Mr. Speaker, if there is still some time available this afternoon after Orders of the Day Nos. 1 and 2 have been disposed of, the Third Reading of the Lower Courts Amendment Bill will be taken.

On Monday the Committee Stage of the Second Defence Amendment Bill will come up for discussion. After that the House will proceed to the Second Reading of the Police Amendment Bill, as well as the Second Reading of the Prisons Amendment Bill.

On Tuesday the Information Vote and the Interior Vote will be discussed, after which the Committee Stage of the Publications Amendment Bill will be taken.

On Wednesday the House will take the Committee Stages of the Road Transportation Bill, the Urban Transport Bill and the Transport (Co-ordination) Amendment Bill.

On Thursday and Friday the House will discuss the Labour Vote and the Mines Vote, and then proceed to deal with the legislation introduced by the Minister of Labour and of Mines.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches are going to oppose the introduction of the Bill. We realize the seriousness of the step which we are taking and we also realize that this procedure is normally reserved for matters of a fundamental nature. But we believe that the granting of independence to Bophuthatswana is indeed a fundamental issue, a matter which affects the sovereignty of South Africa. This House is now being asked to abdicate its sovereignty over citizens of South Africa in a certain area of South Africa under certain circumstances. We oppose the introduction of this Bill, firstly because we believe that it is unnecessary to fragment South Africa in order to resolve South Africa’s problems. Secondly, we believe that the fragmentation of South Africa on the basis of the present Government policy is going to exacerbate our problems and jeopardize the prospect of future prosperity and security of all South Africans. Having said this, I want to make it quite clear that our action in the House today, which is consistent with our action when the Status of Transkei Bill was introduced, is not to be seen as any lack of regard for those Black South Africans who hold the view that in the prevailing circumstances the course plotted out in the Bill is the appropriate course for them to adopt. We want to acknowledge, in fact I believe this House should acknowledge, the tragedy of a situation which leads some Black South Africans to hold the view that the only way to escape from certain areas of suppression and discrimination is for them to renounce their citizenship and to become aliens in their own South African fatherland. That is the situation which we face. At the time the Status of the Transkei Bill was introduced, our opposition, even at First Reading, was based on certain assumptions. Those assumptions proved to be correct. On this occasion the experience in relation to Transkei as well as important statements by the hon. the Prime Minister and by the Chief Minister of Bophuthatswana mean that the areas of assumption at this stage are reduced. To us it is clear that the measure which is going to be introduced in terms of Government policy will not alleviate or eliminate any of the areas of potential conflict in South Africa, but can only aggravate them and convert them from domestic areas of conflict into international areas of conflict.

If one looks at the Bill against the background of the intention of the Government set out in its general policy and statements, one realizes first of all that the issue of citizenship is a potential conflict situation. We in these benches have consistently said that no Bill which involves a compulsory deprivation of people of their South African citizenship should be accepted by this House. The hon. the Prime Minister, in speaking in the Other Place the other day, said (Senate Hansard, 1977, col. 1246)—

On that basis, on that single cynical sentence of the hon. the Prime Minister, he destroys the credibility of this policy and he reduces its general acceptability. [Interjections.] The Chief Minister of Bophuthatswana has said that he rejects compulsion in this regard and he has said that this, in fact, could lead to armed conflict and armed struggle.

The second issue is the issue of land and resources. We on this side of the House have asked the Government to involve itself in the redrawing of the boundaries, to reconsolidate, to be more generous and to go beyond the 1936 settlement. Once again the Chief Minister has said that this can lead to war and even if it is not this generation, the next generation of younger people will be impatient and this could lead to armed conflict. Yet the Government stubbornly says, “No more land than the 1936 settlement.”

Thirdly we believe this Bill, even on the basis of what we know, will not resolve the key problem of South Africa, viz. the means of exercising political power in those areas of South Africa where Blacks and Whites live, where Tswanas and White South Africans are going to have to live. Once again the Government has made it quite clear that there will be no effective political rights for Tswana or other citizens living in the so-called White areas of South Africa.

We believe there is a need for decentralization of power in South Africa. The nature of our country, the nature of our people, calls for a decentralization of power away from the Central Government. We believe this could lead to a federal or confederal system of government. We believe it could, in certain circumstances, lead to the establishment of independent States. However, I think we should make it quite clear on what conditions we would accept the principle of independence carved out of South Africa. This is being stated quite clearly in one of the 14 principles of the so-called Marais Committee … [Interjections.] … in which it accepts this concept, but says quite clearly that it must be a free election of the citizens concerned, there must be no compulsory removal of populations and, in particular, no person will be compelled to become a citizen of an area other than the one in which he is permanently resident. That, to us, is quite fundamental and because it is clear that Government policy is in defiance of this principle, we on this side of the House believe the Bill should be opposed at this stage.

The crisp issue which we have to face is whether the Black people in Bophuthatswana have a real choice. Has the choice between full citizenship in South Africa, in which they were born, and full citizenship in an independent Bophuthatswana, been put to them? Is it the case, as we believe it is, that they can either have a citizenship, which is not recognized by the international community, in a fragmented Bophuthatswana or continue to have discrimination and rejection in the South Africa which they and their generations have helped to build up? While this Bill may be seen by some people to be granting people rights in Bophuthatswana we believe it will, in fact, deny to these people the reality of rights in the South Africa to which they really belong. We believe it is in the interest of South Africa as a whole—our responsibility in this House is to no one section of the people but to South Africa as a whole—that the Government should withdraw this Bill at this stage and have a rethink. Instead of trying to carry on to patch up its present policy the Government should make a new start. It should make a new start by admitting that there have been defects and that errors and mistakes have been made in the application of its policy. Now is the time to have a meeting of some kind of leaders of all sections of the South African community so that there can be a joint and collective decision about the road we have to follow in the future.

We believe this Bill is not going to be in the interests of any section of the people of South Africa and therefore we shall oppose its introduction.

Mr. Speaker, at this stage it is perfectly clear to me that the hon. member for Sea Point is following his old line of not upholding the tradition of this House. For instance, this side of the House has not been informed by that Party’s Whips of their intention to oppose the introduction of the Bill. But in spite of this we are keen to enter into a dispute with the hon. member for Sea Point on the basis of principles as far as this matter is concerned. I want to prove briefly that today the hon. member for Sea Point again represented the arrogant attitude of his party here by trying to dictate to us how the affairs of South Africa are to be handled on the basis of the Marais principles. Hon. members of that dwindling party now want to come and tell us how these matters are to be handled. When we look at the results in Randburg, we may ask whom they actually represent. After the previous election they represented a small percentage of the electorate. Now they represent a far smaller percentage. Against whose wishes is this small group of people acting? They are acting against the will and desire of a considerable percentage of the South African population Black and White. They are acting against the Tswanas in South Africa, people who have had the experience of self-government during the past six/seven years, people who have already held an election and who have created their own flag and other national symbols. Whom do they represent that they can act against these people? Furthermore, it is completely illogical for these people to object to the question of citizenship in the first place. They have not yet seen the Bill. They are merely speculating and they may be badly mistaken. I shall not be surprised if the hon. member for Sea Point will have to eat his words. What this hon. member did not take into account when he raised the problem of citizenship, is that we are dealing here with regulatory measures, in any event, measures such as those which are valid between countries like ours and the Transkei, measures which have proved to be increasingly practical and feasible in practice. I am referring to, for example, the agreement with regard to the labour arrangements applicable to certain people in this country. No problems are being experienced with this. Now the hon. member wants to suggest that serious objections will arise from the problem of citizenship. What he is doing, is to project this problematical situation to the world. He is indeed making a problematical situation of a matter which can easily be handled. That is not what we do.

The hon. member’s objection is based not only on citizenship, but also on the fragmentation—according to him—of resources and land. What is the fact of the matter? The hon. member does not draw a comparison between the position of the Tswanas and that of people in the rest of Africa. In this regard I should like to point out the following. The gross national income per capita of Bophuthatswana was R200 in 1972-’73. It is already considerably higher. The gross income per capita in Lesotho is R60; in Somalia R60; in Tanzania R97, and in Guinea R70. The hon. member speaks of land, and levels the reproach at us that the legislation of 1936 does not allocate sufficient land to these territories which are becoming independent. What are the facts? The population density of Bophuthatswana is 23,1 per square kilometre. In Malawi the figure is 46,5, in Lesotho 30,4, in Burundi 127, and in Ghana 36,2. Uganda provides a very interesting example of another kind of test which we may apply with regard to the utilization of resources and the provision of services to a people. In Uganda, where they need many hospital beds, there are 550 people for each bed. In Nigeria the figure is 2 230 and in Bophuthatswana it is only 145, one of the lowest figures in Africa in this respect. In other words, a highly developed hospital service exists. Another test which may be applied, is to consider the figures as far as car ownership is concerned. In Bophuthatswana there are 114,8 people for every private car. In Lesotho the figure is 175, in Tanzania 410, and in Nigeria 295. Therefore, Sir, I want to state that those hon. members’ grounds are false and not considered. They have not taken the facts of South Africa and of the world into account, consequently their point of view should be rejected.

Sir, I want to continue by pointing out to you the lack of consistency in the actions of those hon. members. The hon. member tried to argue very mildly, so as to escape from their own policy, that in their federation provision would in fact be made for States becoming independent but that they themselves would have to take a decision in this regard. Sir, they are in a dilemma. Their pamphlets—in fact everything—indicate that they will welcome self-governing territories. They have no hope to govern for the next 100 years.

Never!

How on earth can they hold out the advantages of their policy to the Black people of South Africa? Surely it is a misrepresentation. If they do want to argue that the policy of the Government is not suitable for the Blacks, the Blacks are now given the opportunity to withdraw from it. The PRP, however, opposes the introduction of this Bill. In other words, they want to keep the Blacks in this dispensation for the next 100 years. Surely it is the worst form of discrimination to keep people, by means of specious arguments, in a dispensation which the PRP itself detests and despises. That is how illogical and inconsistent the attitude of those members is in this regard.

In conclusion I want to say that I can understand the frustration of those hon. members. Throughout the years opposition to the First Reading of a measure in this House has been confined to Bills—so they claimed—depriving people of their rights. I looked up the minutes. In 1951 and in 1953 there was opposition to the First Reading of Bills which ostensibly made provision for the deprivation of rights. Today we are according rights. Here we are according full citizenship and prospects which are better than those of the PRP itself, and they oppose it. By means of their arguments they are trying to cast suspicion on us in the world. This is the greatest tragedy which we have to witness today. Therefore I hope that the UP members, will take a sensible attitude, as they did last year, and will first take note of the Bill and of the Minister’s Second Reading speech.

In the final instance I have a few words to say in mitigation of the PRP. [Interjections.] Sir, we have a party here which is heading for its own destruction because its policy is being smashed against the sustained, calm implementation of the policy of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development.

Mr. Speaker, the official Opposition will support the motion for the introduction of this Bill. Our party stands for a federal or confederal solution in respect of the homelands. We do not believe that that choice has been placed fairly before the people of Bophuthatswana under this Government. Nevertheless, in the existing circumstances it is quite clear that they have asked for independence, that they have been promised independence and that they are well on the way to independence. We believe that they should have the right to full self-determination in this regard. Whether the Bill, when it comes before Parliament, will in fact represent the sort of machinery we should like to see employed for an exercise of this kind is of course another matter. There are matters concerning citizenship which caused us great distress in respect of the Transkei. There are matters here concerning, shall I say, the lack of consolidation which may make the exercise somewhat impracticable, but we feel it is correct that where people have asked for independence, they should have the right for this matter to be considered in detail by Parliament.

I have trouble in understanding how the hon. member for Sea Point can reconcile his attitude with one of the 14 principles of the Marais Commission of which he spoke. That principle reads—

I know of no compulsion. I know of no failure of free elections in Bophuthatswana. It seems to me that this is a reconciliation which I have difficulty in following. Nevertheless, as far as we are concerned, we shall keep our options open until we have studied the Bill and we shall then decide whether or not we can support the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, we welcome the realism apparent from the point of view stated by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. We just want to express the hope that they will have the same positive approach when the Bill itself is being considered. When the Transkei Bill was before this House, they did not vote with the PRP at the First Reading, but at the Second Reading their attitude was a completely negative one because of the fact that they believe in federalism. I hope that this time they will be more positive and that they will consider supporting the Second Reading on the basis of the arguments advanced by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself, and will come forward with practical amendments during the Committee Stage.

I want to return to the speech of the hon. member for Sea Point and give special attention to one aspect which he highlighted as being one of the main objections. He called it a “tragic situation” that the Tswana people in this instance and the Black people of South Africa in general were not being afforded any option by this Government so that this was unfair as they had no options to exercise with regard to the question as to whether they wanted to become independent or not. In the first place, surely it is not correct to make such an allegation. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition pointed out quite correctly that we were not forcing independence on this homeland.

What is the alternative?

I shall come to the alternative. They took this decision voluntarily. Secondly, there is a Bill on the Order Paper which provides an alternative, i.e. an alternative of self-government, of internal sovereignty while still remaining part of South Africa; in other words under one umbrella as it is at the moment. A new phase is arriving and it offers an alternative.

If we analyse the question of choice in depth, we arrive at the old issue with the PRP and that is that they only speak of the choice of the Black peoples and do not realize that the choice of the White man in South Africa is also fundamental to the solution of our problems. After all, it is not only the Black peoples who want to and have to decide about their future. The White nation in South Africa which has established rights, which has virtually been independent since 1910, which has a long history of absolute independence and self-determination, a history which goes back hundreds of years, has also made a choice. The choice is made at every election.

Our voters and the voters of the hon. members have indeed made a choice and they have chosen between the standpoint of the hon. members which amounts to our not being allowed to have a choice and the Whites being forced to power sharing, as opposed to our standpoint which is that we as Whites are also entitled to self-determination and that we have a choice between sharing power or not sharing power. The White nation has made its choice against power sharing. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, we have gained a momentum in South Africa which the hon. members cannot check anymore.

The policy of the NP continues and the Black peoples accept our refusal to share power. We did not stop there when we made our choice and said as Whites that we did not want power sharing. We went further and said that as a result of this we had to seek an alternative, that we had to seek a fair solution and grant the other peoples what we had claimed for ourselves.

This Bill is the first labour pang of the birth of a new State. It will be a State which will not exist in isolation and from which we shall not withdraw our helping hand. We will always take the new State by the hand and we will, as good neighbours, help it with its development, its growth and the promotion of that which is its own. It is a fair solution not only because we want to grant independence to the Tswana people at its own request, but also because we are prepared to walk the road of independence with the Tswana people as our fates are linked to a certain extent and we admit it.

That is why our road in South Africa is one at the end of which we see a vision. The vision we see is that of a bloc of States developing here as has been spelt out by the Prime Minister, a bloc of States which will stand together as a result of economic factors and interdependence, and will become a force to be reckoned with the world. It is not a poor alternative which we are offering to the Black peoples. It is a full alternative. It is an alternative full of promise which bodes only well for their future and which does not have the disadvantages which the hon. member tries to attach to it.

In the attitude of the PRP the typical paternalism of which we have heard so much is present. Papa Eglin and mama Suzman know better than Chief Minister Mangope, than the voters of Bophuthatswana and want to dictate to them. In this attitude of the PRP we see their typical contempt for democracy. I want to motivate that. It is the same contempt which they display for the right which people have to decide their own future, which they also display for the majority of Black voters who will not be enfranchised under their system. In this case, too, they display contempt for democracy because the Black people of Bophuthatswana have made a choice. Before it becomes finally independent—it has been announced—there will be another election specifically about this question. Why do they not want to listen when the Black people says what it wants to do, but still try to act as a mouthpiece for that people? In the third place we see in the attitude of the PRP their ambiguity with regard to the question of negotiation and consultation. They know that we negotiate regularly with the various Black leaders, who are elected leaders. They know that there have been consultations and that this Bill is the outcome of consultations between the elected leaders of the Whites and the elected leaders of the Black people concerned. Why do they not accept the outcome of these consultations? Why do they want to cross out these consultations and conduct their own simply to have their solution accepted? Surely they should listen to the voice of the people and accept it, if they claim that they are democrats. Silly laughter was heard just now when I said that they displayed contempt for democracy. Is their rejection of the democratic decision of the Tswana people not a contempt of democracy?

This Bill is a positive Bill which was drafted in consequence of a request by a people; a people with its own language, its own tradition and its own history, a people living in the areas which traditionally belong to it, a people which is prepared to accept the disadvantages attaching to the fact that it is not going to have a contiguous territory as a country. Incidentally, this is to our detriment as well. We would also prefer their country to consist of a single territory. Moreover, this Bill is the first step for a country which shows great promise and viability as was indicated by the hon. member for Bloemfontein West. It is also the outcome of the democratic election of a country in which every man could vote and not only those who form part of the upper crust of the privileged group who has had an education.

You are living in an absolute dream world.

This Bill gives expression to the basic right of self-determination which is recognized universally. It is recognized in the Charter of the UNO. It is recognized by virtually every nation in the world. It is not recognized by the PRP alone. How ridiculous can one get?

Allow them to choose where they want to be citizens. If you want to be democratic, allow them the choice to retain their South African citizenship.

Self-determination is fundamental to the philosophy of this side of the House; it is the basis on which the NP obtained its 123 seats in this House. It is also the reason why the PRP has only 12 seats here. Self-determination is also the way chosen by the Black peoples of South Africa, and in this case by the Tswana people.

Mr. Speaker, I suppose that for sheer cynicism the speech that has just been made by the hon. member for Vereeniging must take first prize. For him to talk about respect and disrespect for democracy while he is a member of a Government which allows less than 20% of the total population of this country to have any say in its affairs is of course-just a joke.

The hon. member says that we on these benches disregard the wishes of the Tswana people. The hon. Leader of the Opposition said that the Tswana people had freely elected to take independence. I want to know on what basis they make those statements. Are they aware of the fact that at the last general election in Bophuthatswana less than 15% of the people who were eligible to vote in the urban areas voted? Are they aware of the fact that of the 1,7 million people who are supposed to belong to Bophuthatswana more than a million in fact live outside that territory? I want to know what opportunity those people were ever given to elect whether they wished their independence or not. Was there a referendum held both inside and outside Bophuthatswana on the issue of independence? Of course not. Therefore there is no way of knowing whether the vast majority of the Tswana people want or do not want independence. An election has yet to be held on the issue of independence.

I wonder whether hon. members are aware of the fact that, apart from the fragmentation of the territory itself into six different areas that will comprise the homeland after maximum consolidation, of the 750 000 people who do live inside the territory, some one-third are not even Tswana-speaking. There are the Pedi speakers, and there are people from Basotho, who really belong, they say, to Basotho Qwaqwa and wish to join up with Basotho Qwaqwa because their territory is near ThabaNchu in the Orange Free State. As I say there are the Pedi speakers, who do not wish to go in with the independent Bophuthatswana. There is the enormous area of Winterveld, which contains people of all races and certainly the majority of the people there are not Tswana-speaking. It is therefore nonsense to say that the majority of people of Tswana have chosen independence. Equally it is nonsense for the hon. member for Bloemfontein West to talk about the per capita income, since I have no doubt that included in the earnings he mentioned are the earnings of the migrant workers who spend all their working lives outside of Bophuthatswana. Therefore those figures have nothing to do with the resources of the independent country itself. That type of comparison is completely useless.

We oppose this measure. We oppose it even at its introduction because we see through it. We see that this is all part and parcel of the grand pattern of grand apartheid. [Interjections.] Yes, that is what it is. We are fundamentally against that policy. We do not believe in fragmenting South Africa. We do not want to become part of the fraud of the numbers game, because that is the game this Government is playing. It is excising from the population figures of South Africa one African ethnic group after the other. The hon. Minister of Information nods his head. We have already excised the three million Xhosa people. The issue of citizenship of the people who live inside the Republic is a burning issue with them, and we are now about to repeat that same mistake with the roughly one million Tswana who live in the Republic of South Africa, and who also will compulsorily be deprived of their South African citizenship. And so we are going to go on. Out of the 18 million Africans we have already excised the three million Xhosa and now about two million Tswana are to be excised.

Why are you panicking?

Then, one after the other, the Government hopes to excise the Zulus, the people of the Ciskei, the people of Lebowa, etc. The hon. the Minister nods his head, and he will then say …

You know it all the way.

Yes, of course! That is why we have opposed it all the way. It is a fraud; it is a fraud from beginning to end, and we are going to end up with the Government claiming that the 4½ million White people in South Africa constitute a majority government in South Africa. That is a fraud and we in these benches want no part of it.

Mr. Speaker, we in the IUP will support the introduction of this Bill because we do not believe that members of Parliament have a right to decide on legislation which they have not yet seen. We shall study this legislation when it comes before us.

If it is good legislation and if it is in the interests of Bophuthatswana we shall support it, and if we find it is bad legislation, we shall oppose it.

The arguments used by the hon. member for Houghton and by the hon. member for Sea Point intrigued me intensely. They talk about depriving people of their South African citizenship, about the redistribution of land and resources and say that the Government will give no more land than was promised in the 1936 Act. I am inclined to agree with the Government in that respect, because this argument about the Bantu getting only 13% of the land is utter nonsense. The best agricultural land in South Africa is within the Black territories. Some of these territories have vast mineral wealth as well.

Which ones? [Interjections.]

They talk about political rights of citizens of Bophuthatswana who are living in South Africa. But obviously those citizens will vote in the election that is taking place at the present time … [Interjections.] It is no good talking about a low percentage poll. If those people are not interested they will vote against this independence in and for it if they are interested. The thing that intrigues me most, is the fact that the hon. member for Sea Point and the hon. member for Houghton talk about the unnecessary fragmentation of South Africa as a result of the Government’s policy. It is a pity they did not talk like that in 1959. Their party might not have come into existence if they had talked like that in 1959. At the 1959 congress of the UP the following resolution was moved and carried—

Mr. Speaker, this is what they voted against as “verkramp”. However, their whole argument today is based on this ancient philosophy … [Interjections.] … a philosophy from which we have moved away. [Interjections.] We have moved away from it, and so, I believe, has the UP. [Interjections.] This is the philosophy on which they base their whole argument today, namely the so-called fragmentation of South Africa under the Government.

Most of the land promised under the 1936 Act had already been acquired.

Mr. Speaker, that is why they left the UP in 1959. It sometimes pays to keep scraps of paper of resolutions taken in order to remind people thereof.

This has nothing to do with the ’59 resolution. [Interjections.]

I told the hon. member for Houghton that we have moved away from that. [Interjections.] We moved away from that long ago. However, the whole basis of her argument goes back to 1959. I believe that this so-called liberal party should be ashamed of itself for opposing the motion for the introduction of this Bill. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the PRP reminds me of a report I read in the newspaper one day, a report according to which one of the leaders in Africa was supposed to have said that every man had to be free to do what he wanted and if he did not do it, he should be forced to do it. [Interjections.] The PRP has decided what is good for Bophuthatswana, what is good for Bophuthatswana’s citizens and what Bophuthatswana’s citizens want. The PRP has already decided on this. They have decided that the citizens of Bophuthatswana do not want freedom. If the citizens of Bophuthatswana do not do what the PRP wants them to do, they will have to be forced to do what the PRP wants them to do. That is how the PRP sees freedom. I agree 100% with the statement by the hon. member for Vereeniging that the PRP is not a democratic party. The PRP has decided that it knows better than both the elected leaders and the traditional leaders of Bophuthatswana. They know what is best for the people of Bophuthatswana. Furthermore, the PRP has also decided that it knows better than all the citizens of Bophuthatswana, citizens both within and outside Bophuthatswana.

However, let us take a brief look at history. A few years ago there was an election in Bophuthatswana, an election which citizens both within and outside the homeland took part in. What the policy of Chief Mangope’s party amounted to was that he wanted self-government and wanted to move in the direction of greater self-determination. What was the outcome? That party won 20 of the 24 seats. The Chief Minister of Bophuthatswana asked the South African Government for independence. He knows how his people feel about this. He knows better than the PRP. However, he is going to hold another election before independence.

What, however, has happened over the past 14 days? Four members of the Opposition in the Legislative Assembly of Bophuthatswana have crossed the floor and joined the governing party, the party which asked the South African Government for independence. But no; the PRP claims to know better than the leaders of Bophuthatswana. They know what the people of Bophuthatswana want. They know it better than those people themselves. The PRP talks about the redistribution of land and of wealth. However, they disregard the central issue. Can they tell me whether all the Black peoples in South West have announced that they are going to hold a referendum? No, Sir. But after all, every nation can decide how to gauge opinion among its people. If they feel that a referendum is the right method, they can hold a referendum, and if they feel that an election will afford their people sufficient opportunity to express their views, surely that is adequate. In an election, what question is more important than that whether a people wants to become independent or not? If the governing party advocates independence and the opposition opposes it, then surely the people have a clear choice. The hon. members of the PRP, however, want the will of the minority group, those who do not advocate independence, to be complied with. I have said that the PRP is not a democratic party. Where does their idea of the redistribution of wealth come from? Surely that idea originated in Marxism. We must consider where this party derives its inspiration and what motives cause them not to want to respect the will of the majority of the people, but instead want to place the minority in power.

To conclude, I want to say that Bophuthatswana is the most rapidly developing homeland. From an economic point of view Bophuthatswana is the most viable homeland. Secondly, the Chief Minister, the leader of the governing party, has said on occasion that his people is not one of the major Black peoples of South Africa and that he consequently chose to become independent because he did not wish to be dominated and governed by the other Black peoples of South Africa at any stage in the future, but that his people wanted to govern itself.

That is why I say that what these members are trying to do today is to create an Angola in South Africa. We and every right-thinking nationalist among the Black people will not allow these people and their henchmen abroad to cause chaos and destruction in South Africa. We shall fight them to the death and uphold those things that are for the good of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the speech of the hon. the Deputy Minister show that he does not really understand the nature of the objection raised by the hon. the Leader of the PRP. [Interjections.] In the first instance, the principle of self-determination is not at issue, and in the second instance, as the hon. leader of the PRP indicated, the nature of the considerations of motivations of the people who ask for this type of independence is not at issue either. In essence, the issue is that this step is being put forward by the Government as a solution to the problem of the co-existence of Black and White in South Africa. [Interjections.] That is exactly what the issue is. Members on the Government side argue that we in South Africa are going to solve the problem of the co-existence of White and Black with this kind of measure. The Government’s policy in respect of the urban Black man, Coloured and Indian and every homeland government is determined thereby. This Bill is a cornerstone of the Government’s plan to solve the problem of co-existence. That is why no one need be surprised that we are taking this strong stand against it. Hon. members, inter alia, the hon. member for Albany, wanted to know how we knew what was stated in the Bill. He says that because we do not know, we cannot oppose it at this stage. Surely, however, we have already had an example of what is going to happen. We know, too, what kind of role this legislation plays in the Government’s plan and we know exactly what the consequences have been in the past. In conclusion, I want to read a quotation which I also read last year during the same debate on the Status of the Transkei Bill. It is a remark made last year by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. (Hansard, 28 April 1976, col. 5559)—

That point was made by the hon. the Minister before that legislation was tabled, and that is why we ought to know at least what the implications of this legislation could be and what role it plays within the Government’s policy. We are therefore entitled to oppose the motion to introduce the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sea Point again opposed the introduction of legislation of this nature this year, just as he did last year. It is very striking that the hon. member has forgotten virtually everything he said last year and as a result was barely able to advance sound, effective arguments here this year. However, I just want to say to the official Leader of the Opposition—there are so many Leaders of the Opposition—that I appreciated one thing in his short speech. If the hon. Leader could just listen, I should like to convey a word of appreciation to him. The only matter in regard to which I can express my appreciation is that he displayed a very good parliamentary and democratic attitude here today. It has always been the idea of democracy that we are able to speak, make laws and discuss matters freely in Parliament. We who are so fond of reminding each other of the audi alteram partem rule should therefore be prepared to hear both sides of the matter here. We must not be like the PRP that does not even want to hear the other side. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition acted like a good democrat here today, whereas the PRP acted autocratically. This, too, is the crux of the matter being discussed here today. What we have here today is either the opportunity, or the lack of the opportunity, to discuss a matter. The hon. member for Albany also said this. I want to convey my appreciation to him as well. We must note that the hon. members of the PRP, who profess to be great champions and crusaders for democracy, and project this image world-wide and here in South Africa as well, do not even want to create an opportunity to discuss the Bill so that they and others can reject it. They do not even want to do that. The hon. members of the PRP are by no means crusaders for democracy. They are nothing but paternalists—as has been said here—who always know more about other people’s interests than do those people themselves. In fact they are suppressors of and dictators to those people.

In the short time at my disposal I want to refer to the various speakers in this debate. The hon. member for Sea Point, of course, once again spoke at length about the fragmentation of South Africa and said that they were opposed to it. However, we are carrying out our policy, and I want to remind him of the words of the then Chief Minister, now premier, of Transkei, when he said last year that what South Africa had brought into being in establishing the Transkei had taken place without a single drop of blood being spilt and that only a little ink was spilt. I want to add to that that there was a great deal of sweating done as well. That the hon. member for Sea Point probably did not see when he dashed off, unasked, to Zaïre last week, because there, blood is being shed. The hon. member said that they did not have contempt for the Black people and also that the Blacks were being made strangers in their own fatherland. The hon. member is quite wrong. They do have contempt for these peoples. I want the Black peoples to note how these hon. members of the PRP are putting every possible stumbling block in the path of the independence and the self-realization of the Black people. That party, therefore, does have contempt for those people. The hon. member is quite wrong when he says that greater South Africa is the fatherland of Black people. The Black peoples all have their own fatherland, a country which they have chosen historically. It is not our fault that Britain divided up a very large area of the land of the Tswanas of Southern Africa and did not grant it to their people as a whole. We have preserved and enlarged the chosen fatherland of the Tswanas for their sake. Even in our election manifesto of 1948 we as the NP said that we would work towards making the historical homelands of the Black people their true fatherlands. We used the word “father-land” in that manifesto.

That was your policy.

Yes, and it is the Government’s policy. I venture to say that it is also the policy of the vast majority of Whites in our country. It is also a policy that is accepted by the Black peoples, because they ask for it. We are going to give it to them.

The hon. member mentioned that they had no choice, but other hon. members have already effectively pointed out that they did in fact have a choice and will be able to exercise a choice once again this year. The hon. member ought to know that the election date and procedure has already been proclaimed for a general election in the second half of August.

I now come to the hon. member for Houghton, too, because she too spoke about the elections and said that in the past the Tswanas has taken part in elections in small numbers. However, I want to point out that each and every Tswana that did not take part in the elections had the right to vote. What is the hon. member’s experience of democracy—that is to say, if she has a little democracy in her? What is the position of a voter who knows that he has the right to vote, who knows where he has to vote, who knows who the candidates are and then does not vote? In almost all cases the fact is that such voters accept the general state of affairs and are satisfied with the existing regime. Surely that is true. However, the hon. member for Houghton believes that if she thinks something is right, then it is right. Once again this is the same kind of paternalism that she displayed a short time ago, too, by professing to know better. The hon. members of the PRP remind me so much of the Swapo terrorist movement. Swapo thinks that what it thinks is right and that the rest of the world is wrong. That is the attitude which the hon. members of the PRP, too, display. The sooner they have a change of heart, the better it will be for all of us in South Africa. Both the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Rondebosch must realize that they and their party are quite wrong in their attitude towards citizenship. They do not know what is stated in the Bill. I want to point out to the hon. members that there is full agreement between the Government and the Government of Bophuthatswana in respect of the Bill. The Bill is not 100% identical to the Transkei Bill.

I am glad to hear that.

The hon. member for Houghton and her party are making an entirely incorrect statement by saying that we are going to disenfranchise these people. This, too, is what the hon. member for Rondebosch tried to intimate in the short time at his disposal. Not a single citizen of the Tswana homeland, as a citizen of an independent Bophuthatswana, will give up his citizenship either now or later before having accepted, of his own accord, another citizenship before or after independence. When they become independent they do of course remain citizens of the Tswana people as they were before, but they become full citizens of an independent country. By doing so they automatically give up their South African citizenship as the hon. member for Houghton, too, will do if she becomes a citizen of the United States of America one day. After independence the Tswana citizens can accept any other citizenship if they want to. They will not therefore be left stateless. At the same time, the citizens of Transkei are not being left stateless as a result of action taken by the Republic of South Africa. This is something which the hon. members must get into their heads. However, they appear to be persisting with the same mistaken arguments they advanced last year as well. They have confused many people with those arguments and have sown discord among people with regard to whom such discord ought not to be sown. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, at this stage we are dealing with the motion to introduce a Bill concerning the principle of independence for the people of Bophuthatswana. It seems to me that in this regard there are four considerations of fundamental importance.

Are you for or against your leader?

The hon. the Minister must give me a chance. It is clear that I support the motion to introduce the Bill. Four considerations apply in regard to the introduction of the Bill. The first is that this Bill is a product of a long and historic development, a constitutional development by means of which Bophuthatswana has been brought to the point of greater self-determination. That process was aimed at affording increasing powers of self-determination to the …

Do you support your leader?

Of course. I have already said so. That process was aimed at affording Bophuthatswana increasing self-determination. In the third place the question whether self-determination should take the form of independence can only be determined by the people of Bophuthatswana and by no one else. In the fourth place it is not our task to pass judgment on why those people choose independence. As far as I am concerned we in this House therefore have no choice but to respect the feelings of the people of Bophuthatswana. By that process they have chosen in favour of eventual independence. Similarly we shall have no choice but to support the point of view of those homelands that do not choose independence. It is understandable that there will be difference of opinion in regard to this matter. There are people—White and Black—that do not accept the concept of independence for the homelands. We must accept that there will in fact be difference of opinion. To that I want to add that the arguments advanced here by the hon. the Deputy Minister and the hon. member for Vereeniging certainly do not make the matter any easier. I found it strange to see the hon. the Minister here in the role of a democrat supporting the principle of audi alteram partem because I have never found the hon. the Minister himself being prepared to apply that principle. The principle of audi alteram partem does not only mean that one should apply the mechanical process of listening, but also that one should give consideration to the arguments advanced, if the rule is to mean anything. It is therefore a little strange to see the hon. the Minister act in that role in the House today.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 55.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided.

As fewer than 15 members (viz. Dr. A. L. Boraine, Messrs. R. M. de Villiers, C. W. Eglin, R. E. Enthoven ’t Hooft, R. J. Lorimer, S. A. Pitman, H. H. Schwarz, Dr. F. van Z. Slabbert, Mrs. H. Suzman, Messrs. H. E. J. van Rensburg and G. H. Waddell) appeared on one side,

Question declared agreed to.

Bill read a First Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Civil Defence Bill was, before the acceptance of the Second Reading, referred to a Select Committee on 1 February 1977. The Bill now before the House is the result of the Select Committee’s deliberations and contains important amendments to the original measure with which I will deal presently.

The Select Committee has reached consensus in regard to the new Bill, except for a few less important proposals. I have also been informed that the new measure was drafted in close consultation with representatives of the United Municipal Executive of South Africa, officials of the Department of Justice and members of the S.A. Defence Force and that it is completely acceptable to the provinces, the South West Africa Administration as well as local authorities. Thus, Parliament has before it a measure that meets the exigencies and requirements of all three levels of government, i.e. the Central Government, the provincial administrations and local authorities to which it is applicable. For this I wish to thank the Select Committee, and in particular the chairman. The fact that the inquiry by the Select Committee took longer than was originally expected indicates deficiencies in the original Bill and the seriousness with which the Select Committee approached its task and its thorough execution of that task.

Before I deal with the amendments to the original Bill, I wish to draw hon. members’ attention to the fundamental reasons for the measure as explained by me in my address during the Second Reading and which I will, for the sake of convenience, partially repeat.

After the incorporation of the task of civil defence into the Department of Defence during 1969, and after consultation with the Administrators of the four provinces and South West Africa, it was accepted in principle that the primary responsibility for the functional execution of the task of civil defence would rest with the third level of government, namely local authorities. As local authorities were activated as regards their task of civil defence and their planning progressed, serious legal deficiencies in regard to civil defence were exposed, also as far as the Act on Civil Defence, 1966, itself was concerned.

An intensive investigation, under chairmanship of the S.A. Defence Force, was undertaken by representatives of various large local authorities and the United Municipal Executive of South Africa as well as by representatives of the four provinces and South West Africa. It was found that the deficiencies that did exist could be best eliminated in a few special ways. In the first place it could be done by the passing of legislation whereby the provinces were given the necessary power to promulgate legislation on civil defence, with overall control being retained by the Minister of Defence. The authorizing aspect of the proposed Act is deemed necessary because in the first place the Act on Civil Defence contains no provision in terms of which local authorities can be involved. Secondly, the proposed Act is deemed necessary because local authorities derive their powers in respect of their normal service activities from provincial legislation and, thirdly, because provincial councils do not have the power to promulgate legislation which fully covers the area in question.

It was further found that the existing shortcomings could be eliminated by the acceptance by the four provinces and South West Africa of a uniform ordinance that is basically the same as the existing Act on Civil Defence, 1966, with the important difference that the execution of the civil defence function will now rest mainly with the Administrator and local authorities.

I do not propose to deal with every clause of the Bill, but shall confine myself to the more important amendments that the Select Committee has effected in the Bill.

In the first place, the committee rejected the English appellation “civil protection” in the title of the Bill in favour of the present and internationally accepted appellation “civil defence”.

A distinction is made between a disaster and the condition that exists during an emergency in terms of the Public Safety Act, or hostilities in terms of the Public Safety Act or the Defence Act. The conditions under the aforesaid Acts are clearly defined concepts while a different concept, viz. “state of disaster”, is included with reference to “disasters”. Consequently, the concept of “state of disaster” is embodied in the heading of the Bill and a new definition of “disaster” and of “state of disaster” is included with the necessary amendments in clause 1. Subsections (1) and (2) of clause 2 of the Bill, therefore, only refer to the declaration of a “state of disaster” by the Minister, while a new subsection (3) is embodied to enable an Administrator to immediately take steps to prevent or combat the results of a disaster. Provision is also made for consultation with the Minister as soon as possible. Further, the Minister must now, in terms of the new subsection (4), table a report in Parliament when he proclaims a state of disaster.

In clause 3(1) it was found necessary to add that a provincial council can pass ordinances in respect of any matter concerning civil defence with the exception of matters that require or encompass armed action or the prevention or combating of crime. These last aspects are functions that fall within the scope of the S.A. Defence Force or the S.A. Police, and where civil defence is involved with the combating of the results of a disaster, it is desirable that these functions be clearly separated, and also in the public’s mind.

Since the Minister, for obvious reasons, retains the power to take over any authority or duty that is by ordinance provided for or imposed on any person or authority, it is desirable that provincial ordinances and regulations be uniform and also that action by local authorities be uniform. Consequently, clause 3(3) was inserted with a view to consultation with the Minister in respect of ordinances and prior approval of regulations promulgated under such ordinance.

A new clause 4 was also included to provide for the payment of compensation for the use, after commandeering, of any property or building or the delivery or provision of any movable goods. This is an arrangement for the sake of equity.

Where the Minister would take over certain powers and duties, it is necessary that, with a view to the exercising or execution of such power or duty, a person or authority can be instructed to perform such a task, and to enable this delegation to be made, clause 5(l)(b) was inserted with appropriate amendments to the existing clause.

Clause 8 provides for making available manpower for civil defence duties. The intention is that those citizens not actively engaged in the S.A. Defence Force and its reserves, the S.A. Police, Prison Service, S.A. Railway Police and similar organizations be made available for civil defence service. The local authorities will thus have a source of manpower from which they can recruit for their civil defence organizations.

In clause 9 provision is made for the payment of compensation to members of the civil defence organization who are injured in the execution of their civil defence duty or to their dependants, in case they are killed. This is a very important provision in that people are not inclined to commit themselves to civil defence duties without financial cover in the event of injury or death. Consequently many local authorities cannot succeed in getting their civil defence organizations to function. The determination of the basis of compensation and the drafting of regulations for the administration thereof will be referred to an inter-departmental committee of interested State departments and upon which the provinces and local authorities will also have representation.

These, then, are the most important provisions of the Bill, and with a view to the fact that it is a well-considered measure of a Select Committee of this House, upon which all parties had representation, I move.

Mr. Speaker, this side of the House will support the Second Reading of this Bill. I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to confirm the words of the hon. the Minister as regards the proceedings of the Select Committee. At the same time I should like to address a word of appreciation to the chairman of that committee and a special word of thanks for the patience displayed by him over a long period of time. The committee held 12 working meetings. Sometimes we suspended business after a morning session and met again in the afternoon while the House was sitting. I think the best possible inquiry was conducted into the Bill, with the exception of one aspect to which I shall return. I want to express my gratitude once more towards the chairman and all my colleagues on both sides of the House for the quality of the co-operation we received in that committee. I also want to address a special word of thanks to the officials of the Department of Defence, as well as to the officials of other authorities that assisted us. I am referring, for example, to the Municipality of Pretoria, the Municipal Association, as well as to other people, legal men, law advisers and other officials of other departments who gave us the advice and information we required in our discussions.

The formulation of this Bill set an example of co-operation on the three tiers of government.

†This Bill is one which was very necessary, because unfortunately the history of civil defence in South Africa has not been a very inspiring one. It has been a long struggle to get it off the ground. Under the Department of Police it was rather an orphan, and I do not believe that one can really say that any serious attempt was made to get it off the ground in those days. It is understandable. The Police are always very understaffed and they have a wide range of responsibilities. To have expected them to build up the sort of organization needed in South Africa, was out of the question.

Then came the 1966 legislation and the transfer to the Department of Defence, when a serious effort was made to do something about this. A senior officer was appointed to head civil defence at headquarters. A small nucleus—usually one officer and one NCO—was appointed at all the commands to deal specifically with civil defence. A blueprint was, to an extent, drawn up and plans were made. However, this was essentially also a task of motivation; a task of motivating the public. Once the plans had been drawn up, the public had to be motivated. That was the next phase. I am afraid, however, that this was a losing battle.

I do not want to go into all the reasons, but I think we must be frank and admit that civil defence was, to an extent, the “Orphan Annie” of defence. It had a total appropriation of less than R500 000. It had a very limited personnel, and occasionally, I think—and I want to be frank—the choice of people was not always right for what was essentially a PRO task. It was a public relations task to work with local authorities, to work with the people who had to do the controlling of it at local level, and then to project the concept of civil defence to the broader public outside. That was a task which required a certain sort of person, someone with a background of working with people and with the ability to project the idea he was promoting and to motivate the people he was talking to. It was, of course, the correct approach to work through local authorities and to use them as the base on which to build. It was also the correct approach to use voluntary organizations, organizations such as the Noodhulpliga, St. Johns and the Red Cross.

If I may express some criticism, I think there was too much concentration on one organization instead of trying to draw all the organizations into civil defence. A division was made and Citizen Force and Permanent Force were allocated to one organization and civil defence to another. This tended to create frictions and jealousies which, I believe, were unnecessary and were never intended. The result of it all was that, although there were a number of A-classified civil defence areas which were classified by inspection, I do not believe that, with rare exceptions, any part of South Africa was really operationally active in the sense that it had drawn and was exercising the full support of the public. There were one or two notable exceptions, one or two centres which really got civil defence off the ground, and to the people who made it work this House owes a word of appreciation for what they did. I do not want to mention names, because once you mention one name, others want to know why they were not mentioned as well. The major cities took this seriously. In Durban a Permanent Force officer, a commandant, was appointed and he has been handling civil defence as a full-time civil defence officer. Johannesburg wanted to get cracking, but the problem which the hon. the Minister referred to, viz. the lack of authority of the local authorities to act themselves, to spend money and provide facilities, was one of the bugbears. So, even where there was a desire and a will to get cracking, it did not always work. Another of the serious drawbacks, which is now rectified by the Bill, is that of compensation for people injured or killed whilst doing civil defence work. Particularly those with families and responsibilities, although they were prepared to help and do what they could, were hesitant to take all the risks which would be involved if there should be a serious disaster. There must be risks. It is inescapable that if there is a disaster, whether it be a natural or a man-made disaster, such as a serious crash, people can be injured, sometimes fatally. Those with responsibilities found that they often were not covered by their insurance policies and that they had to think of their responsibility to their families. I want to emphasize the importance of this aspect—the hon. the Minister has referred to it—and I want to urge a sense of urgency in the operation and work of the interdepartmental committee, because until this aspect is finalized there will still be a resistance to getting volunteers. I think the aspect of compensation, of the feeling of security, is one of the keys to a proper recruiting campaign for civil defence. I hope that by the time the ordinances are passed and civil defence is off the ground and starting to get going we will have the final regulations and arrangements for compensation.

The hon. the Minister has referred to the other weaknesses which there were and I do not intend to repeat what he has said. Neither do I want to repeat what he said about the changes made in the Bill, except to add that I think the Select Committee made a considerable change in the concept of compensation. Although the hon. the Minister mentioned it, he did not mention it as one of the major changes which flowed from the Select Committee. The committee felt so strongly about this that we issued a second report detailing specifically our feelings in regard to compensation. We thought that it should be handled on a parallel with the Military Pensions Act by the same department and on the same basis. However, we recognized that it was impossible for a parliamentary Select Committee to liaise with all the local authorities and the provinces to deal with the detailed regulation which would be required. That is why we recommended an interdepartmental committee for this purpose.

The Select Committee also gave attention to more specific detailing of the power which an Administrator can take to act immediately either to prevent or to combat the consequences of a disaster without waiting for such a disaster to be proclaimed and without waiting for the official proclamation by the Minister. The Bill provides—we streamlined the mechanism for this to happen—for an Administrator to act immediately in anticipation of a proclamation of a state of disaster and to take what action he wants to take immediately, on the spot. We also provided for consultation, at the earliest possible moment, with the Minister and for a report to the Minister on any act taken in anticipation of a proclaimed disaster. As the hon. the Minister mentioned, one of the changes is the change of the concept “state of emergency” to “state of disaster”.

There were certain differences. One was on the question of the hon. the Minister being required to table, in both Houses of Parliament, a report whenever he declares a state of disaster. Obviously we all agree with that. There was a proposed extension on that point. I shall not detail the proposal because the hon. member for Yeoville has an amendment to that effect, namely that where action is taken in anticipation of a disaster, it should also be reported to Parliament. We also differed on the removal of the provision for arbitration from the draft Bill. That is something I cannot understand. I do not know why it was done. I still cannot understand the reason for it, because the draft ordinance under which compensation will now be determined, provided for arbitration in the event of a dispute. If that is the procedure to be followed, I cannot understand why we do not make that the procedure specified in the Bill itself, instead of saying that compensation in the event of a dispute will be settled as determined by the ordinance. The ordinance could be amended and it could remove or exclude arbitration in their procedures for granting compensation. That is a matter with which we will deal further in the Committee Stage.

The third point on which the Select Committee divided, was the question of the indemnity against claims for a person acting in good faith. We had a difference of opinion as to whether negligence should be excluded from or included in the indemnity. As the Bill reads, negligence is included. A person acting in good faith, even if acting negligently, as well as the State, would be indemnified. I want to say quite frankly that since the Select Committee last met we have come to the conclusion that we were wrong in the amendment we, the UP, moved. We moved that in the case of negligence both the State and the person who was negligent should be liable. There are problems involved in this regard and because it is a very involved legal issue, a colleague of mine will deal with it either during the Second Reading or during the Committee Stage, because I am not a legal man. I want to use the opportunity to ask the hon. the Minister to consider another approach to the issue. We did not put the matter in the Select Committee, because at that stage we were looking at it purely from the legal point of view of including negligence. Having been persuaded that that approach was not a sound one, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to consider incorporating the same sort of provision as is incorporated in the Police Indemnity Bill, i.e. that there should be a committee which can deal with applications or requests for ex gratia assistance where they are not legally entitled to claim it. That would ensure that where there was negligence and where it is clear that there was negligence, an affected person could apply for and could be granted compensation on an ex gratia basis. It would, however, mean that we would have to make provision for it in the Bill. I ask the hon. the Minister to consider it and perhaps to introduce a suitable amendment in the Other Place.

The aspects on which we agreed, to my mind, override any differences of opinion we had in respect of these matters and therefore we have no hesitation in supporting the Second Reading of the Bill. We shall not support all the amendments which appear on the Order Paper, but those can be debated during the Committee Stage more effectively than at this stage. I simply want to conclude by pledging the support of the Official Opposition for the measure.

Mr. Speaker, at this stage it is very pleasant for me to associate myself with the appreciation which the hon. member for Durban Point expressed for the assistance which the committee received. I also want to make use of the opportunity not only to thank the hon. members who served on the committee, but also to congratulate them on the constructive, positive contributions which they made. Particularly where solidarity was achieved on a matter without any loss of party identity, it proved that the Opposition parties and the Government party are able to reach an agreement when we are dealing with a matter which is in the interests of the country. Since there have been many queries about who was involved in drawing up the Bill, I should like to mention the names of the following committee members for the sake of the record, namely the hon. members for Mariental, Cradock, Waterkloof, Aliwal, Eshowe, Verwoerdburg and Pietersburg.

†The hon. members for Durban Point, Umlazi, East London City, Yeoville and Simonstown were the other members of the committee. These hon. members brought to the committee their experience which they had gained over many years of committee work, and also their experience in provincial matters. I wish to thank hon. members on that side of the House and hon. members on my side of the House, who have had similar experience, for allowing us to use their experience to the advantage of producing an improved Bill.

*I should like to thank Gen. Malan for his clear-cut information. This also applies to Brig. Pretorius and Brig. De Wachter who assisted him so ably. I should also like to thank the man who did very important spade-work over a period of two years, namely Col. Muller, the Director of Civil Defence. He was assisted by a working committee, two members of which, namely Messrs. Delport and Redelinghuys of the Pretoria City Council and other bodies which they represented, produced very worthwhile work. They were assisted in this regard by Advocate Rossouw, and I do not want there to be any doubt about the fact that the committee had the greatest respect for the calibre of the advice which we received from the legal advisers. However, I cannot conclude the list of people to be thanked without mentioning the parliamentary staff, who were always up to date with their work under great pressure.

In dealing with the Bill, I want to go back to the stage in 1966 when an agreement was reached with the Administrators of the provinces to accept the principle that the responsibility for the functional administration of civil defence was vested in the local authorities and that the central and provincial Governments would act in a supporting role if and when necessary. At that stage, the overall control of civil defence was transferred to the S.A. Defence Force for reasons of efficiency. I want to round off the conclusions of the Select Committee by pointing out that at this stage, only 80 of the 670 civil organizations or areas, which the Defence Force have identified, have plans for emergency action while another 25 have as yet reported little progress. This is a disconcerting disclosure which was put before the Select Committee and it compelled the committee to decide that this Bill was essential. Furthermore, it compelled the committee to accept the principle that wide powers must be given to provincial councils in order to promote this matter. In saying this I do not want to imply that no attention was paid to this matter when the S.A. Defence Force took over the overall control and co-ordination, and that this unsatisfactory situation therefore arose. On the contrary, it was in reality the system itself which gave rise to this. The S.A. Defence Force did a great deal of spade-work which could be the point of departure for a new dispensation. The Defence Force identified those services and facilities which could be applied by civil defence organizations with their new statutory powers.

I hasten to point out that we came to that conclusion when we accepted this principle because we identified certain deficiencies in the system. Those deficiencies have been dealt with by the hon. the Minister as well as by the hon. member for Durban Point. Furthermore we came to this conclusion because we discovered that provincial administrations were best equipped to deal with the matter on a legislative basis. For instance, fire-fighting services can and will be regulated by the administrations by means of legislation. Traffic affairs are already a part of their domain. This is a very important facet of civil defence. Consequently it will be very convenient for them to effect co-ordination by means of legislation and by-laws. Another very important facet of civil defence is hospital services and hospitalization. This is also regulated by the provinces, and one can now appreciate that it was a carefully considered decision to transfer the matter to provincial councils.

The people, the instruments, the agents which will administer civil defence matters, namely the local authorities, are the bodies which fall directly under the provinces and derive their authority from provincial legislation. This was the final, most important consideration for provinces being vested with greater, wider authority.

This brings me to the central principle of the Bill, as set out in clause 3, viz. that provincial councils are being empowered to make ordinances in connection with any matter relating to civil defence, except for a matter which entails armed action for the prevention or the combating of crime. I should like to dwell on this aspect for a moment, because we have discovered that over and above the deficiencies which the hon. member for Durban Point identified, and which the hon. Minister spelled out so clearly during his first Second Reading speech and once again today, we have often come to the conclusion that the public is under the wrong impression as regards the extent and sphere of civil defence. Some groups and bodies came to the conclusion that if they belong to a shooting club, they have done their duty as regards civil defence. That is why we found it necessary to include this very emphatic limitation in the Bill so that the public will be able to realize that the task of civil defence does not constitute armed action, nor a sawn-off shotgun, nor erecting a protective wall around one’s house. On the contrary, civil defence is a community task and aims at creating a component of the total preparedness of South Africa. Then the Defence Force steps aside as regards these activities. There was also a wrong impression as regards the duty of the Defence Force. For instance, it was thought that the commando had to perform the task of civil defence. With the provisions now contained in clause 3, it is quite clear that it is not within the sphere of the Defence Force or of the commandos to perform the task of civil defence, but, as I shall indicate, there is a defined task for the S.A. Defence Force, as determined by the hon. the Minister from time to time. The task of the Defence Force and the commandos will only be an advisory, co-ordinating task and it will only act in an assistant capacity in very exceptional cases, when directed to do so by the Minister. I want to emphasize this very strongly. Having said this, I believe that when this matter rests in the hands of local authorities on the basis of legislative authority—they already have organizations in this regard today—those local authorities will go out of their way to bring home to the public this specific point which we are now pointing out in this debate, viz. that this service does not entail armed action. Now I should like to add another qualification, namely that it does not mean that there will be no question of emergency defence or self-defence by bodies who provide civil defence. We are not saying this at all. We have just tried to define the field very clearly.

As regards clause 3, I want to point out that we tried to make this provision as wide as possible in order to leave no doubt of the fact that we are confident of the provincial councils’ ability to deal with this matter. According to our Constitution, all powers which are connected with the authority obtained in this way, are included here and it would perhaps scarcely be necessary to digress on the subject. Nevertheless the Select Committee decided to emphasize this point, namely that provincial administrations, provincial councils can make laws for a sphere which were previously the prerogative of Parliament. This includes a very wide-ranging series of powers. For instance, provincial councils can order local authorities to provide or obtain information relating to employees, building equipment, aircraft, etc. Statistics can be collected. For instance they will be able to order an industry which carries out essential services, to continue to do so. They can exercise the power of entering or demolishing premises. The test of the courts is that anything, which is not in opposition to the enabling legislation—in this case the legislation before us—may be allowed. This brings me to the limitation which is included here, namely that ordinances—this includes amendments to such ordinances—will be passed after consultation between the Minister and the Administrator and as far as regulations are concerned, they will be passed only after the Minister has given his permission. Here we wish to say one thing and achieve one objective, namely unanimity and co-ordination between the various provinces as well as between the central Government and the provincial administrations.

It is stated clearly, beyond any doubt in clause 4, that compensation will be paid when a serious step like commandeering is taken. I am putting it in simple, everyday language so that everyone may know what I am talking about. On this matter, the question of who should pay for it arose. A lawyer for whom I personally have a great deal of respect, asked me whether we should not have made it clearer here. I consulted the Government law advisers and I want to place it on the record that the intention is that the remuneratory action is based on enrichment. The one who will have to pay, will be the statutory principal who issued or authorized the instruction concerned. Nevertheless, the legislation will have to be debated from time to time and the legal experts can discuss it because it is a totally new sphere of activity which we are now handing over to the provinces.

Another question which arises is: When is the Administrator vested with the wide powers which he will receive? We think that these wide powers can be divided into preparatory steps and executive steps. As far as this is concerned, clause 3 is worded in such a way that there is no doubt that preparatory steps are also being included. For instance, there is a regulation in connection with training, the designation of training institutions, etc. All the essential powers which the administrations will need in order to carry out the functions of civil defence, will fall under preparatory steps. Therefore the Administrator will be able to take the necessary steps in this connection. When it comes to actual executive steps, which go hand-in-hand with the exercising of extraordinary powers like those contained in clause 4, the question arises how and when they will be carried out.

This brings me to the preceding clause of the Bill. In terms of clause 2, the Minister can declare a state of disaster under given circumstances. Obviously, these extraordinary powers will be able to be tested in the courts and will have to be accompanied by the given conditions which constitute a state of disaster in this case. I want to emphasize that we also thought fit to give the Administrator the opportunity of taking certain steps involving these powers for a period of four days at their discretion. The hon. member for Durban Point digressed on this matter. I just want to point once again that it is possible that the Minister will decide in this process not to declare a state of disaster. For instance, if a terrible train accident occurs in a province, the matter may be solved within four days. In that case, a state of disaster will not be declared. In order to bring about the delicate interaction between the provinces and the central Government, however, we had to make provision for a process of report-back and consultation. I think that the provinces will welcome this, because in this way they will know that the Minister is always informed of their action. In this way the Minister himself will be able to take preparatory steps in the meantime, or consider the possibility of declaring a state of disaster.

Then we drew a very clear distinction between a state of emergency and a state of disaster. This was specifically done due to the particular powers which are involved in each case. For instance, we had to draw a distinction between a state of disaster and a classical state of emergency which can be declared in terms of the Internal Security Act or the Defence Act. Obviously, when they legislate or plan preparatory steps and take specific powers upon themselves, the provinces have to bear in mind the conditions which were experienced in the Second World War, and at other times alongside the less serious and comprehensive state of disaster.

In conclusion, I want to point out a few other aspects of the Bill. Firstly, I want to refer to the aspect of compensation in regard to volunteers who are wounded or killed while carrying out a specific duty. Here we have a sphere which caused a particular problem situation to develop. The hon. member for Durban Point referred to the fact that we published a special report on this. I want to emphasize that the committee came to the conclusion that the entire civil defence action would be prejudiced if this matter was not settled at an early stage. It is my duty to bring this fact to the attention of hon. members.

I also want to add that we foresee that particular records will have to be held in the process of identifying who will qualify for such compensation, and that specific attention will be given to the question of who qualify as volunteers. That is why it is desirable for regulations which are passed by the provinces to provide for this aspect in such a way that these persons will be clearly identifiable, so that not everyone who feels a sudden desire to render assistance, will qualify.

Having said this, hon. members will note that we do not provide for compulsory service in the legislation, indeed we leave this open. This implies that I think the provinces will be entitled to make this compulsory or to make plans for voluntary service. At this stage it seems that it will be voluntary service. That is why I want to emphasize that we also came to the conclusion that the provinces should have the power, if they attest a volunteer, to institute disciplinary measures for someone like this as well, subject to a sanction if those disciplinary measures are not carried out. Once again we gained the impression that the public will welcome this action.

Furthermore I want to point out that, in a clause which the committee thought fit to add, the legislation empowers the State President to issue regulations concerning the category of persons who will not qualify for service. The contrary is also true, viz. that it can be concluded from this who is able to be identified for carrying out CD service.

Another idea which was raised in the committee, was that when local authorities undertake this task for which they will have statutory authority, they will probably be able to nominate people who will specifically be able to identify these volunteers, and to involve them as well.

In conclusion, as regards decorations, I want to point out that we did not effect any change to the clause which provides for this. This is included in the present Act. In this way we say that we want to show the highest form of respect to persons who achieve high standards in carrying out their task of civil defence.

Mr. Speaker, may I start by responding to the hon. member for Bloemfontein West and to say that I do not very often pay compliments in the House, but I think without any hesitation one can pay a compliment to him for the manner in which he handled the chairmanship of the Select Committee. I think that all the members who served on that committee will bear testimony to the fact that he handled the matter, not only efficiently, but extremely courteously and competently at all times. I also want to say that in so far as the remaining members of the committee are concerned, it was actually an interesting lesson for all of us to have seen, when we had a common objective in mind, how well we could actually work together. I think it was quite remarkable how that committee functioned. Occasionally there were differences of opinion with regard to detail, but it was remarkable how people would support each other, without regard for party affiliations, and how they would deal with a problem purely on its merits. I think the committee as a whole needs to be congratulated because I think it has actually set an example as to how a matter which concerns the welfare of South Africa can be dealt with if, in fact there is that will on the part of the people concerned.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, I have referred to the work done by my colleagues of the Select Committee, as well as to the work done by the chairman. If I may, I would like to refer to the contribution to this piece of legislation made by the professionals, if I may call them that. I would like to join in the tributes to the people from the Forces, in particular Gen. Malan, Brig. Pretorius and Brig. G. J. P. de Wachter, Col. Muller and also the legal advisor, Mr. Rossouw, as well as the two people from the Pretoria municipality who represented the United Municipal Executive. I believe they also rendered very worthwhile service, and showed their great dedication to this concept. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that these two gentlemen probably know more about this subject than most people in South Africa. I am not comparing them with the Army people whose job it is. I believe the hon. the Minister could well employ their services very usefully in a capacity in which they can advise us in regard to the whole development of a co-ordinating scheme in which local authorities and the provinces and the central Government are involved. Those two gentlemen, Mr. Delport and Mr. Redelinghuys, are not only knowledgeable on this subject, but I believe they are very dedicated to the entire concept. I think that is one of the reasons why Pretoria is somewhat ahead of other places in respect of the concept of civil defence. That is to a considerable degree due to them. In the same breath I want to state that members of the committee appreciated the fact that the head of the Defence Force found the time to make himself available almost continuously on this committee, and that he showed the devotion which he did show to this concept. That kind of combination—the combination of politicians and professionals, where the object is the same—is certainly here shown to have produced tremendous results.

May I now turn to the legislation itself. Here, I believe, it is important to stress that the public certainly should not be under a misapprehension that this is some kind of war mobilization thing at all. It is not. I believe the concept which lies behind this is a realization that there is a need to deal with disruptions which are caused by disasters, in particular by natural disasters. One would hope that natural disasters will be the only disasters we will be called upon to deal with. However, unfortunately, in this day and age we cannot close our minds to the fact that in these circumstances one may get disasters which are man made. One may get urban terrorism and all sorts of activities which will require the assistance of people in order to deal with the results of that kind of situation. I think it needs to be stressed that the Select Committee went out of its way to make it clear that this was not an operation which would be of a military nature, or even of a police nature, but that it was really a remedial service which was going to be offered to the community as a whole.

When we speak about the community as a whole, I believe it is also important to recognize that if this thing is going to work, it is going to require a community effort. It is not enough if this is an effort on the part of White people. It has to be an effort on the part of White and Black people. This should not be an effort on the part of only one section of the White people. It should be an effort on the part of all the White people. Therefore, one makes an appeal today that this should become a community effort, that it should be unrelated to any form of ethnic division in South Africa, unrelated to any form of language division in South Africa, and unrelated to any form of political division in South Africa. I believe that this must be a community effort if we want it to work. That is why one of the most important aspects of this is whether people are going to be motivated to volunteer. This is the crux of it.

It is perfectly true that the Defence Force is going to provide planning and co-ordination. It is also perfectly true that the provinces will now provide the direction and administration. Furthermore, it is perfectly true that local authorities will have to provide most of the action. However, the real success of this will entirely depend on whether the necessary volunteers come forward and whether people are sufficiently motivated so that they do volunteer. Here there is a great responsibility, I believe, on the public representatives who sit in this House. There is a particular responsibility upon the hon. the Minister, and there is a responsibility upon the provincial authorities and the local authorities to see to it that people are motivated. Without that motivation this will not work. We believe that that motivation can be forthcoming and if once we show that people can be united in an effort in order to provide alleviation from disaster, whatever it is, then we may well be contributing towards bringing about a greater unity of the people of South Africa. It is in that spirit that we in these benches have approached this problem and that is why we support the measure and will vote for it in the Second Reading.

I would like to touch upon some of the new matters which have been introduced in the Bill and perhaps compare this piece of legislation with the old legislation. Hon. members of course know that this measure is called the Civil Defence Bill whereas the original legislation referred to the committee was the Civil Protection Bill. In itself this change of nomenclature in the English version is important because the real concept which is behind this is demonstrated in the nomenclature of the Bill. Perhaps the most fundamental change between this Bill and the original legislation is the fact that now the responsibility lies upon the provinces. The provinces are given the responsibility, they will have to pass ordinances and the local authorities will have to carry out the functions. It is important that we do not forget that if the provinces do not do their job, the Government can still step in. Here again the hon. the Minister has a great responsibility. If this does not work, because at some other level people do not do their job, the hon. the Minister will still be brought to account in this House because it is his responsibility to step in if necessary to see that this whole operation functions.

Secondly, I think it is very important to have a high degree of uniformity in the application of civil protective procedures. Here again the functions of the Defence Force under the hon. the Minister become material and we will look to him to see to it that the necessary co-ordination continues to exist and will exist in respect of this matter.

A third matter is that the declaration of a state of disaster, except for the short-term position, is still the responsibility of the hon. the Minister. I want to say here and now that our view is that only the Central Government should have the prerogative of exercising emergency powers. We do not believe that that is a matter which should be delegated. We appreciate that one may have to take urgent action for a short period of time until the Minister can act, but the fundamental principle is that emergency powers are the prerogative of the Central Government. That has been accepted in the Bill.

Another matter to which one must draw attention is the question as to whether the provinces are going to have the staff to deal with this position. One hopes that another great bureaucracy will not be created, but on the other hand there will have to be adequate staff provided by the provinces in order to see to it that there is proper supervision of local authorities and to see to it that local authorities take the necessary steps to implement this.

Lastly, the real people responsible now at the bottom end who are going to have to do the work and who are going to have to see to it that the civil defence organizations exist, are the local authorities. In this respect one should perhaps issue a word of warning that if local authorities do not fulfil their functions, it may well be necessary for the Minister to take action, perhaps not directly, but certainly through the provinces to make sure that there are not gaps in the whole structure in South Africa because some local authorities do their job while others do not. Here again I think one must make it clear that if there is to be a civil defence network throughout the whole of South Africa, it must be fulfilled by every local authority. There must not be some local authorities who take the view: “We do not really think it is necessary; we do not really think it is going to happen and we do not really want to participate.” They must all be willing participants in what is an important feature of the service that must be rendered to a community to deal with the consequences of disaster, whether natural or man-made.

The second matter which I would like to touch on is the question of indemnity against loss. It is important that if one does give emergency powers, such as the power of taking property, which are exercised for the sake of the common good, there must be compensation. We have some difficulty with the concept that because there are provincial ordinances providing for an arbitration procedure, this is not now included in the legislation before us. The wording has been deliberately changed and there has been no justification as to why that wording has been changed. In the Committee Stage we shall ask the hon. the Minister to accept what has been accepted by all the provincial administrations, namely that there must be arbitration and that it must be in terms of the Arbitration Act, which is part of our law and which has been incorporated in the ordinances.

The other matter with which we have grave difficulty is the issue of indemnity in respect of negligent action. We accept that one can have a degree of indemnity in respect of the activities of people when they act in good faith, but we cannot accept the concept that where damage is done to individuals and property and when injury is done to individuals or when persons may die as a result of the negligence of other persons, there should not be compensation. What is remarkable is that, according to this piece of legislation, if one takes another man’s property for a purpose in terms of this Act, one must compensate him, but if one damages his property negligently and one does it in good faith, one does not have to compensate him. It is utterly illogical. I want to refer to another example. If one takes a man’s property, one compensates him, but if one takes his life as a result of a negligent act, one does not have to compensate his wife and children. To my mind this is utterly illogical. It is for this reason that we have placed an amendment on the Order Paper to remedy this situation. Again I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that in the previous Bill there was specific provision for compensation. It is very difficult to understand why one has to change it now, because under the old Bill it specifically said that where there was negligence, there would be compensation. Now this provision has been taken away. I appeal to the hon. the Minister that this change should be made.

I want to draw attention to another difference between this Bill and the original legislation and that is that under the old legislation there could in fact be compulsion to do service for civil defence. Under this legislation we are now relying purely on volunteers. That is why, right at the beginning, I drew attention to the importance of motivation of the community to volunteer. We have no further power to compel people. Therefore, the ability to obtain volunteers for civil defence becomes absolutely fundamental.

In passing I want to mention—the hon. member for Durban Point has dealt with it at some greater length—that we welcome and support the fact that there is now compensation for those who are injured while they serve. While we support that, it actually strengthens our argument that those who do not serve and who are negligently injured, should also be compensated. To my mind that is again unanswerable. This Bill, in its overall effect, is worthy of the support of all members of this House. Therefore we have pleasure in supporting the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member for Yeoville will pardon me if I do not follow him in all his arguments. He raised a couple of matters with which he is not happy at this stage. However, I think these matters can be effectively dealt with during the Committee Stage.

*This Bill heralds a new era as far as civil defence services are concerned. The existing Act of 1966 has not given rise—as the hon. member for Durban Point has indicated—to a great amount of enthusiasm and sacrifice, with which we would have been justified in expecting the civil defence services in our country to have been established. It is possible that there were good and substantial reasons for this, and I shall return to these later in my speech. However, one would be entirely justified in expecting the present Bill to give rise to a more positive approach on the part of local authorities. At the same time, I hasten to convey our thanks to the local authorities that, in terms of existing measures, are already organizing, planning and executing their civil defence services with great zeal and dedication. There are many of these and I am proud to state that my own home town, Cradock, won an A category certificate for its civil defence organization. Would it be very immodest of me to ask whether their good MP had anything to do with it? [Interjections.] Since 1966, the planning, coordination and execution of the civil defence movement has been chiefly the task of the S.A. Defence Force. In the nature of its primary task, viz. to keep South Africa prepared, militarily speaking, and to defend her, it is clear that it is not the task of the Defence Force to organize, co-ordinate and give effect to CD services at the civilian level. We are very grateful, however, for what the Defence Force has done in such a short time, because their attempts have met with considerable success. It is only logical, however, that the planning, execution and co-ordination of civil defence movements should be the responsibility of the various Administrators, provincial councils and local authorities.

In such a situation the relationship between the provincial councils and the local authorities would be one of direct control. Therefore, the Bill places the responsibility for the provision of services on the shoulders of those organizations that are responsible for them and which are intimately concerned with them. Efficiency, mutual co-operation and uniformity between provinces and local authorities are the keys to a successful CD movement, but it is vital that the central authority should still exercise control over its implementations. Therefore, the Select Committee saw fit to leave the overall control of the whole effort in the hands of the Minister of Defence. At the same time we were given the assurance by the Defence Force that it would continue to support the local authorities by providing facilities, assisting with training, etc., in the expansion of their civil defence services.

I think that the Select Committee, which I had the privilege of being a member of and which has accepted all the important principles of the original Bill, has succeeded in amending the original Bill in such a way that it is suited to present needs, that the new Bill is a practically feasible and clear document. In the past there has been a great deal of misunderstanding about the precise objective of civil defence movements in the overall set-up of our defence strategy. In addition, there has been a lack of statutory authorization for local authorities to perform certain essential functions. Civil defence was viewed chiefly as just another organization which, in times of need, would have to perform its functions as a sort of para-military organization.

Civil defence has been viewed, incorrectly, as an organization which has the duty of guarding certain buildings and strategic points in times of emergency. Civil defence has been viewed as a sort of vigilante organization whose task in times of riots and unrest—which we were unfortunate enough to experience last year—is actively to fight and to participate militantly in terminating the riots. This was a completely incorrect view of the function of civil defence. That incorrect view of the task and function of the CD is possible the major reason why the movement has been so slow to get into gear and to become fully functional. People, particularly the old guard, refused to become involved in it because in their view, it was just another organization that would become actively and militantly involved in riots. On the other hand, our people were not always sure exactly what was expected of them. Moreover, there was uncertainty as to the question of compensation in the case of a member of the civil defence service being injured, killed or disabled in the execution of his duties. This, too, gave rise to the hesitation with which people approached the question of civil defence. Just as the Act of 1966 was responsible for this state of affairs, so those bottlenecks and misunderstandings are being eliminated by this Bill and the exact place and function of civil defence services as well as how they are to be planned and executed, are being very clearly stated.

In general, it may be said that the civil defence movement is a civilian, non-military movement which has to bear the consequences of a natural disaster or any other state of disaster, whether it be of military origin or not. Civil defence may also be viewed as supplementary to military and police action but it can never replace it. It is possible—very probable, in fact—in the times we are living in that those people who are involved in civil defence will be active in situations of which Defence Force or Police action will form an integral part. Such tasks, however, will still be performed in a supplementary capacity and will be aimed at combating the consequences of such action. Far-reaching powers are being vested in the Administrators and local authorities by way of the measure and we trust that these responsibilities will be accepted in an earnest and conscientious spirit and carried out to the benefit of the civilian population. Above all, we believe that the machinery has now been created for proper planning and expansion of this service, one which is so vital in our society. The duty now rests with all bodies and persons concerned to organize, expand and make ready its civil defence service purposefully and systematically. In the anxious times we are living in, our citizens have a right to the protection and security afforded by an organized civil defence movement.

Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with the tributes that have been paid to the chairman of the Select Committee, the Defence Department officials and all other officials who were associated with the work of the Select Committee. I do not think it is necessary for me to add to this tribute, as tributes have already been paid by others who served on the Select Committee. It is not my intention to speak at length in this debate. The Bill sets out the civil defence framework which will have to be built up by the provinces and by the local authorities. It is now fairly and squarely their responsibility. Matters must, however, not be allowed to rest in the hands of the provinces and of the local authorities alone. The Minister and his department will have to exercise overall supervision and will have to be supplied with reports on their activities, both from the provinces and from the local authorities. The hon. member for Durban Point said this morning that some cities did not take things seriously while others did. I am afraid that most of the cities and towns in South Africa, in my experience in connection with this particular matter, did not take their duties seriously and with the result that at the moment there is a tremendous lack of any sort of civil defence framework in South Africa. The hon. member gave as a reason for some of them being inactive the fact that they did not have the necessary authority and that there was perhaps not always clarity. Secondly, there was not adequate provision for compensation. As to the question whether there was authority or not, I do not think it is a very good argument. I tend to think the cities and the towns on occasion used this as an excuse for doing nothing. Some were in fact enthusiastic about playing their part in this very important work and these were not hindered by the fact that they did not strictly speaking have the necessary authority. They went ahead and established civil defence organizations. They even went into the most minute details in order to establish highly effective organizations in their particular areas.

As regards the second argument about compensation, my feeling is that this matter has also been taken a little out of context and perhaps over-estimated. I do not believe that when there is a crisis, when there is a disaster or an emergency of one kind or another, people who act under those circumstances consider whether they will be compensated for what they have done should they lose either life or limb. They act because they are brave people and because the circumstances require it. I think that this aspect has been over-emphasized, particularly in the public Press, also to the extent that it has certainly taken up a large amount of the time of the Select Committee. It is important—and I am glad that it is embodied in this Bill—and this Bill caters adequately for compensation. However, I think that we must rather look in the direction of motivating our people to do things rather than think what they can get out of it for the work that they do. The hon. member for Yeoville has referred to motivation. I think we have to involve all our people in civil defence. In the recent riots, for example, had there been adequate civil defence organizations in the non-White townships to look after their own people, there would have been less arson, less disruption and generally speaking there would be less crime.

As there was in Port Elizabeth.

In the case of non-White areas where there were skeleton organizations, or White areas where there was adequate organization, which could then help in times of disruption, as my friend sitting next to me, the hon. member for Albany said, there was little activity of a disruptive nature. Therefore, I think that the Minister has the ultimate responsibility for seeing that the people as a whole are properly motivated. He must make it a national effort of civil defence.

I would say that there are far too many people who are standing cold and do not realize the dangers which face us. Too many of them do not care and too many still leave it to others who do care. All must be brought into this picture. In the event of a natural disaster who can possibly refuse to help? In the case of disruption it is necessary for everyone to help. In the case of military activities which spill over into South Africa, who can be allowed to refuse to help? It is the duty of the State to motivate the people. I would say in all seriousness today that it is time that the Minister and those who are responsible for this matter brought home to the people of South Africa the fact that we are engaged in the initial stages of a fight for survival as a country.

I said that some people were cold towards their duties in the sphere of civil defence. There are many others who were willing, people who wanted to help last year, people who did in fact help and very often were discouraged. I have a letter here and I would like to read to illustrate that there are many people in South Africa who would like to play a part but who, because there has not been a framework or organization within which they could play a part, have been discouraged. This is probably typical of what has happened throughout South Africa. A lady wrote to me. I will not disclose her name, but I will give it to the hon. the Minister if he wants to have it. She says—

She says that in response to Press appeals for women volunteers for civil defence she did her best to get in touch with a local organization. The appeal in the Press was followed by a radio appeal. This is what happened to her. She made five abortive telephone calls after which she sat back and fumed at the complacency of her fellow-South Africans. In response to her first call she was told: “Not here, but we will call you within half an hour.” At her second call she was told: “Yes, we do need people like you, unfortunately you are not in my area; you are in Mr. So and So’s area”. She repeated the first call. The answer was: “You are not in my area after all”. The answer to the fourth call was: “I can’t help you, but call Mr. So and So.” After a fifth call she was told: “You know, we really do not need volunteers. By the way, are you a house-owner?” That is a woman who has obviously tried to play her part and who has been discouraged. I quote this only for the reason that I think that situations like this do occur far too frequently throughout South Africa. We hope this Bill will remedy the defects in the present system.

I should like to conclude by stressing the urgency, in my opinion, with which this matter should be tackled. I hope the provinces will soon pass ordinances to give effect to the terms of the Bill and that the local authorities will play their part, because there are bad times that lie ahead of us. I believe our country is nothing like as well prepared for the times that lie ahead of us as it should be.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Simonstown made a positive contribution, as he did in the Select Committee, and we thank him for it.

As we heard today, there were a number of bottlenecks which this Bill seeks to eliminate. One of the bottlenecks was the fact that formerly there was no provision for full indemnification nor for compensation. The Bill before us seeks to rectify the matter in both cases. We know that the provision relating to indemnification will set at rest the minds of many members of the civil defence organization, their families and dependants. This is as it should be.

The Bill also contains the normal and customary clause relating to indemnity. In his speech earlier today the hon. member for Yeoville said that he was prepared to accept “a degree of indemnity” but that he was not prepared to accept the indemnity provided for by the Bill. We shall probably be able to argue that matter further at the Committee Stage. I do just want to say at this stage that indemnity has a special meaning. One cannot adopt half measures as far as indemnity is concerned; either there is indemnity or there is no indemnity. In the authoritative case which was decided in 1915, Mr. Chief Justice Innes laid what is in fact the foundation on which the whole principle of indemnity is based. I shall just quote what he said on the matter. The case in question is the Krohn case. He said—

We must bear in mind that the special indemnification provision in this Bill does not deprive people of their right to go to court. I want to differ with the hon. member for Yeoville in that he said that he found it strange that there was no compensation for negligence, but that there was compensation when property was taken from someone else. This clause certainly does not deprive people of their right to go to court. Anyone who feels that he has been inconvenienced can still go to court. However, he can only go to court on a basis of a lack of good faith, and that is the principle of indemnity. We are dealing here with actions taken in a state of emergency or disaster and that is why there is indemnification. These are not actions that take place in the normal course of affairs. There are special reasons why indemnity is allowed in these circumstances. This is not a phenomenon foreign to the Western system of law. However, it is inherent in any provisions relating to indemnity that they restrict the rights of individuals to a certain extent. That forms part of it. The argument that one should only recognize partial indemnity cannot be defended on any legal grounds.

Furthermore, we must bear in mind that whereas we are including in the Bill a provision relating to indemnity which refers specifically to the liability of the State and the liability of the official who acts on behalf of the State, and indemnifies them in that regard, the provinces, too, when they make ordinances on civil defence, will undoubtedly include similar provisions in their ordinances. If those local authorities cannot be indemnified in like manner, I believe that this could harm the entire civil defence project. It is quite understandable that if the local authorities do not have the assurance that when one of their officials acts in good faith in a state of emergency or disaster, they will not be liable for claims for damages, they will be hesitant about taking an active part in the civil defence movement.

In the course of this debate the issue of mistaken impressions as to civil defence has been stressed. I believe that it is as well that attention be drawn clearly at this point to the precise function of civil defence, because these mistaken impressions are still fairly widespread. It is clear that civil defence is not a military home defence project. However, this does not make civil defence any less important. On the contrary. The welfare and preservation of any country and its inhabitants is dependent upon an effective civil defence organization, to the same extent that it is dependent upon an effective Defence Force. The organization must be such that when any disaster or emergency situation occurs, immediate action can be taken to save lives, protect property and maintain essential services. The other day I saw certain figures, figures which indicated that during the First World War, 5% of the casualties were civilians whereas 95% were military. In the Second World War, 48% of the casualties were civilians and 52% were military. In the Korean War, 84% of the casualties were civilians and 16% were military. I believe that civilians are going to become involved to an increasing extent in disasters and other states’ emergencies. This is due to various circumstances, for example the population increase and abnormal weather conditions. That is why it is very important that we should be fully equipped to deal with the possible consequences of all such contingencies.

In conclusion, I want to refer to clause 6 of the Bill. In this connection I want to mention the fact that we on this side of the House will move an amendment in the Committee Stage. The amendment concerns clause 6(b) in which reference is made to the secretary of a State department. In terms of the public service laws it appears that there not every department has a secretary. That is why it will be appropriate to use the word “head” instead of “secretary”. It is appropriate because the word “head” has a wide meaning. I shall therefore move in the Committee Stage that the word “secretary” be deleted and replaced by the word “head”.

Mr. Speaker, in his speech the hon. member for Eshowe concentrated mainly on indemnification. The hon. member for Yeoville spoke on the same subject. I do not wish to wage a dispute on this subject. This is something we can do during the Committee Stage.

†The hon. member for Simonstown and the hon. member for Yeoville spoke about motivation and about getting all the people of South Africa involved in civil defence. Personally I have no qualms whatsoever. I am sure the hon. the Minister and his Defence Force will see to it that all people who are fit and able will be involved in civil defence. It is no good saying that the people of Nyanga or Soweto did not become involved. Those places have people acting as police reservists. However, they did not come forward on these particular occasions. Civil defence, on the other hand, has nothing to do with the preservation of law and order, or with the suppression of insurrection. Civil defence is aimed at protecting life and property and to see to it that the maintenance of services is continued.

I am going to be short because I see this Bill as a well-balanced piece of work, a measure which is unanimously supported by all hon. members of the House. We welcome this legislation, because it empowers provincial councils to make ordinances whereby local authorities are authorized to take action and to spend money in connection with civil defence when a state of emergency or a disaster should occur. Formerly we were in a happy-go-lucky situation in which everybody helped as things went along. Furthermore, this Bill, and the ordinances referred to—measures which will come under the purview of the hon. the Minister in consultation with the Administrators—will enable the provinces and local authorities to prepare and train people to be ready to cope with such contingencies. In the third place this Bill will enable civil defence organizations to control and co-ordinate the wealth of voluntary help, which usually becomes available during any disaster, in the most effective, orderly and economic manner. Fourthly, the Bill makes provision for compensation in respect of land, buildings and movable property commandeered for the purpose of coping with the situation. The details we can go into in the Committee Stage. Fifthly, and this is a very important aspect, the Bill makes provision for compensation in respect of bodily injury, disablement or death of persons who are members of such voluntary bodies in training or in the performance of their duties. Knowing human nature as it is, it is hoped, all other considerations apart, that volunteers for civil defence training and operations will know that they are covered, should misfortune befall them in the course of their civil defence duties or their training.

Civil defence is basically an exercise of self-preservation, beginning with the individual and then extending to the family unit, neighbours and finally to the community for which the local authority is responsible. The local authority has to draw up contingency plans for disasters that could happen in the area and set up the civil defence machinery. In their turn provincial authorities come into the picture only when the proportions of a disaster are such that local authorities with the means at their disposal, cannot cope. In their turn the State departments, of which the Defence Force is a major force, if not the force, will do their duty and it is only right that they should come under the umbrella of the Minister of Defence. The Bill makes it clear that provision is being made to enable measures to be taken to cope with the anticipated or after-effects of any disaster or industrial labour unrest in order to save lives, protect property and maintain those services which are indispensable for the survival of a civilized community. Therefore, the Bill is deserving of support because it places civil defence on a properly orientated basis. Provision is made for training, co-ordination of action and the responsibility of the State, provincial councils, local authorities and the individual. Now that these responsibilities have been identified in the Bill, I hope that the people of South Africa will give civil defence their active and willing support.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to quote the famous words of the philosopher William Morris: “Fellowship is life.” This means that we should all stand together and form a unit, as it were, as a civil defence corps, to ensure that our way of life in South Africa will continue and develop in the midst of dangers threatening us and problems facing us. I just want to ask two questions briefly. The first is: What are the functions of civil defence in general? Secondly, I also want to ask: How far has South Africa progressed towards having a civil defence corps? Unfortunately the mistaken impression has taken root in South Africa that by civil defence is meant active participation of the civil population in military operations.

There is a mistaken idea that our civil population, man, woman and child, become involved in military actions, virtually—if I may put it that way—in warfare. We must see to it that this mistaken impression is eliminated as soon as possible. We must realize that the functions of civil defence are in fact passive. The word “passive” must not be interpreted in the narrow sense, but must be understood in contrast to the functions of the Defence Force which are active. Our Defence Force is equipped for action in wartime in defence of the country or in attack, whereas the duty of the Civil Defence Corps lies in affording relief. Their duty is to find a solution or to carry out clearance work after an active operation. Furthermore, I do not want to regard an active operation as involving only military action, but also action in a state of disaster or emergency that has occurred. For example, it is said that if there had been a sound civil defence service in Hiroshima and Nagasaki when the atom bomb was dropped on those cities, the casualty rate could have been reduced by 65%. This assertion I obtained from authoritative sources which I consulted.

To sum up: The idea behind civil defence is to launch a civil defence effort aimed at limiting to a minimum civil disruption, casualties and damage caused in times of crisis. How far have we in South Africa progressed in this connection? World trends and events caused us to place the Civil Defence Act in the Statute Book in 1966. Soon, however, it was found that local authorities in our country were not involved in the effort as had originally been intended. As a result, the central Government was once again saddled with the control and execution of civil defence measures. This conflicted with the stated policy and it was felt that the whole matter would have to be reviewed. After intensive study and consultations with the four provincial administrations it was decided that in future this task should be entrusted to the provincial administration and delegated to the local authorities.

No fewer than 670 local authorities were identified in this study for the purpose of civil defence, and the recognized first-aid associations in our country, the Medical Association, the Pharmaceutical Association, and also various women’s organizations were brought into the picture in regard to the civil defence organizations of local authorities.

However, despite this, insufficient progress was still being made in the civil defence effort. A great many local authorities simply did nothing. Others were not properly organized. What could this be ascribed to? In terms of existing legislation, local authorities did not have the necessary powers to carry out their task of protection fully. In the second place, the Civil Defence Act of 1966 did not make provision for the involvement of local bodies in the civil defence effort. To be specific, they did not have the powers to do everything which they had to do or which was expected of them. Above all, they were not legally obliged to take an active part. That is why the civil defence effort did not progress as desired.

Consequently it was thought that as far as civil defence was concerned, the Minister of Defence should remain responsible for overall control, but that the power be vested in the provincial councils of the provinces to introduce the necessary measures with regard to the civil defence effort. In other words, and to sum up: The provincial authorities will be responsible for the implementation of the policy and for control of the implementation of this task at the local authority level.

This necessarily entails the making by the four provincial administrations and the authorities in South West Africa of uniform ordinances in regard to civil defence which stress that the practical implementation of the civil defence effort is now the responsibility of the Administrators and the local authorities. Due to the lack of legal powers and obligations in the existing legislation it became essential to draft a new Civil Defence Act. The product of those efforts has been submitted to this House for acceptance and approval today.

The Bill confers wide powers on both provincial authorities and local authorities with regard to emergency action in times of disaster. The majority of deficiencies that have existed thus far are being eliminated and removed entirely and we can certainly expect a greater degree of preparedness in future. For example, the provincial councils will be able to exercise control and ensure that the local boards carry out and comply with the duties entrusted to them because up to now this has not been the case.

The Bill before the House is a fine piece of work and I want to avail myself of the opportunity to thank sincerely those who assisted the Select Committee so ably during the consultations which took place, for their assistance. Provision is briefly made in the Bill for the declaration of a state of disaster by the Minister of Defence, by conferring powers on an Administrator of the province to take interim action when circumstances are of such a nature that in his opinion a state of disaster will in fact be declared by the hon. the Minister. The power is being conferred on provincial councils to make ordinances relating to civil defence and in this regard, too, a uniform ordinance will be drafted by the provincial councils after consultation with the hon. the Minister of Defence, consultation which is very important in this connection. Co-ordination and uniformity as regards the action taken by the various provinces will be effected thereby.

It is also provided that the hon. the Minister can take over certain obligations and powers. Furthermore, provision is made for the rendering of assistance by the S.A. Defence Force to civil defence. Provision is also made in the Bill for the regulations which the State President can make in connection with the payment of compensation if anyone should die or if anyone should suffer any injury in the course of carrying out his duties.

Since civil defence operations are now to be provided for in ordinances made by the four provinces, the entire civil defence effort will be placed on a uniform, sound and co-ordinated basis. In this way we shall ensure that life will continue and that we shall continue to exist as long as we have the will to live and as long as we put everything into the struggle to bring this about.

Mr. Speaker, after the debate that has taken place here, not much remains for me to say. If all Select Committees were to result in our being able to create a “mutual admiration society” like this one, then perhaps we should make more use of them. [Interjections.] Some members of the Select Committee have even begun to thank themselves. [Interjections.] I, too, should like to express my sincere thanks to all those hon. members who served on the Select Committee and in my opinion, the debate showed that they had done good work and also that the ideas of every one of them have borne fruit during the sitting of the Select Committee. The hon. members for Umlazi and Aliwal, together with other hon. members such as the hon. member for Yeoville, the hon. member for Cradock and others, stress that civil defence serves a specific purpose. If the debate can help us to bring that one thought home, then it will have attained its objective. I refer to the objective as set out in clause 3(1)(a) and (b)—

I stress this because over the past year many people have approached me, both in public and in private, and tried to make the case that civil defence serves a completely different purpose. Occasionally, I had to warn against this in public and people were very resentful of my warning that they should not view civil defence in the wrong spirit. Therefore, I owe a debt of thanks to those hon. members who have emphasized that aspect. The hon. member for Simonstown pointed out the laxness that is encountered and said that there were even people who were not used, even though they offered their help. It is true that there is a certain amount of laxness amongst the public. My experience is that the public allows most of the things affecting it to take their own course. Then, if things go wrong, they accuse the authorities.

Normally it is the authorities’ fault.

Oh no, really. I think we can do without that spirit here. It was perfectly peaceful here until the hon. member came in.

Colin, don’t you feel like going for a cup of tea?

In any event, I do not intend allowing myself to be led astray by the hon. member. Arising out of what the hon. member for Simonstown said, I say that despite the problems that exist, despite the laxness that has prevailed in certain circles—this is true—and the fact that we have had to feel our way for a number of years where civil defence was concerned, 66% of the recognized civil defence organizations had attained a satisfactory state of readiness by 31 December 1976. Eighty of these received an A grading in terms of the provisions relating to civil defence organizations. The number of A gradings stood at 80 on 31 December last year and the number of B gradings at 155. Moreover, there were 144 C gradings. A total of 670 organizations submitted some sort of proposal or plan and received gradings for them. In other words, despite the shortcomings of the Act and the problems we have now identified, we have succeeded in making considerable progress. It would be wrong to create the impression that it was only today we were making it possible for people to prepare themselves for the first time. Some very good work has already been done. That work just has to be improved upon and followed up in view of the better measures we now have at our disposal.

Through the medium of Army representatives, who are charged with the task of civil defence, visits were paid to all the Black homelands in South Africa with a view to establishing acceptable civil defence organizations. These steps are being taken further by the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. The private sector, commerce and industry, is also involved in this great endeavour. At the end of last year, a very successful conference on the organization of civil defence was held in Pretoria. I had the privilege of opening it. We have made tremendous progress, then, and it would be wrong to leave the impression that we had not made any progress because of the shortcomings that existed in the legislation.

The Bill we submitted to the Select Committee after a thorough investigation by an interdepartmental committee, was in fact the fruit of the practical experience we had gained in relation to civil defence. The hon. member for Durban Point was quite right in saying here that the Select Committee had held 12 working meetings. That proves that with this legislation we have now reached a stage at which the Act has been thoroughly analysed and placed squarely under the searchlight by hon. members. I do not for one moment want to imply that we have now reached the ideal situation. Practice will most probably reveal more mistakes, particularly since the provinces and the local authorities, the second- and third-level governments, are now becoming more directly involved. I want to point out that whilst discussing my Vote in years past, I have said repeatedly in this House that we cannot make a success of civil defence unless we involve the second- and third-level governments in it. To me, therefore, the fact that we have managed to involve them more directly in this matter today, represents the attainment of an ideal.

No Act, as the hon. member for Yeoville has rightly said and as other hon. members on this side of the House have rightly emphasized, can make a success of any matter unless the people concerned have the necessary interest and the motivation in relation to that matter. There has to be the necessary interest and motivation for it. It is very easy to say that the Minister and the Defence Force have to provide the motivation. The Minister and the Defence Force can give as much guidance as they are called upon to give in terms of the Act, but the real motivation of the public must come from Parliament, from the provincial councils and the city councils. Every one of us has a responsibility and we should be constantly pointing out to the public that we have now established an instrument by means of which, we believe, all levels of Government can co-operate in regard to this matter. But then the public has to play its part and we are here to activate them to do so. I want to sound a warning once again, as I have done in the past, that it should not be a mass attempt in which everyone tries to climb on the bandwagon. Firstly, there should be preparation, as was evident from the words of the hon. member for Umlazi, when he said: “It is a form of contingency planning for the preservation of property and life” in a state of disaster or emergency. Once this Bill has been accepted, we shall take the necessary steps to put it into effect and we shall attempt to launch it as quickly as possible. The necessary links will be established with the provinces, the United Municipal Executive and others.

The hon. member for Durban Point referred to arbitration. I think that the matter of the differences that could arise and so make arbitration necessary, is one which, as was agreed in the Bill, should be left in the hands of the provinces so that they may deal with it in accordance with their own particular circumstances and with the measures they wish to institute for that purpose. The hon. member also referred to the question of ex gratia payments in the event of negligence resulting in someone suffering losses. I do not think it is necessary for us to make provision for that in this Bill. The Exchequer and Audit Act already makes provision for it and covers this type of matter. Therefore, if it is felt that ex gratia payments should be made, this can be done in terms of the Exchequer and Audit Act.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein West also stressed the point that the task of civil defence was a supportive one and not one of armed action. I hope everyone of us will assist in clearing up the misunderstanding our people have in this regard.

†The hon. member for Yeoville also raised the question of indemnity. I am sure the Select Committee spent quite some time on that question. They had every opportunity to discuss this problem. The hon. member for Eshowe also dealt with it. I am not going to try to improve on the Select Committee’s Bill, of that I can assure the hon. member. I referred the whole matter to a Select Committee before the Second Reading and the Bill before us is the product of the consultation that took place …

Even a Select Committee can be wrong!

Oh, yes, but I am not able to judge on that matter today. Experience will have to teach us. I am prepared to accept what the Select Committee proposes in this connection.

*I think I have now replied to all the hon. members who discussed the Bill, and I therefore conclude by thanking the hon. members for their co-operation.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Committee Stage

Clause 2:

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

Let me briefly motivate my amendments. The position as the Bill reads at the moment is that, if the Administrator is of the opinion that a state of disaster may be declared, he is entitled to take certain immediate action in consultation with the Minister. He may also take certain action without consulting the Minister where a certain situation arises. The difficulty which the present clause presents is that the Administrator, foreseeing a state of disaster in a year’s time, may take certain steps in terms of this provision, whereas what should really be intended is to be able to take steps to counter an immediate situation which may result in a state of disaster being declared.

The amendment provides that if the Administrator is of the opinion that a state of disaster may be declared within four days, he can take the necessary interim action. It is quite ludicrous that he should be allowed to take action if he thinks a state of disaster may be declared in six months’ or a year’s time. Obviously, it must be an immediate situation in respect of which urgent action is needed.

Mr. Chairman, as regards the four-day limitation contained in the first amendment by the hon. member for Yeoville we on this side of the House do not support it. We feel it is very far-fetched to believe that an Administrator would take emergency action in anticipation of an emergency or a disaster which may occur in six months’ or a year’s time. We also feel that this involves an unreasonable onus which could be challenged if one were to insist that action may only be taken if the Administrator is satisfied that a state of disaster will in fact be declared within the fixed period of four days. He cannot see into the hon. the Minister’s mind or into the future, and within two days or three days the consequences of the disaster might have been cleared and there would be no need for a declaration of a state of disaster because the position would have sorted itself out. We feel that where one is dealing with emergencies such as this it is unnecessary to tie everything up so firmly on the basis of what might conceivably happen if there were someone acting mala fide because that could be dealt with. I am sorry, but we cannot support that part of the amendment, viz. the insertion of the words “within 4 days”.

The hon. member’s second amendment, which provides that if the Administrator has acted in terms of his emergency powers, the Minister shall within 14 days of such declaration or such action report to Parliament, is a reasonable proposal. It was put by the hon. member for Yeoville to the Select Committee, and we supported him in the Select Committee on this. The same situation that I have outlined can arise, i.e. that before the expiration of the four days in which the Administrator may act, the situation has cleared itself. It could be a flood, a train accident or a major aircraft accident and if the Administrator, having acted to deal with the state of disaster, succeeds in confining or overcoming the consequences of that disaster within a day or two, it will not be necessary for a state of disaster to be proclaimed. In the meantime the Administrator may have taken action affecting private rights. He might have taken over property or transport, he might have acted in any of a dozen ways, correctly, in order to deal with a situation flowing from a disaster. We feel that it is justified that such action should be reported just as a formal declaration of a state of disaster is reported.

We do not feel that the Minister should be obliged, on every occasion where such a situation occurs, to declare a state of disaster and then report it to Parliament. But where he has been advised that action has been taken in anticipation of a declaration, we feel that it can do no harm and it imposes no unreasonable burden on the Minister to simply table in Parliament a report that in such and such circumstances the Administrator acted in terms of his powers in anticipation of a declaration of a state of disaster. Therefore, although this is not a matter of fundamental principle, we can see no reason why this was opposed. There was no real reason given which could convince us that there was any basis for objecting to it in principle, or that it imposed an unrealistic burden, and, equally, we have not heard any arguments which have convinced us that this is an unreasonable suggestion. In fact we feel, without it being of fundamental importance, that it does improve the Bill and we shall support that amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we on this side of the House cannot support either of these amendments. The reason for our not being able to support the first amendment, is the same as the one advanced by the hon. member for Durban Point. I just want to add the following. I believe the office of Administrator is such that this limitation of “within 4 days” is not appropriate. We know that the Administrator acts in conjunction with the executive committee of the province concerned, and consequently we believe the proposed amendment to be a senseless attempt at restricting the Administrator. Furthermore, hon. members should bear in mind the fact that the Administrator acts in consultation with the Minister. Therefore there must be consensus. In these circumstances, therefore, we cannot support that amendment. Then there is another aspect of the amendment to which I should like to refer. If the amendment were to be accepted, the opinion of the Administrator would still be predominant. Therefore we cannot support it. Nor can we support the second amendment of the hon. member. When the Administrator acts in these circumstances, the idea is that he is to report to the Minister. The Administrator acts in consultation with the Minister, or he reports to the Minister at the earliest possible opportunity. Therefore, a close liaison exists between the Administrator and the Minister. As the hon. member for Durban Point has rightly said, we foresee quite a number of circumstances in which the Administrator will have to act, for instance, in cases of fire and floods. The action of the Administrator which comes into the picture in cases of this nature, is action which is completed within half a day to a day’s time. It will result in unnecessary red tape if this has to be explained to the House of Assembly or the Other Place every time.

We believe that adequate protection exists in that overall control is in the hands of the hon. the Minister of Defence. Therefore the present wording of the clause is adequate to our way of thinking and makes adequate provision for a close liaison to exist between the Administrator and the Minister as well as for the Administrator to report effectively to the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, the second amendment I moved reads as follows—

Initially, the Bill made no provision about reporting to Parliament at all. That was before the Bill was referred to the Select Committee. In the Select Committee I suggested the necessity to report to Parliament when emergency action was taken. Whether it was called emergency action or disaster action, is irrelevant. It remains some action which is extraordinary. The Select Committee accepted the concept of reporting to Parliament in cases where the Minister has acted. However, the Select Committee did not accept the concept of reporting to Parliament in cases where only the Administrator had acted. That is illogical, because if there has been emergency action, Parliament should know about it. Whether the Minister knows about it or not, is quite a separate issue, and reporting to the Minister is no substitute for reporting to Parliament. If it were a substitute, it would mean that, when the Minister acted personally, he would not have to report either. Therefore, the logic escapes me as to why, when the Administrator acts, there should not be a report to Parliament, regardless of it being an extraordinary action, but that when the Minister acts, he has to report to Parliament.

With great respect, I believe the argument by the hon. member for Eshowe does not stand up to examination, and I do not think it has any substance. I believe that this House, as part of its prerogative, is entitled to know when there is emergency action. Whether that emergency action is taken by the Minister, or whether it is taken by the Administrator, is entirely immaterial.

In regard to the first amendment which I moved, I regret it that I do not receive the support that I hoped for. The argument against my amendment is based on the assumption that Administrators never do wrong. I do not want to give examples of Administrators doing wrong. It may be embarrassing. Therefore, I do not want to do it. However, one does not legislate on the assumption that people do not do wrong. If that was so, our whole system of legislation would be quite different. In my view, it is quite wrong to allow an Administrator to take emergency action in the anticipation of an emergency which may not occur for months and months; which may even never occur. The Administrator has a discretion. He can say that he believes it is going to happen, or that it may happen, and that he therefore can do those things. There are powers which are given to him in terms of the draft ordinance that we all know is going to be passed, and these powers are very wide and very strong. Therefore it seems illogical that he should be allowed to act in a matter where he does not expect an immediate situation which requires action.

In consultation with the Minister.

No. It says “in consultation”, and if one reads a little further on one will see that the situation is accepted that he may not be able to consult with the Minister and may act without consultation with the Minister. It says—

So, all the Administrator has to do is to say that he thinks there may be a disaster in 12 months’ time, act for four days and then report to the Minister. At the moment he does not have to report to Parliament, and, in fact, it is not an immediate disaster that he fears. To my mind it is illogical to leave the matter open and I ask the hon. the Minister to give this matter consideration. Even if he feels that he cannot agree now, perhaps because he is in some way committed, I would ask that between now and the Other Place he might give it some further thought.

Mr. Chairman, as regards the first amendment, I want to emphasize that it will restrict the Administrator, and that he, in subjectively considering the question as to whether or not he should take action, will have to bear the possibility in mind that a state of disaster may be declared within four days’ time. This is such a subjective test that the Administrator may decide rather to play safe and to sit back. However, this is not what we envisage. What we envisage is for the Administrator merely to see the possibility of a state of disaster. The question of four days simply complicates the matter unnecessarily. Therefore the amendment is not acceptable. As regards the second amendment, I want to follow up the arguments of the hon. member for Eshowe. In studying the matter in the Select Committee, we were impressed by one very important aspect, one which has already been emphasized earlier on in the debate, and that is the autonomous powers which the provinces have vis-à-vis our constitution. If we were to accept this amendment of the Opposition, the effect would be that we would debate the action of the Administrator here in this House and that the hon. the Minister would have to accept responsibility for such action. It would create a precedent which would make an inroad into provincial autonomy and it would truly cause discord in our relations with that tier of government. That is why we cannot support it. The provincial councils will debate the action of the Administrator in any event.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to add something which has not yet been raised and which is actually the reason why we support the second amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville. This is that when action is taken, there is a possibility that properties, vehicles or some or other means will be taken over to be used in a state of disaster. This means that there will have to be compensation and that Parliament will have to be responsible for such compensation. In other words, an action of an Administrator may have financial consequences for which Parliament will be responsible. That is why we feel it is only reasonable to say that, since Parliament has to find the money for the consequences of such an action, Parliament should at least be informed when such action is taken. It is hoped that this will not happen more than once or twice a year. I cannot foresee it being more. However, Parliament will be aware of the occurrences, of the circumstances and of what action was taken. Then, when money is voted, we will know what it is being voted for. It will not interfere with the autonomy of the province, and, in any event, we can debate the circumstances when we discuss the voting of money. Just as in the case of a report, we shall then have the opportunity of debating the voting of money. I cannot see how the fact that Parliament has to vote the money can constitute interference with the powers at provincial level. This is a further motivation for our support of the second amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have already said in my reply to the Second Reading debate that I am being placed in a very difficult position here. The Bill was referred to a Select Committee before Second Reading. The Select Committee had 12 meetings and I think that they had enough time to investigate these specific matters very thoroughly. I cannot simply put aside the deliberations of a Select Committee in a minute, or even an hour. For that reason alone I feel that I should not change the Bill. Secondly, …

The committee divided on that.

I know that the Select Committee voted on it. I read the report. The clause is very clear. As I understand it, consultation will take place between the Administrator and the Minister in most cases. When a disaster is of serious proportions, the Minister will most probably declare a state of disaster. Subsequent to that he will bring the matter to Parliament. However, it may happen that the Minister is not immediately available or that he and the Administrator cannot have the necessary consultations immediately, in which case the Administrator should have enough freedom to act expeditiously. But this will be in cases where it is not necessary for the Minister to declare a state of disaster. In other words, it will be a disaster of a limited extent. This is my interpretation of the clause. That is why I am not prepared to bind the Administrator. He will act on the advice of other people. I cannot for a single moment accept that an Administrator, someone who has enough work, will try to foresee a state of disaster that may arise in 12 months’ time. If he can see that far ahead, he has 12 months to consult with the hon. the Minister on the subject. I regret not being able to accept the amendment.

Amendment (1) negatived (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Amendment (2) negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4:

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

I shall motivate them briefly. If the House had before it the proposed draft ordinance which the provincial administrations are due to pass, it would be seen that the relevant provision reads as follows—

And I stress the following words—

For a reason which utterly escapes me and which I am afraid I have not understood in the Select Committee—I do not think it has been motivated—we now get a situation where instead of using the words “as may be mutually agreed upon” the words “determined by the Administrator” are used. Any person with an elementary legal knowledge will know that there is a fundamental difference between “mutually agreeing” upon something and some person “determining” it. The effect of this is that it is the Administrator who determines the compensation. It is not compensation that has to be mutually agreed upon. In other words, it is what the Administrator says that goes and not what is to be agreed upon between the parties. If they do not agree, in the light of the wording as it was initially and as it appears in the ordinance, then it is to go to arbitration in terms of the Arbitration Act, whilst in terms of the Bill it—

In other words, what can happen is that they can say that the Administrator determines the compensation and if one does not like it, the word of Mr. X is final and there need be no hearing at all. It is utterly illogical; it is contrary to the basic principle that if one takes people’s property away, either one agrees upon compensation or one goes to arbitration where the people concerned can have a proper hearing. With great respect, there appears to be no logic whatsoever for removing the words “mutually agreed” and substituting “determined” and for taking out the reference to the Arbitration Act. Therefore I have moved the two amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot understand the hon. member for Yeoville’s problem in that connection. I would be able to understand it if it were provided that such a person shall pay the compensation which the Administrator concerned determined and if nothing further were stated. However, the sentence goes further and provides—

In other words, in no way does the Administrator finally determine the amount. As soon as there is a dispute, the dispute must be settled in a manner determined in the ordinance. I therefore cannot see any reason why we should go along with the amendment which the hon. member has moved, because there is an opening here to the effect that if a dispute does arise, it can be settled in terms of the provisions of the ordinance.

The hon. member’s second amendment indicates that it should have been stated that the matter must be settled by way of arbitration. In his Second Reading speech the hon. member himself acknowledged that the draft ordinance, which was submitted, provided that the amount should be settled by arbitration. However, at the moment this is not necessarily the case. The fact that the draft ordinance made provision for that, clearly indicates that there is a strong possibility that this will be done by way of settlement. All that remains for me to do is to indicate why these provisions were introduced in this form. The whole purpose of the Bill before the House today—after the Act of 1966 has been repealed—is to make provision for the fact that the provincial councils will take over the administration of civil defence—to state the case briefly. That is why we provide that everything should be placed in the hands of the provincial councils and that they should, inter alia, make provision in their ordinances for the compensation which must be determined in that case. That is why we feel that there is no reason for us—in terms of the provisions of this legislation—to prescribe to the provincial council in what terms it must determine the compensation. We leave it to the provincial council to make provision for that in its ordinance. That is why I cannot support the hon. member for Yeoville’s second amendment either.

Mr. Chairman, we support the second amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville, because—as I also said in the Second Reading debate—I cannot understand the motivation for the opposition to it. The hon. member for Aliwal has just stated that he cannot understand why we want the provision. It appears in the ordinance in any case, he says. He has no objection to the principle of arbitration; he does not object to what we are aiming at, because he says it is to be found in the ordinance in any case.

It can be different.

That is the point. It can be different. Parliament has no control over the provisions of the ordinance. The ordinance will be passed by a provincial council and we do not know whether the draft ordinance which was agreed upon, is going to be the final ordinance passed by the provincial councils. It could be different; they could make it different on the grounds that Parliament has seen fit to remove arbitration as the final determinant and therefore Parliament does not think that arbitration is the right way in which to settle a dispute, and therefore they may seek some other way of settling a dispute. Their way of settling a dispute could well be to say that the Administrator, or even the hon. member for Aliwal, shall act as a one-man body to determine how much shall be paid. They could determine anything they like, because we will have indicated that we do not want arbitration through the deliberate act of excising arbitration from the Bill, from the empowering legislation. When I say “excising” I am aware that it was not in the original Bill as introduced but when this clause was put before the Select Committee in the final draft arbitration was to be the procedure. The hon. member for Aliwal moved in the Select Committee to delete arbitration.

In other words, it was in the final draft proposal before us in Select Committee and by a vote of six to five the Select Committee removed arbitration as the final way of settling a dispute. Now, if we have no objection to arbitration, I cannot see why we should not put it in here. I can, however, see a number of reasons why, if we do not put it in here and if it is known that Parliament deliberately did not put it in, it could be regarded as a guide to the provinces not to use arbitration as a means for settling a dispute. If one does not have arbitration, what else does one have? What else does one have if one cannot go to arbitration? The only alternative to arbitration is arbitrary determination by the authorities.

One can also go to court.

One can go to court. I assume that is true. That means that when one takes over a person’s shed or building and damages it or if one takes over his stocks and uses them and then offers him a ridiculous amount, he must go to court, with all the expense and delay involved and with the onus on him to protect himself in respect of his own rightful claim to compensation for his own property. Whereas if there was arbitration procedure, such procedure would be laid down by this Parliament in the same way that it applies to every other form of dispute with the Government, a province or a local authority in respect of the value of compensation due to a person. It is standard practice throughout South Africa. So, why should we suddenly depart from it unless there is an ulterior motive and that motive is arbitrary? That is why I have not yet heard any argument that convinces me that this amendment is undesirable, unwise or unnecessary. On the contrary, there are numerous arguments to show that it is necessary.

As far as the first amendment is concerned, as to whether the amount should be determined or be mutually agreed upon, we do not feel strongly, provided that there is arbitration. If one does not have arbitration and say that it must be mutually agreed upon, one can go on arguing for years about what it is going to be. Ultimately somebody will have to take a decision and say that it will be Rx. If one then does not accept that decision, one can go to arbitration. Without arbitration, a basis where this is mutually agreed upon, would be better, although it could lead to interminable argument and lack of finality. But we do not feel strongly about that because we believe the real issue is arbitration. In any case, at some stage somebody must make a decision. Therefore we do not support the first amendment, but we support the second amendment moved by the hon. member for Yeoville.

Mr. Chairman, may I draw hon. members’ attention to the fact that the Civil Defence Act, No. 39 of 1966, provides the following in the second provision in section 3(1)(bb) in the case of the taking of movable or immovable property for use in the general public interest—

In other words, there is no reference here to arbitration. Neither is the matter necessarily left open to the courts. The hon. the Minister could have ordered arbitration or he could have referred the matter to the courts. The question that arose was what the underlying philosophy was. The underlying philosophy has become very clear in recent months. We begin with last year, when certain measures had to be adopted with a view to providing more compensation to those persons who suffered losses as a result of action in the operational area, etc. There we incorporated a virtually similar philosophy into the legislation, and there the matter was not referred to a court or an arbitration court, the amount having been determined by the Minister. Subsequently, under certain circumstances, the matter goes to the Compensation Board.

At the beginning of this year we had the Indemnity Act. The Indemnity Act left the matter completely open. I asked myself what the motive was in respect of Act No. 39 of 1966, and found the following: What was involved here was conduct in the collective, joint interest of the community. One can have a situation in which one legitimately, in terms of market value, has a claim of R10 million against the province or the State. If that claim were granted by an arbitration court, in terms of the existing rules and the existing Act, the State would have to pay R10 million. However, that is not the way things work. According to the principle of ex gratia payment, the Government has a look at a situation and votes an amount which is then divided up pro rata. If I understand the matter correctly, this is perhaps also what the Exchequer and Auditor Act has in mind for handling certain situations of a similar nature. I therefore think it was wise of the Government to word this clause in such a way that it is left to the provinces to handle the matter in accordance with their experiences. They can still propose an arbitration provision. Then they have exercised their autonomous right. They can say: Let us look at the Civil Defence Act, as it stood, and change it accordingly. They can also amend it as the Administrator may determine; according to his directions—arbitrarily, but fairly and in the common interest. Or they can decide to refer the matter to a committee which will operate according to the rules which the Administrator lays down. They could decide to vote R3 million which would then be divided up pro rata amongst the claimants. In my opinion we on this side of the House, who proposed this, have thought it out very neatly indeed. Here we are not encroaching upon the authority of the provinces. They circulated a draft ordinance amongst themselves, a draft ordinance which had provisionally been accepted by them, at that stage, as a basis on which they could work. It was not the final document. We did not pass judgment on it; we saw it as evidence of possible action and policy on the part of the provinces. That is how we saw it.

Was that not the agreement between the provinces and the local authorities?

That could be the case, but I say that we want to leave it to them to decide according to their own experience. I have given hon. members a long motivation for the reason why their experience could possibly lead them to change it one day. I think it is possible that the arbitration provisions could be reintroduced into the ordinance. Then those hon. members could perhaps say to us: “We told you so.” But that is not going to affect us. After all, we have said that we believe that they should be given sufficient room to handle this matter according to their own experience and the experience of the central Government.

Mr. Chairman, I think the best way we could deal with the matter, would be if I were given a bit of time to consider hon. members’ arguments. There is still an opportunity to introduce an amendment in the Other Place, if I were to change my mind. Without binding myself in any way, I therefore want to say that I shall have another look at the matter, and that I shall consult hon. members on both sides with a view to obtaining clarity. I should also like to ascertain the views of the provinces. In any case clause 3(3) clearly provides that the ordinance must be submitted to the Minister for approval. There is consequently a safety valve. I hope, however, that we shall not be taking this discussion any further at the moment. We must have a brief opportunity to consult about the matter.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the approach of the hon. the Minister. There are just two further points I should like to make. The first is that I think it is important that there should be uniformity between the provinces in respect of this matter. Therefore, the arbitration clause should apply equally to all of them. I do not think we should have the situation where it can be variously applied. One of the purposes of the whole exercise is that there will be a uniform ordinance for everybody. Therefore, if we provide for arbitration here, it must apply in respect of all ordinances.

The second point I wish to make is that the hon. member for Bloemfontein West touched upon a point which I think was never at issue in the Select Committee and which, indeed, should not be at issue. The hon. member referred to the fact that it may be necessary to take people’s property and that, depending on the value of that property, one may have to pay a lot of money and that, therefore, one may not want to pay them according to the value of the property. I think that that is a disastrous allegation, and one which will be very disturbing to the public. If one is to take someone’s property, one must pay according to the fair value of that property. One cannot say, as the hon. member for Bloemfontein West did: “Well, if it is a lot of money, we are not going to pay it”. That is a bad principle. I hope the hon. member for Bloemfontein West just said it by mistake and that the hon. the Minister will not follow it up.

No, I did not say it by mistake.

Sir, I value the approach of the hon. the Minister, i.e. that he will reconsider this matter before he takes it to the Other Place, and in the circumstances, with the leave of the House, I withdraw my amendments.

Amendments, with leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5:

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

This is, I think, a far more important issue and one which we shall have to debate with the hon. the Minister for a little while. The subsection in question provides that—

The simple issue arises that if a man’s property or his person is harmed due to negligence, even if the action may be in good faith, this provision means he will receive no compensation. In the Select Committee there was a discussion of whether in fact this subsection excludes negligence or not. Some believed it might not. However, as a result of this, the State’s legal adviser was asked to give an opinion. He then proceeded to present a reasoned opinion which made it quite clear that if there was in fact negligence involved, there would be no compensation. In other words, this subsection, as ordinarily interpreted by the courts, means that in a case where there was negligence but the person acted in good faith, no compensation will be paid. The view we take is that it may be necessary in certain circumstances to provide for certain indemnities. We believe that in these particular circumstances the State should be liable and not necessarily the person involved. Let me take a simple example. Let us assume that people are encouraged to join this organization. If those people feel they may be sued for negligence, it may put them off joining. But that does not mean that the people who are injured should not be compensated. A situation could arise where a man acting in good faith drives a motor-car, drives it negligently and injures a man and cripples him for life. Does this mean that because he drove that motor-car in good faith, but was negligent in the circumstances, that the man who is crippled for life should not be compensated and should not receive compensation? One finds this even more remarkable, because if property belonging to someone is seized, then there is the principle that that person must be compensated. But if he is injured or killed, he is not compensated. To me this is quite illogical. It has no reasoning behind it at all. The hon. member for Eshowe said during the Second Reading debate that this did not prevent one from going to court. When a client visited him in the days when he practised law and asked him what he should do, he would say: I assume, on this argument, that you should go to court. When the client lost his case, he would say to the client that he did not think he was going to win. He merely told him to go to court. It is perfectly true: One can go to court, but it is certain that one is going to lose because the law stops one from winning. This is the most ludicrous argument I have heard. Of course, one can go to court. But if the judge has his attention drawn to this section, one will lose. It is quite remarkable for anyone to come forward with this proposition. The fact is that when people are innocently injured, when they suffer damage as a result of somebody’s negligence, there can be no logic whatsoever for depriving them of a right of compensation. What is even more remarkable is that if one looks at the Civil Defence Act of 1966—the law at the present moment—it states the following with regard to indemnity against loss or damage—

Then all the matters are listed and then subsection (3) states—

Nobody in the Select Committee, during the entire hearing, advanced any reason of any substance whatsoever as to why the law should be changed and why the innocent should be deprived of a remedy. I therefore persist with the amendments which stand in my name.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Yeoville referred to the case of the driver of a motor-car who drove negligently and injured someone, and he said that the injured party had no right to claim. However, there is a very important matter that he does not bear in mind, i.e. that this specific indemnity is applicable under exceptional circumstances, those of emergency or disaster. Hence the exception. That is why the provision relating to good faith is substituted for negligence. That is the position, and in my Second Reading speech I said that it does, of course, limit the right of claimants to compensation for damage. It curtails it; it restricts it. The hon. member must just decide whether he regards civil defence action in emergency or disaster conditions as also needing this indemnity. What his amendment amounts to is that he does, in fact, accept indemnity to a certain extent in that he does not hold the driver of the vehicle, but rather the owner of the vehicle, i.e. the State, to be liable. What then, are the legal grounds for this difference? That is not clear to me. As I understand it, the hon. member for Yeoville submits that he is sorry for the injured party and that he feels that such injured party should at least be able to receive compensation from someone. However, I do not believe there are good legal grounds for indemnifying the driver whilst holding the owner of the vehicle liable.

The injured party can indeed go to court. That is a fact. The test, of course, is different. A rebuttable presumption is created that the relevant member of the civil defence service acted in good faith. The injured party, however, is quite entitled to place the circumstances before the court and to prove that the driver acted recklessly or carelessly. If those are the circumstances, the injured party will receive legal assistance. I therefore think that the basic decision we have to take here—and I believe that the official Opposition accepts the principle—is that when indemnity is granted, it must be accepted with all the consequences involved.

The question of ex gratia payment is quite another matter. The hon. member for Durban Point referred to that earlier. The whole matter involving indemnity was discussed here in the House earlier this year when the Indemnity Bill came up. At the time, of course, the official Opposition also requested the inclusion in the Bill of a statutory right of compensation. In that particular case, however, that request was denied.

There is one further matter I want to raise. In terms of the provision, as it reads at present, the claimant in such a case must prove, by a preponderance of probabilities, that the official involved acted mala fide. The courts are therefore not excluded. It is merely a question of applying another test. Now it is no longer the test of negligence but, in fact, whether the official acted in good faith or not.

Mr. Chairman, I must state that this will be one of the few occasions on which I will support the Government. I want to make it clear at the outset that unfortunately we cannot accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Yeoville. Before I go into my argument in that respect—and I must argue it—I want to point out that if one reads the Select Committee report one will see that I moved an amendment on very similar lines as the one moved by the hon. member for Yeoville. However, after mature and careful consideration we have decided that there is no validity to the argument which both he and I put up in the Select Committee.

Before going on with my argument, I first want to express my own personal thanks to the officials and to the members of the SADF who assisted us so considerably in the Select Committee deliberations. I also want to express my thanks to the chairman of the Select Committee for the very excellent manner in which he conducted himself as chairman of the Select Committee.

What we have to do is first of all to make one decision, before we can go any further, the decision whether we are in fact in favour of an indemnity or not. I think the hon. member for Yeoville has indicated that he entertains a qualified acceptance of that facet. He said that it might be necessary to provide indemnities. We believe that it is indeed necessary under these drastic circumstances to provide indemnities. If one looks at the Bill itself, one will see that the clause relates specifically to powers and duties taken over by the Minister. Clause 5(1)(a) states that—

In short, that is the provision of clause 5(l)(a). In point of fact, clause 5(3) deals with that peculiar circumstance where the Minister actually takes over the functions of the local authority or of the Administrator in terms of an ordinance. It will occur only on rather rare occasions, but we believe the obligation to indemnify, or indemnity itself should also be included in the ordinances which are going to be passed by the various provinces. We believe this indemnity is necessary and is needed. I will give the reasons why we believe it is needed. First of all we must accept that in terms of the Bill, as well as in terms of the ordinances, there is invariably a declaration of a state of disaster. Even if the Administrator acts in terms of clause 2(3), in terms of which he is given powers to act without a declaration of disaster, a state of disaster must be declared subsequently. In point of fact, the state of disaster will remain in existence for not more than three months, possibly less, and can be extended by notice. However, clause 5(3) will generally operate in a disaster situation. In a state of emergency declared under the Public Safety Act, generally speaking, the ordinary laws of the land are for the time being suspended. This is what happens when the country finds it necessary to declare a state of emergency. This is acceptable for a variety of reasons, reasons which are self-evident and need not be explained to the House now. Similarly we feel that in a state of disaster there must be a protection for the State for acts done by persons in pursuance of their duty in terms of the state of disaster and acting as servants of the State, in terms of the Bill or ordinances passed in terms of the Bill. What clause 5(3) actually does is to give a qualified indemnity. If one reads it carefully, one will see that what the Government could have done, was to leave out the words “done in good faith.” In that case it would have been a complete indemnity. It then would have read—

The paragraph could have read like that. However, we have inserted the words “done in good faith” as a qualification. In reply to the hon. member who just spoke, I want to say that we believe that the indemnity clause is completely different to the Indemnity Act which was passed previously this session. Firstly, the Indemnity Act has relation to a period in the past and a time limit is stipulated for the operation of the indemnity under that particular Act. It is not a continuing Act to cover actions taken in the future like this particular indemnity clause.

Secondly, in that Act there is a presumption clause whereby an act done is considered to be bona fide until the contrary is proved. This, in point of fact, is what we bitterly opposed, viz. that there is such a tremendous onus cast upon the claimant in order to prove that the act that was done was in fact a mala fide act. However, here we do not have it. There is no such presumption clause in this Bill. What is the effect of this? The effect of having no presumption clause is that the onus for proving that the State or a person acting in terms of the Act, acted bona fide, in terms of the Act rests upon the shoulders of the defendant, which would be the State. The State will have to prove that the action taken was taken in terms of the Act and that the act was done bona fide by its official or by itself. It is completely different to the Indemnity Bill. The objections we raised under the Indemnity Bill of 1977 will not arise in this matter at all.

I want to come to the question of how far this actual indemnity goes. The protection that is given here is against a delictual action. In delictual actions there are certain requirements to be tested before a decision can be arrived at. These are basically five in number. Firstly, it must be proved that there was an act by the defendant; secondly, that there was prejudice to the plaintiff; thirdly, that there was a causation or nexus between the act and the prejudice; fourthly, that there was an unlawfulness or wrongfulness about the action that was taken and, fifthly, that there was fault. This indemnity hits at the fourth requirement, viz. that of unlawfulness or wrongfulness, in that it makes what otherwise would have been unlawful, lawful. It makes it lawful. It in fact derogates from the ordinary rights, as the hon. member rightly said just now, of a citizen during a state of disaster, provided that the acts are done in good faith. If the courts establishes that there is no unlawfulness, it is not necessary to go any further to ascertain whether there has been any fault. There are two forms of fault, viz. intent and negligence—dolus and culpa.

What we seriously considered when we reviewed our stand in this regard, was to see if it was reasonable and necessary to try to qualify the exemption from wrongfulness by coupling the test of wrongfulness to a qualification, viz. that of negligence, and if negligence was present, even if bona fide, the exemption from wrongfulness would be nullified. However, we encountered some serious difficulties. If we do this thing the hon. member for Yeoville is attempting to do, we are, in fact, nullifying the entire purpose of the indemnity. I want to remind the House that we started off from the precept that, in point of fact, we agree with an indemnity, because it is in respect of action taken in the heat of the moment and in the firm belief that one is acting in the best interests of civil defence, that one wants to grant protection to the State or to its servants who have operated thereunder. I think my time has expired. I shall continue with my argument as soon as I may.

Mr. Speaker, I just rise to give the hon. member the opportunity to complete his speech.

I thank the hon. member for Orange Grove. I should like to repeat what I have said just now. If we do what the hon. member for Yeoville is asking us to do, we will be nullifying the entire object of the indemnity. We want to grant protection to those particular people who operate in terms of the Civil Defence Act, people who take action in the heat of the moment. This can amount to negligence. But if one removes negligence, there will be nothing left to protect the State against, because the other requirement, of fault, is intentional action. If an action is taken with intention to harm someone else, it cannot be bona fide. Therefore if one takes away negligence and intent, nothing at all is left. We cannot support the amendment, but we believe that there will be cases of hardship as we have put it to the hon. the Minister previously when we were discussing the Indemnity Bill. There will be cases of hardship, similar to the case which the hon. member for Yeoville mentioned.

We believe that there should be some form of tribunal, a form of operation whereby—even if the act was done bona fide—if a party has been injured, damaged or where there is a case for compensation in cases of hardship, there should be some provision for the establishment of a tribunal to deal with such cases on an ex gratia basis. We would like to ask the hon. the Minister to examine this situation and to find out whether it would not be possible to incorporate such a provision, perhaps even in the Bill when he reviews one of the clauses before it goes to the Other Place, to insert a clause which will provide for cases of hardship. We also believe that this type of protection in case of hardship should also be provided for in the ordinances, because we believe that the hon. the Minister, in terms of the Bill, has got the right to review ordinances before they are placed before the various provincial councils.

That is generally our approach to the situation. We have looked at it very carefully and were very anxious to include some form of protection to people who had been harmed or suffered damage as a result of negligent action, but taken as a whole and looking at the need and the necessity for an indemnity for the State, we found that legally we could not provide for it. Therefore we cannot support the amendment which the hon. member for Yeoville has moved.

Mr. Chairman, I think we have really debated this clause at length. The Select Committee deliberated on it for weeks, and from the standpoint adopted by the hon. member who has just sat down it is clear to me that the more thoroughly one investigates the matter, the more one comes to the conclusion that the provision is correct. It is concerned, in the first place, with good faith. If one were to deprive the State of that protection, it would be almost impossible for the State to meet its obligations at a time when swift action is required, as is usually the case in states of disaster. Therefore the State must have that protection, for in a state of disaster we cannot spend days debating what should be done. If there are real cases of hardship, as there may well be—no one is denying this—provision has been made for such cases, as I have already said, in the provisions of the Exchequer and Audit Act.

Mr. Chairman, it is quite clear that people have been brought under quite a wrong impression as to what the clause covers and what it does not cover. It has been demonstrated by both the hon. member for East London City and by the hon. the Minister that they are at the moment all concerned about a state of emergency, a state of disaster, where urgent action has to be taken and where someone has to act quickly. With great respect, anybody who actually reads the Bill will know that that is not the only circumstance to which this clause applies. If one looks at the actual provisions of the clause, one sees that it does not deal with emergencies at all. It deals with a situation, in terms of clause 5(1), where the hon. the Minister can take over the functions of any of the other authorities. That also applies to the taking over of functions in respect of training and all the things which are utterly unrelated to an actual disaster or emergency. We follow the trend in the following way, namely that in terms of the draft ordinance there is a provision in section 5(1) which says—

We cannot debate this here, but we are opposed to this for the same reasons as we are opposed to this clause. All that is taking place is that in terms of clause 5, when the hon. the Minister takes over the powers of these authorities, he is given indemnity, and so are all the other people concerned. If he suggests that it only applies to emergencies, the hon. member for East London City would have to move an amendment to provide that if there is a state of disaster, this indemnity clause would apply. Then his argument would have some substance. It certainly has no substance at the moment. I have a great deal of sympathy for the hon. member for East London City. In the Select Committee he thought that my amendment did not go far enough. He not only wanted to make the State liable for negligence; he also wanted to make the person liable for negligence. He then went back to this unfortunate caucus meeting where no doubt the whip cracked and he now puts forward a case which is absolutely contrary to what he put forward in the Select Committee. [Interjections.] I have great sympathy with him, despite the noise from that horrible member for Pietermaritzburg North.

Mr. Chairman, is the hon. member allowed to refer to me as “a horrible member”?

Order! Did the hon. member use those words?

I said he was a horrible member, Mr. Chairman.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Mr. Chairman. He is a petty gentleman! But let me deal with the merits of the matter. The question that I would like the hon. Minister to answer—and I would ask that the hon. the Minister consider this and answer it—is that if there is injury done to an innocent individual, whether he is injured in his person or whether his property is damaged, should he not be compensated? If there is to be a loss, on whom should that loss fall? Should it fall on the innocent person, or should it fall on the State, because it is in the furtherance of the interests of the State that this act is being performed? I would like the hon. the Minister to answer that because that is the crux of this whole issue. If an innocent man suffers damage as a result of the wrongful act of another person, who should bear that loss? There can be no question to it, from a moral point of view, from a legal point of view and from a sensible point of view, that it should not be the innocent party.

Mr. Chairman I rise only to express my regret that the hon. member for Yeoville should try to play politics on an issue like this. I want to put the record straight. I want to say, for the record, that this issue was not before our caucus. The change of attitude on this side of the House is based purely on technical legal argument which, I must admit, is beyond me, as I am not a legal man. It is, however based, in my opinion, on the solid, factual presentation of a legal point. The matter was not put to our caucus and the change was made for no other reason. The change was, in fact, made unilaterally amongst the legal people who discussed it thoroughly. I think it is necessary to put that on record, because I am not going to let the hon. member get away with the sort of allegation which he has made.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to put another fact straight as well. I want to ask the hon. member for Yeoville whether he really seriously considers that it is likely that the hon. the Minister will take over the powers in terms of clause 5(1)(a) unless there was a state of disaster declared?

Yes, where the local authority does not do its job, the hon. the Minister has an obligation to do the work.

The hon. member says that if the local authority does not do its job, the hon. the Minister has to take over the work. What on earth are we doing in this Bill? We are trying to give the local authorities and also the Administrator the power to operate. If we do not have faith in the Administrator and the local authorities, would we give them this power? It is absolute nonsense to suggest that such a position could ever arise.

Amendment put and the Committee divided.

As fewer than 15 members (viz. Dr. A. L. Boraine, Messrs. R. M. de Villiers, C. W. Eglin, S. A. Pitman, H. H. Schwarz, Dr. F. van Z. Slabbert, Mrs. H. Suzman, Messrs. H. E. J. van Rensburg and G. H. Waddell) appeared on one side,

Amendment declared negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

This clause of the Bill makes provision for rewards in respect of two categories of persons. The first category is any person who renders service in terms of the Act or in terms of the ordinances made under it. That means anybody who in fact renders service in respect of civil defence. That includes firemen, traffic officers, civilians—in fact, it includes everybody. The second category that is specifically singled out, is firemen. We have no objection to members of the fire brigade being included in this specifically, even though the service they render is not connected with civil defence. The purpose of my amendment is also to include members of the traffic departments. Nowhere in any legislation is there any provision for recognition to be given to these men. It is perhaps the most maligned group of men there is in South Africa. They are exposed to all sorts of risks; they sometimes perform their duties in the most difficult circumstances with great bravery and distinction. In my view it would be most appropriate to include in this particular provision not only members of the fire brigade but also members of the traffic department, who deal with that situation so that recognition can be given to them in appropriate circumstances. I want to stress that this relates to service that is not connected with civil defence, because when it comes to civil defence, anyone can receive the award, irrespective of where he belongs.

Mr. Chairman, I regret that I am unable to accept the hon. member’s amendment. This provision is the result of negotiations between me and the Fire Service Institute, and of a request that was passed at the congress of the Fire Service Institute a few years ago. The fire-fighting services are always concerned with civil defence, no matter when they operate, while employees of the traffic department are not always concerned with it. When they are concerned with it, they are covered by the provision in any case. I regret that I am unable to accept the amendment.

Amendment negatived (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief. I want to express my disappointment that some of the amendments which we have moved have not been accepted. We believe the Bill would have been much better had they been accepted. We still take the view that the Bill as a whole is obviously necessary for South Africa. It is desirable to have such a law and, even though it is not as we would like it, we shall still support the Third Reading.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In the White Paper on Defence, 1977, tabled on 31 March 1977, attention was directed, inter alia, to shortcomings in the present system of providing manpower. These shortcomings were disclosed during a thorough investigation by a representative committee into the manpower requirements of the S.A. Defence Force. The committee found that the prospect for the period 1976 to 1981 does not spell out a “stop/go” or “non-mobilized/mobilized” situation, but in fact one where operational demands of varying intensity will continually be made on the S.A. Defence Force. Because the S.A. Defence Force must at all times be prepared to render service, preparation for such service and the maintenance of the necessary infrastructure is essential. Information concerning these proposed statutory provisions was recently submitted to the Cabinet and to certain members of this House.

One of the shortcomings disclosed by the investigation is the unsatisfactory ratio between training and productive service under the present system. The initial period of national service presently consists of a compulsory term of 12 months, of which six to nine months, depending on circumstances, are spent on training, with a resultant inadequate return to the S.A. Defence Force and the national economy on its training investment. In order to rectify this and other shortcomings, the committee of inquiry recommended that the system of providing manpower for the S.A. Defence Force be redirected towards one which will be able to provide manpower components capable of linking together in a flexible way in order to satisfy the continuously escalating/de-escalating demands. Some of the recommendations require amendments to the law as contained in the Bill, the separate clauses of which I will now briefly explain. As I have already indicated, other proposals also made by the committee will be considered by the Government in due course.

I now come to the various clauses.

Clauses 1(a) and 3(a):

In order to create a system of manpower provision which will be able to produce manpower components capable of linking together in a flexible way, the committee recommended an extension of the maximum initial period of service from 12 to 24 months. Of this, a minimum initial period probably of 18 months will be exacted, with six months in reserve to provide for flexibility as demands escalate or de-escalate in intensity. The provision applies to both the Citizen Force and the commandos and clauses 1(a) and 3(a) contain amendments to sections 22(3) and 44(3) of the Act for the Citizen Force and the commandos respectively.

Because the existing period of active service of ten years is to be retained, the recommendations with regard to further continuous service are aimed at ensuring the continued training of members of the Citizen Force and the commandos after the first period of full-time service of 24 months. The policy which gave rise to the amendments made during the first half of the session, whereby the restriction of five camps of 19 days each after the first period of full-time service was abolished, is also being retained. The maximum aggregate of 95 days is, however, being extended to 240 days, i.e. the equivalent, in terms of days, of eight months, to complete the total period of service of ten years. “Camps” will not exceed 30 days at any one time, however. This proposal also applies to both the Citizen Force and the commandos, and clauses 1(a) and 3(a) contain the necessary amendments to sections 22(3)(b) and 44(3) of the Act for the Citizen Force and the commandos respectively.

Clause 1(b):

Section 19 of the Act makes provision for voluntary service in the Citizen Force by citizens liable to render service in defence of the Republic, although not liable to be enrolled. Section 22(4) provides that the continuous service to which these citizens or “an officer of the Citizen Force” shall be liable in respect of any calendar year, shall not exceed 26 days. This must be seen in the light of officers of the Citizen Force who still have service commitments over the balance of the service period of ten years and who must be treated just like all the other servicemen. For this reason the period of service in section 22(4) is being extended from 26 to 30 days a year. This also applies to extended service volunteers in the Citizen Force.

Clauses 1(c) and 3(b):

Because the recommendations cover the full period of active national service of ten years, there is no further need for sections 22(6A) and (7) and 44(5A) and (6), which make provision for members of the Citizen Force and the commandos respectively to render voluntary service of 18 or 24 months, and which empower the Minister to exact, during the period of ten years, special continuous service for a maximum period of six months, and it is proposed that they be deleted.

Clause 1(d):

The amendment to section 22(9) provides for training undergone or service rendered in the Permanent Force, the commandos, the South African Police, the Railways and Harbours Police, the Prisons Service, the merchant fleet at any time or the Citizen Force before 31 December 1976, or any other training or service which the Minister may deem suitable, to be regarded as service for the purpose of section 22. At the moment, the services referred to therein are only regarded as service “if the Minister or any person acting under his authority so directs”.

Clause 2:

Section 35 of the Act, which provides for service in the commandos, excludes in subsection (1) thereof officers of the commandos together with members rendering voluntary service in terms of sections 36 and 37. The reason for this is not quite clear, because officers are drawn from the ranks of volunteers as well as from members liable to serve. Because volunteers are expressly excluded, and for that reason also volunteer officers, it is proposed that the reference to “officers” in general be deleted in order to exclude from the provision officers liable for service in the commandos and to place them on the same footing as privates.

Clause 3(c):

Section 44(7) for the commandos is similar to section 22(9) for the Citizen Force referred to under clause 1(d). It provides for service rendered in the Permanent Force, etc. to be regarded as service for the purposes of the section. At present it contains a similar restriction as section 22(9) which I explained under clause 1(d), namely that service referred to therein will only be regarded as service if the Minister or a person acting under his authority so directs. It is amended in like manner as section 22(9).

Clause 4(a):

Section 51(1) provides for service by members of the Permanent Force Reserve. On the analogy of section 67(2)(c), which provides for persons who are under the age of 25 years and have on termination of service in the Permanent Force served therein for less than three years, to be allotted by the registration officer to the Citizen Force, the commandos or the S.A. Police, the Permanent Force Reserve will also contain persons who have served in the Permanent Force for just over three years, i.e., for four years. In section 51(1), these persons are treated in like manner as persons who have, for instance, served in the Permanent Force for ten years or longer. The committee recommended that this anomaly be rectified by imposing on the firstmentioned category a service commitment which will be in line with the commitments of citizens liable to serve in the Citizen Force or the commandos over a period of ten years. The effect of the proposed amendment to section 51(1) is that service rendered in the Permanent Force for less than ten years, but for more than four years, will be regarded as the equivalent of the first period of full-time service in the Citizen Force or the commandos and that thereafter such a person can be required to render further continuous service of not more than 30 days for every year less than ten years service in the Permanent Force. Upon completion of this service, such person can be required to render service similar to that required of the member who has served in the Permanent Force for ten years or longer, viz. not exceeding 150 days in the aggregate during any period of five years. Members of the Reserve serve until the age of 65.

Clause 4(b):

In terms of section 51(2) “officers” who have received training of a special nature may be required to undergo refresher courses which shall not exceed 30 days during any period of five years. Officers are not the only ones to undergo such training, and considering the rate of development in the technological field, a course of thirty days during a period of five years is also quite unrealistic. The recommendation in this regard has been accepted and the amendment provides for the application of the provision to all members of the Permanent Force Reserve who have undergone training of a special nature. The refresher courses are extended to a period not exceeding 30 days in any one year extending from 1 January to 31 December.

Clause 5:

It was recommended that the provision of section 67(2)(c), on the analogy of which persons who have served in the Permanent Force for three years are exempted from further service, except perhaps in the Reserves, be extended. The amendment proposes that this period be extended to four years.

Clause 6:

In order to carry to its logical conclusion the principle of a system of manpower provision which will be able to provide manpower components capable of linking together in a flexible way, as explained in my introduction, it is considered necessary and recommended that section 80 of the Act, with regard to the establishment and employment of auxiliary services, be also amended to provide for a more efficient employment of members of the auxiliary services, in an operational capacity as well, if need be. At present members may only be engaged to perform non-combatant duties.

Clause 7:

A final recommendation of the committee which has been accepted requires an amendment to section 92ter(2) of the Act—under which the Minister is empowered only once to extend the period of service which members of the Citizen Force, the Reserve or a commando are required to render in terms of subsection (1) thereof, by a period terminating not later than six months after the termination of the time which would have been occupied by the initial service—to provide for repeated extension of service by the Minister. When at present the period of service is extended by the Minister by only three months, the Minister is debarred from further extension to complete the period of six months should circumstances so require. The process of call-up, service and extension of service will have to be repeated if further service by a member is urgently required. The proposed amendment rectifies the matter. The requirement that the Minister must communicate reasons for his action under the subsection to both Houses of Parliament is retained.

Clause 8:

In order to ensure that the new provisions with regard to the extension of periods of service are available when required, it is proposed that the provisions of the Amendment Act shall come into operation on a date or dates to be fixed by the State President in the Gazette with regard to the persons or categories of persons referred to therein. These dates will be determined by circumstances which may develop during the year, but will not be later than 1 January 1978.

In this regard I wish to emphasize that the escalation or de-escalation of the threat will influence the application of the Act to particular categories. Persons who have completed their initial continuous service under the existing provisions by June 1977 will, as far as possible, not be required to serve the proposed new initial period of continuous service without prior negotiation. Circumstances subsequent to June 1977 will to a great extent determine the application of the new system to the 12-month group then in service. The 18 and 24-month groups who complete their service after June 1977 will be dealt with by mutual agreement.

The only alternative to the extension of military service, as proposed in the Bill, is for the Minister to use his full powers under section 92ter and to extend the period of service to a full six months every time. Because these extensions are mostly applicable to members of the Citizen Force and the commandos who still have a service commitments within the ten-year service period, rather than to national servicemen, it is expected that such a policy will have a greater detrimental effect on the attitude displayed towards military service by members, their next-of-kin and employers than will be the case if service is extended as a whole. The pursuance of such an alternative is also bound to have a more detrimental effect on the economy of the Republic of South Africa.

With a view to the implementation of the new system, which will inevitably make certain demands on the S.A. Defence Force, the present system of extension of the periods of service of members of the Citizen Force and the commandos to 12 weeks will have to be continued. As soon as the new system is being fully implemented, we intend to abolish these extensions unless this is precluded by an escalation of the threat. A further objective is an intake system of only once per year during January. However, it will take a few years before this can be achieved. Mention has even been made of three years.

It is imperative that a sound and growing economy be maintained. Considering all the interests of the Republic of South Africa, both economic and military preparedness can be promoted by this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House, the official Opposition, will support the Second Reading of this measure. We do so because we believe there is no alternative—very regrettable as it may be—open to South Africa. Unless and until all the communities of South Africa can fully share in the task of defence we shall be faced with this situation of manpower shortage in regard to our security requirements. Therefore we are satisfied that under the present circumstances and with only a limited contribution being made by other population groups, there is no option but to increase the initial period of service. There is, of course, one option, viz. what is taking place at the moment, the extension of the 19-day camp—under the provisions of section 92—to provide for 12 weeks’ service, i.e. the three months’ service which the Citizen Force and the Commandos are presently performing. That is the choice we have. Either we can extend the period of national service or we can continue with the system of three-month call-ups of the Citizen Force and the Commandos. We believe that it is really not an option, because we cannot continue with the present set-up.

Apart from the fact that it is expensive and unproductive, and apart from its effect on the economy, these three-month camps are having a very adverse effect on the men themselves, their families and in many cases their financial situation and, what is most serious, an effect on the leadership group who form the backbone of our Citizen Force regiments. Wherever one goes and whenever one talks to the leadership cadre, the extended service volunteer officers and NCOs, one hears the same story, i.e. that they cannot afford three months a year away from their businesses or away from their jobs. During the first year in which these three-month call-ups were made, the sacrifice was borne fairly willingly, in most cases very willingly. The men went up to do their duty to their country without question and without second thought. By now the second call-ups have started and the effect is starting to hammer home. I know of men who have literally lost thousands and thousands of rand and in one case tens of thousands of rand—in the particular case I am referring to, the amount was over R20 000—as a result of a persons absence. This was due to the fact that very valuable machinery, without supervision, was seriously damaged, contracts were not completed and penalties had to be paid. This man did not complain; he has not resigned and is still there, but he cannot be expected to do that again. What applies in the extreme case to which I have referred, applies in a lesser degree to every single man who has been called upon to do his three-month service on the border. Therefore, whilst theoretically it is another alternative, it is not in fact a realistic option which can continue. Above all, we cannot risk the loss, by resignation from the voluntary leadership corps, of extended-service officers and NCOs. In that situation there is nothing else we can do but to face the need for this additional extension of service. We therefore support the measure and we shall vote for it.

I should, however, like to clarify one or two matters which the hon. the Minister referred to in his Second Reading speech. The hon. the Minister said that initially the period utilized would be 18 months of the 24 which would be permitted. He also stated this during the discussion of his Vote. Then he also indicated that the period would be 18 months. However, inquiries made by schools and by individuals from official sources, from army commands, are being met with a categorical statement that in fact the period from the start will be two full years and that there will be no reduction under any circumstances. This is a difficult situation; in fact, the choice had already to be made by the end of April, when people due for call up next year had to submit their forms. Those who are deciding whether to go to university next year or to do their service first … I would appreciate it if the hon. the Deputy Minister for the Interior would let us deal with this serious subject seriously; this affects every young man in South Africa and it is very difficult to discuss it when the hon. the Deputy Minister is carrying on a loud conversation. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, this legislation affects every young man who is called up for national service next year and who has to decide whether he wants to go to university first or whether to do his national service first. I hope the hon. the Minister will clarify this matter and make it clear beyond any doubt, so that these young men can start planning on a basis of certainty.

The other aspect which I am afraid the hon. the Minister has not clarified is the question of who will be affected by the amended legislation. He has referred to those who have finished their service by June 1977, and thereafter to negotiation. I should like to put it to the hon. the Minister that those who have started their service, who are presently in camp, i.e. the January 1977 call-ups, have gone into service almost on a contract, one might say. They were called up under the law as it stood then, they have made their arrangements, many to go to university, some to enter an apprenticeship, or whatever they intend doing next year, and I therefore believe that it is only fair that those who are already in camp should at least be bound to the situation which existed prior to the passing of this Bill. I do not believe it is fair to change the position retrospectively. It can have far-reaching effects on a young man’s plans, because it affects a full year of his life. For those who have not yet gone into service, that is a different matter. Those will have to fall under the new provisions. But those who are already in camp, the January call-ups of this year, should not be expected to do the additional period. Those who are volunteers for periods of either 18 or 24 months are also under a contract. They volunteered under a firm contract. Whilst the hon. the Minister has referred to prior negotiations, I do not believe that one can negotiate a contract to the detriment of a person when a contract has already been entered into. If they complete their 18 or 24 months, I believe that they are entitled to the bonus, the special gratuity which they were promised when they entered the contract. That should not be negotiable. The implication of the hon. the Minister’s words is that the bonus or gratuity for the 18 or 24 months is negotiable. I hope I am wrong. By nodding his head, the hon. the Minister indicates that it is wrong. Therefore those who have volunteered for 18 or 24 months will get the bonus as was undertaken and as was agreed upon when they originally volunteered. I hope the hon. the Minister will deal with that point. It is an agreement that was entered into, and I do not believe that Parliament should amend that. Obviously, for the future it will not apply. It must fall away and is, in fact, being deleted.

One other point arising from the hon. the Minister’s speech is in regard to clause 1(d), in terms of which the following words are to be deleted from section 22(9) of the principal Act—

This refers to the question of previous service. I would point out, however, that it is still subject to ministerial decision. There was a double decision to be made here. The Minister could accept that any service was to be counted, and having accepted it in principle, he then had to specify what period would be recognized. The Minister is now simply removing the need to determine whether it will be recognizable, while retaining the recognition of extent of service. I mention this in case there is any confusion over it.

I now wish to turn to the other aspect of the Bill, an aspect that causes us very serious concern. I refer to the extension of camps from 19 days to 30 days over a period of eight years instead of five years. This extends the liability of every person who does his service. Although it is very seldom that we have not given our full support to anything of this nature, I am very sorry to say that we cannot support these provisions.

There are primarily three reasons why we cannot support them. The first is a purely practical one. It is that the normal leave period in commerce and industry is a flat period of three weeks or 15 working days in a five day week. In some cases the period is even less. Some only have two weeks leave. However, normally the period of leave is three weeks. I have mentioned this before, but I want to pinpoint it again to bring it to the hon. the Minister’s attention. In the case of a 30-day camp, the people concerned will have to take off 10 days without pay. Not only will he not get his basic pay; he will also lose the overtime he could have earned. This is already the position for the man who is paid at an hourly rate—the artisan—while he is away for three weeks. So there is in any case already a financial sacrifice. So, when the camps are increased to 30 days—normally an extra day is required before and after, so that in fact it becomes more than a month—a burden is imposed which creates resentment and resistance. I have found this in hundreds and hundreds of cases. Originally, when the camps were 26 days, many complaints were received. The exemption Board used to get many more requests for exemption. The figures in this regard will be available to the hon. the Minister. When the period of camps was brought down to 19 days, I found a much healthier attitude towards the monthly camp. I also found a much greater willingness to attend the camps in a good spirit rather than to treat it as something imposed on them.

You mean the annual camp?

I am sorry, I meant the annual camps now to be of one month’s duration. This, again applies particularly to the volunteer group. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister really appreciates the extent to which South Africa’s security is dependent on the voluntary leadership of our regiments and our commandos. I know we pay lip service to it. But any intimate knowledge of the regiments makes it clear that it is the volunteer, the extended-service leader, who is the heart, the guts, the backbone around which a regiment is built. Without them we will not have regiments. All that this is going to do is going to give an extra week’s training to the man. Obviously, every O.C. is going to want his men for as long as he can possibly get them. Every Citizen Force O.C. is going to say that he does not have his men for long enough and therefore cannot get them up to scratch. The Army is obviously going to try to get the men for as long as is practicable, because it wants to train them to the highest pitch.

But it is going to be of no use if in the process of giving the rank and file one more week’s training a segment of the voluntary leadership is going to be lost. If that segment of voluntary leadership is lost, new leadership recruits cannot be trained in 30 days. It takes years and years, and if the extended-service volunteers are lost they cannot be replaced by means of 30-day camps or in any other way. They cannot be replaced by men who are doing 18 months or two years compulsory national service. The platoon sergeants, company commanders, adjutants or quartermasters cannot be replaced. These are men who are essential to a unit and who are there as volunteers. Again, only during the last few weeks I have heard groups of young men talking of the three months at the border and saying that they are unable to do it any longer. They say that it is bad enough as it is and that the 19 day camps are the most that they can do. They had heard rumours of 30 days and they say that is the last straw. I have appealed to these young men not to resign, and I hope that we will be able to persuade them not to resign, but I want to warn the hon. the Minister that this is what one hears. Let me quote another example. At present, before this Bill was introduced, the promotion courses in some cases have been extended, and even now there are men who are refusing to apply for promotion to higher rank. It is the Citizen Force men I am talking about, the voluntary group. They do not want to apply because they cannot afford the extended period for promotion courses on a full-time basis. This is a delicate balance and one has to play it like one plays a delicate musical instrument: the balance between the needs of the country and the point at which one overstrains the demand on those needs. We have magnificent leadership material and a magnificent spirit in our regiments. The spirit in all the regiments I have met is a tremendous one. When I speak like this of the load we put on them, I also know that they will willingly try to carry it out. But I think we must take into account the reality of the situation.

The third reason why we are opposed to the extension to 30-day camps over a period of eight years is the question of whether the men can be employed productively and usefully for the whole 30-day period. This is where one gets the complaints. One gets complaints, not from the young man going in for the first time, but from the fellow who has done four or five camps. When he gets to his fourth or fifth camp he is going out with a new bunch of rookies, and necessarily the training is adapted to the lowest level. Of necessity it has to be adapted to the new rookie who has not done a camp before, and therefore the training has to be elementary. Therefore the man who is already 24 or 25 years old, who often is in a senior position in business or industry, or independent as a professional man, has to go to camp every year and has to do the basics—squad drill and square bashing—because he cannot be isolated—except for N.C.O.s and the leadership group—from the new men coming in, and eventually there will inevitably be resistance, because men would feel that they are not being productively utilized, that their time is not being spent productively. It is on these three grounds that I ask the hon. the Minister to reconsider this aspect of the annual camps.