for one to go beyond the borders of the Republic to suppress terrorism. We in these benches say that that type of military service should be compulsory, and that there should be no voluntary element in it. In the definition of “South Africa”, as it will be proposed by the hon. member for Yeoville in his amendment, we say that if a war should develop in an adjoining state we may, in terms of an agreement, call up our soldiers to do compulsory military service there. We may even go to participate in a preventive war and go to fight in such a State. In any case, we may defend South Africa against any aggression. All these forms of military service are compulsory and therefore we are asking that in this particular case the definition of what is stated in clause 1, i.e. the prevention or suppression of any armed conflict, should fall away because we simply cannot see what purpose it is going to serve in terms of the already existing prescribed measures which may be adopted in order to wage war outside the borders of South Africa. Indeed, we think that such a provision—we have already said so in the Second Reading debate—could only cause more problems for us than it could solve. By implication it states that South Africa may now, without treaty and without declaring war, intervene in an armed conflict anywhere in the world, an armed conflict which ostensibly does not involve South Africa and the country in question, but the people within that country. We can then intervene either to prevent or to suppress it. We feel that in these times in which we are living, this is a dangerous provision to insert in the Defence Act. It does not matter how one looks at it, for as it is quite matter of factly stated there, it means quite simply that we are here—regardless of whether the other country wants it or not—appropriating to ourselves the right, in terms of our own judgment, to intervene in another State and community and to go there and suppress an armed conflict. Therefore I am proposing in my amendment that we delete this form of warfare from the Defence Act, because we have at this stage not yet received any real satisfactory explanation on the part of the hon. Minister or from that side of the House as to why this particular provision should be necessary. We have not yet received any satisfactory explanation. Therefore we do not know where such a case of armed conflict has occurred. By implication it was said that we had not yet participated in anything of that nature. Why should it become necessary? It means that there has been such an event in the recent past where there was no agreement and where no means of mobilization were possible under sections 90, 91 and 1. There was no mobilization in this connection, but now we are inserting a form of warfare into the Defence Act which will in the end lead only to detrimental consequences for South Africa, precisely because it is an indication of the fact, regardless of what the intentions are, that possible aggressive intentions may be associated with clause 1 of this Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendments standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 3, in line 9, after “of" to insert “terrorism or of”;
2. (2) on page 3, to omit all the words after “means” in line 17 up to and including “inhabitants” in line 19 and to substitute:

A further amendment I wanted to move was the same as that of the Minister, namely the deletion of the definition of “South Africa”, and since we support the Minister’s proposal mine will fall away, because it is the same as that which we advocated during the Second Reading. As far as the hon. member for Rondebosch is concerned, I can understand that the Progressive Party cannot imagine circumstances where this definition of “armed conflict” would be necessary, because they never think far enough about the consequences of the attitude they adopt here in this House and outside. The hon. member has probably never heard of mercenaries. If we should clash with mercenaries who are not the troops of any official State or Government, it would be armed conflict.

Outside South Africa.

Yes, it may well be outside South Africa. If we become involved, as has happened in Angola, with foreign troops who are not the troops of an official or a legal government of that State, and where no legal government or authority exists, armed conflict develops. But, Sir, this is not the reason why the Progressive Party opposes this provision. The reason is that they are not prepared to grant our S.A. Defence Force the authority to defend South Africa where and when it becomes necessary. [Interjections.]

†What they want to do, Sir, is to limit the army to fighting behind a line drawn on a map and to say: “Wait there until you get hit, and when they have hit you, we will let you go across the border a few yards for 10 days and then you must come home again. ’’ That is the effect of their amendments. We have made our attitude clear in the case of South Africa being endangered or threatened by an armed force. If it is the armed force of any enemy State, then there would be a state of war and we would fight in a state of war. But if there is not a legal authority to whom that armed force belongs, and if it is a force which is not identified or identifiable with the legal Government of another State, it makes it no less dangerous to South Africa. We cannot visualize a situation where we would sit on our border, a narrow line cut through the bush for hundreds of kilometres, and see an enemy coming towards us and then say: “Well, they do not belong to that country; therefore it is not a state of war, so we must not attack them. We will wait until they get into South Africa and then we can defend ourselves”. That is a ridiculous situation, and we have to face facts. We live in a dangerous world and in dangerous times. Sir, I want to waste no more time on this issue, which I believe discloses a fundamental difference in thinking between the United Party and the Progressive Party in relation to the safety and security of South Africa. If we have a fundamental difference, let us clarify it and let us then agree to differ. We have made our stand clear, that the security and the defence of South Africa require the power and the authority to be given to our military forces to ensure that even the Progressive Party may sleep comfortably in their beds at night, in the knowledge that the youth of South Africa are making that possible for them. [Interjections.]

In regard to the amendments I have moved, these are designed in fact to give greater flexibility to the Defence Force by combining the definition of “terrorism” and of “armed conflict outside the Republic” in one definition. We see little difference between combating terrorism and combating an armed conflict against, for instance, a mercenary or hostile force on our borders, or outside them. We see the one as escalating from the other, or being so closely tied to it that we see no reason to draw this distinction. We believe that if you are chasing terrorists and you bump into a hostile armed force and become involved in an armed conflict, the one leads to the other, and they are the same sort of operation; and because of this close association between the two we feel that it would be clearer, that it would state the position more clearly, and that it would give greater flexibility to the forces by having one single definition. It would mean then that service in defence of the Republic would include both these activities, and the combating of terrorism would not be a separate activity but part of the defence of South Africa in the same way as participation in an armed conflict would be. If we do that, I believe—and this is my second amendment—that we should define “terrorism” more fully than it is defined. The definition in the Bill is that “terrorism” means “terroristic activities in the Republic or directed against the Republic or any authority in or inhabitants of the Republic”. I do not want to repeat the arguments I used in the Second Reading. The Minister found on page 2168 of the Third Webster’s Dictionary that in fact “terroristic” was a word.

No, on page 2361.

I bow to the hon. the Minister’s superior investigating force as compared with the research force which I have available. I accept that the word can be a proper word, but I do not think that it is a clear definition. We believe that one should define it as an act which involves violence or intimidation, or an attempt to induce people to do something to the detriment of the State, because terrorism as it affects us can be much wider than the sort of terrorism one visualizes in the hijacking of an aircraft or the capture of hostages in a consulate—the sort of terrorism that takes place overseas. Terrorism in South Africa’s circumstances could be a subtle form of terrorism. It could be the intimidation of a chieftain or headman, or of an official of a homeland Government, intimidation which does not necessarily fit into the pattern of the concept of terrorism as generally accepted. So one could have arguments about what terrorism really means. A threat can be terrorism if it is backed by the reality of force. So we have tried to design a definition wide enough to cover more than the traditional and generally accepted concept, one that includes force or violence or intimidation or other inducement in order to subvert, coerce, threaten or intimidate. I can visualize circumstances where a person could in fact be engaged in terrorism, could in fact be intimidating and threatening and undermining the security of the country, while in fact he does not have with him any visible sign of force, any weapon or any indication which could in a court of law be tested to show that he was in fact terrorizing; whereas in this wider but specific definition we believe we have covered every possibility which could arise without any doubt as to its legality if tested in a court. It is because of that sort of subtle or implied intimidation that I believe we have to grant the wider powers. For instance, a terrorist driving past some official and waving a stick at him from a motor-car, pretending it was a gun, could be interpreted as being an act of terrorism if as a result it intimidated or coerced that person into becoming disloyal to South Africa. So, in these two amendments, the bringing together of terrorism and armed conflict into one definition and defining both as service in the defence of South Africa, and in broadening the definition of terrorism, we believe that we strengthen the Bill. We wish to make it a better instrument for the defence of South Africa and we remove any ambiguity which may exist. We recognize, of course, that we will be opposed by the party to our left in these proposals.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on page 40 of the Order Paper, as follows:

May I say immediately that although the hon. member for Durban Point is so often wrong, in his last sentence he was so right. One thing is clear, and that is that the definition of terrorism which he seeks to introduce into this piece of legislation, has been demonstrated to be, by the very examples he has quoted, a definition which can only cause harm and difficulties. By his own examples he demonstrated that. I want to come back to that in a moment, but I should first, if I may, like to deal with the amendment I have moved. The question I want to put to the hon. the Minister of Defence—if he would care to listen to it, I would appreciate it—is a very simple one. The question I want to put to the hon. the Minister of Defence is the following: What does he want to do beyond what is contained in the amendment which we move here and the Act as it stands at present? I say this because the amendment we move gives the hon. the Minister and the forces the power to use conscripts, not only in the Republic of South Africa, but also in areas adjacent to the borders of the Republic in which the Defence Force may be operating in hot pursuit, and not only in hot pursuit of terrorists who have actually entered the Republic, but also against forces which it is reasonably believed intend to attack us. One is, in fact, entitled to take preventive and retaliatory measures. In terms of the existing Act, in time of war he has powers in respect of treaty obligations, and I believe that if the hon. the Minister is so gullible as to be taken in by the political stunts of the hon. member for Durban Point, and is now prepared to extend these provisions so as to have compulsory service throughout the world, going beyond the limits of what is reasonably required for the defence of South Africa, he must take us into his confidence as to where he is going to take our troops. Is it not an admission that there may be a lack of confidence in the ability to get sufficient volunteers to go to a distant place where the public may not wish us to be embroiled in a war? [Interjections.] Do not tell me what is disgraceful or not, my friend! [Interjections.] I know what is disgraceful. With your kind of behaviour, you must not tell me what is disgraceful. [Interjections.] When military adventures in distant places are to be embarked upon, and such action is unpopular, a lack of confidence may make it difficult to get volunteers, but there would be no difficulty in getting volunteers for something which is in the interests of South Africa. The hon. the Minister owes us an explanation, and he must explain what he has in mind and where he thinks he might be taking our conscripts, if they are to be taken beyond the limits I have indicated here a moment ago.

I now want to deal with the hon. member for Durban Point. The other day the hon. member took a dig at one of his own colleagues sitting in those benches. He said that only a traitor and a fool would adopt a view contrary to his, when he well knew that his colleague had adopted that view.

That is not true!

I now want to ask

That is not true! That is merely leftist Press propaganda. [Interjections.]

Ask the hon. member whether he said it. Do not blame the leftist Press for what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout says. The question I want to ask the hon. member for Durban Point who has become so excited now …

I just do not like my words being twisted.

What he has said here about what we want to do could have been said for one of a number of reasons. I am sure the hon. member for Durban Point would never dream of misleading the public. No, the hon. member would never do that. He would never dream of it, there is no question of that. However, that being true, he could only have said that due to a lack of intellectual capacity. He could only have made such an allegation due to his inability to read the Order Paper. Being a charitable person, I believe it was his inability to read the Order Paper that led him to make such an outrageous allegation. We have made the situation very clear. We believe that everyone should participate in the defence of South Africa. We believe that there should be conscription and national service. We do not believe what he says we believe, because he did not read the Order Paper. We believe that one cannot draw lines and say that one cannot cross those lines when there are people sitting on the other side shooting at one or preparing to attack one or when one has to pursue those people. That is why, in our amendments, we have given the ambit necessary for the defence of South Africa. However, we also make it clear that there is every reason for the volunteer system to continue as far as matters going beyond that are concerned. We say that, not because we want to harm South Africa, but because we believe that this is the correct way to unite the nation and the people. [Interjections.] With no other object in mind than purely to seek to exploit this for political purposes, to be able to point a finger of disloyalty at his political opponents, the hon. member for Durban Point is trying to place an incorrect interpretation on matters, due no doubt to his lack of intellectual capacity when it comes to reading the Order Paper. [Interjections.] That is the tragedy of this whole affair. While one is talking of putting South Africa first, the hon. member for Durban Point and his cohorts, when they are desperate, put their own petty political advantage above the interests of South Africa. That being the case, he cannot expect to be treated in any other way.

Did Aunty Helen tell you to say that, Harry?

No, at least the lady who speaks to me sits in front of me, old chap! Let me now come to the other amendment of the hon. member for Durban Point. As far as the definition of “terrorism” is concerned, the ordinary meaning of the word is adequate for what is required in these circumstances. In terms of the definition the hon. member has put forward, his own speech outside the House would fall within his definition of terrorism. Some of the activities of the hon. the Minister of Finance would be terrorism in terms of the hon. member’s definition. However, I would hesitate to accuse the hon. the Minister of Finance of economic terrorism in South Africa in view of his having destroyed our economy. The hon. member for Durban Point draws up an amendment without realizing how wide he is casting his net to encompass completely innocent acts which should not actually be covered by the definition of terrorism. I hope that in the desire of the hon. the Minister of Defence to seek an accord with some of the gentlemen on this side—fortunately or unfortunately not all of them—he will not fall for this amendment and increase the ambit of this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, may I say immediately that I have a problem with the attitude of the hon. member for Yeoville. He has been rather vociferous in his patriotism. This is slightly removed from the attitude he adopted in regard to the motion in this House on Friday. Be that as it may, my problem arises from his definition of “South Africa’’. He refers to the borders of the Republic. As far as I understand the legal position, these borders do not include the borders of South West Africa. [Interjections.]

Read the Act.

This is in keeping with the attitude which is adopted by the party on my left, in keeping with their failure to regard the seriousness of the situation in which we find ourselves in the country as justifying the amendments to the Act which we are considering in Committee at the present time. The hon. member for Rondebosch had trouble with the suggested inclusion of the expression “armed conflict outside the Republic’’, as to how this could possibly affect the security or the integrity of our country. Perhaps the hon. member will appreciate—I am sure he does although he has not said so in the House—that the declaration of war in its formal sense, the declaration of war between States, has almost become an obsolete occurrence in the modern world, and that there are instances of armed conflict. Perhaps I should quote to him the words used to describe “armed conflict” on an occasion as long as 20 years ago when Britain intervened in Suez with a view to keeping the Suez Canal open. The then Prime Minister of Britain, Sir Anthony Eden, reported to the House of Commons—

What is the situation which has arisen in Angola where the Russians and Cubans have entered? They are not at war with Angola and they are not at war with us. Yet what person cannot say that there is armed conflict in that country on our borders? The test then becomes as to whether that armed conflict offers a threat to the security of our country. What this Bill says is that there are now circumstances which requires that our armed forces should be entitled to enter into that armed conflict where it threatens the security of our country. My friends on my left do not want that situation; they say that there must be a declaration of war, some obsolete act which we are unlikely to see in the modern world, or there must be an undefined terrorism.

I believe that we have to go further than merely describing “terrorism” as “terroristic acts” and I want to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Point in this connection. Terrorism or a terroristic act can be directed at individuals without necessarily involving the security of the State. There can be a terroristic act between gangs and gangsters but that would not constitute an occasion when our defence forces should be involved. I therefore think it is only correct, as the hon. member for Durban Point has suggested, that for the purposes of the Act, we should be specific in our definition of “terrorism”, i.e. that it is an act which, in fact, endangers the authority, security or economy of the Republic as such and not merely being directed at individuals.

Furthermore, I support the hon. member’s amendment because it eliminates the idea or any suggestion that these people are “freedom fighters”, as they are termed euphemistically in some quarters. Their activities are directed at the security of the State and not merely terroristic activities which may, as I have said, be directed at the disturbance of individuals or groups of individuals in a particular area without, in fact, endangering the State. I do hope that the hon. the Minister, although he has already indicated in the Second Reading his attitude towards the definition, a definition which I do believe is not sufficient for the purposes of the legislation, will find it possible to accept the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Durban Point.

Mr. Chairman, when one listens to the hon. members for Green Point and Durban Point, one can only come to the conclusion that this is merely a little mimicking chorus. They do not listen to the arguments. In fact, the hon. member for Green Point is not even conversant with the Defence Act, because he refers to the fact that we would want a situation in which we will not allow any military service to be done with regard to South West Africa. He should really take a look at the Defence Act itself. Section 1 states very clearly that, for the purposes of the Defence Act, the “Republic” also means the “territory of South West Africa”. When this is then read in conjunction with the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville, it is quite clear that he is talking nonsense when he says that that is what we support. It simply means that he has not read the Act. That is what one finds time and again throughout the debate: People do not listen to the arguments; they do not take up the debating points, but simply argue on vague, emotional grounds. All I ask, is that we should clarify the issue as to precisely what the Act states and what is being proposed here. We are not saying that if a conflict arose, say, in an adjoining territory, we should simply stand by and watch it with our arms folded. We are not saying that at all. We say that in terms of the Defence Act what is provided under the definition of “time of war” is—

If, therefore, it is thought that a threat exists as the result of a conflict which has arisen, we can in terms of the Act, do something about it. What it does not make provision for, however, is that when various conflicting groups in another community are fighting amongst themselves, we may intervene in that war in terms of our own judgment, even if it is a civil war or a group of mercenaries who are fighting there. It must clearly be a threat to South Africa. In such a situation the Defence Act makes provision for that. Therefore we adopt the standpoint—I repeat this—that it should be possible to compel people to fight in a preventive war even if that war is beyond our borders. We are saying that it should be possible to compel people to fight in order to honour an agreement with another State. If a State, say Angola or Zambia or any other, whoever, should conclude a treaty with us and request that we should lend one another military support, we say that we should be compelled to be able to do it. It is our standpoint, and according to the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville, in which it is spelt out, it is stated that we may enter those territories. We say, however, that we cannot agree with the new category which the Bill now envisages. We cannot see the need for it. In fact, we believe it clearly violates the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of another community and as it is formulated there, its political and diplomatic disadvantages for us will far outweigh the advantages.

Mr. Chairman, before the armed conflict on the opposite side gets completely out of hand and turns into a state of war, I should like to say a few words. I regret not being able to accept the amendments. The hon. member for Yeoville is being extremely vehement, and I asked myself why. I then said to myself that the member was vehement because he was saying things that were contrary to his own better judgment, for the hon. member is not convinced of what he is saying; he is being henpecked by someone. [Interjections.] The hon. member is known for his standpoints. He made no secret of his standpoint. Why then, is the hon. member today adopting a different attitude to the standpoint he was known for? What has happened to the hon. member in the meantime, to have caused him to allow his standpoint to be torpedoed in such a way?

He has run out of parties. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Yeoville is known for his standpoint that the South African Defence Force, when it has to defend South Africa against terrorists, should be free to do so and pursue them. If an armed conflict were then to develop in the process, as does happen and as I spelled it out in this House, the Defence Force should not first have to pitch camp in order to send a telegram asking for Parliament to be summoned because the Defence Force is not only on the border any more, but a little further, although they did not measure with a tape-measure exactly how far. According to the hon. member for Yeoville we should stay only on the border.

But that is according to the amendment.

What absurdities are we trying to get up to here in this way with a Defence Force? Surely it is not Ministers who decide at that moment. Surely it is the military leaders who decide at that moment.

That is correct.

I do not intend prescribing the course of the battle to the leaders of the Defence Force.

I agree.

The hon. member becomes vehement here and wants to insert all kinds of things in the Bill with his amendment. I do not even know what they mean.

Take another quick look at the amendment.

He proposes that the definition of “South Africa” be deleted and substituted by—

These are just a lot of words to conceal the hon. member’s ideas.

I think you agree with it.

It has no meaning. It is unnecessary to insert this in the Bill because this type of thing is left to the judgment of the military leaders, after one has given them the right to combat any terrorism and armed conflict which is a threat to the Republic. One leaves it in their hands. The hon. member comes with all kinds of long definitions of what they should do, definitions they do not themselves understand and which he advocates only because he has fallen out with his former party colleagues. The hon. member certainly was in a fit of temper about it. He was very angry. He was angry with someone, but nobody knows at whom or why he was angry. Actually, he is angry with himself. The hon. member reminds me of a story President Kruger told about his monkey which, after it had burnt its tail in the fire, bit the President’s hand. The hon. member is in the wrong company, and because he is in the wrong company, he bites other people. The hon. member’s standpoint is extremely well known. His amendment is completely superfluous because it says nothing. This is a matter about which the military leaders should decide and not politicians.

The amendments of the hon. member for Rondebosch are restrictive. He said he did not know what “armed conflict” was. However, I spelled it out here the other day while the hon. member sat listening. He is not as ignorant as he pretends to be. Information was given to him elsewhere, too, when he was the leader of a group. He was informed what “armed conflict” was. The hon. member will remember it. This was when he led the deputation to the north and the hon. member for Durban Point was a member of his retinue.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is it proper, when certain information is regarded as classified and hon. members respect it as such, for the hon. the Minister to refer to aspects of it while those members’ mouths are closed because of it being a classified matter?

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed.

There is nothing classified about what I am now saying. I said here in this House that we acted against terrorists in hot pursuit. We are dealing with people who had posed a threat to some of our interests. Then we made the rude discovery that a build-up of arms and ammunition had taken place, and we clashed with foreign powers who were not terrorists, but who had committed intervention. Surely I explained that here. Was the hon. member not here? It is not classified information that we clashed with Cubans.

That is not what I was talking about. The hon. the Minister knows what I am talking about.

Of course it is what I am talking about.

We are not allowed to mention what happened up there.

Why not? Who told the newspapers that they had been there? I did not leak the information to the newspapers that the hon. member had been there.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether it is true that the Department of Defence supplied the names of certain people to the Press? I telephoned the department and this is what they told me. At no stage did I voluntarily inform the Press about it.

I am surprised to hear that. If the department had supplied the names to the newspapers, they would have said that they were there at the invitation of the Minister and not under the direction of the hon. member.

As I have said, the hon. member for Yeoville’s amendment is meaningless, and therefore I do not accept it. In the second place I cannot accept the hon. member for Rondebosch’s amendment because he wants to tie the hands of the Defence Force. In spite of the experience we have gained, and about which we informed him, he wants the hands of the Defence Force to be tied so that it cannot act. I am not prepared to allow him to do that. He can do whatever he pleases, but I want to tell him that the vast majority of the population of South Africa and also of the soldiers, do not agree with the hon. members. I shall tell you what my evidence for that is. It is the fact that although we have been unable up to now to effect call-up a full call-up of units because certain people would have suffered hardships and others had to remain behind because of the important work they did, there were so many volunteers among the national reserves that most of the units were overfull. What is more: Those people said that they did not want to remain on this side of the border only, but were prepared to cross the border in overwhelming numbers. The hon. members over there do not speak the same language as the soldiers; they speak the language of other bosses of theirs who want to lead South Africa on a different path. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is it proper to allege that hon. members of the House are speaking the language of other bosses who want to … [Interjections.] Is that parliamentary, Sir?

Order! Would the hon. the Minister give the Chair an indication of what he meant by that?

Yes, Sir. The hon. member for Yeoville, for example, found another boss talking a different language from the one he does, and therefore he is now saying things that are contrary to his own better judgment.

I now come to the more serious member for Durban Point. I want to immediately say that I have to take the standpoints of the hon. member for Durban Point into greater consideration than those of the hon. member for Yeoville.

He will be with you in a minute.

Occasionally the hon. members succeed in stampeding the hon. member for Durban Point, but it does not happen very frequently. They succeeded last night and therefore he had to forestall them with a comment in the newspaper. In any case, they only succeed about once in a lifetime. The hon. member for Durban Point moved an amendment in which he makes “terrorism” and “armed conflict” part of the definition of “service in defence of the Republic”. The hon. member knows that in terms of section 92 of the Defence Act, I have the right, and commanding officers have the right, to use units for a specified number of days without the permission of the State President. The hon. member knows that we are able to obtain such permission after four or seven days have elapsed. The Minister may make use of them for four days.

However, we are dealing with something different here, something entirely different, and during the Second Reading debate we made it very clear to the hon. member what we were dealing with. Clause 1(b) of the Bill reads: “… ‘terrorism’ means terroristic activities in the Republic or directed against the Republic or any authority in or inhabitants of the Republic.” We are placing this in an entirely different category—the same applies to armed conflict—so that we are able to use the same forces to deal with that terrorism or those terroristic activities. If this were to lead to armed conflict, we shall, in terms of the same power, be able to act without restriction. That is our purpose. Therefore I regret—although I should like to accommodate the hon. member, because I think he means it sincerely—that I cannot accept this amendment of his because it again narrows and restricts the whole position. I regret, therefore, that I have to content myself with the one amendment of mine that I moved myself.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the hon. the Minister’s argument, but I think our difference lies in a different clause, a clause not affected here. He could use this power by using section 91 of the Act, instead of section 92. He does not want to bring in a new definition of “armed conflict” into the ambit of section 92, which is confined to “internal disorder or other emergency”. This will now include terrorism. Our suggestion is that it should also include armed conflict. I believe that, on looking at it again, the Minister will find that our proposal broadens and does not narrow the scope. It does mean …

But in time of war …

Yes, but the amendment to clause 6 deems such action beyond the border to be a time of war. I think this is where our difference lies, and we shall argue that when we come to the relevant clause. I still believe that, subject to the difference we shall have when we come to argue the “time of war” aspect, our proposal would have widened it. I cannot, however, allow certain of the things which have been said to my left, to remain uncorrected. I want to say at once that I do not have to “pretend” to be an intellectual giant.

No one would believe you.

I leave that to other people. [Interjections.] People must accept my intellectual capacity for what it may be. One other thing I also do not have to ‘ ‘pretend’’ is my attitude towards South Africa and its security. The hon. member questioned my intellectual capacity, because he said I could not read the Order Paper. He said that I did not know what I was talking about and that he was willing to allow “hot pursuit”. What he did not tell you, Mr. Chairman, was that he has another amendment on the Order Paper, which reads—

That is what I said. He was prepared to give 10 days’ grace in a border area, and then he accuses me of not understanding his amendment. The trouble is, I understood it too well. I understood it too well, and I understood the motive behind it.

Let me come to the second aspect. The hon. member has been misled by certain elements of the Press who try to play the same stunt, the same game, as the hon. member for Yeoville tried to play here, or else he planted that stunt in the minds of the Press. He tried to make out that I had differed from the hon. member for Bezuidenhout because I had referred to only a fool or a traitor opposing our action. But then he stops, like a typical Prog., in the middle of a sentence. I said, and my statement was—

Now why does the hon. member deliberately leave out half a sentence, not half a paragraph, but half a sentence? He stops in the middle of a sentence in order to try to give a totally wrong impression. He knows that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and I and everyone else on this side of the House—and I believe 99% of all South Africans—are fully behind the action taken to protect our interests at Calueque and Ruacana. Even the hon. member for Yeoville, at one stage, gave the impression that he was in favour of it, and we are all in favour of it. I stand by the statement that only a fool or a traitor would have opposed the protection of South Africa’s interests in defending and protecting Calueque and Ruacana.

And beyond Calueque?

The hon. member now comes with half a sentence to try to create a false impression of difference, a non-existent difference, between members of this party. I can tell the hon. member that if we had had 1% of the differences which that party has had over this issue, then I would start to be worried.

The hon. member for Rondebosch again came back to this question of not knowing what an armed conflict was. I want to put the question to the hon. member for Yeoville and his colleagues. I put it particularly to the hon. member for Yeoville because I know his attitude. What about the situation which exists in Israel? There are armed forces of the PLO, the Palestine liberation movement, in a foreign country without the protection of that Government, and Israel freely, and with the acceptance of the world, bombs, attacks and undertakes commando raids in armed conflict against a hostile force beyond its borders. Is Israel acting illegally?

In an adjacent territory.

In an adjacent territory, but that is all right, Mr. Chairman. That is all right, but it is not all right for South Africa when we act against a foreign force across our borders. [Interjections.] This little pretence of their amendment, in which they say that you can go across the border if it is in hot pursuit, if they have attacked you, if they are about to attack you, and that you can stay there for 10 days, is all window-dressing, Mr. Chairman. Let us deal with the real issue. I believe that that hon. member and that hon. party are disclosing far more of their real approach than they realize.

That is what I call hot air in hot pursuit.

The hon. member for Rondebosch raised the question of a treaty. He said that if we had a treaty with another country, “dan sal ons verplig wees om te help, om daardie ooreenkoms na te kom.”

*He accepted that we would be obliged to help, but he is not prepared to say that our soldiers would be obliged to help. South Africa would be obliged to comply with its agreement with another country. We shall be obliged to help. Should we now go to our soldiers and say: “Please, South Africa is obliged to help; will you please voluntarily come and help South Africa meet it’s obligations?”

That is not true.

Not true? The hon. member says it is not true. They are opposed to service beyond the borders unless a person volunteers. They say that we must honour our obligations to other countries, but then they do not give us the tools with which to honour them. They say South Africa must honour its obligations, but that the men to do so will have to volunteer. Then the hon. member says it is not true. I suggest we have yet another split in the ranks of that party. I think I have now cleared up those few matters which were raised; and let me add that they were raised initially by the Progressive Party. I did not attack them until the hon. member for Rondebosch attacked us. He started attacking us and he must realize that, like hot pursuit, if he wants to hit us, we will hit back and we will not stop at some imaginary line.

Mr. Chairman, I think we would be well-advised to return from an inter-Opposition skirmish to the subject of the debate. I think we should look at this as objectively as we can. I listened very carefully to the hon. the Minister of Defence and two matters emerged from his contribution to this debate. Firstly, I think he has tried hard, but frankly, I doubt whether, on his performance, he is temperamentally suited to be the Minister of Defence. I say this because in spite of all the outstanding appointments he has made …

To which clause of the Bill are you referring?

I am referring to the hon. the Minister’s party-political speech. He has appealed time and time again that we should take this out of party politics and yet, whenever an Opposition party raises objective criticism and comments and puts an alternative, he has to return to the party-political tom-tom. The hon. the Minister is doing a disservice to the Defence Force and, at the same time, I think he is denigrating the highly qualified officials whom he has appointed.

I want to put some very specific points to the hon. the Minister in an endeavour to reach agreement. We listened very carefully to the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister in the No-confidence Debate and we also listened to the hon. the Minister. We also listened to his other extraneous statements and interviews which he has had around the world. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to apply his mind to the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Yeoville and to tell me of a single action which his Government has taken in Angola which could not have been done in terms of the amendment. Let us look at it very, very carefully. I believe that if he has been telling the whole truth as far as our involvement is concerned, everything he has said could have been done in terms of the hon. member for Yeoville’s amendment. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that we go through it sentence by sentence.

Who is playing party politics now?

We are arguing about the facts. If the hon. the Minister has told us everything, then let us look and see whether, in terms of the hon. member for Yeoville’s amendment, his actions in Angola could not have been accommodated. Let us look at the amendment. Instead of “Africa south of the equator”, which was the amendment moved by the hon. the Minister, it deals with—

Areas adjacent to the borders of South Africa in which the Defence Force may be operating, would include Angola. This is an area adjacent to the borders where the Defence Force has been operating. So, first of all, in terms of the hon. member for Yeoville’s amendment, Angola could be included.

Secondly, the amendment continues as follows: “… may be operating in hot pursuit of armed forces or terrorists …”. We have been told that this was the object of the exercise namely hot pursuit of armed forces and terrorists. Thirdly, the amendment continues: “… who have previously entered the Republic …”. These may or may not have entered the Republic. I would like the hon. the Minister’s attention because he has asked for an objective debate. I think we should get down to objectivity and not to the usual political hot air. Finally, the amendment concludes “… or in which forces who have attacked or which it is reasonably believed intend to attack the Republic are present”. Did the hon. the Minister reasonably believe that they intended to attack? I would say that if he went in there and cleared up the Cubans and Russians whilst not believing that they reasonably intended to attack the Republic, he was doing the wrong thing. He can operate anywhere in areas adjacent to South Africa where there are forces operating. He can go in hot pursuit of terrorists, he can go to deal with armed forces and he can go into these areas where there are forces which have either attacked or it is reasonably believed intend to attack the Republic.

I ask; can he tell us of anything that is not disclosed to the House, which does not fall under this definition of the area in which they can operate? I have read his statements very carefully. I have read his latest disclosures which he made in America. The fact is that all of these are covered by this amendment unless our involvement in Angola was a foreign escapade. If he anticipated an attack, he could handle it. If he was in hot pursuit of terrorists, he could handle it. If there was armed conflict of people who had come across the border and then retreated, he could handle it.

How far?

In any areas adjacent to the borders of South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister has said this is what happened. The hon. the Prime Minister said that we went a long way into the areas adjacent to South Africa. But the Prime Minister has never said that we left the areas adjacent to South Africa. If the hon. the Minister wants to find a word other than “adjacent” for that, then let him apply his mind to it. I want to say that in terms of the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville, everything that this Government has so far disclosed to the public of South Africa and every action that has been taken, could have been taken in terms of this amendment. Either the hon. the Minister has been capricious and does not want to accept an amendment because it comes from another political party or else he has not yet told us the whole story. At this stage I would like to believe that the hon. the Minister would not want to have secrets from the people of South Africa and that he would have told the story. But I want the hon. the Minister to tell us what aspect of our involvement in Angola, without arguing the pros and cons of it, could not have been dealt in terms of the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Yeoville.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Sea Point adopts a holier-than-thou attitude and thinks he is far more important than he really is. The hon. member represents an accidental little party in this House, a little party that came here accidentally. [Interjections.] No, wait a minute; do not run away now. The hon. member there at the back should not sit and moan; he should take his medicine. The hon. member says I am not temperamentally suited to serving the Defence Force. Now I want to ask the hon. member sitting there with his holier-than-thou attitude whether he is able to mention one single example from the past 10 years of an occasion when I did not administer the Defence Force with the greatest possible impartiality. I challenge the hon. member. I challenge that high priest of justice to mention only one example where I treated the Defence Force unjustly. Call in the senior officers of the Defence Force and ask them in what respect I have dealt unjustly with them.

I now want to issue a second challenge to the hon. member; can he mention one example from the last 10 years of the Defence Force failing to progress? The hon. member and his followers spoke here themselves of the wonderful leadership in the Defence Force. Would that wonderful leadership have come about in spite of a Minister who was not sound temperamentally? This is a despicable attitude on the part of an impudent member, someone who represents far less than he thinks he represents. If the hon. member wants to conduct this type of fight, I am quite prepared to do the same. The hon. member should not think that he frightens me. The hon. member should rather see who his friends are who are following him. Sir, I say that he may not walk in the light of day with all his political friends. If he wants medicine, I will give that to him as a purgative. I go even further and say that the hon. member for Sea Point will support anything as long as it is un-South African.

Look at my record of service.

I say that the behaviour of his party is aimed at causing trouble in a good Defence Force.

On a point of order: Is the hon. the Minister entitled to say that a member will support anything which is un-South African? [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member for Sea Point is the last one who should talk about temperamental behaviour. He does not know from one day to the next in whose service he is here. He should also silence Delilah next to him. I can only say, Sir, that while Samson had locks of hair, the hon. member has nothing to cut off. Well, that was just by way of example of what could happen to the hon. member if he wants to become personal. We now come back to the amendment. I repeat that my objection to the amendment is that if I were to accept this amendment moved by the hon. members of the Progressive Party, I should be excluding armed conflict. That is the first point.

Read the next amendment.

But are the hon. members, then, unaware of what they are proposing? [Interjections.] Surely we are concerned with clause 1, and what has the hon. member for Rondebosch moved?

We are not discussing that now.

Oh, we have not even finished discussing the clause and you already want to betray him. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Rondebosch suggested that armed conflict should be excluded as one of the things for which we may use the Defence Force. Am I correct? Now the hon. members say: But we shall allow you to take steps against terrorism along the borders. How far? Because the hon. member got the fright of his life when he heard that we had gone in 50 miles. This morning he created an uproar because he heard that we were 50 km inside.

How far then?

As far as my military leaders regard at that moment as being justified for the safety of South Africa. Sir, as a politician I am not going to take upon myself the right to tell a military leader that he should stop when the enemy is standing in front of him and he has already gone 10 miles.

That is nonsense.

But that is what the amendment amounts to. You create a state of uncertainty for the military leaders. [Interjections.] We know that terrorists are able to travel miles in a day, and they can form the vanguard of something which could lead to armed conflict. But in the second place: One can have an agreement, as I explained during the Second Reading, with a neighbouring state in terms of which one will assist him to combat communism or any insurgency. Now the hon. member wants me, after I have concluded such an agreement with a neighbouring state, to remain on my borders. Surely, this is ridiculous. This is completely ridiculous.

Who said that? I do not know where you get that from.

That is my difficulty, Sir: I talk to the hon. member for Yeoville about his amendment and he himself does not know what it means. [Interjections.] Will the hon. member for Yeoville, who is supposedly so temperamentally suited to do this kind of thing, please rise then, and let him give us a description of what the holy man in front of him, and Delilah next to him, too, think of this amendment.

Order! Before I call upon the next hon. member to address the Committee, I want to point out that I have allowed a very wide discussion on this clause. I have done so because I have noted that hon. members indulged in and enjoyed their private conflicts and I did not want to disturb that. However, I think we have this clause to discuss and henceforth hon. members must please discuss this clause and nothing else. Furthermore, I am not going to allow any repetition at all any more.

Mr. Chairman, in the light of what you have just said, I have a very difficult task, but I shall nevertheless try to carry it out because I feel it is a task which I want to carry out. Since, in terms of this clause, we are by implication taking certain powers here, and those powers are in terms of the Defence Act being entrusted to an executive authority consisting of the Supreme Command of the Defence Force, as appointed by the Minister of Defence, it is necessary for me to state very briefly that the powers we are taking here in terms of the definitions will be vested in the hands of a man who has to appoint the Supreme Command and in whom South Africa has confidence, a man who is temperamentally suited to administer these powers. This has been proved by his conduct. Whenever it is necessary, he is cool, calm, diplomatic and can act with wisdom, in a way which is absolutely worthy of South Africa. I believe that history will yet prove that what he is doing—and these are things which are not being written about in the newspapers—is the work of a statesman.

May I add that the amendments of the hon. member for Yeoville, as supported by the hon. member for Sea Point, and the ovation which it received from the supporters and followers of the hon. member for Sea Point, made me automatically think of the expression used by Lord Gladstone on one occasion with reference to another leader of the Opposition, when he said that he could easily understand how the Egyptians were able to worship a locust. But I shall not say this so emphatically, Sir, because I wish to remain within the framework of clause 1.

Order! The hon. member must not allow himself to be misled into deviating from the clause again.

Sir, I shall be careful not to ignore your ruling. I wish to argue that the hon. the Minister is completely correct if he does not accept the amendments of the hon. member for Rondebosch and of the hon. member for Yeoville, for very definite reasons. I do not now want to drag in amendments which we are still going to discuss, but to me, the whole set of Progressive Party amendments form a pattern. We must consider the hon. member for Yeoville’s amendment in the light of the fact that they are going to move, at a later stage, that whenever terrorists are pursued, Parliament should be summoned within a certain time.

Where does it say that?

In clause 6. In other words, what these hon. members are going to suggest, is that whenever there is a limited operation, the whole country has to be disrupted, because the implication is that Parliament has then to be summoned. I will debate this later. The purport of the amendment of the hon. member for Rondebosch is the same. He has continually argued that we could be a waging a kind of war. Now he can see that the only section in terms of which the kind of war he has in mind can be waged, is section 91 of the Defence Act. [Interjections.] He should go back and read this once again. Section 92 deals with another type of situation. The meaning of this is that this Parliament must then be summoned, while the hon. Minister made it very clear that there are other measures which would come into effect in the event of an operation, namely a report to Parliament. In other words, what these hon. members are actually aiming at, is to cause a crisis situation in South Africa through their amendments, and by means of the philosophy they wish to include in the Defence Act. We on this side of the House are trying to avoid this. The Defence Act has in fact been streamlined to such an extent that these amendments are completely contrary to the spirit and philosophy of that Act.

Mr. Chairman, I have noticed that the hon. member for Sea Point wants to measure everything against the Angolan situation. Apparently he thinks that the Defence Act must now be geared to the circumstances in Angola. However, this is not the position. The position is that this Act, and this clause in particular, must be seen at all times in the interests of the Republic as a whole. We do not simply measure everything according to Angola. The hon. member for Durban Point has dealt with the hon. member for Rondebosch. I shall therefore not deal with that aspect any further. However, I wish to point out that the hon. member for Durban Point may have had an ulterior motive in his amendment and I should like to demonstrate this. “Terrorism” is described as—

or another which—

When I read the definition I feel that there is a small political party here which may be included in this definition. If this is the case, it seems to me as if the hon. member for Durban Point had ulterior motives here. Therefore, I wish to illustrate at the same time that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Point, is a little too wide. I do not believe that Parliament will take unnecessarily wide powers. When one considers the amendment moved by the hon. member for Yeoville, one notices a few things which can be contrasted with certain aspects in the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Point. The first is that the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville makes no provision in the event of a person being threatened or attacked, neither does it make any provision in the event of a legal authority being attacked or threatened. According to this amendment it must be an actual attack on the Republic, and this would in reality mean war. Over and above this, the hon. member for Yeoville’s definition is really very vague. Therefore one cannot support it. One becomes aware of the fact that this motion by the hon. member for Yeoville will impair the efficient functioning of the Defence Act. Therefore one cannot support this either. Consequently I should like to give my wholehearted support to the motion of the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, in the first instance I specifically want to react to an indication by the hon. the Minister that he still had some difficulty in understanding the portend of the amendment I had moved. I would specifically like to put a question to the hon. the Minister, and without emotion, or anybody getting excited, I would like to get an answer from him on a very simple point. I am now speaking solely on the amendment I have moved and about no other amendment to this clause. In what respect does he consider that this amendment does not cover him in respect of what has happened, what may happen and is happening in Angola? He knows what the facts are, no doubt better than anyone else in this House. Secondly, in what respect does he think this amendment does not cover him in respect of any matter which may arise in the future? In other words, without specifying countries, territories or people, in what respect does he want to be covered for the future? I think these are two very fair questions. In terms of this amendment we are, firstly, committed to conscription in respect of the defence of South Africa itself on South African territory. Secondly, I, unlike the hon. member for Green Point, am aware of the fact that the Republic is defined as including South West Africa.

I accept that.

Thank you; he has seen the point. Thirdly, we deal with territories adjacent to the Republic as defined, i.e. adjacent to South Africa as such and therefore also including South West Africa. The amendment consequently deals with existing areas and not only in respect of hot pursuit, or in respect of terrorists who had made an incursion into our territory, but also in respect of the contingency of a possible attack. In other words, one is entitled to take preventive action against anyone who attacks one, and one is also entitled to take retaliatory action because the amendment states that if one is attacked one may go in pursuit. The hon. the Minister says he does not want the hands of his Defence Force tied, and I agree with him that the Defence Force cannot have its hands tied. One cannot draw a line all of a sudden. I agree with him when he says that when one is chasing a terrorist one must be enabled to chase him. He says one may become involved in a conflict along the way. Well, that is what happens when one is engaged in hot pursuit, retaliate or take preventive action. However, I have some difficulty with the hon. the Minister. I would very much like him to deal with this matter specifically because I am not the only one who would like to know. I think the South African people would also like to know. What does he have in mind that he may want to do, or what has he in mind to deal with in respect of the present situation? To my mind that is a fair question and one, I think, he should answer. I think we went to considerable trouble to draft a definition which would, in fact, enable the army to operate properly—I am now referring to all our forces—without having their hands tied behind their backs. I think this definition does cover it. This definition has one advantage which is not shared by the previous Bill, with regard to the equator, and much less by the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Point. Our amendment makes it clear that South Africa has no aggressive intentions and consequently there is no possibility of it being misinterpreted by the enemies of South Africa. It will not be possible for them to say: Look at what they are doing in the South African Parliament; they are getting ready to do all kinds of things in South Africa. This is what one has to protect oneself against in these particular circumstances. Therefore I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister, not because this is a debating point, not because someone is going to score a political advantage over someone else, but because I believe that South Africa’s reputation is at stake in this matter. I believe that we should not leave ourselves open to misinterpretation overseas, and I therefore ask him to give consideration to this particular matter. I do not want to refer now to the abusive part of the speech of the hon. member for Durban Point. In his speech he did refer to the PLO and the State of Israel. He said that Israel bombs and attacks and retaliates when, in fact, it is the PLO that is doing it. It is quite clear in my mind that this is a chase in areas adjacent to the borders of the State of Israel. However, he went on to say that this is done with the full agreement of the whole world. How the Israeli people wish it were, in fact, with the full agreement of the whole world! In actual fact, the very reverse is true. Israel is condemned in the Security Council, as we well know, so it is quite ludicrous for such a story to be put up here. It is ludicrous to say that the world gives its approval to this.

If it is the argument that the entire world is condemning the actions of Israel, what is the hon. member’s personal attitude towards that action?

I happen to be a member of Parliament of the Republic of South Africa, the member for Yeoville, and not a member of the Knesset representing Jerusalem. That is not my job. [Interjections.] I have a view which I express in respect of that matter in the right place and at the right time and I do not think that anybody needs to guess what that view is. However, I am merely making the point that you cannot take seriously what the hon. member for Durban Point has said because he does not seem to worry unduly about what the facts are; he makes statements because he thinks he is going to score a debating point.

Why do you misquote me?

Hansard is there and the hon. member knows what he has said. In exactly the same way I find to my utter amazement that suddenly he and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout are under the same blanket. I find that absolutely fascinating and I am not quite sure that the hon. member for Durban Point agrees …

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

I did not say anything untoward was happening under that blanket; I merely said they were under it. However, I shall not pursue that point. I should like to come back to one last point which the hon. the Minister has made. Perhaps he will clear this up for us. I ask this in all kindness of him at this moment, because he raised the point that he was 50 miles into Angola. I read that it was 50 kilometres, by the way, and you must watch it carefully in this metric age because you can get into terrible trouble when you do that, particularly when you speak to Americans instead of speaking to this House first.

Mr. Chairman, before the hon. the Minister replies to the explanation by the hon. member for Yeoville of his amendment, I should like to put a question to the hon. member for Yeoville which I hope he will reply to. According to the explanation which he gave, it would be quite in order, if I understand him correctly, for our armed forces to take off in hot pursuit of armed forces or terrorists adjacent to our borders. How does he reconcile that with the amendment which has been moved by his colleague, the hon. member for Rondebosch, which has the effect that service in the Republic stops short of that? According to his amendment it would read—

“Armed conflict” is excluded because all the words after “of” are to be deleted.

I am afraid you have misread it. As usual you have misread it.

No, the hon. member’s amendment is to the effect that all the words after “of" in line 9 up to and including “Republic” are to be omitted. The words which it is proposed to be omitted are “armed conflict outside the Republic”. Would the hon. member explain to me how that can be reconciled with his own amendment?

Ask your defence spokesman to explain that.

Well, it is quite clear that in one amendment that party does not want us to take part in armed conflict, while in a subsequent amendment it is perfectly all right according to the explanation of the hon. member for Yeoville. I think that is a problem which should be looked into. [Interjections.] Those hon. members would like me to sit down, but I shall not. The hon. member for Yeoville also said in his first speech on this Bill that the fact that we now want to define “service” according to these amendments to cover a wider field than at present, indicated a lack of confidence that we would get enough volunteers. I think I heard him correctly when he made that statement. I think the hon. member is wrong, because it does not indicate a lack of confidence at all. I am confident that we will get all the volunteers we want. What one would like to stop, however, is incitement on the home front by people on the extreme right and on the extreme left, who tell our young people not to volunteer for service. This is the whole point of these amendments. Once these amendments are approved of, any incitement not to volunteer would be incitement not to do service.

They voted for the right to incite.

What did you say?

I said that you fought hard enough for the right …

To volunteer?

… not to serve.

Mr. Chairman, I am trying to point out that it is not because we have no confidence that the volunteers will be there; this is aimed at the inciters on the extreme right and on the extreme left. If the hon. member can answer that one, I will be prepared to support the amendment.

I am sorry that the hon. the Minister has indicated that he cannot accept the amendments moved by the hon. member for Durban Point. I believe that we need a wide definition for “terrorism” in this country; I believe that we need a definition as wide as that proposed by the hon. member for Durban Point because there are many forms of terrorism, and, as the hon. member for Mooi River has so often said in this House, one of the worst forms of terrorism is terrorism of the mind. I believe that that is covered in terms of this amendment. The hon. member for Pretoria West said that this was wide enough to encompass many things. Perhaps he is right and perhaps the time has come for us in South Africa to define “terrorism” in as wide as possible a field so that we can counteract that.

Mr. Chairman, I listened attentively to the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Yeoville. I think that the essence of his arguments is that, should his amendment be accepted, we would be able to take action in Angola as we did in fact do. He is therefore trying to create the impression that action may be taken in adjoining countries or States and that there will be no limitation on the extent to which action may be taken in these areas. However, I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that if one reads his amendment carefully one notices the following in the first line—

This is what is stated in the amendment and we must pay heed to this; not to what the hon. member advanced as his argument, namely that we may operate in adjoining countries or States. In his amendment he particularly specified: “areas adjacent to the borders”. If it is in fact the case, as he says, that they may take action in neighbouring countries and states, why does the amendment not make specific provision for this? The hon. member’s amendment however, reads “adjacent”. “Adjacent”—how far is this? Where do we have a definition of “adjacent to the border”? If this amendment were to be accepted, it would mean that an officer in the field would suddenly have to establish if he were not perhaps too far away from the border to still be “adjacent” to the border according to what Harry said he meant when he moved this amendment. I believe that an amendment like this is absolutely ludicrous. However, this happens when someone wants to have his cake and eat it. On the one hand it can be said: Yes, we approved what happened in Angola. On the other, however, there are other people as well who have to be satisfied.

Amendment (1) moved by Mr. W. V. Raw negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment moved by Dr. F. van Z. Slabbert negatived (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Amendment moved by the Minister of Defence agreed to and amendment moved by Mr. H. H. Schwarz dropped (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Amendment (2) moved by Mr. W. V. Raw negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

As fewer than fifteen members (viz Dr. A. L. Boraine, Messrs. D. J. Dalling, R. M. de Villiers, C. W. Eglin, R. J. Lorimer, H. H. Schwarz, Dr. F. van Z. Slabbert, Mrs. H. Suzman and Messrs. H. E. J. van Rensburg and G. H. Waddell) appeared on one side,

Clause, as amended, declared agreed to.

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, the proposal to negative the clause, as printed on the Order Paper, was consequential upon acceptance of the amendments to clause 1 that we moved. As those have been rejected, I shall not move to negative clause 2. We shall accept it and not vote against it.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

This amendment is a logical consequence of the amendment I moved on clause 1. It is aimed at removing a specific portion of the title to Chapter X. I do not want to deal with this at any length or repeat the same arguments. I merely want to indicate that the hon. the Minister has not yet replied to the question put to him by both the hon. member for Sea Point and the hon. member for Yeoville. The question put to him seemed a very reasonable one to me, and if we could get a reasonable reply to it, we would at least have something on the basis of which we could reconsider why we should not have adopted the standpoint we did adopt.

There is a second question, a simple question, which may have a bearing on this: If the hon. the Minister is not prepared to reply to the question put to him by the hon. members for Sea Point and Yeoville, would he be prepared to say that our participation in Angola conforms with what is stated in clause 1. In other words, were we in Angola, according to the opinion of the State, occupied, as it were, with the prevention or suppression of any armed conflict outside the Republic?

Order! The hon. member may not repeat those arguments now.

I am only putting the question. This is in fact the problem on which this entire debate hinges, Sir.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment as printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

This deals with a matter in South African politics, which has caused much unhappiness, much bitterness and many arguments. This is, namely, the whole question of voluntary service. As became clear from the points we already raised, we are not opposed to all forms of compulsory military service. I tried to make it clear under which circumstances we can understand the necessity for compulsory service by all the members of the South African Defence Force. Those circumstances cover an enormously wide field which, in our opinion, fully meets the need for service in defence of the Republic. We feel, however, that it is also important to make provision for an element of voluntariness, especially if we are now, with this Defence legislation, to have a situation in which the prevention of armed conflict may be defined so widely that it could be any where in the world. There one feels, and we in particular, that there should be a restriction. One should not create circumstances under which one may actually compel a person to become involved in an armed conflict, or to participate in a war, anywhere in the world.

We feel very strongly that there should be a definition of the area in which a soldier may not participate voluntarily in military activities. We also feel that we can learn many lessons from what is happening in other countries. Just think of the lessons which the Americans learned in Vietnam, and the dilemmas and problems they were saddled with because many of their soldiers fled when they had to render military service there. This was only because it was not obvious to many of those soldiers that it was essential for them to go there. They did not feel like going, and consequently they were not good soldiers either.

We believe the possibility exists that such circumstances could indeed arise. We also feel that the army which one raises under such circumstances, an army based on the volunteer principle, is an army which cannot be the most efficient and effective one. I simply want to repeat that by that we in no way imply that military service, involving the security of South Africa and the areas immediately adjacent to our country—whatever activities might take place there—should not take place on a compulsory basis. As far as that view of South Africa is concerned, as stated by the hon. member for Yeoville, we feel that the volunteer element is important and that a person should be left with the possibility of saying “yes” or “no” if he were to be involved in such a situation.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

I specifically want to draw attention to a number of matters. Firstly, I want to ask the hon. the Minister for a reply to the discussion of the previous clause, which is equally applicable here. I want to repeat that question and I hope I shall get a reply. Is there any matter that goes beyond the amendments that we have sought to move, and are here moving, in respect of Angola which is not covered, and if so, in what respect, and are there any matters in respect of possible future activities, whether in Angola or any where, that in fact will not be covered? I think one is entitled, as I said, to an answer to this question. I ask the hon. the Minister again to answer this question.

Sir, the second point that I want to make here is that the amendment that I move here, makes two things quite clear. The first is that in respect of hot-pursuit operations it is quite clear that the principle of volunteering will create tremendous problems. Examples have been given to prove that one cannot just say to somebody he must volunteer to undertake a particular job. Therefore one has to exclude this completely. Secondly, one cannot decide that, if somebody is intending to attack one, one is going to put a notice in the Gazette that one is going to have a state of war. One cannot operate in that way. Therefore one needs a period of time before one actually has to go through the formalities of declaring a state of war. We believe that a period of ten days is a reasonable period. However, what we think is important, is that the public of South Africa must know whether we are in a state of war or not. We cannot have a situation in which people do not know. Surely, once one gets involved in a state of war, the public must eventually be informed of what is taking place. That is why one should allow a reasonable period of time in order to allow whatever military operations may be necessary under cover of security, after which the public must in fact be informed that a state of war exists.

I want to make one last point to underline this concept of volunteering. While we were discussing an earlier section of this Bill, the hon. the Minister said that, when he had been to the operational area, absolutely no difficulties were experienced in recruiting volunteers. He said that, in his opinion, this showed how keen people were to serve. I want to say that I believe that when soldiers are motivated by the fact that they are defending their country, there is never any difficulty in getting them to volunteer. I also believe that, in any reasonable activity on which the Government might wish to embark, as long as the soldiers believed that this was in the interest of South Africa, and they undoubtedly accept what they were being told, as long as it was reasonable, they would still volunteer. What worries me, is that it has been demonstrated here that someone, whether on this side or on the other side of the House, has so little confidence in the patriotism of our young people as to want to do away with their ability to volunteer. I believe that in normal circumstances a volunteer army is the best one can get, because its people are motivated, they believe in something and they want to fight for something. I think that, when it comes to the defence of South Africa, where we said that we accepted conscription, we shall have the motivation. It is obviously in these circumstances that conscription is the logical thing. In other circumstances one must have sufficient confidence in one’s cause in order to rely on volunteers to undertake a particular job. These are not jobs that are involved in the defence of South Africa. These are matters away beyond our borders.

The joke that the hon. member for Durban Central tried to make as to what areas are adjacent, I find obvious to anybody. It is quite obvious that in these areas which are adjacent to our borders, we would be free to operate.

What about islands?

Islands? What islands do you have in mind that you want to invade? You are waving your hands, but what islands do you want to invade? Do you want to invade Madagascar?

Mauritius.

But that is nonsense. What islands are there? If there are islands on our coast… It is no use just trying to brush it aside when you have made a fool of yourself. If there are islands which are adjacent to our borders, there will be no problem, but if you want to invade Indonesia or some place like that—of course, they are not adjacent. It is ludicrous, and you know it.

It is not ludicrous.

Sir, with great respect, I want to end with this one last thought. I think that the hon. the Minister must not only answer the questions I put to him. I think he owes it to South Africa to reply to those questions. I wish he had the confidence in the loyalty of the young people of South Africa to volunteer in time of need. I have that confidence.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Yeoville has put questions to me which were repeatedly debated during the Second Reading. We have already answered these questions. I told the hon. members during the Second Reading that these provisions do not in the first place exclude the principle of volunteering. I told the hon. members that in a case like Korea, where we acted in collaboration with the free world and made an important contribution, we went with volunteers. Suppose we were to decide to make a squadron of aircraft available, as was the case in Korea, and we were unable to find sufficient ground staff to assist in maintaining that squadron …

Then something is wrong.

Wait a minute. Suppose this were to happen, then this would mean that a promise of a Government concerning a combined effort of the free world could not be kept. I mentioned a second example. Suppose there were agreements with States, or States of South Africa that were becoming independent. I dealt with this and said that we were jointly committed to combating communism in Southern Africa or a part of Southern Africa. South Africa now has to meet its obligations in given circumstances in accordance with those agreements which were made in Parliament. What would happen if it were unable to take action? Surely this would serve to weaken South Africa so that it cannot meet its obligations. Should we simply do nothing so that everybody around us or everybody who might be in an alliance with us, is destroyed and only then say that we are going to compel everyone to defend South Africa? Surely this is stupidity. It is, after all, obvious that the Defence Act incorporates this principle and that it has been inherent in it for years, namely that if South Africa were to be attacked or threatened, the Government may force all able-bodied men to fight. With the establishment of compulsory military service a new element was introduced into our Defence Act. I do not think that we have yet considered this in all its consequences, namely that with national military service a duty is being imposed on everyone to be under arms for that period of national service. In the provisions of the Act which already exist, the Minister has the right to force those national servicemen to take action, as he did take or should take action. In other words, the principle has already been incorporated as an integral part of the Act. Therefore I do not know what the difficulty of the hon. member for Rondebosch is. On the one hand we say that the Government may in a time of war compel everyone to fight for South Africa. It may, in the second place, compel everyone to combat terrorism or terrorist activities. Thirdly, it may force everyone to fight in an armed conflict, which in the opinion of the State President, poses a threat to the Republic. However, it may also make use of volunteers, in other words a Government will allow itself to be led by the circumstances. Every sensible Government will allow itself to be led by the circumstances, and we are creating the necessary flexibility in the Act. The Minister of Defence will not be able to decide one fine morning that he wishes to wage a war. South Africa does not operate in this way, and the hon. members know it.

Therefore, why are they casting such a reflection on South Africa’s ability to take action in times of crisis. It is very important to bear in mind that South Africa also has economic interests which it has to protect. South Africa also has an image which it has to protect. Dangers could arise which could be dealt with within certain limits, and then the Government would use a minimum number of people to deal with those dangers. An attempt could also be made to create dangers or threats on a large scale in Southern Africa, for example, by intervention. Then South Africa should be able to use its powers. All we are doing is to give the Defence Act and South Africa’s Defence Force the flexibility to deal with situations in the light of new circumstances. Finally, I spelled it out in my introductory speech that today a declaration of war is not really made any more. Must the hon. members now pretend not to know this? They pretend that such circumstances never arise. When last was there a declaration of war? A peace agreement has not even been signed in Europe and the last war has been over for a long time. Peace has not even been declared, Sir. We are in a constant state of war psychosis. All we are requesting now, is that while the Defence Act dealt with a certain set of rules in the past, and since we deemed it necessary to introduce national military service as a compulsory measure, we should now modernize our defence capability to enable us to deal with new situations in a world where war is no longer declared and where the borderline between war and peace is no longer recognizable. This is the answer, and the hon. members over there know it; they know it, and the hon. member for Rondebosch knows it and, Sir, if he does not, he knows it now.

Mr. Chairman, we support the amendment moved by the hon. the Minister, because it gives effect to the attitude which was adopted during the Second Reading debate. For the reasons stated then we will oppose the amendments moved by the hon. member for Rondebosch and the hon. member for Yeoville. I now seek your guidance, Mr. Chairman. The hon. the Minister has moved that if the clause is deleted, another clause be substituted.

No, that has not been moved yet. The hon. member cannot discuss it at the moment.

I thought the hon. the Minister has moved that, Sir.

No, the hon. the Minister has not moved it.

Then I will leave it over till the hon. the Minister has moved it. I would now like to deal very briefly with the question of volunteers. It is not a question of willingness or confidence in the willingness of our young men to volunteer. The Angolan situation has showed that our young men are more than willing and patriotic enough to fulfil their obligations.

That is not what we are afraid of; that is not why we take this line. There are two reasons. One is that we do not want to have a differentiation between the willing defender of South Africa, the person who volunteers and goes to serve—the vast majority—in one category and the minority, those who are unwilling to serve, in another category thus creating a very real division, as we have already experienced in the past. We do not want to see that happening again. We do not want to see some of our youth for the rest of their lives looking to another group of youths and saying: “You did not go; we had to look after you.” Or another group saying to the other: “You are racist aggressors; look what you did to South Africa.” We do not want that sort of classification. It may well be, as the hon. the Minister says, that there will be occasions when volunteering will apply. I can visualize it, but we do not want that to be the sole criterion. We feel that the responsibilities should be shared by everyone.

There is yet another aspect, Mr. Chairman. One of the hon. members has said it is different when you are defending South Africa, and that this question of going beyond the borders is not in defence of South Africa; it goes far beyond that. The hon. member is, of course, quite wrong. I do not question his intellectual capacity, but the very definition of armed conflict specifies that it must be a threat to South Africa. Terrorism must be directed against South Africa …

There must be a state of war.

A state of war is obviously directed against South Africa. Under all three circumstances in which a soldier will cross the border, whether it be a war where we are attacked by an enemy or whether it be terrorism as defined in this Bill … and here I want a stronger definition. It must be directed against the Republic, or any authority or the inhabitants of the Republic. If it is armed conflict, it must be a threat to the security of the Republic. So it is in fact, and not as was stated, something far beyond, the defence of South Africa. It is specifically and by definition tied to the defence of South Africa. For that reason we totally reject the argument that one defend South Africa up to the border and that one can cross into adjacent areas for ten days, without defining “adjacent”, and that is it.

There is one other aspect on the question of the limitations proposed in the amendment of the hon. member for Rondebosch. The hon. member for Rondebosch wants to omit one clause which we have already agreed to; this is nonsense. We have already agreed that there shall be a defined task of combating armed conflict. It is one of the things the army can be used for.

It was not agreed to in the Bill.

It has been agreed to and it has been passed by this Committee. [Interjections.] It is part of this Bill. We voted on it, and there is now a provision that armed conflict becomes a situation in which troops can be used. If troops are then used in this situation, this amendment will remove all the protection they get from being deemed to be serving in a time of war. It does not make any sense to me. What is his amendment aimed at? The other one, moved by the hon. member for Yeoville, is clear: It is going to limit them to ten days across the border. However, I cannot see the point of omitting “armed conflict” from something which has already been determined. I think we should hear some more of the motivation for this before we can consider it. I shall speak again when the hon. the Minister has moved his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I find this extraordinary indeed. What does the hon. member for Durban Point expect? Must I suddenly rush out and change this amendment? My amendment was printed on the Order Paper and is a perfectly consequential amendment to other amendments which I moved earlier.

You can withdraw it, like I withdrew mine on clause 1.

Apart from that, I am speaking on the whole issue of volunteering. I did not even address myself to this particular one, because it was a consequential amendment. In this particular case I said we were speaking about the principle of volunteering. I want to make the point that I think the hon. the Minister has a great capacity for using the arguments I use to attack my position. I did not disagree with the examples he gave. In connection with this particular clause, the whole question of volunteering or not is related to the question of territorial prescriptions for volunteering or not, and that is what the issue was about. The hon. the Minister has in mind to have no territorial limitations and we have in mind that there should be territorial limitations.

Nobody is excluding voluntary service.

You are excluding it in the sense that there is no provision in this regard. In the present Act there is a territorial limitation as to the whole question of what South Africa is. And that is where some doubt developed as a result of what has happened in Angola. Why do parents then ask: “Is my son free to volunteer or not?” The reason why they ask this is because there is an ambiguity in the Act in section 95(1) about what constitutes the border of South Africa. It does say that one can fight outside the borders of the Republic, because the Republic includes South West Africa. However, it also says one is forced to fight in South Africa, whether within or without the borders of the Republic. It is a question of what “ South Africa” means. It even forced the hon. the Minister to introduce the initial definition which has now been withdrawn, namely “South Africa” means “Africa south of the equator”. That is a territorial restriction that would have determined quite clearly that you cannot be compelled to be engaged in military service across the equator. The point I want to make clear to the hon. the Minister in this regard is that we oppose unlimited compulsory military service without any territorial restrictions. That is the rub of the argument.

Mr. Chairman, the situation in Angola has given us an indication of certain necessities which we must be prepared for in view of a situation we could find ourselves in. As a result we are bringing the Defence Act up to date. The hon. member for Rondebosch is now objecting to general conscription.

I am not objecting to it.

Of course the hon. member is objecting to it.

I am not objecting to it.

He wants it to be voluntary. I, too, believe that if we were to call for volunteers in South Africa, we should get enough volunteers. However, we must provide that other people, too, can be mobilized, for the simple reason that national service is there for everyone. And what is the sense of having national service if the national servicemen cannot be employed in a situation in which South Africa must be defended. I have more confidence in South Africa’s people and Defence Force than in that of any other country in the world.

There is one thing which we have also learnt from the situation in Angola namely that there are certain people in South Africa who did not want South Africa to become involved in a situation such as that in Angola. Since it has been known that the South African Defence Force has been frustrating the efforts of Russia and Cuba in Angola, the Progressive Party has been against South Africa’s presence there.

There are still more Russians in Angola …

I say that we are frustrating the efforts of the Russians and the Cubans in Angola and that the Progressive Party is against that.

Order! I do not want the hon. member to repeat the Second Reading debate. He must confine himself to the amendments.

There are bodies which are going to try—and this is what I want to deal with—to undermine the effort of the South African Government to make our country prepared and to undermine our will to fight and who do not want … [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, since coming to Parliament, the hon. member for Yeoville has been carrying on private debates with the result that other members cannot hear themselves speak.

Mr. Chairman, is it permissible for an hon. member to tell another hon. member that he is a “papbroek” (coward)?

Order! Which hon. member said that?

I said it to the hon. member in private conversation.

The hon. member must withdraw the word “papbroek”.

I withdraw the word “papbroek”.

It is really impossible to have to speak in the House from this comer with the hon. member for Yeoville between oneself and the Chair. Look how intent he is on a private conversation, just like an old woman. [Interjections.] Never mind, I do not become angry with a Prog or a fly. Is the hon. member finished talking? Mr. Chairman, may I continue? Has the hon. member for Yeoville finished yapping?

Mr. Chairman, you told me that I should not make a Second Reading speech, and in fact that is not what I want to do. The hon. member for Rondebosch warned that South Africa should not get into the same dilemma as the United States of America faced in Vietnam. Why did the United States of America find itself in the Vietnam dilemma? I shall tell you why. It is because they had politicians like those of the Progressive Party in South Africa, who told young Americans: “Make love, not war. ’’ That is one of the reasons why America found herself in the stew. America also found herself in that dilemma because in America they have mass media of the quality of The Cape Times in South Africa. That is why we must provide in this legislation, in this clause, that young men—who are made uncertain and confused by the Progressive Reform Party mentality and by The Cape Times, and are disturbed, so that they hesitate and waiver—may also in fact be compelled to undergo military service when it is required of them. They must serve at any place in the world. That is what is involved. At the moment, the Progressive Reform Party, Nusas, Sonny Leon and The Cape Times are doing two things, namely telling the people of South Africa that they should not fight in Angola, that they should not be prepared to do border duty …

The hon. member must not go too far.

That is what they are doing. They are questioning every action taken by this Government in regard to the defence of South Africa, and sowing suspicion in the minds of the public in that regard. Hon. members may see on the front page and the editorial of this morning’s Cape Times that this is stated there. If hon. members listen to what the hon. member for Sea Point …

Order! The hon. member may only discuss the amendments to the clause.

This legislation must be of such a nature as to ensure the highest degree of streamlining in regard to the deployment of South Africa’s troops at any time and not only on the borders of South West Africa, but at any other place as well. As I put it in my Second Reading speech: To employ him not only on the borders, but where he may be necessary to ensure the security of South Africa. It is this that the hon. member for Rondebosch is objecting to. He is objecting to the streamlining and to the preparedness

Rubbish.

It is not rubbish. The hon. member is trying to do exactly what the heads of the Defence Force asked us not to do, and that was to sow division in this House in regard to the defence of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I want to appeal to the hon. member for Yeoville—I see he is not here at the moment—to look again at the attitude he has adopted in regard to this particular clause and the amendment which has been moved by the hon. the Minister. He and I, and I think also other members …

We are not discussing the amendment of the Minister now.

I shall confine myself to the restrictions which are imposed by the amendments of the hon. members for Rondebosch and Yeoville. What is intended here, is to place a restriction on the use of the forces to volunteer in certain circumstances; that they must only be used as volunteers in certain circumstances. There are hon. members in this House, including members of the party on my left, who are aware of the attitudes which arose when the defence of this country was left to volunteers in past wars, when the question of a volunteer or a non-volunteer raised in the midst of our people in South Africa a bitterness which lasted for years and years. I want to say to the hon. member for Yeoville that his amendments suggest that the question of volunteering does not arise for ten days before a declaration of war. Once war has been declared, then of course the other considerations will come in and the question of volunteering will arise. I want to suggest to the hon. member and to the member for Rondebosch that we have reached the stage that these restrictions on the use of our armed forces should be eliminated. We are a country in Africa, concerned with Africa and with no obligations outside of Africa. It is a vastly different circumstance than that which pertained in 1939/40. I, the hon. member for Sea Point, the hon. member for Yeoville and others were volunteers, because we thought that it was our obligation to do so. I think that everyone of us is now aware of the bitterness and the divisions which were caused and which continued in this country, because we thought that we were right in what we were doing and those who did not volunteer thought that they were right in not doing so.

I want to ask the hon. member for Green Point a question. Conceding the division which there was on this issue, does he think there would have been less division if one had conscripted the hon. the Prime Minister and other people into what was known as … [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Sea Point misses what I have been trying to emphasize, namely using the Defence Force of this country in the year 1976 in the light of the situation in which our country is now in relation to the rest of the world. [Interjection.] The hon. member says that I volunteered in 1939. Of course I did, because I had an obligation, to my way of thinking, in a far wider field than this part of the British Commonwealth. Where are our obligations outside Africa at the present moment as far as this country is concerned? Where outside Africa? That is where our future is, where our obligations lie and I believe that the operations of the Army …

Why not make it the world?

It is not the world.

Of course it is the world, you make it the world.

The hon. member asks: Why am I not making it the world? I want to say to the hon. member, and I hope that he will accept this approach, that the armed forces of South Africa will act in the interests and for the defence of South Africa within the categories which are specified in the Bill which is before us. Those categories are: Firstly, when war is declared; secondly, when we are obliged by treaty to take action; thirdly, where there is an armed conflict which threatens the security of South Africa; and, fourthly, to combat terrorism. I can see no reason why, in view of these four categories, the hon. member talks of our forces going to America for an escapade or an adventure. The only armed conflicts outside the borders of South Africa in which we would be involved are declared war or an armed conflict that threatens the security of South Africa. I hope that the hon. members on these benches realize that we are talking of 1976 and of a country of Africa and not of the past years and the bitterness which then arose in that period of the history of our country.

Amendments negatived.

Clause negatived.

New Clause to follow Clause 5

Mr. Chairman, I now move—

That the following be a new Clause to follow Clause 5:

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The instruction which has been given to this Committee on the Defence Amendment Bill is that leave is granted “to consider the advisability of making provision therein for service by members of the South African Defence Force anywhere, whether within or outside the Republic”. Sir, there is no provision in the instruction for compulsory service. This provision which has now been moved by the hon. the Minister of Defence relates to compulsory service. It does not relate to service. If you read the amendment, you find that the side-note reads: “Compulsory service outside the Republic”. There is a rule of interpretation that you cannot assume that words which are included are superfluous. In other words, if the terminology was such that it would in fact be compulsory to serve, it would not have been necessary to put in the word “compulsory” before the word “service’’ in the amendment which is before us. In other words, by not putting that word “compulsory” into the instruction, you are then limited in terms of the instruction to dealing with service and not with compulsory service, and I accordingly submit that the amendment is out of order.

Mr. Chairman, there is a perfectly easy answer, I would think, to the point raised by the hon. member for Yeoville. The instruction uses a broader term, “service”, than does the clause which is sought to be discussed in terms of that instruction. The instruction makes provision for service. Now, that is an inclusive word. It includes service by volunteers. It includes service by conscription. It includes service by press gangs or any other form, but it is nevertheless service. What is proposed to be discussed is service, in terms of clause 6, of a particular kind, that is to say, compulsory service, and it cannot possibly be said that when one moves an instruction which uses the term “service”, one is out of order if one seeks to discuss in clause 6 a particular type of service under the term “service”. Consequently I should think it is quite clear that the point of order is in fact out of order.

May I reply to the argument advanced by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana? I shall be very brief. The fallacy of the argument of the hon. member lies in the fact that if he is correct, then there would have been no need for an instruction at all because the clause itself deals with service and it deals with service in its broad form, and therefore there was no need for an instruction. The second reason why I think there is no substance in the hon. member’s argument is that the existing piece of legislation deals with service; it deals with the matter in both its forms. But we now find ourselves in the situation that we had a piece of legislation before us which dealt with service in the broad form. Now, either you could amend it to make it compulsory in whole or in part, or you could not without an instruction, but unfortunately the hon. member’s argument is based on a fallacy and therefore it has no substance.

Mr. Chairman, I think that the instruction is perfectly in order and that it is not in conflict either with the legislation as it stands at the moment or with the amendment, the reason being that when the original Bill was before this House, the definition of the words “South Africa” made this matter quite irrelevant. But subsequently, in consequence of the debate, the hon. the Minister indicated that he would be prepared to accept the ideas of the official Opposition, and for that reason the instruction was moved which is perfectly new and which makes provision for service by the South African Defence Force at any place within or outside the Republic. I agree with the hon. member for Umhlatuzana that “service” has a wide meaning here and that it must be interpreted so as to include any form of service. I believe the reason for that is that the debate has indicated very clearly what principles are involved and what the spirit of those principles is. The wording was different, because at first it was confined to Africa south of the equator, but now it has been extended to any place.

I have listened very carefully to the hon. member for Yeoville and I am afraid that I cannot uphold his point of order. I must say that I rather agree with the hon. member for Umhlatuzana and the hon. member for Waterkloof. The instruction does not confine the expression “service” to any particular type of service. It is clearly the intention of the instruction to empower the Committee to consider the question of service anywhere in the world and to make such amendments to the Act as it considers necessary in respect of such service.

Mr. Chairman, we support fully the new clause proposed by the hon. the Minister, which gives expression to the feeling of this House as a whole and, I believe, to the feeling of South Africa in regard to territorial restrictions. But I wish to propose a further addition to the proposed new clause in the form of a proviso, and I accordingly move the following amendment—

The reason why we propose this addition to the clause is that we have now removed the territorial restriction. I believe we have now given to our armed forces the flexibility which they require in order to defend South Africa. We have consistently taken the view that the capability for action must be as flexible and as wide as it could possibly be; and we have consistently opposed any attempt to tie the hands of our military commanders or of our forces. But we now enter into a new field, a field where you go beyond the military decision, because the decision to enter into an armed conflict becomes a political decision taken by the political head of the country, the Cabinet, the State President-in-Council. We believe, therefore, that if a decision of this magnitude is taken to involve South Africa in an armed conflict, which is in the modem context the same as a war, that fact should be reported back to Parliament. In deeming that sort of action, the action for which we are how providing here, in terms of subsection (2), to be service in time of war against an enemy, we propose now that it be considered equivalent to the mobilization or partial mobilization of our forces.

We do not suggest for a moment that there should be any restriction on that happening. In terms of section 92 the State President can mobilize, the Magistrate can mobilize a local commando, or the hon. the Minister himself can mobilize, our forces for seven days, for internal disorders or the suppression of communism. The forces can be called up and their service can be extended to cover a six months’ period. All this we accept—the suppression of communism, internal disorder, etc.—but we regard armed conflict as being parallel or equivalent to a state of war, as envisaged by the proposed new clause. If this amendment is accepted, it will therefore mean that, within 30 days of this clause being invoked, the facts would have to be reported to Parliament. The clause specifically states that this would not apply for 30 days after troops are used for this purpose. So if they crossed the border, there would be 30 days’ unhampered action and a further 30 days in which to report the matter to Parliament. We believe that if our forces were then to be beyond our borders, in armed conflict, for that period of time, the Government itself would regard this as serious enough to require the backing of the whole of Parliament.

I do not want to take the argument any further. I have tried to put the matter as clearly as I can, without repetition and without any kind of emotionalism. After all, ultimately it is Parliament that is the voice of the people, and when a decision, which involves our people in war, is taken, we believe that that decision should be reported back to Parliament. It would be in such circumstances that the hon. Minister and I could have the “sports” to which he referred this afternoon in connection with our having an argument about something. It is in Parliament, to which the hon. the Minister is responsible, that the disputes of any hon. members presently conducted in the Press—I would be ruled out of order were I to discuss that here now—could be discussed if it were germane to the issue. Since Parliament is in recess for seven months, this is a safeguard which the Government can accept without either tying the hands of its forces in any way whatsoever. In accepting this, the Government can only show the sincerity of its intentions and give South Africa a guarantee that, in a democratic country, the people will be taken into the Government’s confidence if we should become involved in the sort of conflict for which we have now made provision. My amendment clearly specifies a situation where we have moved beyond the point of military activity to the point where the political activity of a declaration of war or an involvement becomes a parliamentary matter.

Mr. Chairman, as I understand the matter, it amounts to this: When the State President deems an armed conflict to be a threat to the Republic of South Africa, we may deal with that armed conflict without coming to Parliament. I am referring to an armed conflict which may arise from an operation against terrorism or terrorist activities, or a conflict which may arise as a result of a treaty not having been observed. In my opinion, if one has been handling such a situation for a month, one will have to decide, in any event, whether one is able to deal with it with limited numbers. It seems to me as in that case though one will have another month’s grace to take extra measures. If one has been taking such action for two months, I think it is only right that one should inform Parliament. In the light of that I am prepared to accept the hon. member’s amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we have stated our attitude towards this provision at some length at various stages during this debate. I think it would be wrong to take up more of the House’s time to restate the volunteer principle. We adhere to this, but I must state that we cannot give this clause our support. As far as the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Point is concerned, I think one recognizes that in this dark and gloomy body at least now a spark of light has appeared. As yet we have not seen the amendment. We have only had it read to us. From what we have heard, however, it is evident that there is a safeguard that is being attached to this. In that respect, therefore, we shall support the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Point. However, I cannot guarantee that that amendment is technically in order … [Interjections.] … because we have not been shown the courtesy of having a copy furnished to us.

You are opposed to the principle, so why should that worry you?

Amendment agreed to.

New Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

As fewer than fifteen members (viz. Dr. A. L. Boraine, Messrs. D. J. Dalling, R. M. de Villiers, C. W. Eglin, R. E. Enthoven (‘t Hooft), R. J. Lorimer, H. H. Schwarz, Dr. F. van Z. Slabbert, Mrs. H. Suzman and Messrs. H. E. J. van Rensburg and G. H. Waddell) appeared on one side,

New Clause, as amended, declared agreed to.

Clause 8:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments as printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 7, in line 34, after “terrorism” to insert:
   and which has by notice in the Gazette been declared as such by the Minister: Provided that such notice may be retrospective in its application for a period of up to ninety days.
2. (2) on page 11, in line 56, after “(2)” to insert “and hearing evidence”;
3. (3) on page 11, in line 60, after “recommendation” to add:
   Provided that if the applicant wishes to lead evidence the compensation board shall be obliged to hear the same.

The first amendment concerns the definition of “operational area”. Hon. members will remember that the clause concerns the issue of exemption in regard to the combating of terrorism and goes on to deal with a compensation board. As the definition of “operational area” reads at present, there is no restriction whatsoever on the hon. the Minister in regard to when he declares the said area to be an operational area. I can imagine that a number of circumstances could arise which, after action had been taken to suppress terrorism in a specific area, could result in a person coming forward after a long period had elapsed and saying that he had been wronged in some way as a result of such action. If something of the kind were to happen, it would be possible for the area to be declared an operational area with retrospective effect. The purpose of the amendment is merely that the Minister be afforded a period of only three months in which he can state that action which took place in a specific area, took place in an operational area. After he has declared the area as such, the remaining provisions of the clause come into operation. In these specific circumstances we want to prevent the possibility that if a member of the Defence Force should perhaps commit an offence or act contrary to the law—I concede that anything of the kind would be highly exceptional—the area in which the offence took place could be declared an operational area with retrospective effect. It must not be possible to declare an area to be an operational area three or four years after the offence was committed there. We want to insert a limiting clause in terms of which the Minister will be obliged to decide within three months after action has been taken against terrorists in a specific area, whether the area was in fact an operational area. That, in fact, is the whole point.

But why should there be a limiting clause of this nature?

There is a simple reason for this. We understand the need for secrecy. If, for example, action has to be taken in Louis Trichardt to counter terrorist activities, the Minister must not proclaim that we are going to take action there against such activities. However, if as a result of such actions there are persons who have suffered harm as a result of measures adopted by the Defence Force, it is clear that under the definition as it reads at present, after a period of five or six years had elapsed and there was a court case, the Minister could declare that that area had been an operational area. No one would then be able to query that. No person, for example, would be in a position to advance reasons in court why it was not in fact an operational area. We suggest that the Minister should state in the Government Gazette within ninety days that such an area was an operational area. After such a statement has been made, no civil or criminal action can be brought against the people who committed an offence. So much for the first amendment.

The other two amendments concern provisions which appear later in the clause, but perhaps I should refer to them now and explain them briefly. In the first place the amendments concern the right of an injured party to lead evidence in his own defence and furthermore it imposes an obligation on the compensation board to hear such evidence. The second and third amendments both relate to page 11 and refer to lines 56 and 60 respectively. We want the compensation board to hear evidence and furthermore we want the injured party, if he should choose to do so, to be able to submit evidence in his own defence which the compensation board will be obliged to hear. It seems to me that this is a fairly simple point. All it means is that we want to ensure that when the compensation board acts in cases where people feel that they have been done an injury as a result of the actions of the Defence Force in the combating of terrorism, the highest degree of justice prevails. As the provisions in question read at present, no member of the public who applies for such compensation can have any representation. He cannot submit voluntarily any evidence which the board is obliged to hear. If he wants to make use of legal representation to handle his case, he cannot do so in terms of the present provisions. The amendments which I propose are aimed at rectifying the matter so that no one will be able to point a finger at a Defence Force compensation board as a result of the possibility that justice does not prevail.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 7, in line 35, to omit “proceedings, whether civil or criminal” and to substitute “civil proceedings”;
2. (2) on page 7, to add the following proviso at the end of subsection (3):
   Provided that if the act concerned is that of the Minister, such certificate shall be signed by the Prime Minister.
3. (3) on page 11, after “compensation” in lines 10 and 11, to insert:
   or is so granted and the applicant considers the compensation inadequate
4. (4) on page 11, in line 25, to omit “or as a magistrate”;
5. (5) on page 11, in line 27, after “determine” to add:
   of whom at least a majority shall be persons who hold or have held office as judges of the Supreme Court of South Africa or magistrates or persons who have at some time and for at least seven years practised as advocates or attorneys of the Supreme Court of South Africa

I want to motivate these five amendments briefly. The first one deals with the fact that we seek to apply this provision to civil proceedings only. The motivation behind this lies in the fact that the present provisions of the Defence Act do not make all offences crimes. One could perhaps in the final analysis bring acts within the ambit of paragraph 46 of schedule 1 of the Defence Act but, with respect, that is not a satisfactory way to deal with crimes. It is open to an accused to seek to prove the provisions of the proposed subsection (2) which are applicable even if he has no certificate. It seems illogical to apply this provision to criminal proceedings as in any case the Attorney-General makes the final decision as to whether there should be a prosecution or not. For that reasons we wish to limit this to civil proceedings.

The second amendment is a simple one which merely makes the point that you cannot have the Minister being the judge of his own cause. The provision states that if the Minister has performed any act and done so in good faith, the Minister can himself issue a certificate which makes him immune. That amounts to making the Minister the judge in his own cause. The hon. the Minister should not take this as any reflection on himself; there will be other Ministers in the future. We merely think that, if the Minister himself is involved, the Prime Minister should be the one to sign the certificate.

The third amendment deals with the fact that the Minister is entitled to refer a matter to the compensation court if he does not grant the application or if no amount is paid by way of compensation under paragraph (a) of subsection (2). It seems to us that in the present circumstances an application should also be referred to the board if the applicant considers the compensation granted inadequate.

My fourth amendment seeks to delete the provision that a magistrate can be appointed chairman of a compensation board. The reason for the amendment is that we believe that such a compensation board, which really exercises functions that are very much akin to those of a court of law and which can be involved in very substantial matters, should be presided over by a judge. We believe that this will give the compensation board the status it deserves. Again, it is not our intention to cast a reflection on magistrates because magistrates can still be members of such boards.

In my fifth amendment I suggest that the majority of persons who should constitute the board, should be people who have held office as judges, magistrates, advocates or attorneys at some time for a period of at least seven years. The amendment specifically states “at some time” because there may well be persons who are in the service of the State and who are not now or were not then practising as advocates or attorneys, but who would have the necessary experience and could therefore serve in that capacity. In any case, the remaining members of the board need not be legally qualified persons.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 9, in line 39, after “proceedings” to insert:
   or where a certificate has been issued under subsection (4)
2. (2) on page 9, in line 39, after ‘ ‘proceedings” to insert:
   or where the proceedings discontinued were instituted in good faith
3. (3) on page 9, in lines 48 and 52, after “Minister” to insert:
   or the Prime Minister
4. (4) on page 11, in line 43, to omit “the chairman may determine” and to substitute:
   shall be prescribed by regulation.
5. (5) on page 13, in line 27, after “(6)(b)(iii)” to add:
   Provided that if the chairman of a compensation board is of the opinion that it will not be prejudicial to the national interest, the applicant shall, for such portions of the hearing as the said chairman may determine, be entitled to be present and to be represented before the compensation board while his application is being considered and shall be entitled to cross-examine witnesses and to make submissions or to lead evidence.

The first method which may be utilized to stop a court action in the event of such court action arising out of actions taken while combating terrorism, is for the Minister of Defence to issue a certificate in terms of subsection (3). As I see it, such a certificate can be issued either prior to or after the commencement of proceedings. The second method is for the Minister of Justice to issue a certificate on the instructions of the State President that an act was performed pursuant to combating terrorism and in good faith and that it was not in the national interest for the case to be proceeded with. Subsection (6)(c) relates to the court adjudicating on costs of argument about the validity of the discontinuance of proceedings. We feel that the power given to the court should be extended to cover both instances, viz. to the case where a certificate is issued by the Minister of Defence or the Minister of Justice and to the case where proceedings are discontinued after having been instituted in good faith in the first instance. That is my reason for moving the first two amendments.

The third amendment is consequential upon an amendment moved a few moments ago by my colleague, the hon. member for Yeoville. In my fourth amendment I have proposed to insert the words “shall be prescribed by regulation”. This relates to the procedure to be adopted in the regulating of the proceedings of a compensation board. The provision at present reads:

The only reason for my amendment is that, having personally had experience of serving on quasi-judicial bodies, I found it tremendously helpful to have as a guide a set procedure which could be utilized in the regulation of the affairs of the particular committee or body. As it is quite clear from the legislation before us that the Minister from time to time intends appointing different compensation boards which may have different chairmen or different persons in control of those boards, I think it would only be helpful to the legislation and in the promotion of justice if in fact a basic form of procedure were to be laid down rather than that it should be left to each individual chairman to decide upon a procedure which might suit that particular chairman. I am not asking for absolute and rigid rules. What I am asking for is that a set of basic rules should be laid down.

My final amendment is very important. It has to do with subsection (9)(b) which states that—

I have moved that the following words be inserted:

This proviso strengthens the provision. While it does not bind the chairman of the compensation board, it does create a situation in terms of which the chairman of the compensation board is given a certain amount of guidance as to when to allow people to appear, to have legal representation or to be entitled to cross-examine witnesses. I think that this is in the interests of the fair administration of the Act and therefore I ask that these amendments be accepted.

Mr. Chairman, I move amendments Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 as printed in my name on the Order Paper—

1. (1) On page 11, in lines 13 and 14, to omit “shall, as often as he may deem it expedient” and to substitute:
   of Justice shall, when called upon by the Minister to do so
2. (3) on page 11, in line 27, after “Minister” to insert “of Justice”;
3. (4) on page 11, in line 29, after “Minister” to insert “of Justice”;
4. (5) on page 11, in line 33, after “Minister” to insert “of Justice”;
5. (6) on page 11, in line 38, after “Minister” to insert “of Justice”.

I must point out that if the first of these amendments is not accepted, Nos. 3 to 6 fall away. Consequently, I shall not argue amendments Nos. 3 to 6; I shall merely seek to motivate the first amendment. The hon. the Minister will know that in the Second Reading debate I gave him notice of the fact that we were going to move this type of amendment. In that debate I based my argument on the fact that the Minister of Justice should perform the relevant function for two main reasons. The first reason I mentioned was that, according to the Bill, the Minister of Defence must appoint a judge or a magistrate as chairman of the compensation board. The second reason is that the period for which the board shall function and the period for which the chairman would be appointed, are also to be fixed by the Minister of Defence. In our opinion this is a function which should really be carried out by the Minister of Justice because the persons who are to be appointed are persons with whom he will be acquainted. He would probably know the amount of time they can spare in order to carry out their functions and I believe he would have the staff and machinery to enable the appointment of the magistrate or the judge. He would also be in a better position to judge how long they should be allowed to serve in that capacity. After all, the compensation board is a quasi-judicial body and, in any event, I believe it is likely that the Minister of Defence would ask the Minister of Justice to assist him and actually to guide him with regard to the appointment of the chairman of the board. That is the first leg of our argument. The second leg of our argument is that in terms of subsection (2) the hon. the Minister of Defence is the first port of call of any applicant for compensation. He is the first one with whom an application for compensation is lodged. He is, what one might call, the court of first instance. However, the applicant is given the right to appeal against his decision, and any such appeal is made to the compensation board. It seems wrong to us that the court of first instance should have the power and the right to establish the court of appeal, where its own decision is to be tested. We feel it is a plain, simple, logical argument based on the grounds I have just mentioned. I want to correct the hon. the Minister in regard to what he said in his reply to the Second Reading. He said that I had said we did not want him personally to function in this way, because I had little confidence in him. This is not so at all. I did not use the fact that I had little confidence in him as an argument at all.

You said it.

I just mentioned it en passant, but I would like to tell him now that I am gaining confidence in him. [Interjections.]

Then there must be something wrong with me.

He has accepted something which our group has suggested and today he accepted an amendment moved by the leader of my group. I do not want him to think that I have absolute confidence in him, but I am gaining confidence. [Interjections.] I think I should ask him to listen rather to the logicality of my argument than to whether I believe him to be a good Minister of Defence or not.

I have therefore formally moved amendment Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6.

I now come to amendment No. 2 which reads as follows—

As regards this amendment, I would like to talk about it first. The reason behind this amendment was the fact that we wished to emphasize and ensure that the chairman of the board should be a person of the highest standing. As you will see, Sir, we have suggested the insertion of the word “senior” before the word “magistrate”. The task of the chairman will be a very formidable one. According to the Bill he will have to fix the procedure and—in the event of an equality of votes—he will have a casting vote. These are functions he will have to fulfil apart from his judicial functions on the board itself—adjudicating on the application which is submitted to the board. His position is thus a very important one. We recognize that, depending on the amount of the claim, it will probably be the function of the Minister to appoint either a judge or a magistrate. In other words, if the claim is very substantial, it would become, what one might well say, a Supreme Court case. If the claim, however, was fairly low, it would be reasonable to appoint a magistrate, but we believed the term “magistrate” to be inadequate. We have investigated the standards of magistrates that we have, and although we would have liked to have applied a form of criteria to the extent of the experience of the magistrate, we found that it was very difficult to do so. We therefore selected the term “senior magistrate” in view of the fact that the Department of Justice had various standards of magistrates, one of them being a senior magistrate, a status which we understand is only granted to a magistrate after he had served for a period of some seven years. The Department of Justice, however, has indicated to us that if we used the term “senior magistrate” in legislation of this nature, it may well become difficult to interpret. In other words, the question could be asked—is it a senior magistrate as referred to in the Department of Justice’s own circles, or is it a senior magistrate in the ordinary sense and what in fact is a senior magistrate?

I understand that although in other legislation where a magistrate is appointed or can be appointed to a quasi-judicial board, the Department of Justice is usually called upon to assist in that regard, and in any such case the Department invariably appoints either a principal magistrate or a chief magistrate, which are degrees of magistracy above a senior magistrate. For that reason we feel that if we leave it as it is, and do not put in a qualification, it will still be flexible enough and could meet our purpose. However, I believe it was right that we should speak to you about the Amendment, Sir, which I am not going to move. We spoke on it because we wanted the Minister to know how we felt about the appointment of a magistrate.

As regards the amendments moved by the hon. members for Yeoville, Sandton and Rondebosch, we can give one to Rondebosch, one to Yeoville, but Sandton gets two. We are prepared to support the second amendment of the hon. member for Rondebosch, because we regard it as a logical extension of our support for the fifth of Sandton. We believe that No. 5 of Sandton follows on the suggestions that I made in my Second Reading speech. We believe that it is absolutely imperative that he should have legal representation and that the applicant should be able to give evidence as well as to call witnesses, provided of course that there is this safeguard to the extent that it is not against the national interests. We support the third amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville, because I am quite sure that it is a logical amendment and that it is what the Government in fact intended when it first drew up the Bill.

Finally, we also support the fourth amendment of the hon. member for Sandton. We have already indicated what our stand here is during the Second Reading. We believe there should be continuity and that regulations should be drawn up which all persons should know to be the type of regulations pertaining to the formal procedure they can expect when they lodge applications for compensation. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, to begin with I want to point out that a number of these amendments only appeared on the Order Paper this morning, and that it was therefore humanly impossible for me to give each of them the attention it deserved. The simple reason for this is that I was very busy this morning with other important matters and was unable to find the time to study all the amendments properly. I was only able to look at them very briefly. I think it is somewhat unfair to confront one on the morning of the day of the debate with a number of amendments. The hon. member for Durban Point usually does me the favour of informing me in advance of his amendments so that there is sufficient time to consider them. I welcome this. If we are to find each other, then hon. members must also try to take into account the fact that I am not here only to study amendments.

Now I want to tell the hon. member for Rondebosch that he is apparently under the impression that I will declare an operational area somewhere. I do not declare an operational area. An operational area develops; I do not declare it. It may be smaller today and bigger tomorrow.

†One never declares or issues a proclamation to create an operational area.

That would be a proclamation of war.

That would be a proclamation of war.

*What we are dealing with here, as I clearly explained, is the case where certain tasks are carried out under the instruction or under the guidance of a commanding officer and in the process a soldier commits an act which may cause someone injury. This does not apply when he commits an offence. In the case of an ordinary offence with the aim of committing an offence, and where there is a clear motive to commit an offence, this measure does not apply. He must be carrying out his instructions in good faith and under the instructions of higher authority. In this regard the soldiers must be protected and no reasonable person would want the soldiers not be to be protected in that instance. It could happen anywhere. There is no such thing as my declaring an operational area. That is why I do not know what the hon. member meant by his amendment and why I cannot accept it. I am in fact prepared to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Yeoville, which will prevent the Minister issuing a certificate concerning himself. That is wrong. In that case the Prime Minister must issue the certificate. I am prepared to accept that because I think it is a fair standpoint. In the second place, where the Minister appoints a compensation board, I just want to explain that I do not appoint a compensation board after compensation has been refused. I appoint a compensation board when I do not take a decision and I require advice. The board does not review a decision of mine. Thus I appoint the compensation board to advise me. I am prepared to say that in practice, I shall never appoint a compensation board other than in consultation with the Minister of Justice. People who will sit on the compensation board will in fact be people falling under his control—unless they are retired. I am quite prepared to accept the words “that the Minister, in consultation with the Minister of Justice” will appoint the compensation board, but I am not prepared to take it further. I must take the responsibility of appointing the compensation board in consultation with my colleague, as it will occur in practice. I think that that is a concession. In other words, I am prepared to have the Prime Minister issue the certificate where I have issued the advice or the order or the decision. The amendment to which I refer is in clause 8. It is the second amendment moved by the hon. member for Yeoville in regard to the certificate. Then there is a further amendment by the hon. member for Sandton. It is apparently No. 3 and is in the name of the hon. member for Yeoville. I am prepared to make these few concessions, namely, that I am prepared to have the Prime Minister issue the certificate instead of the Minister of Defence, where the Minister of Defence causes the action in question to take place. I am now merely putting it in ordinary language. In the second place, I am prepared to appoint the compensation board in consultation with the Minister of Justice. Where the hon. member for Yeoville proposes that on page 11 of the Bill, after “compensation” in line 10 and 11, to insert, “or is so granted and the applicant considers the compensation inadequate”, I am informed by my legal advisers that the provision concerned already appears in the Bill. I have also had the advice of the Government legal adviser in this regard, but because we say that this provision is already in the Bill, we are prepared to satisfy hon. members by stating this aspect more clearly. I am prepared to make these two concessions but I regret that I cannot accept the others.

Mr. Chairman, the acceptance by the hon. the Minister of “consultation with the hon. Minister of Justice” goes in the right direction. Failing to get the whole cake, we are happy to receive part of it. I would ask the hon. the Minister to reconsider the question proposed by the hon. member for Sandton regarding a compensation board at the discretion of the chairman, where no security is affected, hearing evidence from an affected person: I repeat: “The question of a compensation board, at the discretion of the chairman and where national security is not involved, hearing evidence from an applicant. ’’ This was proposed by the hon. member for Sandton, but we also raised it during the Second Reading. The situation arises where, in a question of compensation for an injury to a person, the person involved wishes to call a medical specialist who can give evidence of the fact that he has this or that injury which has not been taken due notice of. We feel that it is elementary justice that the person who has been injured, an innocent party, should have the opportunity to give evidence himself, or to call evidence which may materially affect not a wrongdoing, or an offence, but purely a question of compensation. Compensation cannot involve security in the evaluation of its quantum. How it happened, is a different matter, but when the compensation board is considering an application, it will not be considering how it happened. It will be considering the effect of what happened. There can thus be no question of cross-questioning a person in regard to military information or about the incidents which have led to the situation. The only things which can be questioned are the state of health, the degree of injury, property damage, i.e. the physical and material loss which the person has suffered. It may well be that family circumstances may come into the picture and that he would like to call evidence to show that he has 15 children and a wife whom he had to support as the breadwinner, and that the compensation therefore should be higher. These factors all need to be substantiated. I believe that the amendment of the hon. member for Sandton, No. 5 on page 42 of the Order Paper, has sufficient safeguard for the chairman, the chairman’s discretion, national security not being involved and the fact that he is only dealing with compensation, for the Minister to reconsider that aspect.

That is (6) (b)(iii)?

Yes, I cannot see any objection to it, Mr. Chairman. It is not compulsory and it does not interfere with anything. If there is an objection perhaps the hon. the Minister would motivate the objection a bit further.

I will tell the hon. member what I will do. If he will leave it in my hands I will consider it and discuss it with them, if necessary. If I find it in order, I shall move it in the Other Place. I did not have the time to consider it in the time available.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the hon. the Minister has said about the amendments which emanate from these benches. But I want to get the record straight. The hon. the Minister may not have had the time to consider it and I appreciate that he has many duties, but these amendments of ours have actually been on the Order Paper for some considerable time. They were put on before the Second Reading debate was even finished. These particular ones have been available to the Minister, but on the other hand I appreciate that he has other duties and I do not quibble about it. I just wanted to put the record straight. These were not put on at the last minute. I shall not pursue the argument on amendment No. (5).

I am not referring to the amendments that were on the Order Paper yesterday.

Ours went in before this, and this one was included. May I now come back to some of the amendments which the hon. the Minister has not accepted. I would like to deal specifically with the one on which the hon. member for East London City spent some time arguing about senior magistrates and magistrates. We moved an amendment in terms of which we believe that the chairman of the board should be a judge or an ex-judge. This would add to the status of the board. I think it would solve the dilemma of the hon. member for East London City with regard to the definition of a magistrate. We believe that as this is a board which may have to deal with most intricate matters, the status of the board should warrant that there should be a judge or ex-judge as chairman. That is amendment (4) which stands in my name.

I do not want to deal with all the amendments or to repeat arguments, but the hon. the Minister has not dealt with amendment (1). When he said that he does not want to deal with crimes, I agree with him. He said that in his speech. This section, in fact, deals with crime, it deals with criminal law, where in fact the Attorney-General has a discretion whether to prosecute or not in any case. It is the Attorney-General who decides whether to prosecute and if there is no reason to prosecute, that is the Attorney-General’s decision. You need no further decision in that regard. There is no other remedy in the Act with respect to a crime which has been committed in these circumstances. The M.P.C. does not go far enough in respect of crime of this nature.

The final point which I want to make deals with the amendment relating to operational areas. The problem which we face here—and I should like to put it to the hon. the Minister so that he can consider it in the light of quite recent circumstances—is that if you do not have a post facto declaration of an operational area the difficulty that you are in is that you find that an act is perpetrated where nobody knows that it has anything to do with an operational area. Suddenly, two years later, there is a certificate indicating that is an operational area. This is an act which should be excluded. There must be some degree of certainty in so far as the public are concerned. We sought to overcome this problem quite logically by dealing with the fact that you cannot anticipate operational areas. You do not know where there will be an outbreak of terrorism. However, you do know in retrospect. Three months later you know what has happened in that area and you know whether you should or should not make it an operational area. You know whether you should or should not be in a position to issue a certificate. What the man in the street wants is certainty in respect of his rights. It is a fundamental principle of our Roman Dutch law that there must be certainty. By not doing it, we leave the matter open for ever and a day. Someone may then, years later, when a lawsuit is pending, say that that was an operational area, that that was an act in terms of which a certificate should have been issued and the whole thing falls to the ground.

No Mr. Chairman, that is not how it happens. The hon. member is conjuring up spectres. He is now suggesting that the Defence Force will suppress something of this nature when operating in an area where such an incident were to take place. That is not how it happens. If there is an incident which has to be dealt with by the ordinary courts, then the Defence Force sees to it that it comes to their attention. They go to the police and tell them that this is a matter of that nature. The Defence Force forms part of the State machinery. We too have to take account of the ordinary administration of the country. It is only in cases where we do not want the case before the court, where we must intentionally prevent it coming before the court, and that a certificate of this nature must be issued. I have already spelt this matter out clearly and stated what kind of matter it will be. It is because I do not want a situation in which national servicemen will say: “Well, we are not going to carry out orders if we are going to be dragged before the court for instructions we have carried out. ” It is only in that case. In other cases, the Defence Force usually acts administratively in such a way that these matters come to the attention of the Police and the ordinary judicial authorities. That is ordinary administration. Now hon. members want to introduce entirely new things which are absolutely superfluous. That is not how a country is administered.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister of Defence whether he would also please consider amendment (4) moved by the hon. member for Sandton which deals with the question of regulations for the boards of compensation.

Nobody prohibits it.

No, it is just a question of regulations in order to enable people to know how the board is going to operate—regulations governing the operation of the board itself. In other words, each chairman in terms of the Bill at the moment, is entitled to decide how he is going to operate his board. We feel that there would perhaps be more continuity and certainty if we had one series of regulations dealing with all compensation boards as they are appointed from time to time. Perhaps the hon. the Minister could consider that aspect.

Secondly, if he is going to consider the question of inserting a form of consultation with the hon. the Minister of Justice, he should note that in subsection (4), on page 11, there are four places where the Minister of Defence is referred to. I sought to amend this to refer to the Minister of Justice. I would ask the hon. the Minister to consider whether, in each of those four cases as well, he will consider on each occasion that he takes a step, consulting with the Minister of Justice. This will mean that the whole thing will be put together in a balanced way.

Mr. Chairman, may I point out to the hon. member that we are not dealing with an ordinary court here. This is a compensation board appointed by the Minister and, now with the incorporation of the new amendment, in consultation with the Minister of Justice, to advise the Minister. It is not a court of law. I do not know why a whole lot of rules must now also be considered. They must consider what they are going to advise the Minister that the compensation should be. If it is necessary to call in a doctor, they can do so. But this is not a court of law.

Mr. Chairman, there are just two points I wish to make with regard to amendment (4). I want to thank the hon. member for East London City for his support of it. With regard to the hon. the Minister’s statement that it is merely a board to advise, I really do not think that the hon. the Minister is correct. The board makes a recommendation. In terms of subsection (6)(b) on page 5, it hears oral evidence and makes a recommendation to the Minister. What happens then? In terms of subsection (7) on page 13 the Minister shall in writing notify the compensation board’s recommendation in connection with an application for compensation to the person who made the application, and shall give effect to such recommendation. This means that the hon. the Minister is bound…

But after I have referred it to the board.

That is correct. But the hon. the Minister does not ask for advice, he asks for a ruling.

I do not want to take a decision myself so I say to the board: Will you now advise me what the compensation should be?

That is correct.

It is not a court of law.

We are playing with words, Mr. Chairman. The situation is that the advice of the board is in fact binding upon the Minister.

The second point is that I want to support, and ask the hon. the Minister to think again about, amendment (4). Mr. Chairman, I have served on quasi-judicial bodies before, such as licensing boards, licensing courts, and bodies such as that. I have found that a reasonably understandable procedure by applicants is of great help to both the court and to the applicants themselves. It saves a lot of extra legal costs. It saves a lot of trouble where people come to a body to make representations and are not certain as to how to present their case or in what order the case should be presented. I would ask the hon. the Minister to think again.

Amendment (1) moved by Dr. F. van Z. Slabbert negatived (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Amendment (1) moved by Mr. H. H. Schwarz negatived (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Amendment (2) moved by Mr. H. H. Schwarz agreed to.

Amendment (1) moved by Mr. D. J. Dalling negatived (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Amendment (2) moved by Mr. D. J. Dalling negatived (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Amendment (3) moved by Mr. D. J. Dalling agreed to.

Amendment (3) moved by Mr. H. H. Schwarz agreed to.

Amendment (1) moved by Mr. H. G. H. Bell negatived and amendments (3), (4), (5) and (6) dropped.

Amendment (4) moved by Mr. H. H. Schwarz negatived (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Amendment (5) moved by Mr. H. H. Schwarz negatived (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Amendment (4) moved by Mr. D. J. Dalling negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Amendment (2) moved by Dr. F. van Z. Slabbert negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Amendment (3) moved by Dr. F. van Z. Slabbert negatived (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Amendment (5) moved by Mr. D. J. Dalling negatived (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 11:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment as printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Mr. Chairman, in spite of the amendment moved by the hon. the Minister, I move the amendment as printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

One has to read very carefully, otherwise it sounds very much as if it is the same amendment. However, the important difference is that whereas the amendment moved by the hon. the Minister concerns sections 2, 6 and 10, my amendment only concerns sections 2 and 10. What my amendment amounts to is that we apply the retrospective clause to section 2 which relates to the suppression of terrorism and to section 10 which relates to compensation which people must receive in this regard or which they are entitled to when they are engaged in these matters. Section 6, on the other hand, relates to the new amendment adopted today in co-operation with the official Opposition. The whole matter concerns certain provisions relating to section 95 of the Defence Act, provisions which must be retrospective to 9 August 1975 according to the hon. the Minister. We object to that for the simple reason that the whole issue of armed conflict beyond the borders of the Republic, something which we have objected to from the start, is also involved here. As early as the Second Reading debate we said that we protested against this specific clause because we saw it as an attempt on the part of the Government to justify its actions in Angola without there having been, in our opinion, satisfactory discussion in this House regarding exactly what went on there. We feel that by supporting the clause we would be condoning unconditionally everything that occurred there. Up to now this House has not yet had clarity as regards important matters, not military secrets, but important matters relating to political decisions. We are not prepared to lend our support to that and that is why I moved the amendment. The clause states by implication that whatever may have happened since 9 August 1975, it is being rectified with retrospective effect. Let us say for the sake of argument that there was in fact an instance— because this has not yet been officially admitted—where we stepped in to suppress an armed conflict in progress there. We take it that that is what this clause provides. Now we want to know whether we have in fact taken part in such an armed conflict because according to the information we have to date we know that we drove the MPLA away.

We know that we are protecting the water scheme there, we know that we are driving off terrorists and we know that we are trying to assist refugees, but to date we still do not know whether our involvement in Angola has been concerned with the suppression or prevention of armed conflict entered into by other people. Until we have a clear picture which is satisfactory to the public and the House, we can only say that if we were to accept this clause without further ado, we should be condoning the actions of the Government and the actions by which the Government has thus far consistently refused to take the House into its confidence in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, what the hon. member’s argument amounts to is that he would have been quite happy with this clause except for that new service which has been added, viz. “for the prevention of armed conflict”. The hon. member wants to oppose this and he does not want to make it retrospective because according to him he does not possess sufficient information. Apparently the hon. member has not read the Bill and I say this for two reasons. In clause 1, in which certain definitions are amended, we say very clearly that this kind of service will apply if, in the opinion of the State President the security of the Republic would be threatened. I ask the hon. member: When has the State President functioned in this situation? In other words, the inference which the hon. member is making is an absurd one.

May I ask a question?

The hon. member may ask questions in a moment. Secondly, the hon. the Minister today accepted a proviso moved by the hon. member for Durban Point. That proviso concerns this new service we are creating, viz. for the suppression of conflict, and what that proviso amounts to is that after a certain period has elapsed, Parliament may in fact be convened so that a report can be made. This, then, forms an integral part of section 95, if it should be accepted. What, then are we hiding from the hon. member? In the first place, the State President has not yet functioned and therefore it simply cannot be said that we have acted in terms of that clause, and by implication that clause is not being made retrospective either. The hon. member is in fact prepared to want to make this service in regard to the combating and prevention of terrorism, retrospective. What more does the hon. member want to say now, and what more does he want to achieve? Surely we state very clearly that in accepting this amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Point we have not acted to suppress armed conflict abroad. The hon. member for Rondebosch may now put his question.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member whether he can explain to me why the hon. the Minister himself said in his Second Reading speech that the necessity for this specific clause which has been made retrospective is also, inter alia, to eliminate any doubt as regards the legal validity of the Government’s actions in Angola. What specific doubt, then, is being eliminated here?

The hon. member must please quote the hon. the Minister correctly. The hon. the Minister said that as far as he was concerned, he had had legal advice to the effect that his actions were fully covered by the Defence Act. The hon. the Minister also said that these amendments were necessary—and I am now interpreting the hon. the Minister—for the sake of the mischievous, the deaf, those who are unable to read and those who want to bedevil South Africa’s case.

I wonder whether it is necessary to have such a long discussion about this, since after all, the provision is clear.

Mr. Chairman, unfortunately it is not all that clear. The first thing we have to ask ourselves is what we are actually retrospectively legitimizing, because I think that is the major factor. The first point is that in terms of clause 10, we are legitimizing certain provisions of the Moratorium Act, about which there is no dispute whatsoever. So, that matter is beyond argument. The second point is that we are now retrospectively legitimizing the provisions of clause 2, which relate to being “on service for the prevention or suppression of terrorism.” We then come to the provisions of clause 6 and we have to look at clause 6, not as it originally appeared, but as it has now been accepted by the House. What is interesting about this clause, is that it now makes it compulsory to perform service against an enemy anywhere in the world. The situation now is that anybody who did not volunteer and who, by law, might have been required to volunteer, might be committing an offence retrospectively. This is one of the tragedies of this matter. There is little doubt that people have been asked to volunteer. There is little doubt, because we all know it, and the hon. the Minister said so. What was the Minister going to say?

I was talking to Vause Raw.

It is not very polite to talk while I am talking, is it? [Interjections.] We know that people have been asked to volunteer and the issue now is that if you did not volunteer, you were compelled to go there and retrospectively a situation which is quite unfair to any serviceman who did not volunteer in those circumstances is being created. This is the problem.

The next fact is that you can only be asked to ratify that which you know. We have kept asking the hon. the Minister a question and we cannot get an answer from him. We have asked it again and again during this Committee Stage and earlier. When I referred to the amendment on the definition of “South Africa” we again asked him that question and we did not get an answer; we got a lot of blustering and a lot of noise.

Order! The hon. member should not repeat the Second Reading debate.

I am being asked here to vote … [Interjections.] The noise does not matter, because the longer the noise lasts, the longer I am going to talk. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

If the noise stops, Sir. The simple fact is that before one can be asked as a member of this House to ratify something, one must know what one is ratifying and the public is entitled to know what we are ratifying. I ask the hon. the Minister again to reply to this. If he looks at the definition of “South Africa” which we produced, in what respect does that not cover him for what has taken place? One of the things that worried some of us, was that apparently there were readers of American newspapers who knew more about what was going on than we did and who were told before we were.

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

With great respect, Sir, we are ratifying acts and some of the acts we have been asked to ratify one has to hear about as a result of interviews with American newspaper correspondents.

Order! We are not dealing with those acts; we are dealing with this clause now.

No, Sir, with respect; you are asking this House to legislate retrospectively and we are entitled to know what it is that is being done to be put right retrospectively. That is the real issue. The hon. the Minister accepted an amendment from the hon. member for Durban Point which is now part of this legislation. What is interesting is that the date mentioned for the retrospectivity is 9 August 1975.

So, if this becomes law, the hon. the Minister immediately has an obligation, placed upon the Government in terms of section 91, and more specifically by section 91(2). The important aspect in this connection is that if we are here ratifying an action which relates to the prevention or suppression of armed conflict outside the Republic, and if this has been going on for more than one month, the Minister, in terms of the section now to be adopted and the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Point, will immediately have to act in terms of the said section the moment it becomes law. For that reason, if for no other, we are entitled to ask: Did the forces act, not simply in hot pursuit, when we got carried away, but in order to prevent or suppress armed conflict outside the Republic for a period exceeding one month? That is the question to which we are entitled to an answer today, because now it is part of this Bill. We did not accept this. We did not move this amendment. The Minister accepted this and it is now part of this legislation, and we are entitled to an explanation. Before this debate ends we believe that the hon. the Minister is obliged to answer us and tell us what we are being asked to ratify.

On amendment moved by the Minister of Defence,

Question put: That the words stand part of the clause.

Question negatived and the words omitted (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Proposed substitution agreed to and amendment moved by Dr. F. van Z. Slabbert dropped (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Title:

Mr. Chairman, I move—

Amendment agreed to.

Title, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.