Mr. Speaker, before the House adjourned on Friday, I had indicated that the official Opposition would support the Second Reading of this measure, and that we supported the concept of an extended initial period of national service to a maximum of 24 months. I had also indicated that we were opposed to the other leg of this measure, viz. the extension of the intermittent camps from 19 to 30 days per year for a period of eight years because of the effect this would have on citizens in their civilian occupations. These are people with family responsibilities, personal responsibilities and responsibilities towards the economy of the country. I had emphasized particularly the effect that this could have on the volunteer leadership group of the Citizen Force and of the commandos. I do not want to repeat any of those arguments today. All I wish to do is to emphasize two things which, I believe, are of the utmost importance in considering this Bill and the general problem of the manpower needed to provide those forces which we require for the protection and security of our country.

The first of these is that when dealing with persons to whom military service is not a career, but something which they do not only out of patriotism but because of legal compulsion to contribute to the security of their country, I believe that, in the first instance, we owe them certainty as to their position. They can then plan their own futures, their own academic careers, if they are going to study and their own private affairs, if they are involved in business or some other occupation which needs planning ahead. It applies particularly to those who are going on to further study and to those who are due to take over family responsibilities from ageing parents—parents who have waited until their sons have matured in experience and reached the stage of their studies which enables them to relieve the parents of their responsibilities. All I ask is that we should offer them some certainty in so far as certainty is possible.

Obviously one cannot have complete certainty. When we are faced with a threat which is not of our making and over which we have no control, we have to have flexibility in order to deal with changes, particularly unforeseen changes in that situation. However, in so far as we are able to evaluate the threat, I believe we should, within that evaluation, give the maximum degree of certainty to those whose private lives are going to be affected. That is why I asked the hon. the Minister on Friday to confirm what he had said in his speech at Second Reading, namely that initially there would be an 18-month period of service and that the two years were being introduced to cater for an escalation if necessary. I asked him to make this clear so that those affected would be able to plan accordingly.

The other aspect I would like the hon. the Minister to clarify, is the extent to which the evaluation of the possibility of one call-up a year in January has progressed. This, too, makes a tremendous difference to those who are going on to university. An 18-month call-up in July of any year means in fact that the person who is called up loses two years. It causes him a two-year delay before he can start with his studies. If it is now to be a two year call-up this means that he is going to lose three years should he be one of those who is called up in July. That means he would lose three years of his productivity or of his studies as well as postponing his future career by three years.

Therefore I hope that the hon. the Minister will be able to indicate that at this stage 18 months is the intended period and that it will only be in the event of an escalation that the full two years will be required.

In regard to the 30-day camp I outlined—I do not intend to repeat that—the argument why I believe we should stick to the 19 days. It is because factors apply which I believe will affect, not only morale, but also that vital voluntary leadership without which our Citizen Force cannot function. If I may sum up: I believe it is important—not for us who know what it is about, but because there is so much public confusion over this—that the clear distinction should be emphasized between national servicemen, the Citizen Force and commandos, and the Permanent Force. The Permanent Force consist of career soldiers to whom this legislation does not apply. Unless they buy themselves out, they are not affected by it.

There seems to be tremendous public confusion as to the difference between a national serviceman and a member of the Citizen Force or commandos. When one talks of Citizen Force call-ups of three months people say: “Oh, but my son did 12 months.” I think it is important to clarify that national service is the initial period of service—at present a year and now contemplated to be a maximum of two years—which a man does when he leaves school or, if he has had deferment for educational reasons when he has completed his education. When he has completed that period he is drafted to a Citizen Force regiment or commando to perform the proposed 30-day camps. It is still the same man, but he is now serving in a different capacity. That is the difference that I have tried to bring home to the hon. the Minister and the House; the difference that he is no longer a continuously serving soldier, but that he is on the strength of a regiment liable for a limited number of parades and for annual camps. In between he is a civilian doing a civilian job. This is the group which I believe requires more attention in relation to the effect of any legislation on our economy, on the productivity of this country and the value of that man as a soldier. Here, I believe, Parliament must be the balancing factor between, what I described as the natural aim of a commanding officer and of the Permanent Force itself to have a man for as long as possible to train, and the corresponding effect that that can have on the morale of that man as a soldier, on his desire and happiness in the service and his willingness and dedication to it.

I want to conclude on this note. I believe our young men are dedicated to the defence of South Africa. I believe that they are prepared to make heavy sacrifices, as has been proved over the years. Therefore I believe that they would accept, as everyone accepts, the need for this increase in basic service. I hope that they will accept too the fact that there can be additional burdens placed upon them. Our task as Parliament is to see that those additional calls are calls which they will make as willingly and as happily as I believe they will make the initial period of service. Whilst every one of us in this House will expect them to make whatever efforts they are called upon to make, it is our task to see that we do not call for unnecessary time or unnecessary sacrifices, sacrifices which are not absolutely essential to the security of South Africa.

Finally, without arguing the point I want to come back to where I started, that we in this party see this Bill as an interim measure until such time as all the population groups of South Africa can make their full contribution to our defence and can play their part so that it is not only one segment of our young male population who are called upon to serve their country. Mr. Speaker, we shall support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I wish to make the categorical statement that if one considers it essential to extend the initial call-up period for national service to two years, it is only logical that the concomitant eight yearly periods of 30 days is also logical. The basic reason for an initial training period of two years, remains valid as far as the eight camps thereafter are concerned.

On Friday afternoon we listened to one of the typical go-stop speeches of the hon. member for Durban Point. In it we found precisely the attitude that the White Paper extols us to get away from. I refer to his acceptance of the initial two-year period while rejecting the eight ensuing camps of 30 days each. That is rather typical of the UP and their spokesman on defence matters. Actually it is typical of their approach to all matters of national concern. When a popular measure is introduced, they all try to get on the bandwagon, but as soon something potentially unpopular crops up, they adopt this go-stop attitude. The hon. member mentioned a couple of things of which I myself have no knowledge. I also have contact with the volunteer components of our active Citizen Force. Every one of these people tells one that these 19-day camps are an absolute waste of time, for the simple reason that nowadays these camps are held on the borders.

It takes a couple of days to get there, then they first have to get acclimatized and get fit. So in reality they are available for real service and training only for a small portion of the time they are there. It is this type of double talk that has landed the UP in the position it finds itself in today, a party in serious disarray. [Interjections.] Why should I get off it? This is a political decision. The UP is a party uncommitted to the basic causes and is completely unable to adopt a positive standpoint as far as these matters are concerned.

*Of course we realize that this measure is not a popular one. We admit this. We were not too keen on instituting this measure, but due to the present circumstances we were obliged to introduce an extended training period. As I have already said, the follow-up training periods are just as important as the initial training period. None of us are keen to give up our sons for border duty and see them placed a situation where they may lose their lives. However, circumstances force us to do this. That is why we expect the Opposition, too, to adopt a more positive attitude on this particular matter.

The factors which led to the introduction of this measure, as the hon. the Minister said in his introductory speech, have been fully discussed with the managements of the various groups. A Defence Force committee made a thorough, comprehensive study of the provision of manpower to the Defence Force. In the course of this study, all groups were thoroughly informed. The hon. member for Durban Point also attended those discussions. Consequently he knows what gave rise to this request by the Defence Force. It is a pity that one cannot discuss the matter more fully here due to the nature of the subject. However, I am shocked by the attitude which the Opposition is taking now, after having been fully informed about what gave rise to it.

The voluntary element in our Citizen Force is a very important component of the Defence Force. We also have great appreciation for the work which they do. As I said, I also have contacts with the volunteers in our Citizen Force. The hon. member for Durban Point is wholly underestimating their dedication and their acceptance of a measure of this nature. I am not aware of so many of them being dissatisfied about the extending of the service camps from 19 to 30 days. However, I am aware of the fact that they do complain about the existing 19-day camps because they feel that they are a waste of time. I have already pointed this out. Over the years since national service was introduced, the Defence Force has bent over backwards to take into account the economic factors in our country, how the flow of young men to our Defence Force will affect the economy and how the private sector will be affected by it. However, the Defence Force has reached the stage where it must give priority to its own interests and those of South Africa. The time has come for trade and industry also to start struggling with the problem and making it easier for the voluntary element and the other elements of the Citizen Force to attend the camps and carry out their national service as required by the Act. The sophistication of warfare has changed entirely. Firstly, our soldiers are handling very sophisticated weapons today. That is why it is necessary for them to receive a good basic training. But even more important is the fact that they must be given the opportunity of handling the weapons in question repeatedly, so that they can keep in practice, and become used to them. It is only in this way that they can make an effective contribution towards the task for which they are being trained. There must be a reserve element in the Defence Force which is always prepared, well-trained, fit and completely ready for action. This can only be achieved if people are called up annually and undergo intensive training.

The complaint of the hon. member for Durban Point that people who attend 30-day camps sit around doing nothing half the time, is absolute rubbish. I was also a member of the Citizen Force and still had to attend the 30-day camps at that time. Even then there was no time for sitting or lying around. The time must be and is utilized properly, more now than ever before.

On page 7 of the latest White Paper on defence, I read the following in paragraph 18 on the strategy, policies and aims of the RSA’s enemies—

In paragraph 19 I read the following—

Against this background, it is very clear that we are living at a time when it has become vital to prepare ourselves to achieve and maintain the highest degree of military preparedness for a longer or shorter period, if not permanently.

In Africa at the moment, the Soviet Union is blatantly and calculatingly provoking the West, or ignoring them in its striving to expand their sphere of influence in Africa and setting up Marxist regimes in the place of the type of governments which exist. Therefore, it is very clear that the statement which I have just made, is true for any country which wants to resist Marxism, which wants to continue with and uphold its traditional, characteristic way of life. In a continent where coup d’états, wild, irresponsible military escapades launched by and with the active military support of the Soviet Union, one-party systems and military dictatorships have become status symbols, the statement which I have just made becomes credible. If we look at what is happening in Zaïre, a member state of the OAU, in Ethiopia, Angola and especially in Mozambique now, and country which finds itself in South Africa’s position under these circumstances, would be heading for suicide if it did not have a counter to the threats it faced. We have just learned over the past few days about a huge build-up of armaments in Mozambique donated by the Soviet Union, including Mig fighter aircraft, Sam 7 missiles, tanks and artillery. Giving all our manpower in the Defence Force a refresher course will be a suitable counter-action in this regard. The most important component of every Defence Force is and remains man. Any armaments, no matter how sophisticated, need a man to operate them.

The effective operation of any weapon, from the most simple to the most sophisticated, depends on proper, effective and even more important, continual, repeated training of the individual in the use of that specific weapon. In order to achieve this goal, it is vital that the maximum number of persons that can be reconciled with maintaining a sound and flourishing economy, be put at the disposal of the Defence Force for a period which ensures effective training and which makes it possible for the trained soldier to be used operationally for a period which bears a more favourable relation to his period of training. If we consider the fact that at the moment eight months are being spent in the proper training of our fighting forces, which means that they are available for operational use for four months at the most, it is very clear that the relative length of the training and operational periods will have to be adjusted far more favourably than is the case at present.

Against the background I have sketched, paragraph 42 of the White Paper on defence acquires fresh significance and content. In that paragraph the White Paper says the following about the system of providing manpower—

This is very important in view of the Opposition’s objection to the eight camps of 30 days each. I want to add that we have been told that eight camps of 30 days each is the maximum and that there may be cases where the Defence Force will be able to train someone in a shorter period. In a case like this he will be trained and called up for a shorter period. Paragraph 42 mentions the following components—

This is our Permanent Force—

These are the national servicemen who are called up for two year’s training—

Here they are referring to the commandos and Citizen Force units which are already being used operationally—

This is the key to the necessity of calling these people up for eight camps after their initial training.

It is Parliament’s duty to pass this Bill in order to achieve these logical, practically self-evident objectives. It will enable the Defence Force to make young men available for a longer time—the numbers are absolutely limited—in order to enable the Defence Force to give them an even better training and use them operationally for longer periods. In order to achieve these aims, it is vital that the 240-day clause be put into effect. After the initial training period of two years a young man is well trained and has had thorough experience, including experience of operational service. In order to keep him in this advanced state of preparedness, it is important that he should undergo refresher and other training repeatedly after that, for longer periods than a mere 19 days under more or less the same circumstances as those he will experience operationally. It is totally counter-productive to train a man for two years, give him experience and then allow him to disappear into the crowd and cause his extensive knowledge which he gained over his training of two years to get rusty and to allow him to lose his skill completely. Any Defence Force officer will testify that the troops who have served on our borders for the second time over the past few months, were much better soldiers, much more motivated, displayed greater skill, and were better equipped in all respects for the task they had to perform there. This is due to the experience they have already gained on the border. The White Paper also points out that due to the arms embargo against South Africa, the S.A. Defence Force has to adapt its structure, its doctrines and strategies to the military equipment which can be obtained or produced here. The S.A. Defence Force is in a similar position as regards manpower. Due to the absolute limit imposed on our manpower potential due to the size of our population, the Defence Force is also compelled to adapt its structure, its training and utilization doctrines as well as its strategies to the smaller number of trainees, in order to make maximum use of the minimal number of trainees at its disposal every year.

Our involvement in Angola proved one thing and I find this important. It is that we were prepared to maintain our national self-respect. This proved to be a very weighty factor in the action of our troops there. Therefore we must take into account this striving to maintain national self-respect. Angola proved that our Defence Force has a formidable fighting force at its disposal, a force which has the skill, which is adaptable to changed circumstances and the members of which are motivated to give their lives for what they believe in. It is clear that our Defence Force has young men who have the will to survive and want to see their way of life maintained in a climate of order and justice for all. This measure can only contribute towards enabling the S.A. Defence Force to carry out its task in this regard more effectively.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Cradock referred to the briefing which members of the defence group of each of the parties in this House received. I should like to refer to it briefly as well because there is very little doubt that that briefing supplemented matters which of necessity could not be included in the White Paper and I think certainly enabled members of this House to form a better judgment about the manpower position. I should like to express my appreciation for the briefing and to thank Admiral Edwards and Brig. De Wagter particularly for the manner in which they presented it. I think it was of great use to all of us and I think our appreciation for it should be recorded.

I should like to say right at the outset that we in these benches will support the Second Reading of this measure. We do so because in the first place we accept the need to defend South Africa’s borders and to preserve peace and good order internally and, secondly, because we have been convinced of the case which has been made out in respect of the problems which the Defence Force presently encounter, particularly in so far as training, the availability of manpower and the escalation of the situation is concerned. If I may just touch on the training situation, I want to say that there is very little doubt that the parents of the young men would prefer to see their young sons better and more effectively trained in the field so as to be more able to survive than otherwise. In so far as the availability of manpower is concerned, there is little doubt that a case has been made out. In so far as the escalation of the position is concerned, I think the public is fully conscious of it.

But at the same time we want to stress that we do not support this measure because we like to see young men serving for longer periods of time. We do not support it because we are not conscious of the economic consequences of having more of our manpower tied up.

I think we need to say that we believe that there is in fact an alternative. That alternative is a larger Permanent Force. However we appreciate that, even if this were accepted by the Government, it would take a considerable amount of time to bring about such a larger Defence Force; and time is of the essence in this kind of situation.

Was that a majority decision or was it unanimous?

Sir, I should like to set out, partly for the sake of the hon. member for Simonstown, who seems terribly concerned about our attitude, what we really feel about this issue.

It was unanimous.

Yes, it was unanimous, as the hon. member for Houghton has said.

How many absentees were there?

For the benefit of the hon. member for Simonstown, who not only appears to be concerned, but does not hear very well, I should like to repeat what our attitude is so that there can be no misunderstanding about it. We believe that South Africa must defend its borders and that law and order must be maintained within the borders of South Africa. Those people who believe in peaceful change must also support those concepts. There can be no question about that. Secondly, we believe that, as far as it is practical, there must be as many volunteers in the Army as possible. That is why we believe there should be a larger Permanent Force. Nevertheless, we also accept conscription as a necessity. We accept it as a necessity in the existing circumstances. Thirdly, we believe it is not merely a “Whites only” function. We believe that the defence of the borders is in fact a function involving the community as a whole and that South Africa needs an Army of all its people, all its races. Fourthly, we believe there should be no discrimination of any kind based on race in the Defence Force and that, particularly as far as service conditions and remuneration are concerned, there can be no justification of any kind for any kind of discrimination in the Defence Force. Fifthly, we believe that the best defence is in fact the unity of our people. People must have something to defend, something in which they have a stake. The question of citizenship and military service go hand in hand. One cannot have the one without the other. Lastly, as far as the economic position in South Africa is concerned, there is little doubt that the Whites cannot indefinitely bear the burden of defence alone. On purely economic grounds there is a case to be made out for an all-race Army.

As regards the larger Defence Force, I have indicated and want to repeat that we believe that this is the true basis for defence in South Africa. We believe the volunteer forces should supplement the Permanent Force. What is more, we believe that not only should the Permanent Force have a function in respect of training, administration and leadership but that it should also contain complete mobile fighting units which should be available particularly for unconventional warfare. We believe that these units, as I have indicated, should consist of people of all races in South Africa and that there should be no discrimination, but that there should in fact be full equality in the Army and in the other services.

As regards the escalating situation to which the hon. member for Cradock referred, there is little doubt that the solution to that is not a military one, but that a political solution is required in these circumstances. We can hold a situation militarily, but there can be no doubt that the only solution for South Africa in the long term is a political solution. South Africa’s problems cannot be solved indefinitely only by military means. As regards the 12 month period of training, we accept that there will be better training and a better utilization of trained manpower. In addition, we hope there will be relief in respect of the Citizen Force and the commandos.

May I in that spirit approach the individual provisions of the Bill. I want to approach the matter from a constructive point of view in order to seek to improve the legislation and to seek elucidation for the public. I do not wish to approach the matter in a destructive fashion.

The first point I should like to make is that there is going to be a need to have not only units who are available on the orders in order to do the routine patrol and other duties and deal with possible incursions that occur from time to time. There is little doubt that there will have to be units on stand-by in case of eventualities that may occur. Quite clearly, there will also be periods where there will be a de-escalation and there will be periods in which there will be an escalation and a demand for more men to be on service. I refer to what the hon. the Minister said in his Second Reading speech, namely—

The question that I should like to put to the hon. the Minister in this connection is: Would it not be better to have an eighteen month period with the power on the part of the Minister to extend it, than to have a two-year period with the uncertainty which surrounds a situation of that nature? One of the matters which causes me concern—the hon. the Minister has heard me on this before—is the necessity for the burden to be spread evenly, equally and fairly. What worries me is that, for example, one may find that units which are specifically useful for counter-insurgency operations will be those who are doing 24 months’ service, whereas the conventional warfare units may be doing only eighteen months and other units may also be doing only eighteen months’ service.

I believe that this kind of situation can lead to a degree of dissatisfaction and problems arising. That is why it seems to us that it would be better if there were an eighteen month period for all subject to extension in the case of need. That would be more readily acceptable. If the situation is left as it is at the moment, on the basis that there is going to be a two-year period, the public will say: Well, there is a two-year period and the Minister has the power under section 92ter to extend it for another six months; so it is really almost two and a half years which we may possibly have to face. I believe that this is something with which the hon. the Minister should deal. I believe if we approach it on the basis of eighteen months for all, with the power to extend, it would be more readily acceptable to the community.

Secondly, I believe that if there is a longer period—we accept that there will be—there must be a feeling on the part of the community as a whole that the longer period will, firstly, be necessary, as I have indicated; secondly, will be usefully employed and, thirdly, that personnel will be better trained, as I have indicated. We accept the concept of better training; one need not debate that further. There is already a question mark over the question of useful employment by reason of the hon. the Minister’s statement about eighteen months being a possibility. The third point with regard to being usefully employed is a point which I should like to debate in greater detail.

Of necessity, in this kind of warfare, there will be periods of relatively less activity, and there is no doubt that we have to take very real steps to ensure that during these periods of less activity, there is no boredom with all the consequences that boredom can bring with it. I would therefore like to suggest to the hon. the Minister today four things to which he might give attention. The first—we have debated it before—is the question of giving credit to people in respect of their future careers, whether they be professional or technical, whether it be articles or apprenticeships, for a period of service which they have spent in the forces. Now that we are extending the period, I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to use his good offices with the hon. the Minister of Justice, who is responsible for lawyers; with the hon. the Minister of Finance, who is responsible for accountants, and with the hon. the Minister of Labour, who is responsible for apprenticeship, to see to it that some credit is given to servicemen for their national service where it extended in this form. Many of us—I am one of them—have received credit. I received credit in respect of my articles when I served them after the war, for part of the service I rendered in the forces. I think that now that there is to be an extended period, there is a very strong case for the hon. the Minister to be heard to say that he shall endeavour to persuade his colleagues to see that some credit is given for this.

The second point I should like to make, and again appeal to the hon. the Minister to deal with his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Finance, is that in respect of service where people have to leave their jobs—the same applies to the camps—there should be 150% deduction allowed for tax purposes for those who are paid servicemen while they are away.

In other words, instead of just deducting the salary and getting the remission—which is some 49% on the present tax rate—they will get an extra 25%. In that way we will be encouraging people to pay servicemen to a greater extent. There are many youngsters who take jobs and who then do their national service, and who find—when they go as part of the July intake—that they do receive some degree of payment. I believe this would be encouraged by this kind of attitude.

The third point which applies here is that the hon. the Minister should talk to the hon. the Minister of National Education and to the institutions concerned with a view to the introduction of special courses and facilities by, for example, Unisa and institutions of higher technical education to provide correspondence courses for servicemen who are away, and to provide facilities for them to study while they are doing national service. I think it will help in the forces and it will be of considerable benefit to all around. I can tell the hon. the Minister—and again I speak from experience—that in the desert during the last war, I received Unisa notes and studied while I was there. As a result of it I made up a full year of study during the period I spent there, even though I could not write examinations. Special facilities of this kind, I believe, would be of great advantage.

Fourthly, again through the hon. the Minister talking to the hon. the Minister of National Education, facilities should be made available, not just for sport and recreation, but also for such things as learning languages. There should be tapes made available for this sort of study so as to enable people to broaden their visions while they are in service, particularly during periods when there may not be a great degree of activity which would otherwise be expected, but which, we hope of course, will not come about.

I now want to turn to some other matters. In regard to what I believe is an uncertainty which exists in the minds of many people with regard to the position of people who are either about to go into the service—those going in July—or in respect of past call-ups, I want to draw the attention of the House to one thing. The hon. the Minister said the following in this respect—

If I may stop here, I think the hon. the Minister should enlighten us as to what he means by “prior negotiation”. Does he mean negotiation between the servicemen and the Defence Force? Does he mean negotiation in Parliament? What exactly does he mean by this terminology? Then he goes on to say—

Again I would like the hon. the Minister to tell us what he means by “mutual agreement” in these circumstances. Does it mean that if they do not want to serve, they do not serve? Mutual agreement, of course, means that both parties agree. However, let me deal with a specific situation. As I see it, one matter about which there is no uncertainty, is the intake which goes in at the beginning of next year. As I read the hon. the Minister’s speech, it is clear that those youngsters will have to do two years’ training. Then comes the second situation: The intake in July 1977. As I read the hon. the Minister’s speech, it is indicated that until June 1977 everybody will still be on the old basis. Does that mean that anybody in the July intake of this year will have to serve two years?

The legislation does not say that; it depends on when it becomes law and when it is proclaimed. I would therefore like to know what the situation is in respect of the July intake. The third is the intake which went in in January of this year. As I read the Bill they would not have completed their service and, on the face of it, they therefore may have to do two years’ service. Is that correct? Will the January 1977 intake have to do one year or will they have to do two years? As I read the Minister’s speech, they will have to do two years. Then we come to the July 1976 intake. As I understand the Minister’s speech, they will finish by June of this year and, therefore, will only do 12 months’ service. I would like the hon. the Minister, for the sake of the public, to answer all four these questions so that there can be complete clarity in respect of what the situation is, because, after all, people have to plan their lives.

When it comes to the question of the 18 to 24 months’ group which the hon. the Minister said would be dealt with by agreement, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister a few questions. Is it clear that in so far as those servicemen are concerned they will be paid their gratuities as agreed? There having been a contractual obligation, I hope the hon. the Minister will say beyond doubt that there will be payment to them. Secondly, I want to know if there is not a case to be made out for people who take what can be called short-term engagements in the Permanent Force in substitution for the 18 to 24 months’ periods of service. In other words, should there not be a scheme in terms of which people can sign up for between four and five years, receive a gratuity for that period of service, do not contribute towards the pension scheme, do not become pensionable employees, but work on a short-term engagement in the Permanent Force? I would like the hon. the Minister to deal with that situation in his reply and to give it some consideration as to whether this is not something which is desirable in the existing circumstances.

I would like to come to the situation of the subsequent training of Citizen Force and commando units. Here again I would like the hon. the Minister to give us certainty in respect of the past service which people have had. Within a relatively short time we have had three different systems. I am not talking about the fourth one some little while ago. Let us take the three different ones; the 19-day camps, where a person could do six camps; the change earlier this year to 95 days, and now the eight camps of 30 days. What is the situation in respect of credit for what a person has done until now? Take a man who for example, did five camps and thought he had to do one more camp. Does he now have to do five or six camps or 240 days, or do we just add up the days and then subtract them from 240 days? What really is the situation in this respect? I have put an amendment on the Order Paper merely to highlight the situation that there is a problem in this respect and that clarification is needed. I am a little worried about some of the young people who have done five camps and feel that they should now, instead of doing one-sixth of what is required on some other formula, they must now get credit for the days and not be required to serve a very much longer period. I think one does not legislate retrospectively in this kind of thing, and I would appeal to the hon. the Minister not only to meet the situation, but to make sure that there is absolute clarity in regard to this.

The other matter which troubles me in regard to the new proposed section 22(3)(b) is that this refers to subsequent periods of service of which none shall exceed 30 days and which shall not exceed 240 days. What happens if they are not required and they are in for 10 years? The difficulty is that the hon. the Minister has not amended section 21(1) of the Act. The proviso to subsection (1) of section 21 stipulates—

I stress the words “for any reason”—

That means that a man can be in for at least 10 years; he does not serve his 240-day training period due to no fault of his and he may then have to stay in the Citizen Force for another five years. This does not appear to me to be just. I believe that one should limit the period to 10 years. If a person is not called up in that period or he has not served the 240-day period, I believe that after serving his national service any serviceman has discharged his obligation.

The next point I want to deal with is very similar to an issue which the hon. member for Durban Point raised, and that is whether it is necessary to call up the old established officer corps—if I may call it that—and the NCOs for the full 30 days to attend a true training camp. Here the hon. member for Cradock went a little off the rails. He was confusing a true training camp with a camp at the border which is not a true training camp, but where one does service for quite a long period.

What about Madimbo?

I think Madimbo is a border area. It is not just a training camp. It is situated on the border; it is a patrol area. But let us take Madimbo as an example. When one is not taking one’s unit to Madimbo, but one is taking it elsewhere, and one is going to spend a fair amount of time on basic training, is it necessary that while the new recruits need it, the older serving members too must again go through this virtually every year? If one looks at the leadership corps, one sees that the officers spend considerable time during the year on their unit affairs, far beyond the requirements laid down in the Act. They go on leadership training courses and they attend the camps. I think the burden on them is quite substantial. What worries me, is that one is going to find a situation in South Africa where many of our young people are not going to be able to have vocational leave for 10 years in a row. They will have to use their vocational leave in order to do this service. This is not a healthy situation. I ask the hon. the Minister to apply his mind to the issue of relieving the burden on these people who, as the hon. member for Durban Point has correctly said, represent a very substantial backbone on the whole of the Citizen Force and the commando structure in South Africa. I have drawn attention to what I believe are some of the problems here.

I should now like to draw attention to a couple of minor things. In clause 1(b) the hon. the Minister is proposing to delete “1973” and to substitute “1976”. Why must it be 1976 and not 1977? It is intended that most of this will only come into effect on 1 January 1978, not so? Is it not logical that any service which has been rendered up to December 1977, should in fact be covered? I ask the hon. the Minister to respond to this.

If I may I should also like to deal with the issue of the one intake per year. This is not being dealt with in the Bill, but it has been touched upon by the hon. the Minister in his speech. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to tell us whether, if we have only one intake per year, this will enable proper use to be made of training facilities, or whether it will be necessary to indulge in more capital expenditure in order to provide the training facilities if there is only one intake per year. Secondly: Other than the effect it has on studies, would the hon. the Minister take us into his confidence by telling us what the other problems are in regard to the two intakes a year? We know that it affects the students very substantially, but what benefits will there be to the Army from a single intake a year in these circumstances?

These are the points I should like to raise in regard to the piece of legislation and I have tried to do it in as constructive a spirit as possible as we accept the logistical requirement which is obviously the basis for this. That is why we support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I must concede that most of the speech made by the hon. member for Yeoville was in a positive vein. The hon. member will probably not take it amiss of me if I reply to his arguments and the arguments of the hon. member for Durban Point in which they were beating the old colour drum again at the beginning of their speeches. Both the Opposition parties are aware of the ethnic policy of the Government and both the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Durban Point know that, in accordance with our ethnic policy, the Coloureds and the Indians will to an increasing extent be drawn into the S.A. Defence Force. This is already happening to such an extent that the White Paper reports as follows on it—

In paragraph 66 of the White Paper this aspect is elaborated on and mention is made of the fact that the S.A. Cape Corps had served in the operational area during the previous year.

As regards the Bantu in the homelands, it is indeed true that we are helping the homelands with the development of their own Defence Forces. In this regard I am thinking in particular of Transkei and of Bophuthatswana, which is at present still a State-in-embryo. In the White Paper mention is also made of the fact that progress is being made with the training of Bantu at Lenz. I want to ask the UP and the PRP in no uncertain terms not to try to bring in their policy of integration into the Defence Force via the back door, particularly in view of the fact that we have a problematical situation in connection with our manpower. In the second place they should not use their colour drum and their integration ideals to create ill-feeling towards national service by referring to a “Whites only” Defence Force, to the “young White man’s burden”, etc.

Have you read the Erica Theron report?

Yes, I have read it, and if I had the time, I would have read out to the hon. member in return what the White Paper had to say about the Erica Theron report. In any event, the Government has intimated that it is going to accommodate the Coloureds in their own national service as soon as possible … [Interjections.] Hon. members are beating their integration drum. Hon. members should also guard—in fact, I think the whole of South Africa should do this—against the idea arising among our national servicemen and among the Whites in general that people of colour should go and fight the war for us and that we can merely occupy the officers’ and other posts. In the history of the Defence Force, to which hon. members on that side of the House are sentimentally attached, this has happened many times. We should learn from history that he who defends his country physically, is the man who inherits the country. When Alexander, the Macedonian, when the Romans and the Britons in early history, as well as the Egyptians, made use of slave, mercenaries and others, it was those practices which eventually led to the collapse of their empires. I do not want to take this argument any further, except to say that in South Africa there is a balance in our colour set-up. The general public can be certain that this side of the House and the hon. the Minister will not allow the balance in the ethnic relations in the defence set-up to be disturbed.

I would rather have participated in a debate today in which we would have been able to discuss demobilization, or a reduction in national service, than in a debate dealing with the extension of national military service. However, the circumstances are such at present that the debate in which I would have liked to have participated is quite inconceivable. Looking at the world scene, we see that South Africa presents a picture no different from that of the overall picture of the outside world, namely one of general unrest and turmoil. Closer to home, in Africa, we have a picture which indicates tension, terrorism, coups d’ etat and wars of varying degrees of intensity. There are States in Africa that are in such financial and economic straits at the moment—and this applies to our neighbouring States and to the so-called front-line States—that they cannot resist the temptation, as a result of their economic and financial problems, to beat the war-drums in the hope that this will distract attention from their hopeless plight in other spheres. Indeed, there are some of them who hope that they will in fact be able to consolidate their internal position by means of such warlike talk and by means of military adventures across their borders.

In North West Africa there is unrest, and the focal point of this unrest is Ethiopia. During the past few weeks we have taken cognizance of the final break between Ethiopia and the United States of America. We know of the internal tension which exists in Ethiopia owing to the break-away attempts by Eritrea. We know that, as a result of the tension between Ethiopia, Somalia and Sudan, this and other factors have finally contributed to Ethiopia falling completely into the lap of Russia. These events have sent shock-waves through the Sudan and Egypt. Egypt is still afraid that Russia is still going to exact vengeance at some time or another because Egypt escaped from the communist camp and because Egypt is today probably one of the strongest anti-communist States in Africa. On the other hand, Egypt is saddled with Lybia on its Western border, and in that country the communists are still fanning their willing fire. That was probably one of the factors which led to Egypt choosing sides so openly and unequivocally and showing its hand in the Zaïrean conflict.

This brings me to Zaïre, which, closer to home, is also a trouble spot in West Africa, for they are having to contend with an attack from Angola. In that conflict France and Egypt are rendering assistance openly, while the leader of the West, the United States of America, is, at best, rendering hesitant and clandestine assistance.

Some of our neighbouring States and particularly some of our close neighbours, instead of producing food for their people and developing their people, are uttering warlike noises against South Africa. They are making facilities available to anti-South African and anti-South West African terrorists. They are lending themselves to a Russian arms build-up which is blatantly earmarked for an armed onslaught on South Africa. The fact that these are old or obsolete weapons, is in no way reassuring. The fact is that an arms build-up is in process and, if old weapons are being stockpiled, some of the most modern weapons can be used to replace those weapons overnight.

Years ago we told one another that in its strategy for world domination, Russia had a specific plan for the West and a specific plan for the East and that in the meanwhile, until those plans of Russia were brought to fruition, the pot would be kept boiling in Africa. It frequently seems as though Russia has now decided that it is time to allow the pot to boil over. In every ripple and upheaval in Africa, the hand of Russian imperialism is clearly identifiable. Russian is the arms merchant, the adviser, the pace-setter and the trainer. In contrast to Andrew Young, who is paying a visit to Africa, Russia sends its President, Podgorny. This is probably the best demonstration of the importance which Russia attaches at present to its activities in Africa. I do not think we would be mistaken if we stated today that Russia wishes to impose its will and dominance over the whole of Africa, on its conditions. In contrast to the Russian drive and purposefulness and in contrast to its blatant and open involvement, there is hesitation and uncertainty on the part of the West. In this regard I was delighted with the French attitude in Zaïre and I believe that this has become a gratifying stimulus to the anti-Marxists in Africa. The glaring refusal of the West to adopt the same attitude towards South Africa as France adopted towards Zaïre is lamentable.

Against this background we must consider our own position in Africa. We can then state unequivocally, as is in fact apparent from the White Paper, that a total onslaught is being made on the political and territorial integrity of South Africa. South Africa is the only Southern African power which is possibly capable, on its own, of repelling a conventional onslaught from beyond its borders. The task of the S.A. Defence Force is at all times to defend South Africa and to ensure South Africa’s integrity. South Africa expects of its Minister of Defence and of the Chief of the S.A. Defence Force and the Department of Defence as such, that they will, according to the circumstances, carry out this task to the best of their ability.

The demands of the times are that the defence of South Africa should be ready for action with a specific attacking force and reserves, 24 hours of the day, year in and year out. This could perhaps be a demand which will be made on the Defence Force for the ensuing years. It could be for a shorter period. The fact of the matter is that this Minister and its advisers have now come to this Parliament and stated that they have made an evaluation of the present requirements: This is what they have available and this is what they need. We accept that of all of us, the Department of Defence is best aware of what problems such a system of national service as they are now proposing is going to cause and that, having taken into consideration all the factors, they believe that this extended system of national service is the best, most effective and most financially beneficial way in which they can perform their task, the defence of South Africa. During the past few years the youth of South Africa as well as an older generation in South Africa have tasted stability, tranquility, progress and security of the very best. For that our military preparedness must to a large extent receive the credit. We can only hope to retain the same measure of safety, security and progress if we preserve our military first unaltered and strengthen it even further.

I have no doubt that the extended national military service is going to make very heavy demands on everyone in South Africa and in particular on families, on commerce and industry, on education, the Public Service and also on the public and the private sectors in general. I believe that the spirit and nerve, the organizational and financial ingenuity of our people are going to be tested to the utmost. If we wish to preserve South Africa as it is, however, it is time we accepted that defence has become a national priority. It is time we accepted it as a challenge that South Africa has to be defended in a specific way at the present time and that we have to adapt ourselves to that challenge as far as other spheres are concerned.

In this regard I agree with the hon. member for Yeoville that we should afford our national servicemen an opportunity of taking advantage of their spare time in the Defence Force. I believe that our universities should consider allowing a kind of academic year to begin in July or to make some kind of academic accommodation at the beginning of July or August for the national servicemen returning at the end of June.

I want to conclude. According to my observations of public opinion there has been no baulking at this measure. There are objections and serious problems, but according to my observations our people have the will and the mettle to support our Defence Force in the task it has to carry out in connection with the dangers which threaten us. I agree with the closing paragraph of the White Paper which I want to quote in conclusion—

I believe that the South African public will support the hon. the Minister and the Defence Force in this task.

Mr. Speaker, I think it was Lloyd George who said that war was too important for the generals. Having listened to previous speakers, it certainly does sound as though war is too important for the generals. We have listened to quite a few lectures. I would like to inform the hon. member for Waterkloof and the hon. member for Cradock that their attack on the hon. member for Durban Point was completely unwarranted. He gave full support to the Bill. We have not even placed an amendment on the Order Paper in regard to this Bill. It was out of concern for the men who are volunteers and who are doing their extended service, that he asked that consideration should be given to them.

It is his “yes, but…”.

There is no question of “yes, but …”! He asked the hon. the Minister to give this matter some consideration where these men, who have now reached maturity and have responsibilities, are expected to give of their time and leisure. The hon. member for Cradock tried to teach his grandmother how to suck eggs. I can tell the hon. member—unfortunately he is not here now—that I know more about the Army than he does. I had six years of it. I was an infantryman and I slogged through North Africa, Italy and across France to Germany on my flat feet. At that time we did not have time for lectures, etc., although at rest periods the Army did have educational officers who gave men lectures and prepared them for life after the war. In this regard I give full support to anything which will give men the education which is so vital to them and which they will need in life after a war. I quite agree with the hon. member for Yeoville that credit should be given. The point which I wish to make is those men who are serving in the operational area—I am not talking about the base-wallahs now—do not have the time to listen to lectures, neither do they have the time during their rest period for that, because they are fully occupied if the Army knows what it is doing, and I am sure that it knows what it is doing.

I am not going to give a dissertation on Alexander the Great or on anybody like that; I am going to keep to the Bill. In these days of stress and strain, occasioned by the tremendous changes which are taking place about our borders and in the whole of Southern Africa, it is obvious to all right-thinking South Africans that the S.A. Defence Force must be fully equipped with the latest technological equipment and weaponry, and at the same time it must be kept up to strength at all times, with due regard to the economic and industrial growth of the country. To achieve this it is vital, for the very existence and safety of the Republic of South Africa, to ensure that there is a steady flow of intelligent and fit young men to enable the Defence Force to perform its duty competently and with confidence, to the credit of itself and to our country as a whole. This is precisely what this Bill sets out to do: To ensure a steady intake of men who will render a better return on the cost of training, with the least possible disruption to the economy of the country as well as to the lives of the men themselves.

We on this side of the House have no hesitation whatsoever in supporting the Bill and look upon the proposed extension of national service to 24 months as a logical and fair solution. I was one of those members of this House who was privileged to attend the briefing where the manpower position was fully and explicitly explained to us, and I am satisfied that the Defence Force is dealing with this matter in the most scientific and humane manner possible and is making the absolute minimum demands it can make to ensure that the safety and integrity of South Africa is maintained.

The Defence Force is to be congratulated on its professional approach and manner in dealing with this matter. Therefore it behoves everyone of us to give the Defence Force unstinting and enthusiastic support and to cast any mercenary attitudes which may beset some people. I fully appreciate the concern of parents about the disruption of the careers of their school-leaving sons, academic or otherwise, but I would call upon them to consider the pros and cons of the proposed legislation before making a decision which could have far-reaching results on their sons. I am indeed confident that they will decide that it is better for their sons to meet their commitments in the Defence Force at an early age, when they can do their service together with their school friends, rather than first completing their university career and then going into the service with a younger age group with whom they have less in common.

It is remarkable what a few years difference in age makes to teen-agers and to young men in their early twenties. The hon. the Minister, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, stressed that what is aimed at, is a flexible scheme to meet the flow and ebb of the tide of events. At the moment, I believe, we are involved in a far more serious situation than we are led to believe generally. The sooner we realize this, the better it will be for all of us.

For this reason we welcome the proposed changes in the Defence Act, changes whereby every citizen up to the age of 65 years must be prepared to do his bit, changes which will cause everybody to carry an equal load. We are looking forward to a time when there will be fewer calls on the Citizen Force, a force led by men of more mature years, men who, at great sacrifice to their families, to themselves and to the national economy, are presently bearing more than their fair share of the burden of service. It is for this reason that I support the hon. member for Durban Point in his request to the hon. the Minister to reconsider the question of the extension of the camps as envisaged in the Bill. Perhaps the hon. the Minister could devise some scheme whereby members who lose as a result of these extended camps, could be adequately compensated by the State for the loss of pay and leave. In this respect the hon. member for Yeoville made some pertinent points. Perhaps something in the line of a tax rebate might go a long way in making everybody happy.

Calls have been made in the House during the recent past to revive an organization somewhat akin to the old SSB. Those calls have been made on account of the depressed labour market. I consider this Bill as a measure which goes a long way in providing the answer to these calls. One can only hope that at the end of the two years’ service, a national serviceman will find a grateful nation—and I stress the word “grateful”—ready to allow him to integrate himself into the economy and to pick up the threads where he left it off. This has happened to many people in the past. As one who also went through the mill, I want to say that—I do not believe it did me any damage—if we could do it, I am confident that the young South Africans of today can do it. He will only be the richer for it.

Mr. Speaker, following on the hon. member for Umlazi is not a difficult task, because he usually winds up his thoughts by saying: “Get on with the job.” I believe he actually said that in so many words today, except for the fact that he also supports the idea of limiting the compulsory training periods to 19-day camps instead of the proposed 30-day camps. My impression is that the Opposition has not as yet achieved an understanding of the underlying philosophy to the proposal. The underlying philosophy to the 30-days’ training camps is to be found in the package deal the hon. the Minister of Defence requires the House to accept.

*My problem is that the hon. members of the Opposition do not understand that we are dealing with a total situation. They are unable to grasp the global concept of the proposal and consequently, there is a misunderstanding about the 30-days’ training. Other hon. members on this side have indicated that we are dealing with a variable situation which can escalate and de-escalate. A manpower system must have the very important quality of flexibility in order to meet this situation and to adapt to the duration, content, and so on, of training camps. When we study the Bill, we find that the element of flexibility has already been incorporated in it, but that the present proposals afford a great deal more flexibility to the provision of a manpower system to the Defence Force.

The committee in charge of the optimal provision of manpower to the Defence Force leaves us in no doubt that we have to supply manpower in the short, medium and long term. This is true because what we do in the short and medium term, will ensure that matters do not escalate in the long term. After all, it is logical and desirable that the preparation in the short and medium term should be of such a nature that it affords the necessary credibility to the Defence Force and deters any prospective aggressor.

With this philosophy in mind, we shall have to ask ourselves what constitutes the readiness of the manpower structure on which the S.A. Defence Force must depend in order to perform this task. Firstly, there is a need for a full-time long-term professional component. That component is provided by the Permanent Force. There is also a need, however, for a full-time manpower component that can perform daily operational tasks and be available on a full-time basis. The proposal contained in the Bill is that this component be provided by national servicemen. At the same time it also provides for the maximum training period, but the idea of 18 to 24 months contained in clause 1 and other clauses means that after they have undergone their basic training period, national servicemen will be available for the rest of their term—which could be 10 to 16 months—to perform operational tasks. In my opinion, they would then form a full-time force in conjunction with a full-time professional component which we already view as an answer to the problems of the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member from Durban Point. They want us to establish a full-time force. This requirement is inherent in the philosophy of the legislation before the House. We shall be able to establish a full-time force by means of the Permanent Force and the national servicemen. If hon. members study the White Paper, they will see that both these components are to be doubled in accordance with the policy of the Defence Force.

It is very clear that the Permanent Force component will have to be doubled by means of incentive systems and so on. We have already argued in a previous debate that there is a case to be made for differentiation and so on as far as scales and incentives are concerned. As for the full-time manpower component which we obtain from the national servicemen, I want to point out that this is being doubled by way of the maximum period of 24 months specified in the Bill. The hon. the Minister has, however, indicated that by utilizing the flexibility of the clause, he may limit the initial service period to 18 months. Consequently, if the system comes into effect in January 1978, we shall find that after a period of one year we shall be able to double the national service component of the full-time force. In due course, we could have the desired numbers in the full-time force.

I now want to discuss another important component. I want to refer to a recent article concerning the system of providing manpower in the West German Federal Republic and how they view their requirements. In the article, the Army is viewed as follows—

Why is this Army at the head of progress? The reason is that it has a claim on 2 million trained people who have done military service. That is my reason for saying that the next component of our preparedness will be a part-time but well-trained manpower component which can be available at short notice to react to a threat on any scale. It must be capable of acting as a counter-reactive force. It must be able to stave off any aggression. As far as I am concerned, this counter-reactive force is the guarantee against aggression and we know it will be able to deter any aggressor.

Of course, this component should be supplemented further by those people who have not yet completed their 10-year service commitments, but who have, in fact, met their obligations in respect of camps. This means that in this case, if they have met their camp obligations of eight camps, they will still serve in this reserve for a period of two years. The implication of this is that eventually we will have a force to rely on far greater than merely a counter-reactive force.

The last component of this system of providing manpower is the training input. It is important that we ensure that if we have the training input, our boys receive the best training possible. That is why I cannot quite understand the question asked by the hon. member for Yeoville. Is he opposed to the institution of further training centres?

No.

He is not opposed to it. I think it is vital, however, that we have more training centres. If we double this component, one with which we can supplement our fighting forces, then it is important that it should receive the best possible training. If we do not do this, we are signing the death warrant of those children. That is why they must receive only the very best, the most suitable and the most utilizable training. I have tried to formulate the underlying philosophy of this matter.

I now want to turn to the question of the eight camps of 30 days each, an idea which the hon. members for Yeoville and Durban Point object to for various reasons. The hon. member for Durban Point objects on the grounds of “possible loss of voluntary leadership”. We must face facts. The time when the hon. member for Durban Point and I, as well as our contemporaries, could do voluntary service, is slowly passing. We are now reaching an age at which we can no longer effectively carry out that duty. Whilst we are discussing this matter, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether those people who are being exempted from active service could not be used in another way as part of a very important component of our total preparedness, namely civil defence. They are now reaching this age group. Consequently, it is no loss if there is a gradual phasing out of people who have reached an age at which they are no longer of any use to the Defence Force. It is unfortunate that I should have to put it that way. The hon. member for Green Point knows how highly I respect our people. We must face facts, however.

As far as the leadership component in our Citizen Force and commandos is concerned, this will come chiefly from a group of people who do not fall into the national service group. They will probably be found at the executive level. This is true and that is why it must take place economically and in such a way that the executive department of the economy, those people in charge of management etc., are also affected minimally, but to the maximum advantage of the Defence Force. This is a very delicate situation that the Defence Force has to deal with.

The second objection the hon. member for Durban Point advanced was that the camps will not coincide with holidays. In my opinion, that is no argument and if we are going to make an analysis presently in relation to the withdrawal of productive manpower from the economy, the hon. member for Durban Point will realize that the group that is being withdrawn with drastic consequences, will become smaller and that this will eventually represent the leadership corps. Those people will not mind giving up an extra few days. Once again, we are dealing with a flexible situation that does not justify opposition.

Nowhere in the measure do I read that the hon. the Minister and the defence chiefs will not only arrange leadership camps. This is done, for example, in the case of members of the Permanent Force who are on reserve and can be called up for service again. In other words, there is an absolute flexibility, depending on the situation.

I am sorry the hon. member for Durban Point is not in the House now but the hon. member for Umlazi may feel free to defend him if I take him down a peg or two. The hon. member for Durban Point referred to the voluntary leadership corps that would be dissatisfied if it had to contend with “rookies” during the 30-day camps. I should like to put paid to the hon. member’s argument. According to the hon. member for Durban Point, the people of the voluntary leadership have already done four or five camps and the “rookie” has not yet done one. Which “rookies” is the hon. member for Durban Point referring to? I am asking the hon. member for Umlazi to tell me which rookie the hon. member for Durban Point was referring to.

No, I do not know.

This is not a chess game and surely we all know that the days of “rookies” are gone. As we analysed it, the hon. member for Durban Point—he has just resumed his seat—referred to a component existing of our best trained soldiers. The problem is going to be that these best trained soldiers who have already completed 18 months or two years of training, will have to contend with a leadership corps during their camps which in all probability will not yet have done any border duty. This is another problem that will probably have to be solved in order to develop a respectful relationship. In my opinion, the hon. member for Durban Point has seriously insulted the so-called “rookies”, the national servicemen. I am not playing politics, I am objecting to the fact that the hon. member for Durban Point calls national servicemen rookies. They are not rookies.

The hon. member went on to say that those men could not be productively employed for 30 days. The nature of the training those people are now undergoing is not at all what the hon. member for Durban Point has in mind. The days when the men went on three-day manoeuvres to the Caledon River or the Orange River or went on manoeuvres at De Brug for a day or two, are past. This is simply not done anymore. The hon. member for Durban Point would do well to ascertain how long it takes to bring a unit to the stage where they can begin to receive training, how long it takes to draw their equipment and how long it takes to undergo basic training before they can go on to a further phase of intensive training.

This system of providing manpower will undoubtedly make its influence felt in various sectors. In this regard, I am thinking particularly of the social sector, but in this regard, too, the philosophy underlying the legislation is very clear, viz. to affect only that group whose social situation is of such a nature that it creates as few problems as possible for them and their dependants. I want to compliment the heads of the Defence Force committee on the philosophy which I find in the measure. If I am letting my imagination run away with me, hon. members will have to forgive me. On the basis of the statistics of the South African Year Book, I find that the median age for entering into matrimony is the following: For the young White man, the average age in 1970 was 24,1 years and for the woman, 22,5 years.

According to the present system it seems to me that by that time, such a young man will already have his basic training of two years behind him. Consequently, I find this very significant in this regard. In lighter vein, I should like to add that I also have the figures relating to widows and widowers, if hon. members of the Opposition are interested.

But that is the average.

The hon. member asks what the average is and I have that figure here too. The average age of the White bridegroom in 1974 was 24,8 years and the bride’s average age was 21,8 years. I know that the hon. member for Yeoville is a man who will go and look up the statistics. There is a very important phenomenon which we have to take into account. As far as the young man is concerned, a change in the average age was detected between the years 1970 and 1974, because it dropped from 24, 1 to 22,5 years and this was apparently brought about—and we must take cognizance of this—by the national service system. As I have already said, by that age, namely 22,5 the two-year period of national service has already been completed.

If that is the average age, then half of the young men are younger than that age.

I have given the hon. member the exact figure for a young man and I have given him the average figure as well, viz. 24 years as against 22 years.

*Now the question arises as to what the effect on our economy will be. In this regard, I have obtained figures and information from the Department of Labour. I also consulted the Human Sciences Research Council and experts of the Economic Advisory Council and of the Prime Minister. The overall picture I obtained, is as follows: If persons in the age group 15 to 24 years are called up—and I am singling this group out because persons who are called up for national service will probably fall into that age group—we find that the income of those people, when we compare it to the total income of all White groups, represents 8,8%. However, if a full-time Force were to be established or if we were to draw a larger group from other age groups, for example, we find that the age group 25 to 34 years, represents 25,2% of the country’s income. One can deduce from this that the more economically productive groups are in the higher age groups whilst in the lower age group, we have that group which earns only 8,8% of the total and is consequently less economically active. In other words, what we are implementing here, is a measure that will have a minimum impact on the economy. On the basis of further data I have worked out that if a given number of persons from the ranks of the national servicemen were to join the Permanent Force, their withdrawal from the economy would result in a drop in income of 1,3%. Hon. members will see, then, that the full-time Force that is being advocated by the hon. member for Durban Point and the hon. member for Yeoville, has been established with a minimum impact on the economy—I have already mentioned the percentages. Although those persons falling within the age group 15 to 24 years represent approximately 29,2% of the total number of Whites, I want to repeat that they are responsible for only 8,8% of the country’s income. Hon. members will see, then, that the philosophy underlying the legislation is aimed at having a minimum impact on our economy.

Finally, I want to ask that we realize that we shall, in fact, have to deal with the manpower situation in South Africa. While I was doing research, I found that this was in fact being done. I am not saying this because I am a Nationalist, but because it is based on scientific facts. This is very clear to me. For quite a few years now, the Cabinet has been carrying out a thorough analysis, utilization and allocation of manpower. Now that the Defence Force has set its priorities, it means that it will have first claim on the provision of manpower. Where models have been built and formulas drawn up in the past, this means that these data will be the first to be incorporated in those models. We know, for example, that the Human Sciences Research Council, with Dr. Verhoef as its head, built a manpower model with which it makes projections from time to time. It makes a new estimate every year and makes an annual report on this available to the Cabinet’s committee on manpower. This means that this priority of the Defence Force—i.e. its first claim to manpower—will be incorporated in those models and this could extend its influence in all respects. I have pointed out that this hon. Minister wishes to make the minimum impact on the economy. We trust that this will be the case.

Moreover, it is also true that the Department of Labour is supervising a committee for the better utilization of manpower. They are building up an overall picture of the manpower situation in South Africa. The hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Durban Point, but particularly the former, received a great deal of publicity in the Financial Mail, for example [Interjections.] With all due respect and good will the publicity they are being given is out of all proportion because the impression is being created that we have neglected the manpower situation. They write in such a way that it seems that no other attention has been given to the matter. I want to emphasize that this matter has in fact received attention.

I conclude by saying that when we prepare ourselves, we must not do so half-heartedly, we must do it to win.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bloemfontein West dealt at length with manpower in his speech. The Bill seeks to find a solution to the manpower situation in relation to our armed forces and the adequate defence of our borders. That is the whole essence and principle of the Bill. I gave careful attention to the briefing that we attended on 13 April at which Admiral Edwards spelt out the manpower situation with great clarity. I have studied the documents with which he provided us at that briefing. I have studied the White Paper and over the weekend I had the opportunity of studying the hon. the Minister’s introductory speech in detail. The escalating and de-escalating factor of our manpower requirements runs like a golden thread through everything. This brings me to the conclusion that this Bill is absolutely necessary and that there is no way of avoiding or evading the realities of the situation. In order to provide adequately for the defence of our country, we need X number of trained men in the field at any given time. In order to ensure that that number of trained men is available when required, allowance must be made for adequate periods of training. In other words, what is needed is an extension of the period of national service and an extension of the maximum time involved in subsequent periods of service. These things we have to accept whether we like them or not. If South Africans wish to survive as a nation they will have to accept them on the same terms.

The hon. member for Durban Point and the hon. member for Yeoville to a certain extent, have raised a number of reasons why they object to the extension of the subsequent periods of training from 19 to 30 days and to a maximum of 240 days.

That is not true.

I am sorry, the hon. member for. Yeoville has raised a certain point in relation to the matter. While accepting some of the reasons given by the hon. member for Durban Point and having come across some of the factors mentioned by him, I cannot see how we can meet the needs of the Defence Force in any other way at this point in time. For this reason we shall not move any amendments at the Committee Stage.

However, we in these benches believe it is our duty, in the long-term, to find ways and means of making it easier for the national servicemen, the members of the Citizen Force and the commandos, to be away from home in the service of their country when their country needs them. In this respect, Sir, I hope you will bear with me while I make one or two suggestions to the hon. the Minister, suggestions which we of the UP believe will assist in the optimal utilization of willing manpower by our armed forces. I will not even deal with the question of participation of non-Whites in the armed forces because I am aware of the fact that this is receiving the attention of the Government and of the Defence Force. I believe that everything possible will be done to bring them into the Defence Force.

In the first place I must agree with speakers who have pointed out that the Citizen Force and the commandos have difficulty meeting the demands made on them at the present time. This is especially true in respect of people in the farming and the professional spheres because they have no one to keep an eye on their farms or businesses while they are away. They have difficulties, but they do not complain. I believe these men are proud to serve their country. That is certainly true of those who come from my constituency. We believe, however, that the worries and difficulties in this connection could be overcome. There are many active retired men who would love to have something to do. Only this morning it was mentioned over the radio that there are over 1,5 million South Africans over the age of 65. There are also many younger men who are unemployed. Could there not be some sort of co-ordinating committee formed between the Chief of Staff, Personnel, and the Department of Labour, a committee which could keep a list of categories of men seeking short-term employment and to which members of the Citizen Force and the commandos could apply for assistance in finding people to keep an eye on their businesses while they are on service? This would be particularly popular among farmers and professional men. There are retired professional men who would like to occupy themselves. I am sure it would not be too difficult to arrange this. However, there would have to be a central co-ordinating authority. One cannot do this in a haphazard way.

Secondly, I want to raise a question which was also referred to by the hon. member for Yeoville in regard to our national servicemen. I believe this to be of vital importance in the light of the fact that my information is that we will have to continue with the two intakes per year for some time to come. On the 24-month basis the young man who is called up in July and who intends going to university, a college of higher technical education or a teachers’ training college will in fact lose three years since the six months before and after his period of training will be wasted. It is our belief that the hon. the Minister should prevail on his colleague, the Minister of National Education, to use all the influence of his position on these educational institutions either to convert to two intakes per year themselves or to allow for broken study in the case of students desiring to do their national service before completing their studies. I believe it is better for a student to complete his national service before he completes his studies. It makes a better man and a better student of him. I believe we would then have more responsible people in our universities. It is our belief that if either of the two systems I have suggested were adopted, we would have far fewer applications for deferment of service and a far happier and more constant contingent of national servicemen.

Thirdly, I want to refer to the national servicemen doing their training in the Air Force or the Navy. It costs a great deal to train these young men and most of them are never required to do any subsequent periods of service. I know this because I have a son who was trained as a signaller in the Navy. There are certain categories of servicemen in these arms of the Defence Force who could be put to useful service in any other arm of the Defence Force. I refer mainly to signallers and gunners, although there may be other categories as well. The basic principles of signalling and gunnery are much the same wherever they are practised and perhaps better use could be made of these young men as a source of manpower in filling the gap in the escalating situation we face.

They could do some border service too.

I am quite sure many of these young chaps would love to do some border service with some other unit. Some of them have voluntarily joined the Citizen Force or the commandos. While other ground forces and armed forces are actually tied to the Citizen Force or the commandos, I believe there is a source of manpower here that is not being fully utilized.

But these chaps did an additional three months basic service.

I do not wish to debate the details with the hon. member. Sir, I do not wish to take up more time of the House, and, with the few suggestions I have made, I have much pleasure in supporting the Second Reading of this Bill on behalf of the IUP.

Mr. Speaker, when we look at our military objectives as set out in the White Paper, it becomes very clear that the recommendations of the committee have been made in an organized and scientific manner. If we look at point c, we see that one of our military objectives is to involve the entire population in the maintenance of law and order and in the defence of the Republic of South Africa. Having listened to today’s debate and to that of Friday as well, I feel a little disappointed. I say I feel a little disappointed because one would so like such a clear and positive message to issue forth from this Parliament in respect of legislation concerning an important matter like this one, that it would enable us to enlist the cooperation of the entire population.

If we think of the representative committee which, under the chairmanship of Rear-Admiral Edwards, investigated South Africa’s needs, needs deduced from what our enemies are envisaging and from what they are levelling at South Africa, and which also investigated the existing requirements in respect of manpower provision, then I think I am justified in saying that their investigation was conducted in a highly scientific manner, that they conducted their investigation with a thorough knowledge of the subject and that it was with patriotism and the interest of South Africa that they investigated what had to be done in order to meet the situation with the means at our disposal. That is why I deem it fitting for us in this Parliament, not only those of us in the Government benches, but also those in the Opposition parties, to have a very clear issuing message forth to the outside world, one in which we are unanimous in saying, firstly, that we support this White Paper and, secondly, that we endorse this change in respect of national service. I think it is in the interests of South Africa that there should not be an iota of misunderstanding or suspicion or any questions about this important matter. I do not want to restrict the Opposition. I do not want to tell them they may not ask any questions or that they may not harbour any misgivings about any measure taken by us. But I think it in the interests of South Africa that we should have a message issuing forth from this Parliament telling our people that henceforth, through none of our own doing, but due to circumstances—I want to say this without creating any panic—due to circumstances beyond our control, the situation in Southern Africa has changed to such an extent that South Africa will have to adopt a standpoint in relation to her army and the provision of manpower, which is correct, which we can afford and which we may regard as correct for many years to come.

There are three things on which heavy demands will be made in future. Firstly, I want to mention our manpower position and secondly, the economy. As far as our armaments are concerned, I think the matter has been discussed fully. I think the hon. the Minister has spelt out to us how South Africa buys the weapons she wants that she is even in a position to manufacture those she does not have and that as far as we are concerned, we get along as best we can. But as far as the other two components are concerned, viz. our economy and our manpower position, we have given potentialities which we must take stock of and the strength of which we have to determine.

It will help us, whenever a scientific study is made, as this committee has in fact done, and certain recommendations are made with the very aim of rendering assistance to and strengthening the economy by first drawing the men who are least active in the economy in the form of national servicemen, and to enlarge the component of our national servicemen as laid down by the White Paper, from 6,6% to approximately 12,5% and to develop this component in such a way that we shall be able to meet this threat to South Africa. We ought to have a message issuing forth to the people outside this afternoon on this important matter, a message in which we tell them that the Defence Force in South Africa will have to form a part of future planning amongst the sons and daughters of South Africa. It will have to form an essential part of our future planning in South Africa. It will do us no good to try and evade this. When we talk about patriotism and about our fatherland, South Africa, it is necessary that we convey a message to our people this afternoon, that we address them and tell them that these things have been done in a calculated manner, with a view to creating a Defence Force based on a system of two years of national service. We shall have to bring it to their attention that there will be an overlapping of twelve months, but that there will be advantages to this. We must inform the people that we are working towards restricting the intakes to January—as the hon. the Minister himself has stated—with a view to enabling people to go to university. This will take a few years, however. Unfortunately, the necessary facilities for an immediate change-over to the new system do not exist at the moment. However, we are moving towards an ideal. That ideal is the optimal utilization of manpower in South Africa. Naturally, this does not hold true for the Defence Force alone, but for the economy as well.

The advantages of this system should be noted. This is really what I want to emphasize this afternoon. I do not want to pose questions here which may possibly create public confusion. I do not want to help other people to formulate further questions. I believe we should have faith in the hon. the Minister, in the Defence Force and in the management of the Defence Force, a faith which will enable us rather to stress the advantages and the positive aspects of this system. I should like to mention a few of those advantages this afternoon.

Having regard to the extent to which national servicemen are exposed to threats—particularly when one thinks of one’s own child—we agree that it would be extremely irresponsible of the Defence Force to send our sons to the frontline without them being adequately trained. We are not dealing with people who come to South Africa for the fun of it. We are dealing with soldiers who are well-trained and who understand the art of achieving their objectives. We dare not gamble with our sons and with the future of South Africa. That is why it is our primary duty to ensure that our sons have been properly trained when we send them into dangerous situations.

If we take note of the constitution of the Defence Force, it is apparent that in terms of the new dispensation as contained in the White Paper, there will be a considerably smaller percentage in the Citizen Force and Commandos. I think the percentage is approximately 13%. This is the figure that relates to the supplementation to the ranks of the national servicemen and of the Permanent Force. This is to the benefit of our economy, of course. On the one hand, we are doing the right thing by training our people—on a continuous basis by means of camp attendance—and on the other hand, the general public ought to understand that when it comes to training camps, applications for deferment or exemption should not be made lightly. When we offer camps on a basis of 30 days a year over a period of eight years, particularly in relation to the highly sophisticated armament for the operation of which thoroughly trained people are required, we are not doing this from spite or indifference but with the motive of enabling people to have refresher courses on the intricacies of the armament involved and to keep them efficient and prepared at all times. The people who return after they have received their training are also of importance as regards the volunteers about whom so much has been said this afternoon, volunteers who receive only three weeks’ leave and so on. We are extremely appreciative of the volunteer element in the Defence Force. However, if we do feel so strongly in this regard, we should feel equally strongly about the fact that the voluntary element, particularly the officers who have to take leadership courses, will also be away for the same period. Here we have the advantage that we can strengthen the leadership component in the Commandos and in the Citizen Force with the men who return because they are well-trained people. This is one of the positive advantages of the measure.

I now want to turn to the students. If we look at the manpower situation and if we look at the figures of the Institute for Manpower Research—which are very interesting and which have also been taken into account by the Defence Force—we shall see that there are shortages at the highly educated levels. This is true of the Defence Force as well, however, and that is why it is a good thing that some of our sons go to university before undergoing their military training, so that we may use some of those men in the Defence Force as well, particularly in view of the fact that the Permanent Force is now being enlarged. I think a message should be sent from Parliament to the effect that the new arrangement will also create new opportunities on a permanent basis in the Defence Force.

These positive things have to be said. That is why I am pleased that one can give one’s support to well-considered legislation that has been drafted on a scientific basis, legislation born of experience and of the needs of the country. This is legislation which is economically justifiable because it is a very important component of our national economy. Those people who mean well by our economy must also realize that an economy cannot flourish in these days unless there is, inter alia, a strong Defence Force which can protect one’s country against threats and onslaughts from outside. We must do one thing, but at the same time we must not fail to do the other. I think the proposal contained in the Bill will be one of the strongest stimuli to our economy because the businessmen and the economist attach great value to correct planning in the Defence Force.

The Opposition parties asked various questions this afternoon. I want to give them credit for that and excuse them for asking them because that is their prerogative. I should like to appeal to them, however, not to ask a host of questions which, in turn, will give rise to questions amongst the public. These are unnecessary questions, because these are well-considered matters. The committee has done its work well and we should rather convey a positive image to the world outside. We should tackle the task that lies before us in the realization that these components, namely our economy and our manpower, have been united to produce the best results. On the other hand, we should also realize that South Africa is being provided with the best armaments. The general population must know that the Government and the Minister mean well by this, and unnecessary questions are not appropriate at this time. We must give the Defence Force our loyalty and support and we must give our support in the knowledge that the national servicemen will undergo thorough preparation before they go to the operational area. We must also remember that after that, they receive further training from time to time and that meaningful planning goes into everything that is done. Then we should also realize that South Africa is beloved and dear to us and that when we have to defend her, we should not ask a host of questions that can lead only to discord and which can give rise to a disposition which is by no means beneficial amongst certain people whose feelings towards South Africa may be lukewarm or cold. From now on, let all of us be positive in promoting this matter. Then this will be to everyone’s advantage.

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Heilbron had paid attention to the White Paper, he would have realized that the matters raised by the hon. member for Durban Point had relevance to a problem existing in the Defence Force. I shall refer to it later.

I want to deal with the problem that the hon. member for Bloemfontein West has with the expression “rookie”. I want to suggest to him that the parliamentary equivalent of “rookie” who is posted to a regiment, will be a “backbencher” who is elected to Parliament. Both have their future wide open to them. There is thus nothing derogatory in the reference of the hon. member for Durban Point to a “rookie”. In fact, it is almost a term of endearment in the Army.

During the course of the debate I want to address one or two remarks to the hon. the Minister. They arise from the question of unconventional warfare and the phenomenon of what we refer to as terrorist activity, whether potentially external or internal. It causes operational demands in various degrees of intensity on the Defence Force. The hon. the Minister and the Defence Command Council are always faced with this problem of balancing the realities and the requirements of the economic growth of the country with providing adequately for the physical security of our country. I also want to say—as has been said by the hon. member for Yeoville—that we have appreciated the briefing given to us at the instance of the hon. the Minister so that we in this House can know about the requirements and the problems of the Defence Command Council. I want to refer to some of the information which was furnished to us and which has been published. I have here an extract of an cuticle in a recent edition of To the Point in which certain information was published as to the urgent need for Permanent Force incentive. I can assure the hon. the Minister that this article has no strategic value. It is merely an indication of the demands on various sectors of the economy. I believe that this Bill intends to introduce and does introduce measures to reconcile the demands for adequate physical security and at the same time sees to it that there is no unnecessary impediment to the economic growth of the country. It is as well that it goes on record that the Citizen Force is providing 54,9% of the part-time servicemen available for the defence of South Africa, whereas, according to the published figures, the desired ratio should be that the Citizen Force should provide 34,8% of the available manpower. I am sure the hon. member for Heilbron will realize that when the hon. members for Durban Point and Yeoville spoke about the necessity of maintaining the cadre of trained persons in the Citizen Force, that was a matter which was specifically referred to in the White Paper. In the White Paper reference is made to the fact that it is disturbing that the Citizen Force units are also experiencing shortages in the categories of qualified and experienced officers, warrant officers and non-commissioned officers. That is what concerns the experts. That is what the hon. member for Durban Point and others have mentioned. I too propose to mention it to the hon. the Minister. I am sure he welcomes any suggestions because of the problem to maintain that experienced cadre of officers and senior NCOs in so far as the Citizen Force units are concerned.

These categories are dependent on extended service volunteers. As the hon. the Minister is only too well aware, these are persons who sacrifice their civilian leave and many hours of their free time to do parades, to undergo continuous training and to attend qualification courses. I am sure that the whole country is indebted to these men who undertake this work. Any action which adversely affects or reduces the availability of these people who fall in these particular categories, must receive our very serious and continued attention. I know the hon. the Minister is well aware of the fact—he should know because he meets them in their messes, in their regimental messes—that there are young executives and professional men who cannot be expected to be called up with their Citizen Force units for three months a year over successive years. I believe that is why one should welcome this Bill. I do, because it shifts a degree of the responsibility for necessary service on the borders to the national servicemen and removes it from the Citizen Force which is then available to meet greater demands for manpower in respect of service on our borders or in our country. For that reason I welcome this move. It is unfortunate that the hon. member for Cradock should have attempted to bring party politics into the debate.—We have made our suggestions because we have been in contact with members of the Citizen Force—not any more than hon. members on that side of the House have been in contact with them.

I hope the hon. the Minister, through the Defence Command Council, will look at the situation to see whether these extended Citizen Force officers and NCOs cannot be met in some way that at any rate they are not called upon to do camps exceeding their annual leave period which they normally utilize to attend camps. In other words, they should be accommodated in some way so that they are not the losers, by having to use more than their annual leave, which is normally, as the hon. the Minister knows, three weeks. I believe the matter can be dealt with administratively and I am sure the hon. the Minister will give the matter his attention.

This Bill is going to have the effect of placing a greater responsibility on our national servicemen in the operational areas. I should like to deal very briefly with an attitude in regard to the use of national servicemen on the borders, an attitude which, unfortunately, became apparent during the Angolan commitments in so far as the Defence Force was concerned. Some people referred to the use of youngsters in defence in operational zones. The question was asked whether they were fit for the job and whether older people should not be used. As the hon. member for Yeoville was speaking, I remembered that he was 17½ years old when he went on operational duties during the last war. Those of us who took part in the last war, will realize that there were many hundreds of 18 and 19 year olds who were involved in the last war. I cannot believe for one moment that the youngsters of today, the young men of 18, 19 and 20 years of age are less tough, less resolute and with less initiative than those who were involved in the last and in previous wars. I can also not believe that they have less initiative and less resolve than those in the Defence Force who might be 10, 12 or 15 years their senior. From what I have seen and from what I have heard, those who are serving in the forces at the present time have displayed equal qualities to those before them. I believe the use of young men in the operational zone is subject to three prerequisites. In the first place they should be properly trained; secondly, they should be properly equipped and, thirdly, they should be properly led in operations. Perhaps I can be objective in these matters, because I have even passed—through the passage of time—out of control and discipline by the Defence Command Council or any others and I can speak of senior officers as I wish, without fear of disciplinary proceedings being instituted against me. I am satisfied that those three prerequisites are being provided at the moment as far as our national service training is concerned. The men are receiving proper training, they are being properly equipped and proper leadership in respect of operation is provided.

It would therefore be an injustice to suggest that they would not be as efficient in operational conditions as their counterparts in previous generations were. I hope that parents will appreciate this fact and that we shall not have the type of letter and article which were written during the time of the Angolan campaign, suggesting that these young men should not have been involved. They are the men who have had the most modern training, have the most modern equipment and are the most ready to deal with operations of the nature that took place in Angola. They are equally ingenious as any previous generation. When I spoke to one of the young subalterns who returned from the Angola campaign, I asked him whether he was quite happy living on tinned food. He told me that they were fed quite well. He mentioned the menu they had and it included some luxuries which I was certain did not come from the Q stores in the Army. When I asked him how he managed to get these rations he gave that age-old reply that any Army man has: “Deserted farms, Sir.” If they are able to look after themselves in that way as their forefathers did before them, there is nothing wrong with this generation.

This Bill does provide for a balance in the demands upon manpower. It ensures an adequate Defence Force. It will build up a balance between the Citizen Force and the national servicemen. I hope the hon. the Minister will give consideration to the matters which I have raised with a view to meeting the problems brought about by the extended period of service. If those problems can be met, we need have no fear for the future because we will be building up an adequate Defence Force.

Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for the positive approach to this Bill which came, in general, from all sides of this House. I do not think that Parliament would have come forward with drastic legislation of this nature if it had had a choice. We are living in a world in which all Parliaments, legislatures or Governments are confronted by such a position, and all of them have to make the best of it, having regard to their own problems and circumstances. The hon. member for Green Point referred to certain discrepancies which exist. I agree with him. We dealt with them in the White Paper as well. The hon. member could refer to page 18 of the White Paper. However, I want to point out, by way of summary, what we were envisaging here, viz.—

In other words, it is already our point of departure to expand the Permanent Force and to try, by means of an incentive system, to reduce the turnover. The White Paper goes on to state—

In other words, here are four steps which we were envisaging—

This is, beyond any doubt, the long-term solution to many of our problems. We are now having to contend with a situation which fluctuates from day to day, and therefore we have here a piece of legislation which is as flexible as it can be made to be under the circumstances. Those hon. members who were provided with information, will recall that we had to deal with a situation in the short term, the medium term and the long term. To my way of thinking the first two are the most important because the long term can bring about other material changes. As far as one can see in the short and medium term there are certain requirements which we have to comply with. As far as the Army is concerned, this legislation makes provision for a full-time force, a reaction force and an active reserve. We also announced that in respect of the other important element, viz. civil defence, the object is to give up part of the reserve for that purpose. In the second place, as far as the Air Force and the Navy are concerned, the emphasis falls to a far greater extent on the force-in-being as a result of the kind of equipment which both these arms of the Defence Force utilize, and the high degree of sophistication of such equipment—which, of course, is not absent in the Army, but is perhaps not present there to such a full extent. One can only form an opinion of this Bill if one takes these principles into consideration, and it is against this background that we are asking hon. members to judge this Bill. I agree with hon. members who said that “there is no alternative to the present system”, but I do not agree with what some hon. members said, viz. that under the present circumstances there was ostensibly an alternative. I should like to clarify what I mean on this point. I want to deal with it first.

As stated in the White Paper, I have no objection in principle to our making use of other factors or means to strengthen the Permanent Force as a whole. There is no doubt at all in my mind that we have to do this. I have already stated, I did so during the discussion of my Vote, but I do not want to do this in an irresponsible way. I want to do it in an orderly and disciplined way, and this is also the advice I receive from people who were appointed to assess the military position and make provision for it. For the sake of the record I again want to emphasize a few facts here.

In the first place the defence of the country does not consist only of the Defence Force but also of the provision of equipment. As far as the provision of equipment is concerned, 45% of the employees of Armscor consist of people of population groups other than the White population group. In other words, 45% of the workers consist of Coloureds, Indians and Black people; 45% of the workers of Armscor and its subsidiaries consist of members of these three population groups. This is quite apart from private industries which, in this field, have already attracted large numbers from the other population groups. For example, I know of a factory I visited that has 1 000 workers with only the principal executive staff consisting of Whites. The other persons employed there are either Coloureds, Indians or Blacks. Highly sophisticated and complex work is being done there, and we are very satisfied with the results that are being achieved.

The second point I want to make is that 17%—I have mentioned this already, during the discussion of my Vote—of the manpower that is at present being employed in the operational area consists of members of other population groups. Most of them are on active service, they are there in a fighting capacity. A few days ago I reacted to the proposal that there should be “crack units”. I think we already have units that measure up to this description, and I think that we made a mistake by not giving greater publicity to their preparedness. I think we should consider doing so.

In the third place, I want to say that we have already established the principle in respect of Coloureds and Indians—I announced this a few years ago—that we are going to enlarge the Permanent Force by making use of them. We have already approved a 50% expansion in respect of Coloureds in the Permanent Force. I am referring only to the Permanent Force now. I shall not give the figures that are involved but I can say that they run into thousands. In addition we have just begun to train Indians in the Permanent Force. As far as they are concerned, there will be an increase of 200% over the approved expansion. This will be done gradually, but the increase has already been approved. A large-scale expansion is also being envisaged as far as the voluntary elements are concerned. During the discussion of my Vote I announced that another unit for Coloureds was going to be established. As far as the support services of the Army are concerned, there will be a three-fold increase. I almost want to say that it will be increased by at least 300%. The most important factor which is causing problems in this regard is the availability of officers. We first have to identify and train the necessary officer material; otherwise we cannot make a success of this. Surely hon. members will readily concede that.

I am sorry that the Press erroneously created the impression that I am not in favour of this, for that is totally incorrect. What I did say was that I was not in favour of the irresponsible employment of the people concerned, without their having been properly trained and without an officer’s class having been trained to control them. Of course, we must also have the necessary facilities. This again depends on the availability of money. These are important factors which we have to take into account. I felt that I should make my standpoint in this regard very clear.

Apart from that, we have trained a very efficient unit for the Transkei. We are also training a unit for Bophuthatswana. In South West Africa we have trained a unit for the Kavango. In addition we are still in the process of training one for the Ovambo. There is another unit in South West Africa which I consider to be one of our best trained units. I hope that we will soon give greater publicity to the unit in question. Then people will be able to see how they acquit themselves of their task. As I have said, it all depends on the availability of officers and of facilities, a matter which in its turn is dependent on the availability of money.

The hon. member for Durban Point did not really object to the principle. He expressed his concern about the 30 days and the total of 240 days. He also expressed his concern about the effects on the volunteer. I must point out that what we are referring to here are maximum periods. Surely the hon. member is aware that the call-up of a unit is in the hands of the commanding officer. It is he who determines this, and he will inevitably keep a sympathetic eye on the interests of his people. Surely it does not mean to say that he will call up the same group every time. The efficiency and preparedness of, and the standard of training a unit has achieved, will also determine to a large extent whether or not the full number of days are used. As I know our commanding officers, and they are improving by the day, I have no doubt at all that they will look after the interest of each individual sympathetically. It is an integral part of the Defence Act that consideration should be given to any hardship suffered, and we go out of our way to establish the means to alleviate any hardship. So I think that if the hon. member views the matter in this light, his criticism—it was not really an objection—will fall away.

The voluntary element is of course a smaller percentage and will most probably remain that way, or perhaps even diminish. With that I do not want to deny the importance of the voluntary element. On the contrary. We all know what it means to the Defence Force.

I now want to refer the hon. member to comparable countries, in the first place to Israel. In Israel men are called up for three years and women for two years. It will be a long time before we reach that level. After that they are called up for 30 days a year for 12 years. I am saying that the circumstances are relatively comparable because Israel to a large extent also has to rely on its own resources and also has manpower problems. No one will deny that there are tremendous manpower problems in Israel, as far as the economy is concerned. But they have laid down three years for men, two years for women and after that, a further 30 days per annum for 12 years.

The sooner we follow their example, the better.

I agree with the hon. member. I think we have already made a great deal of progress along those lines. This morning while I was walking down the street I was stopped by two people whom I did not know from Adam. They told me that they had just returned from the operational area. I asked them a few questions and the attitude they displayed is evinced in these words: “Sir, we shall go again. It is a sacrifice, but we shall go again.”

Many of them want to go again.

I speak to these people whenever I am in the operational area and it seems to me that the vast majority of our Defence Force people, in spite of the sacrifice that they have to make, do so gladly because they know that they have a job to do. With that I do not want to minimize the sacrifices that they are making. On the contrary, I know of great sacrifices which are being made. The hon. member is correct in that respect. This does not apply only to South Africa; it applies to every country which is dependent on a national army, which employs the citizens of its country in contrast to a large professional force. I want to take a less comparable country, viz. Switzerland. Switzerland is less comparable because Switzerland has for many years not experienced a war and because it adopts a policy of neutrality. In his initial period of service a young man in his 20th year is called up for 16 weeks and after that annually for 20 days up to a maximum of 118 days until his 32nd year. From his 33rd to his 42nd he is called up for a total of 40 days. From his 43rd year to his 50th year he is called up for a total of 13 days, i.e. 171 days in aggregate. In other words, this has by now become traditional with them. Hon. members who have any knowledge of this matter know that it is traditional among them that the son joins his father’s unit; it becomes a source of pride to him. I do not even want to mention larger countries. I singled out these two countries to point out to hon. members that when a system of national service exists, there are certain sacrifices attached to it.

†Mr. Speaker, the hon. member also referred to the question of the two-year call-up. I think the hon. member for Yeoville also referred to it. It is easier for the Defence Force, from the point of view of the Defence Force, to call up national servicemen twice yearly. It is better. It is easier to handle. Where one has limited facilities, it is easier to handle. Taking cognizance of the interests of our universities and of the economic position of the country, the idea is, however, to strive towards a call up once a year. We believe that will serve the interests of the economy. We also believe that it will fit in better with the universities and their ways of planning. I stated in my Second Reading speech that it was not possible to promise that this would be done in a year or two, but that we would try to change to one call up per year as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether the economic and financial implications for the Defence Force of doing this have been examined from the point of view of the duplication of training facilities and the like?

My department is making a study of this matter at present. However, we first have to obtain Cabinet approval for the introduction of this system. Further studies are being made at the moment with a view to examining all the implications of this matter. Of course it is something which will have to be introduced gradually. If one were to introduce it suddenly, one would be faced with the problem that one did not have the necessary facilities and also that one did not have the necessary means to do this immediately.

†We shall have to phase it in. Is that what the hon. member wants to know?

I am concerned about the expense which is involved.

Yes, I am also concerned about the expense. In any case, I believe the proposed system will be cheaper than the system which is presently being followed.

*I think it will be cheaper in the long run. I think that the country’s economy will benefit from it, and that it will be less disruptive.

Several hon. members put questions in regard to the effect of the new system. I reiterate that we must first have the principle approved. It is not possible for the Defence Force to elucidate at this early stage all the implications in regard to each separate group. I think it would have been wrong on my part to have committed myself to anything like that. There are also certain questions which occurred to me, and to which my department and I still have to find the answers. This is so because we are unable to forecast what the situation would be like when this legislation comes into effect.

I am nevertheless going to convey a few of the obvious consequences that it would have to hon. members. In the first place I want to refer to national servicemen who are at present undergoing training, excluding the June 1977 intake. The new system is with retrospective effect and includes all national servicemen who are receiving their training when the measures come into operation in terms of this amendment Bill. The following could be applicable to national servicemen who are at present undergoing training. Financial bonuses will be paid to the intake for the 24 months from July 1975, January and July 1976 and January 1977, as well the intakes for the 18 months from January to July. The financial bonuses will be paid out as agreed. The initial compulsory period of full-time service may be extended to 24 months for the 18-month intakes from January and July 1976 and January 1977 and for the 12-month intakes from July 1976 and January 1977. Hon. members must take cognisance of the fact that I am saying that the period can be extended. New 24 and 18-month voluntary service extension would already have been terminated, except for those already in the pipeline. As far as those in respect of whom we have obligations are concerned, we shall meet those obligations. I think that answers the hon. member for Durban Point’s question. All national servicemen, whether from the 12, 18 or 24-month groups are required to undergo a further 240 days service in the Citizen Force or commandos during the remainder of the 10 years active national service period. This applies to the remaining obligation which he has not yet complied with. If we do not do it in this way, it will cause serious gaps and problems. The July 1977 intake will be handled according to when the provisions of this Bill come into operation. As far as financial bonuses are concerned, bonuses which are already in the pipeline will be paid to the July 1977 intake. I have mentioned these points especially because I wanted to clear up, to a reasonable extent, the questions relating to the complicated administrative application. I stated in my Second Reading speech that there were certain categories of these intakes which we would in fact require. A study is now being made of this matter and it will be made clear in good time to the persons concerned.

†The hon. member for Yeoville also asked me whether this agreement will be between the Defence Force and the serviceman. The reply is “yes”. It will be a mutual agreement; otherwise it will be useless to obtain such an agreement.

*The hon. member for Yeoville raised certain points which I want to clear up. The hon. member said that we needed a larger Permanent Force. I agree with him. In fact, I do not think there is a single hon. member in this House who would not admit it. However, a larger Permanent Force would entail greater expense for South Africa. We shall have to face up to this fact, for it is no use deceiving ourselves by speaking of a larger Permanent Force and then not being prepared to pay for it. There is an exhaustive and on-going investigation in progress into this matter in the Defence Force. I have already approved numerous reports in order to establish a new blueprint for the expansion of the Permanent Force. However, I have stipulated throughout that I approve of it, subject to the availability of funds and manpower. We cannot supplement the manpower unless we have the necessary facilities, housing and funds. Although it will entail further expenditure, I am in favour of it. In my time a start was made, as far as unconventional warfare is concerned, by forming the reconnaissance commando. Today this commando is one of the outstanding units in the country. We may all be proud of it. It is one of South Africa’s best trained units. I should very much like to see more of them. However, they cost money. Therefore, we are working in the direction of establishing a larger Permanent Force.

I think I have already dealt with the question of other population groups satisfactorily. However, we have introduced another principle, in that we have, to save manpower, augmented the part played by women in all three arms of the Defence Force—the Army, the Air Force and the Navy. Many men are being released for other purposes today, because women are pulling their weight in various spheres in the Defence Force.

†The hon. member for Yeoville also asked me whether it was not better to have an 18-months’ period and to extend it to 24 months, instead of having a maximum period of 24 months and reduce it to 18 months. I do not know what the big difference is. It is a small difference. In any case, the period, will not be extended unless it is necessary. It boils down to the same, whether I have the power to extend the period to 24 months or to reduce it to 18 months. Circumstances will determine to what extent they are employed.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? When a call-up takes place, will the serviceman, on receiving his call-up papers, be informed that the call-up is for 18 months?

I hope so, with the proviso, of course, that the period can be extended if necessary.

The hon. member also asked me whether I will use my good offices to see to it that some credit is given to servicemen. The reply is “yes”. I shall do my very best.

*The hon. member also put a question to me on clause 3(d). As regards the date 31 December 1976, I have been informed that the law advisers experienced a technical problem because there are provisions in the Bill to the effect that the State President may make certain aspects of the legislation applicable on different dates. They then chose this date because it was a convenient date in order to overcome that problem. That, in brief, is the answer.

It creates other problems.

It creates other problems, but such is life. Having solved one problem, one is confronted by another. If it were possible to solve all problems at the same time, we would not have needed a Parliament.

I think I have already dealt with the question of one intake per year. The hon. members for Yeoville and Green Point also referred to the question of the key personnel, those persons whom one needs and whom one cannot manage without. I also referred to this matter briefly by saying that the commanding officer should take steps to protect his leadership group; in other words, the compulsory service period of the voluntary elements can be curtailed with the consent of the commanding officer or the commanding officer of the commando. The S.A. Defence Force has already approved a 25% supernumerary personnel for the leadership group, and this will ease the situation considerably. If we can succeed in filling the posts, the commanding officers can also display a little flexibility in this regard. The hon. member also raised the question of the 10 year active service period. The 10 year active service period cannot be converted to 10 consecutive years, for when people are called up, many people fall out, people who have to be granted a deferment for various reasons and their service liability therefore mounts up. If these service periods had to be consecutive we would experience problems in this regard with its application. Therefore we cannot succeed in introducing the consecutive process.

The hon. member for Yeoville also, by way of an amendment which we will probably discuss further in the Committee Stage, presented us with an involved mathematical problem. However, I want to say at once that in the field of mathematics I confess that I am no match for the hon. member for Yeoville. In my opinion we should not write such complicated formulae into the Bill.

Do you accept the principle?

The spirit, i.e. that those who have received better training and have rendered more service, should do less in comparison with those who have done less, I accept. I have no fault to find with the principle, but we should rather leave such complicated formulae alone.

The hon. member for Albany referred to a co-ordinating committee for the purpose of improving the employment of manpower. As I understood the hon. member, what he wanted was that for those who endured hardships, through having to go for military service, others should be made available in their place. We shall refer the matter to the Command Council, and we will submit the matter to the Manpower Board. We have now succeeded, through means of negotiation, in getting a representative of the Agricultural Union onto the Manpower Board. All sectors are therefore represented on the Manpower Board now, and something good could perhaps come of it.

These are in my opinion the most important matters which the hon. members raised.

I want to thank hon. members on this side of the House for their positive approach and their support of the Bill. It is not easy for any Minister of Defence, whoever he may be, to call up the children of other people in the knowledge that he is sending them into danger. It is not easy for any Parliament to call up the children of other people, who are in the prime of their youth, and to expose them to dangers such as those to which we have to expose our youth. There are a few approaches in respect of a matter such as this which we have to accept as matters of principle. In the first place, if one calls them up, they are entitled to have the best weapons at their disposal with which to defend themselves. We are trying to do this, and that is why we are asking for more money. In the second place, when one calls up those young men, one wants to keep up their spirits and one wants to keep them in a state of preparedness, and to be able to do this, one must be able to create the necessary facilities for them at the bases and in the field, facilities which will contribute to ensuring that their spirit is not broken. In this regard I am not pleading for five-star hotels, but that we should also be able to provide them with the best services in the field—medical services, and leisure time utilization, means of conveyance, and so on. In the third place these people must be trained to be able to handle the weapons at their disposal in the best possible way. The basis of this Bill is to introduce a period of service in which we are able to provide them with the best training, and in which we can teach them to handle weapons, weapons which are becoming more sophisticated all the time. To achieve all these things there will have to be flexibility and the means of adapting to new circumstances will have to be at the disposal of the leaders of the Defence Force. It is these circumstances which we cannot forecast because the kind of warfare we have to deal with in the world today, is a kind of warfare which can change from one minute to the next because new weapons are being introduced all the time. For this reason I hope that hon. members will give this Bill a chance in its present form. The Bill is the result of a penetrating study which was made by people who knew what they were doing. If we discover any shortcomings when it is being applied, we shall not hesitate to come back to Parliament, for we must adapt it to the best of our ability in order to serve the interests of the S.A. Defence Force and of our young men.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 1:

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has dealt with a number of the issues raised during the Second Reading debate. I am afraid that there are still two things on which I do not have clarity and I hope that it is not only me. In his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister referred specifically to the power to call up for 24 months being applied initially only for a 18 month period. It is not clear to me whether he confirmed in his reply that this is what is intended, viz. that when this Bill becomes law, unless there is an escalation, the physical period of call up will be for 18 months. I think it is important that we shall have clarity on that as it affects particularly those involved in the July call up. I received a letter dated 3 March 1977 only this afternoon. It appears from this letter that a man’s whole university programme is affected, that this Bill will probably affect the boy’s career including whether he goes to university or not. This is therefore an important issue, assuming naturally, as we all hope, that there is not an escalation which makes the extension necessary before, say, the end of the year. I am glad that the hon. the Minister has cleared that up, namely that the intention is to call up for 18 months at the moment.

The second point on which he said he could not yet give clarity—I merely want to clarify it in my own mind—is that those called up last July and at present doing service and who will finish this coming July, will be subjected to the extension from a year to 18 months with the possibility of an escalation to two years.

They can be.

They can be and not necessarily will be. This is a matter that rather worries me. A man may almost have reached the end of his service period and might have only six to seven weeks to go. By this time it is very likely that he has a job. He would have planned in advance because he knew that he was coming out at the end of June. The Army is very co-operative and allows men to have interviews for jobs. So, he would have been looking for a job and would be planning to start his civilian career sometime in July, in less than two months’ time. It is most unsettling for such a person in that position, with a career arranged, with a job arranged, possibly with training arranged, to now not know whether he is going to be able to take up the job that he has got or whether he is going to find himself kept in the forces for an additional six months.

I really think that we must look at this once again. The man who will be called up in July 1977 and who will serve until July 1978 has not yet got to that stage. He has not started his service, and if the Bill is now promulgated I can accept that it is reasonable that he should do the extended longer service. But I do feel that the man who is now just about to finish should be placed in a different category, particularly those, as I have emphasized, who already have obtained jobs. The other aspect of this uncertainty is the position of the employer who has released a man. He has released a man whom he took on in January 1976 and who was called up in July 1976 for a year. He has been released but has meanwhile been kept on the company’s strength. The employer may be paying him, as in Government departments or the Railways, under a contract. He is earning that money—it has been budgeted for—under a contract to work for an equal period after he returns. In the meantime the employer has got to plan. He is counting on the man being back in July to fill a vacancy which is there or otherwise he may have brought in a temporary man or taken on a man who is himself due to be called up in July so that he can then be replaced by the new man released from service. These are all practical and not theoretical considerations; these are practical problems that management has got to plan for. In engineering works particularly, where there are many apprentices, the number called up can be a significant factor in managements manpower planning. If there are ten men out of the factory on service due back in July, then that factory will have taken on ten other apprentices—possibly from the new July call-up—to fill that gap. I think that although it might extend the effectiveness of the whole programme and could take longer before you have got sufficient trained men, we still have to think very carefully about this. Is it just and fair to impose on chaps now in camp the new provisions when it is almost too late for them to do anything about changing or adjusting to it. I leave it there, Mr. Chairman, and wait to hear the hon. the Minister’s reaction before taking it any further.

The other aspect is that of the 30-day camps. Here I would like clarity from the hon. the Minister. To what extent does the commanding officer of the unit have discretion about whom he calls up? He is told that his unit must provide X-hundred men from such and such a date to such and such a date. If the period is 30 days then the men must go for 30 days. Any national serviceman who has been called up and wants exemption has to apply to the Exemptions Board. The OC does a little juggling only where he has surplus officers or surplus NCOs by not calling up some volunteers. But he has got to provide his unit fully manned to a specified strength for a specified period. Therefore he has got to use these voluntary people in order to officer them and lead them for that full period. This is where I would like a little more clarity from the hon. the Minister, on how that flexibility is going to work in practice.

I leave these three points there and will await the hon. the Minister’s reaction to them before taking them further.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper and also one additional amendment, as follows—

: Provided that such service rendered by such member before 31 December 1977 shall be regarded as a period determined in accordance with the formula , in which X represents the number of days so served before that date.

I want to apologize that my one amendment did not appear on the Order Paper earlier, but I was waiting to see what the hon. the Minister’s response would be. Let me briefly motivate my amendments.

Firstly, the hon. the Minister in his reply indicated quite clearly that the intention was in fact to call up members of the public for 18 months. He indicated, too, that the call-up papers would specify that it was for 18 months, but that it would also be indicated that the period might be extended. He said that in his opinion what I am trying to achieve would mean the same as what he is doing. Sir, with respect, the psychological effect of being told that the first period of service is only 18 months, but that if the exigencies of the service require it, it may be extended to two years, as opposed to the impact it will have if it is stated that the call-up will be for a period of two years, could only be of benefit to the desired image. If the hon. the Minister feels, as he does, that it means the same thing, I think that as regards the point of view of the public, it will be of benefit if he accepts my proposal. I think the public would respond to this very substantially. If the hon. the Minister wants to think about this further, he will obviously have an opportunity to amend this provision in the Other Place. I think it is very important that the effect on the public should be the right one.

I must say I do not agree with the view of the hon. member for Simonstown when, by way of an interjection, he said that the period of service should be three years as it is in Israel. One must look at the impact on the public and on the world. I have said in the House before and I want to repeat that the enemies of South Africa, by causing us to spend more of our manpower and money on the defence of the country, are already succeeding to a limited extent.

What can one do?

We have no choice; we must do it.

Order! The hon. member must not take that point too far seeing that this is the Committee Stage.

Sir, I think I have taken it as far as it is necessary to take it at this stage.

I then come to my next amendment, which is to insert after “service” on page 2, line 15, the words “to be rendered in the 10 years following such first period”. I have a grave difficulty with the wording of this clause in that it does not actually state that one must render 30 days’ service or 240 days in the aggregate. It says one may be required to render up to 30 days and that the period shall not exceed 240 days. What is the situation if, at the end of the 10 years, a man has served only 180 days? Will he in that case be told: “Oh no! Wait a moment! We think you should serve a little longer”? This has no bearing on deferment. It may be through no fault of his own whatsoever. The wording of this clause actually creates quite an unfair situation because people do not really know for what period of time they must do service. The trainees will therefore be in the hands of the authorities who call them up. They do not know whether they will actually serve 240 days, as it stands at the moment. The meaning here is rather too vague. That is why I think the words I have proposed in my second amendment need to be inserted.

My third amendment concerns the mathematical formula. I must say I was pleased to receive the hon. the Minister’s assurance across the floor that credit will be given for past service in some form or another. However, let me put a simple case to the hon. the Minister. A man who had served five of his six camps might suddenly have found that that had become irrelevant since the law had been changed to provide for a period of 95 days. Now he suddenly finds it is changed again and that the 95 days, too, has fallen away. I do not care whether this particular amendment is accepted or not: what I care about is whether the hon. the Minister will give a firm undertaking that the Army, the Navy and the Air Force will in fact give the right credit. If a man has done five-sixths of his service under a dispensation of law as it exists at a particular moment in time, he should only be required to serve a further one-sixth under the new dispensation.

That is the way I approach it. I think it is a just and equitable approach, and whether the hon. the Minister likes the formula or not, what I am looking for is the equitable approach to the Citizen Force man and the commando man.

The fourth one is the question of the 1976 and 1977 intakes. I have asked the hon. the Minister really to think about this. What he is doing is that he is depriving himself of the right to give exemption to the people who should be getting it for 1977. With great respect, I see no difficulty whether the legislation is put into force on the one day or the other. If it says 1977, irrespective of when the legislation becomes law, that will be the position. Obviously all that will be taken into account is the service that is appropriate until that moment of time. Again, I would ask the hon. the Minister also to accept this amendment.

The last amendment is purely a technical one and arises by reason of the prior amendments.

Then I would like to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister in respect of the retrospectivity of this legislation, in so far as national servicemen are concerned. I am very concerned that the people who have gone in in July last year and the people who went in in January this year—I am not talking of the 18 and 24 month extended period, but of the ordinary national service—who have made their arrangements and who have relied on it, should be allowed to finish the service on the basis on which it was contracted when they started. I would appeal to the hon. the Minister to do that and to make a statement to that end. Let me quote the example of a simple phone call I received. A man has booked an Apex fare to go overseas, but if his service is extended, he will lose all his money because Apex refunds no fares. That is a simple example of how people may be prejudiced when they rely on what they have been told. If there were a national emergency and the hon. the Minister used his powers under section 92ter in order to extend the period—because there was a problem and we had to get involved in it—I think these people would accept it. Unless there is that kind of emergency situation, I would appeal to the hon. the Minister that the people who went in in July of last year, subject to what might be necessary under section 92ter, should be allowed to come out at the end of June 1977. The people who went in in January 1977 should, on the same basis, be allowed to come out at the end of this year. This legislation should only become of effect once it becomes law and therefore affects only the 1978 intake.

I make this appeal to the hon. the Minister because I think it is a reasonable appeal. The way in which the hon. the Minister has answered the question, leaves in the minds of the public a tremendous uncertainty, and uncertainty is unhappiness. If people know what their commitments are, there is no problem, but when a national serviceman does not know whether he is going to come home in July or not and when he has this hanging over his head it just creates an unhappy situation. It is unhappy for the serviceman, for employers, for people who have to arrange their personal lives and it also creates problems in regard to educational institutions.

One last thing which concerns me is the nature of the hon. the Minister’s statement when he referred to “certain units and other units” and “some may and some may not”. One of the real problems which exists is the feeling that the burden must be shared equally. Once the story is abroad that if one goes into certain units, one will be hammered for the full 24 months and for 18 months if one goes into certain other units, the hon. the Minister is looking for grave difficulties. The situation must be created where people feel that whatever unit they join, whatever the situation is, they will bear their fair share of the burden and will not be expected to bear a bigger burden than others. Again, I would ask the hon. the Minister to accept that principle, the principle that the burden must be shared fairly and justly between all the people who serve in the forces.

Mr. Chairman, I think I should rather read to the hon. member for Durban Point what I said in my Second Reading speech.

It is very clear there.

Yes, and I stand by it.

The commands say that it is two years.

I do not know what the commands say, but I am dealing with the Bill in Parliament. The commands will have to abide by what I said in the Second Reading speech; otherwise they will have to make out a case why it should be changed. Of course there will still be some confusion until these things have been properly arranged.

That is why I am seeking clarity.

I explicitly said in my Second Reading speech … the only point I made was that it can be applied to those national servicemen who are going out before July this year. It can be, in theory. I did add, however, that we would probably negotiate with categories only. It will take place by way of negotiation, because we need special categories. That is what my department is working out at the moment. It will, however, not be generally applicable. I believe that I have expressed myself very clearly in this regard, both in my Second Reading speech and otherwise.

I understand you now. I did not understand you at first.

Good. Those who complete their initial training—that is after July 1977—will be notified at a later stage as to what exactly their position is. I have been told that it will take place within two or three months. A study is being made at the moment with a view to determining that. Those of whom the hon. member spoke, i.e. those who complete their training before July this year, will probably only be affected by way of negotiation. In any case, it will only concern certain categories, and then only by agreement. As far as I am concerned, it is clear. Those who complete their initial training after July 1977 will know within two or three months what their position is.

They are those who complete their training at the end of this year.

Yes, amongst others.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister made mention of the 1976 mid-year intake. We are talking now of the January 1977 intake. Will the hon. the Minister care to explain their position?

Those are the national servicemen who will be going out after July of this year. They will know within a couple of months. I am referring to the July 1976 intake. They will mostly belong to a few categories and we shall try to solve their problems by agreement, because we need certain categories of them. That is understandable. I hope it is quite clear now to the hon. member.

And the same would apply to the January 1977 intake?

They will be informed within two or three months.

*Then there is of course the problem that certain provisions of the proposed legislation can be applied at various times. The studies in this connection are all being completed now. We shall try to clarify the matter as soon as possible.

With regard to the amendments moved by the hon. member for Yeoville, I believe that I dealt very clearly with these aspects during my Second Reading speech. I am sorry that I cannot accept the amendments. I hope the hon. member is not going to insist on it. In spirit, I believe, we agree with each other. However, I do not want to tamper now with this Bill, which is the result of an in-depth study and which deals with the present problems which the Defence Force has to face. The heart of the hon. member’s proposal—what he is really concerned with—is the question of six months. He wants to know whether it should be clearly stated initially that it will only be for 18 months. I said so in my Second Reading speech. I said: “Probably 18 months.”

Probably!

Yes, probably.

*I do believe, however, that the public should know—it is psychologically much better—that the situation at the moment is such that we might need a military service period of 24 months. However, if tensions are eased and we can manage a smaller labour force, we shall, of course, shorten the period to 18 months. But I do think that we should make this quite clear to the public so that they cannot turn around later and say that we spoke of 18 months and are now extending the period by six months. That is why we mention a maximum of 24 months. If there is no escalation, however, it will of necessity be 18 months only. It is as simple as that.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. the Minister for clearing the air on quite a few issues, but I would like to discuss the problem of the January 1977 intake, viz. of the young man who went into the Army in January with the intention of doing his 12 months’ training, completing it at the end of this year, and then starting his university career next year. I think the hon. the Minister will accept that most of the youngsters matriculating last year made up their minds as to whether they were going to do a 12 months’ stint in the Army first and then continue with their university careers, happy in the knowledge that they would have to do their subsequent camps or whether it would be more desirable to do their university training first, come out as graduates and then go to the Army with the possibility of doing an officer’s training course, with perhaps even the prospect of a career in the Army. However, the universities plan for their intakes in the same way as the Defence Force does. I think the universities must plan for a certain percentage to come from the high schools and colleges and a certain percentage to come from lads who have completed their initial military training. The hon. the Minister told us that he is going to give consideration to these young men and that they will know within a few months from now as to what is going to happen to them in respect of the first six months of 1978. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is prepared to say to us that on production of two things, evidence to the effect that it was this young man’s intention to start his university career next year and, secondly and I think the most important thing of all, the positive proof in the standard of his matriculation pass that he would be admissible as a university student next year, that those young men can be assured of the fact that they will be permitted to go to university. Otherwise it means that they are going to lose another year. I make an earnest plea for these youngsters because I feel that we must assist them, that we must consider them and also our universities. Of course I do realize that we have a responsibility also to the Army.

Now, in all kindness I want to say to the hon. member for Yeoville that a person who says that he has planned a Apex trip to the continent, is not, as he claims, going to lose all his money. He is going to lose 10%. That is the percentage that is taken when you cancel an Apex fare.

That is not true.

It is perfectly true. Here it is written in the South African …

Unfortunately, that one is out of date.

I do not want to start an argument with the hon. member. This is not out of date. It relates to the period 1 April 1977 to 31 October 1977. That is the situation as it is. I know this to be a fact. Quite frankly I am not concerned with trivialities like Apex fares. I am concerned with the man who is going to university.

Mr. Chairman, the point made by the hon. member is precisely the reason why I, in my introductory speech, made it very clear that we will consider these matters and come to an agreement either with the individual or with the category. I am fully aware of the procedures of the universities and I know therefore that most universities expect intending students to apply before the end of June. This aspect will be considered. Therefore my reply is in the affirmative.

Mr. Chairman, I just rise to ask the hon. the Minister whether he would be prepared to make a statement in regard to the pay scale which is envisaged when the service is extended beyond one year. Is it intended to keep at the 92 cents level or is it intended to bring the pay scale structure into line with Permanent Force rates for the period subsequent to basic training? That is the position as far as the volunteer who serves from 18 months to 24 months is concerned. When undergoing basic training, he is treated as a national serviceman and receives the normal pay of 92 cents per day. However, once he is trained and is being utilized in the same capacity as a trained person in the Permanent Force, his bonus is related to that differential period he serves as a trained soldier, airman, or whatever. Men will be trained within, say, six or eight months. They will then become available for 10 or 12 months to serve as qualified and trained personnel. It will be of public interest if the hon. the Minister will make a statement in regard to that aspect.

I am afraid I do not agree with the formula proposed by the hon. member for Yeoville because, in fact, it does not achieve what the hon. member alleges. If a man has completed his basic year and his five camps, he should have no more to do. But according to the formula it will mean that he will have to do three more; 240 over 95, times the number of days he has already served. However, I do not want to quibble over this. I agree with the principle which the hon. member for Yeoville stated. Where a person has completed all the service for which he is liable, namely the five camps, but then remains on strength for the ensuing period to make up his 10 years, I do not think it is fair to expect him to do additional camps to serve the additional number of days. It is not only the camps, but the additional number of days which are concerned. If he has completed five years of 19 day camps, which means that he has completed 95 days, he will now be required to serve 240 days, with the result that he has to serve 145 additional days. So he could be required to do another four years of camps to complete the 240 days he is required to serve. I think that would be totally unfair.

I suggest to the hon. the Minister that those who have completed their basic plus five camps, even though their duration has been 19 and not 30 days, should be regarded as having finished their continuous training. It is only those who have remaining camps to do, who should have to do the remaining number of camps for a period of 30 days, a period which I still think is excessive. I am still unhappy about it because I do not think it is necessary. However, I do not want to argue about that again. If a man has completed four camps, he should only have to attend four more and not serve the total difference in the number of days. I hope the hon. the Minister will give a clear indication that he accepts the spirit and the principle that whatever a man has done which he was legally required to do, will be counted as finished and will not be retrospectively affected by these amendments. If a man has completed his camps, he has fulfilled his obligations.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban Point and the hon. member for Yeoville appear to forget that, in terms of section 21, a basic period of 10 years is imposed upon national servicemen. That basic period is not being changed by the Bill.

Read the proviso.

I shall come to that. Section 22 of the Act seeks to stipulate how the obligation will be discharged. On a number of occasions we have changed the manner in which the discharge could take place. Therefore it now stands to reason that section 21 of the Act must also deal with those cases where a person still has a number of days to fulfil in order to discharge his basic obligation of a certain number of days. Hence, the proviso to section 21 is very clear—

For the sake of the debate the following is crucial—

That has been the case all along. That is why we say that a very important aspect of the legislation in front of us today, is that flexibility is being retained. Considering the threat and the flexibility which we seek to maintain and to emphasize, we ask the Opposition to accept the application of the proviso to section 21, namely that if there are any further commitments or if service in respect of any number of days is not discharged, or any obligation not fulfilled, it must be left to the discretion of the Minister, otherwise one will be hampered in having a task force available at the right moment.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to reply briefly to a few of the aspects raised by hon. members. Credit will certainly be given in the spirit to which the hon. member for Durban Point referred. After all, the chiefs of the Defence Force do not want a dissatisfied Defence Force. In implementing the legislation one must of course give credit where certain training and certain experience has been acquired. That is the spirit in which this will be approached. However at this point I cannot describe in detail how it will be done, but I want to assure him that credit will be given in the spirit he asked for. We must acknowledge that it would only be common sense to act in this way.

I hope so.

In the second place, the hon. member wanted to know whether we could not pay the national servicemen who are now being called up for the extended period of service, on the Permanent Force basis. However I am informed that if we were to pay them Permanent Force salaries, it would cost the State an additional R47 million. The hon. member will know that we endeavour from time to time to adjust the allowances of national servicemen, members of the Citizen Force and members of the commandos, in a certain ratio to those of the Permanent Force. This does happen from time to time. A continuing study is made of how these people’s salaries may be adjusted. This is certainly not the time to ask for additional expenditure of this nature.

Mr. Chairman, I am very happy with the statement which the hon. the Minister has made that in so far as service rendered by the Citizen Force and by commandos is concerned, credit will be given. If that is done—I am quite satisfied and I am not carping about it—I think it obviously means a pro rata application. I can understand the hon. the Minister’s reluctance to deal with specific dates at this moment in time. I accept that, and I value the undertaking.

In the second place the hon. the Minister has said that, in respect of the people who are in service now from the July 1976 intake and the January 1977 intake, he will, within the next two or three months, have certainty for them. I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to try to do this as soon as he possibly can, because uncertainty like this is a bad thing as I have already tried to indicate. Uncertainty causes discontent and it should be removed as soon as it is possible to do so by means of a public statement. I would have preferred him to do so today. If he is not in a position to do it, I want to ask him to do it as soon as he can possibly and so to remove this uncertainty from the mind of so many affected people. I do not want to deal with the petty point which the hon. member for Umhlanga has raised …

It may be petty to you, but it is a very valid one.

That hon. member lives in a kind of petty, nasty little world and I do not want to disturb him. I am dealing with affected people in all walks of life and this uncertainty should be removed as soon as possible.

As far as the last point is concerned, I regret that the hon. member for Bloemfontein West has not understood the difficulty about the ten-year service. I think that once one has rendered ten years’ service and has done the necessary camps, one should be discharged from this part of one’s obligation. Part of the problem that exists, and it is a very real problem for some of the regiments, is that one has people on one’s staff who have not finished their ten years, but who have finished all their camps. They cannot be called up to bring them in. If one wants to do something there, that is a different problem altogether. However, at the moment one needs an equitable application of this measure.

The hon. the Minister again talked about the fact that some units would be extended and that others would not. I do appeal to the hon. the Minister that, in so far as it is possible, equality of treatment in the forces is absolutely essential because one must have the burden shared fairly. I appreciate that for instance units involved in counter-insurgency work may be more in demand than conventional units than people doing service corps work and things of that sort. However, subject to what the absolute exigencies of the service are, I would appeal to the hon. the Minister to have the burden spread fairly and equally and not to have the one man who happens to be an infantryman carry a bigger burden than perhaps the fellow who sits in an office. I think it is a very important principle.

I agree with you.

Amendments (1) and (2) negatived (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Amendment (3) negatived.

Amendment (4) negatived (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Amendment (5) negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, the amendments which have been defeated are of a similar nature to those given notice of in respect of clause 3. In order not to waste time, I shall not move them even though I still believe in them. However, I do so in order that we may shorten the debate.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 7:

Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak merely on a question of terminology. Section 92ter of the Defence Act, which deals with extended service, is being amended to read as follows—

This seems a very strange way of saying things. What I assume this clause means is that somebody can be called up for six months’ additional service, or for shorter periods not exceeding a total of six months. If that is what is meant, why is it not said, instead of saying “after the termination” twice? By the time one has finished working that out, one will find some sea lawyer or bush lawyer who will try to terminate his service a bit earlier than it should have been. I do suggest that the legal draftsmen look at this and put it in simple terms, for instance: “Or such a period or periods, not exceeding six months after his legal obligation”, or words to that effect. It will then make some sense.

I just want to say to the hon. member that I myself had difficulties with this clause. However, I decided to bow to the inevitable.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

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

Mr. Speaker, we now have the Bill before us, unamended in Committee. I must say that I am not sure that we have clarified all the uncertainties. I realize that there are difficulties and problems and that it is only recently that the full needs have been analysed and translated into legislation. I want to take advantage of this opportunity during the Third Reading debate to make a serious plea to the hon. the Minister to bring, as soon as possible, an element of finality to those who are now serving and to those who are due to start service in July this year. These are the ones who are most affected. I ask the hon. the Minister to take very seriously the points made by myself and by the hon. member for Green Point regarding the extended service volunteer officers and NCO element in the Citizen Force and commandos. I know that it is easy to stand up in this House and to say that one also knows the problem, that one has talked to people and that they have no complaints or grouses. Certainly, there are some who do not. But the commanding officers in particular want as much time as they can get, because they are proud of their units and they want to get them as “spit and polished” as they possibly can. That does not mean that they are always right. Now the responsibility rests on the Minister and his command, particularly his army command, to make sure that where Parliament has laid down a maximum, this does not automatically become the minimum. The danger of any empowering power is that what is set as a maximum tends automatically to become the minimum. This happens with the fixing of prices and with everything one can think of: One automatically takes the maximum one is entitled to as being one’s entitlement. I know the army is not going to look at men in this light. I know they will not apply what one might call the “profit motive” to men. I make this appeal knowing that I make it to leaders who are as sympathetic, I believe, as any member of this House is and as the hon. the Minister himself is to the human angle. With the confidence that it will be needed, I make the appeal to those concerned to watch the position and to require in the end the minimum, and not the maximum that is laid down, to give us a force that can guarantee South Africa’s security. That is what we are after: The security of South Africa. We are not after a spit-and-polish army; we are not after an army whose boots will shine better because they have had x more days within which to polish them, or whose uniforms are going to be neater because they have had more time to wash and iron them. We want an army that can fight as effectively as possible in the field against an enemy. We want to train them for that purpose. We do not want to keep them unnecessarily for other purposes such as smartness, parades, etc., after they have been trained. In the light of the competitive atmosphere that exists, with units wanting to compete against each other to be able to say: “We are the best; we are the tops”, the danger is that they want to give more training than is absolutely essential for the effective employment of the troops concerned.

We shall support the Third Reading of the Bill. We shall watch the situation as it develops and, as the hon. the Minister knows from experience, if we are unhappy about something, we shall come to him and, if we do not find solutions, we shall, when the opportunity offers, express in the House whatever criticism we may have. I should like to conclude by saying that I hope that in practice we shall ultimately find that this Bill dealt with a short-term problem and that in the end the demands on our men will not be increased as a result of an escalating threat, but that we shall return to a more normal situation in a very short time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to convey my thanks to the hon. member for Durban Point for having also supported the Third Reading of the amendment Bill. We are dealing here with a matter of great importance. In his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister of Defence pointed out that in the White Paper on Defence tabled in March 1977, attention was drawn, inter alia, to deficiencies in the existing system of providing manpower. In fact the whole problem revolves around the provision of manpower. That is why these amendments are being effected. Because the S.A. Defence Force has to be prepared at all times to render service, preparation for the rendering of such service and the maintenance of the necessary infrastructure is necessary.

One of the deficiencies which the investigation brought to light was the unfavourable ratio between training and active service under the present system. This Bill, amending the Defence Act of 1957, seeks to rectify these deficiencies. In fact, these amendments concern two important matters. Firstly, there is the extension of the training period of 12 months to 24 months. The new initial period of service of 24 months will be flexible and may be limited to 18 months or extended to 30 months. This will eliminate the existing system of voluntary training for 18 and 24 months. We must accept that the present amendment is in the interests of our country, since the present system of 12 months is not effective because training takes a period of six to nine months, depending on circumstances, with the result that the S.A. Defence Force and the economy of the country do not get enough out of the training investment.

I have first-hand knowledge of the 19-day training camps, and it is my honest opinion that we are doing our servicemen an injustice in training them for a mere 19 days because it is very important that our national servicemen should be fit and have the stamina to be able to fight, but they cannot be brought to that level of fitness in a period of 19 days out of every year. That is why I feel it is very important that this period be extended to 30 days.

The hon. member for Durban Point objects to the 30 days. He maintains that there are certain employers that give our national servicemen three weeks’ leave and that what this amounts to is that the extra week will be unpaid leave. It is also necessary that our employers should take cognizance of the fact that they would do well to pay our national servicemen for that extra week because this is service rendered not only in the interests of our country but also in their own interests. This extended uninterrupted service of 30 days per annum over a period of eight years entails far more advantages than disadvantages. A camp of 19 days once a year is inadequate since any soldier must be kept fit to be able to fight. This amendment applies to both the Citizen Force and the commandos.

We in South Africa still have much to be grateful for. The sacrifices demanded of us are still minor in comparison with those in other countries, as has already been mentioned by the hon. the Minister of Defence in regard to Israel. The time could come when far greater sacrifices will be demanded of us. We must ask ourselves whether any sacrifices asked of us are too great and in the light of our reply to that question we shall have to be prepared to amend this legislation once again before long to make our period of service much longer, even, than it is now so that we can protect our country even better for the sake of what we have built up over the years and for the sake of our own survival.

Mr. Speaker, quite obviously this piece of legislation is not quite what we would have liked it to be as has been demonstrated by the amendments which we have tried to put. I think the amendments which were put were put in the spirit of seeking to improve the legislation. We also have the feeling that there is still a degree of uncertainty about the matter, but despite that we shall vote for the Third Reading.

I think it is very important to appreciate why one should vote for the Third Reading at this particular stage of South Africa’s history. I think we are actually in quite a crucial phase, and it is not without significance that this Second Defence Amendment Bill goes through the House without dissent from any political party. It demonstrates that in so far as the defence of South Africa is concerned the House is united. This is not a political issue. It also demonstrates something else: Whereas we may differ politically and differ widely, vastly and perhaps sometimes very strongly, there is no doubt that as far as we are concerned, we want to settle our own problems in South Africa ourselves. Secondly, we reject as a whole the concept of violence as an instrument of change in South Africa. I think that if anything needs to be demonstrated more at this particular crucial stage of the history of South Africa, it is the very act that has taken place in this House today.

One last word to the hon. the Minister. I do not think the country has a more valuable and precious possession than the lives of its young men. These lives are in the custody of this hon. Minister and of the people in the Defence Force that he represents in this House. We say to him, exercise care over them, do not use them unnecessarily and do not disrupt our economy unnecessarily and remember that they are the most precious possession that White South Africa has.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to conclude by conveying my sincere thanks to hon. members on both sides of the House. I thank them for their show of support of the Defence Force, something which I believe the leaders of the Defence Force, and I as Minister of Defence, ought to value very highly. We are fully aware of the responsibility which Parliament places on our shoulders on an occasion such as this. I believe that I am also speaking on behalf of the chiefs of the Defence Force—on behalf of all of them—when I express our appreciation for this.

I am aware of the spirit in which today’s proceedings took place. I also want to avail myself of the opportunity to convey my sincere thanks to the committee that prepared this measure. The committee worked very hard on it, and I believe that a special word of thanks ought to be addressed to the members of the committee. They furnished information to individual Parliamentary groups. They devoted many months to study in connection with this Bill. They did a very thorough piece of work. I am very grateful to all of them for it.

Moreover, I should like to guarantee that we shall draft a very clear document as soon as possible which will also be put at the disposal of hon. members, which will clarify the issue of how the various intakes to which we referred here this afternoon will be affected. We shall also make use of the various media in the country to disseminate the information in question as soon as we ourselves are clear on all these matters. I shall ask the Chief of the Defence Force—in fact, I asked him this a few days ago in the course of a discussion—that we should get clarity on these matters in the shortest possible time. We shall put this information at everyone’s disposal as soon as it is available.

There is just one thing which we should also bear in mind: Since we are imposing these obligations on our young people and whereas we are endeavouring to promote the preparedness of our Defence Force, we must not underestimate the additional benefits which national service has entailed for our youth. This is something which I want to conclude by stressing. South Africa’s fine youth has been made even finer by the measure of national service which the youth have taken part in in recent years. South Africa is not experiencing major problems with its youth. This is the case solely because South Africa has a system of national service. Whereas it is being acknowledged in innumerable other countries where national service has been abolished that they have created problems for themselves, South Africa has to a large extent escaped those same problems.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, this Bill has been described in many respects as consequential on the Criminal Procedure Bill, which was approved at Second Reading in the House some 10 days ago. However, this Bill goes very much further than merely being consequential on the Criminal Procedure Bill. It amends some very important features of our criminal code in so far as limits of jurisdiction, the matter of punishment and offences are concerned. In this respect the hon. the Minister has presented some very far-reaching amendments. Amendments with which we in these benches differ from him considerably. The hon. the Minister may have his reasons for introducing these amendments, but we believe that he is placing within the juridiction of a division of the lower courts—I use that term because it is used expressly in the short title of the Bill—crimes of a very serious and a grave nature. Furthermore, save for the crimes of treason and murder, he is providing parallel jurisdiction in respect of all crimes with the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land. In my view this defeats the whole purpose of lower court jurisdiction which, by the nature of the limits regarding penalties and types of crime, including as it does contravention and breaches of the law of a technical and petty nature, has been correctly placed within the jurisdiction of a court which can deal expeditiously with prosecutions. According to the statistics for 1975 there were 1 611 573 criminal cases recorded in the magistrates’ courts and 1 486 757 admissions of guilt. In the Supreme Court criminal cases disposed of totalled 3 679, which is 0,24% of the total number of criminal cases heard in the Republic in 1975. In Britain, where the criminal code is very similar and on whose laws of evidence we have modelled the basis of our law of evidence, we find a similar situation regarding the status and jurisdiction of their lower courts, namely that nearly all criminal cases first come before a magistrate’s court and about 98% of the total are settled in such magistrates’ courts. One must therefore jealously guard the level of jurisdiction of our courts in accordance with our principles and tenets and, above all, with our practice of the administration of justice dating back many centuries to the fountain of the origin of our law on which we have based our whole criminal legal system.

This particular Bill singles out specific crimes and removes them from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. These crimes are sabotage and terrorism …

The Bill does not remove them.

Not entirely. I stand corrected. The Bill enables crimes of that nature to be dealt with by a division of the lower courts in addition to being dealt with by the Supreme Court. It removes them from the restriction that they must be dealt with by the Supreme Court only and enables such crimes, at the discretion of the Attorney-General, to be heard either in the division of a lower court or in the Supreme Court itself. These two crimes are being paralleled in the statute with treason, which is the highest crime that one can commit in the land and which comes before our courts. We have said a great deal about this in the Second Reading debate and in the Committee Stage.

Furthermore, the regional division of a lower court will have its limited jurisdiction raised to imprisonment for a period of 10 years. This step will elevate the status of the regional courts in dealing with crime and penalties to a status almost equivalent to that of the Supreme Court. The reason for this is that the range of crimes and the penalty therefore of a fine of R10 000 and/or imprisonment not exceeding 10 years is one which is well within the range of the average punishment meted out in the cases which are generally tried in the Supreme Court. We do not like a Bill as drastic and as far-reaching as this one, embodied in the structure of our lower courts. For these reasons we shall, as we did in the Second Reading, oppose the Bill at Third Reading.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, in the course of my few remarks during the Third Reading debate of this Bill, I did mention the fact that the hon. the Minister must have some good reason of his own for wanting the amendments which he has proposed in the Bill. Amongst those reasons is the fact that accused are very often kept waiting for many, many months before they can be arraigned before the Supreme Court. He did mention the case of a person who might be charged at this time of the year, and the case only being heard possibly in January of next year. He also mentioned the fact that there is difficulty in appointing members from the Bar to the Bench because one did not want to create any imbalance in the situation.

In the situation in which we find ourselves these days, with a lot of talk of reform in our courts and the desire to create a more efficient disposition of matters coming before the courts, perhaps the hon. the Minister might give thought to the establishment, as in Britain, of a criminal division of the Supreme Court. We could have the lowest tier, which is the magistrates’ courts, through which all matters would be channelled, then the criminal division of the Supreme Court which, under its own administration, would have a lower tier, a higher tier and the appellate division as the court of final criminal appeal. I think that a division of this nature might perhaps present a more realistic picture of the South African situation because of the tremendous number of criminal cases that appear before our courts. I think that would, to some extent, enable the hon. the Minister to deal with criminal matters in a much more expeditious manner. I read in the report of the Secretary for Justice that a great deal of training is taking place in the department, with the provision of bursaries for would-be students of law, and that many efforts are being made to attract as many people as possible into the legal profession, something which would also ease the problems of the hon. the Minister. I referred to that in my Second Reading speech and said that there should be provision for making the profession a much more attractive one in so far as practice in the Supreme Court is concerned, and also in the Department of Justice itself.

I just want to refer to another matter which the hon. the Minister dealt with in the course of his reply in the Committee Stage proceedings. I refer to his reply to the hon. member for East London City, who was talking about the question of the number of barristers available and the statistics of barristers generally in the country. The hon. the Minister said the following (Hansard, 1977, Vol. 13, col. 6450)—

That means that his political convictions are excluded.

I should just like the hon. the Minister to give some clarification of what he said because, on the face of it, we are perturbed to read the statement as it stands …

It means the opposite.

… in its bare content. I have no doubt that the hon. the Minister will explain that, but hon. members on this side of the House felt that it is a matter that requires explanation. Therefore I should like to say in conclusion, that as far as we on this side of the House are concerned, we oppose the Bill on the same grounds as we did during the course of the Second Reading debate and on some of the other grounds which I have mentioned. We shall therefore vote against the Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Jeppe, actually repeated the arguments of the UP concerning the increased jurisdiction being granted to regional magistrates. However, the hon. member created the impression that he is not really aware yet, even at this late stage, of what is meant by the increased jurisdiction being granted to regional courts. I am not saying that the hon. member did it on purpose, but he did create the impression that all sabotage and terrorist trial will in future be held in the regional court. However, the hon. the Minister pointed out to him that this depends on the discretion of the Attorney-General and the hon. member then came to his senses. Then the hon. member alleged that he thought it an unusual idea that the Attorney-General should decide whether a case should be referred to the Supreme Court or to a regional court. After all, the principle that the Attorney-General decides whether a case should be referred to the regional court or the Supreme Court, has been present in our law of criminal procedure for a long time. Here I am thinking of cases of culpable homicide in particular. Consequently it is not a new principle.

The hon. member came up with a new idea in the second part of his speech, namely that a criminal division of the Supreme Court should be created. The hon. member wants to have the situation where there is a junior division of the Supreme Court as opposed to a senior division of the Supreme Court. My question to the hon. member is: Who is going to man the junior division of the Supreme Court and is the regional court not, in effect, a junior division of the Supreme Court? This statement is justified in view of the evolutionary process which the regional court has undergone and the fact that it has proved itself to such a great extent.

The whole question actually concerned two matters. Firstly there was the increased jurisdiction of the regional court as regards the imposition of penalties and secondly there was the extended jurisdiction of the regional court as regards hearing certain cases which did not fall within its jurisdiction before, for instance sabotage and terrorism cases. It is strange to note that, if one reads through the Second Reading debate, one finds that the specific arguments raised by Government speakers, were simply not replied to by the Opposition.

Besides the fact that the legislation has its origin in the recommendations of the Viljoen Commission, we must also take note of the fact that the regional courts are no longer allowed to impose certain penalties. Firstly, a penalty may be imposed for the prevention of crime and secondly, someone may be declared an habitual criminal. This is a power which the regional courts did have previously, but which they are now being deprived of. As regards the penalty for the prevention of crime, the period of imprisonment was from five to eight years and for habitual criminals, it entailed a sentence of nine to 15 years. At this stage the legislation proposes to increase the jurisdiction of the regional court to ten years. In what respect is the jurisdiction of the regional court now being increased beyond its normal jurisdiction? This argument was advanced repeatedly by Government speakers, but not one of the Opposition speakers discussed it, because they do not have a specific reply to it.

The second aspect is that the hon. the Minister invited the Opposition to compare the statistics at its disposal in respect of appeals of the Supreme Court to the Appeal Court and of the regional courts to the Supreme Court. I should like to know whether the Opposition availed themselves of that invitation. If they did avail themselves of it, their arguments have fallen quite flat as far as this aspect is concerned.

I also want to mention a further aspect in connection with the increased criminal jurisdiction of the regional courts. Since the Second Reading debate took place, the annual report of the Department of Justice has appeared. I just want to mention in passing that this is once again an excellent document which testifies to sound knowledge and once again it focuses one’s attention on the extensive activities of the Department of Justice. I should like to convey my sincere congratulations to the Secretary and his staff on this report. However, the report overturns some of the aspects of the argument of the hon. member for Sandton. In paragraph 1.1 mention is made of the fact that since October 1976 there has been an about turn and that the situation as far as the provision of staff is concerned is rapidly improving. Furthermore paragraph 1.2 says the following—

How many do they have at the moment?

The statistics for appeals are not available, but on page 23 this report refers to the position as regards reviewed cases. In paragraph 5.4 the Secretary says the following—

This demonstrates the calibre of magistrates in South Africa. Actually we are dealing with an evolutionary process. The House of Assembly and the Government have taken cognizance of the fact that the regional magistrates may be entrusted with more and more responsibility. These are courts which came into being in 1959 and have been put to the test very thoroughly since then. One can think of the case of the State v. Van Duyn which was heard at the time by a regional magistrate, the late Mr. Van Wyk. He gave brilliant reasons for his finding and he did so in such a way that his finding actually laid the foundation for the Abortion Bill which was subsequently passed by this House. That judgment of his was to a large extent what gave rise to the Bill, the Select Committee and, afterwards, the commission which was appointed in this connection. The judgments of regional magistrates are generally well considered and on appeal they have even withstood the test of even the highest court in the country and have come through with flying colours.

I want to go further and say that during the period of office of the late Mr. Pelser, a thorough debate was even held on the possible promotion of magistrates to judges. In this case I am referring to an article by “Spectator” in the magazine De Rebus Pro-curatoriis in the column “Nuus en Kommentaar” on page 415 of the 1971 edition. The writer says—

Do you agree?

Yes, I definitely agree. That hon. member will know that some of our most illustrious judges came from the ranks of officialdom. I am referring to the former chief justice of South Africa who came from the ranks of the officials. He cannot tell me that one can lay down a rule of thumb that advocates alone are eminently suitable to become judges or to adjudicate matters of this nature. I challenge him to prove it.

Then I come to the question of the extension of jurisdiction of regional magistrates’ courts as regards the interpretation of section 21 of Act No. 76 of 1962 in particular. In this regard, we too, are still waiting for a reply from hon. members of the Opposition to the argument that magistrates’ courts are considered competent to try cases arising from the Suppression of Communism Act, but not cases arising from the Sabotage Act or the Terrorism Act. The hon. member for Sandton quoted several cases of onus of proof here which, in terms of section 21(2) of Act No. 76 of 1962, rest on the defence. But did he take a look at the definition of “communism” as set out in the Suppression of Communism Act? I think I must remind him of this once again. The Internal Security Act describes communism as—

Sir, a magistrate is competent to decide on this, but a magistrate is not competent to pass judgment on facts in a sabotage case or a terrorism case. This is the argument of the hon. member for Sandton. Now we have the replies by hon. members of the official Opposition. The hon. member for East London City says the difference is that the Suppression of Communism Act was passed in 1950. Imagine, Sir, that is the difference! That Act was passed in 1950 while this Act was passed in 1962. Just imagine! He says that the penalty is at least five years. In other words, when the penalty is greater, there is a heavier onus of proof on the State to prove its case. Surely it is absolutely ridiculous to say that the onus of proving the guilt of the accused becomes heavier as the penalty becomes greater. This is an absolutely ridiculous argument. It is also the type of argument which the hon. member for Jeppe used during the Second Reading debate.

I ask once again: Is it logical to allege that since the penalty is greater, the onus of proof should weigh more heavily on the shoulders of the State, or that the facts will necessarily be more involved? I concede that there are certain aspects of jurisdiction which do not fall within the cadre of the lower courts. In this regard one thinks of divorces and cases such as those mentioned by the hon. member for East London City. He is shaking his head. I can hear it from here, but it is not doing him any good. I just want to tell him that it may even happen—I should like to see this happening one day—that the penalty may be imposed by a completely different body to the one dealing with the process of declaring someone guilty. What is wrong with a situation like this developing in time? Does the hon. member perhaps want to tell me that an attorney for example will not be able to officiate in a divorces court or, as presiding officer in a divorce case will not be able to pass exactly the same judgments as a judge is able to do? Indeed, there are attorneys who are intimately involved in divorce cases.

Do you want divorces to be handled by magistrates?

I come now to the next argument of the Opposition, namely the submission of the UP and the PRP that this type of case relates to the security of the State and that justice is being prejudiced owing to the fact that officers of the State are also judicial officers. What kind of argument is that? Regional magistrates prove daily that they are able to try cases in which the State is intimately involved. For example, a regional magistrate tries cases where Government vehicles are involved in accidents, and of which the judgments have tremendous civil implications. They try fellow magistrates, prosecutors and police officers. They are schooled in dedicating themselves as judges entirely to the case with which they are involved.

What about murder? Can they handle murder cases too?

It is a process of evolution. This is not yet the case at this stage. I want to make the point that the magistrates, as I have already said, are people …

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he believes that magistrates can handle cases in which they can sentence a person for murder?

Theoretically speaking, that process of evolution may still continue. I do not want to allege that this is the case at this stage. However, they are able to take upon themselves cases referred to them by the Attorney-General. If, as the hon. the Minister said during his Second Reading speech, there are sabotage charges involving children and there are no further implications, they are pre-eminently capable of trying those cases, and are succeeding brilliantly in ensuing that justice is done. Why should they act differently just because they are officials trained and promoted by the State? I want to ask once again: Have officials not even become famous judges? I refer to the case of the late Mr. Justice L. C. Steyn.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Second Reading debate attentively and read through it once again afterwards. The Opposition, the PRP in particular, is always asking for change and progressive evolution in the House. But in this case where we try to create specific change and progressive evolution in practice, they oppose it. Once again this is the reason why this party and not one of the Opposition parties is governing the country.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the hon. member for Brakpan and I should like to deal with one or two matters which he raised. The first matter that he raised related to some comments which I made during the Second Reading debate in regard to the qualifications of the members of the hon. the Minister’s department and I think he referred tonight to the most recent report of the Department of Justice which has subsequently been placed on our desks. I think it is quite correct to say that the position in the department has improved as far as staffing is concerned, and certainly as far as the qualified members of the staff are concerned. However, I think it is quite wrong to equate the improvement in the figures of the qualified people within the department in terms of who should be appointed to the Bench. Looking at the plus-minus 70 LL.Bs that were quoted as being members of the hon. the Minister’s department, I think we should equally look at the 600 LL.Bs who are to be found in practice as advocates amongst the various Bars of South Africa, of whom well over 100 are probably senior counsel who are well qualified to be appointed as judges. So, to use that as a criterion is fallacious.

Secondly, the argument was put that merely because of the increase in jurisdiction in relation to any particular matter, that did not in any way increase or decrease the ability of the presiding officer to try the case itself. The question I ask in this regard is that if that is the case, why then is it the tactic of the Government to increase the jurisdiction of the magistrate’s court in so far as criminal matters are concerned, but neglect to do that in so far as civil matters are concerned? We have the situation where the vast majority of cases that are heard in the Supreme Court—some 90% plus if I remember correctly—are civil matters. They hear but few criminal cases in any event. The congestion that is caused in the Supreme Court is largely caused by the congestion of civil matters in the Supreme Court and not by criminal matters. Therefore I would say that if there is a problem of congestion—and I concede that there is—the correct procedure to deal with that would be to increase the civil jurisdiction of the magistrate’s court from R2 000 to say R4 000.

Are you in favour of that?

The hon. member asks whether I am in favour of that. I would say that I am in favour of assisting in the decongestion of the Supreme Court and that one of the measures that could be adopted would be a reasonable and marginal increase in the civil jurisdiction of the magistrate’s court.

Why are you against the Bill, then?

The hon. member asks why then am I against the Bill. I think we have argued that at great length. The hon. member argued the point which was argued in the Second Reading, and I do not wish to repeat all the points which were made relating to the independence of the magistrate and the independence of the judge. However, there is one point which I think should be borne in mind when considering that aspect, namely that once the judge is appointed, he has total security of tenure and is at arm’s length from the State. If that were not the case he would in fact be at the behest or in the employ of the department. But the Minister of Justice—and I do not suggest for one moment that he does this as a matter of course—is able to say to a magistrate, or a senior member of the department is able to say to a magistrate, that he does not like the way that the magistrate is handling his job. He may in fact not obtain promotion. This is not possible in the case of a judge.

Only in terms of section 10 of the Supreme Court Act can a judge be removed by the State President upon an address from both Houses of Parliament in the same session, and then it can only be on the grounds of misbehaviour or incapacity. I am therefore arguing that it is a better principle, in cases which relate to crimes against the State, to have as the judicial officer one who is totally at arm’s length from the State and who has total security of tenure. This is not in any way an inference on the integrity of any members of the Bench, be they of the lower courts or the higher courts. I believe it is a principle … [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members are conversing too loudly. I have called for order and those who still want to conduct loud conversations, must do so in the Lobby.

Thank you, Sir. If I may say so, having listened to the hon. member for Brakpan, I think that the members of the Opposition who oppose this Bill should in fact remain quite firm in their opposition, because I believe that, as has so often happened in this House during this session and perhaps during past sessions, well-founded arguments have been put forward by the Opposition. I believe that speakers have put forward these arguments in this debate in particular and, once again, they have not been accepted by the hon. the Minister.

Nor, do I suggest, have these arguments even been properly answered. They have in some cases merely been glossed over and disregarded. As far as opposition to this particular Bill is concerned, I am afraid it has unfortunately been fruitless. No amendment, small or large, has been accepted. Not one minor change suggested by the Opposition, not one safeguard, has found its way into the text of this legislation. Yet, these objections are as firm now as they were in the very beginning. The criticism of the Opposition against this Bill has been based on four points.

The first point relates to the closing of the records of criminal cases to the public, excluding the attorneys who are directly interested in the cases themselves. While some assurances have been given, assurances which, I think, have alleviated the position, it is clear to me that the tenor of the legislation remains restrictive and not clearly defined. I predict—and I am sure the hon. the Minister will see this come about—that the question of who is entitled to inspect records could well be the subject of regular litigation very shortly. The closing of the records is far too widely drafted and excludes people who may well have a legitimate and genuine interest in those proceedings.

I believe that to throw a blanket over actions carrying serious penalties for those involved, will, in the long run, detract from the confidence presently placed in our legal system and in our courts themselves, particularly as no effective machinery, other than what appears to be the inherent right to lodge an application with the Supreme Court, seems to be available to those who are excluded from the right of scrutiny. The position of the Press in particular is not relieved at all; they will clearly have no right of perusal at all. The only real watchdog therefore, of the public interest is rendered impotent by the provisions of this Bill. Therefore I believe that this watchdog is also rendered completely unable to perform its function.

The second aspect which has caused us to oppose this Bill relates to the matter dealt with by the hon. member for Brakpan; that is the increase in the jurisdiction of the regional magistrates’ courts to the extent that sentences of 10 years’ imprisonment will now become permissible from those courts. Opposition viewpoints in this regard have been clearly and persuasively stated. I cannot concede, however, that our arguments have been rationally considered. I honestly do not believe that they have been answered. Certainly, there has been some degree of bluster; there have been accusations thrown at hon. members on this side to the effect that they have been reflecting on the ability or on the integrity of the Bench or the magistrates and members opposite have confirmed that that is their viewpoint of the arguments put by this side. However, I want to know where the answers are to the questions that we have asked.

Indeed, the Government has a large majority in this House and can use Parliament, as the Government often does—and as that hon. Minister in particular does—as its rubber stamp to push through its legislation. However, the hon. the Minister himself—forgetting about all the junior members who stand up …

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

No, the hon. member may not ask me a question.

Why not?

Because the hon. member for Brakpan did not answer me when I tried to put a question to him. [Interjections.] Nevertheless, the hon. the Minister surely has a duty to justify adequately his legislation. Let us take a few points—if I might take a point or two—and ask the hon. the Minister for answers again. The hon. the Minister says it is necessary that the congestion of the Supreme Court be relieved. However, what about the congestion of the magistrates’ courts? It may well be that the congestion and the time factors relating to the set-down of trials in civil matters could be slightly shorter than that of the Supreme Court. However, does the hon. the Minister not concede that once the criminal jurisdiction of the magistrate’s court is increased, it will increase the congestion in that court? What is the hon. the Minister going to do in this respect? In that respect I believe there is going to be an overloading of the magistrates’ courts within their criminal functions.

I mentioned earlier that the Department of Justice showed an improvement in qualified staff. However, they are still far below strength and I still believe that the hon. the Minister will need more regional magistrates. That means he will need more regional court magistrates and more regional court prosecutors.

I therefore ask the hon. the Minister whether it is his intention to appoint more regional magistrates in the wake of this Bill. If he is going to appoint more regional magistrates, how will this affect the underqualified ordinary magistrates’ courts which are still far below strength in terms of the qualifications required in court procedure? In any event, what is going to be left to the Supreme Court? Already the magistrates’ courts try by far the majority of criminal cases. What is the Supreme Court to be in respect of its criminal functions as a court of first instance? Would it be reduced to trying only 3% or 4% of the criminal matters coming before the South African courts? If this is the case, is that a sound development? I believe that it is not. I believe that one of the ways of helping with the decongestion of the Supreme Court is in fact, as I have stated, to uplift the civil jurisdiction of the magistrates’ courts, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister why he has not considered that.

The hon. the Minister has said that it is not opportune—I think he said this in his reply to the Second Reading debate—to appoint more judges, but he has not explained why it is not opportune to appoint more judges. Surely the answer lies in that direction, rather in referring trials of a most serious nature to courts of lower status. I think that a fully motivated explanation as to why the hon. the Minister appears to have so little confidence in the senior advocates of the Bar, throughout the country, is called for. It seems to me that it would be far less disruptive to appoint several new judges from the body of the legal profession than it would be to decongest artificially the higher courts at the expense of congesting the lower courts which are already understaffed, particularly when, in the final analysis, justice for the individual will be the victim. Of course it will all filter down, because if the hon. the Minister is going to appoint more regional magistrates, he is going to have to appoint more regional prosecutors, and if he is going to appoint more regional prosecutors, he is going to have to fill the gaps of the magistrates with more magistrates, and so on down the line to the most junior magistrates. Once again he is going to have to fill gaps in courts by appointing more junior prosecutors. When one gets to that stage, i.e. the magistrates’ courts stage, one then reaches that level of our courts—I think the figures are quoted in the report of the Department of Justice—where the majority of people who are prosecuting cases are not, in fact, qualified to do the job.

Very much the same thing can be said for the provisions bringing into the jurisdiction of the regional courts offences under the sabotage provisions of the General Law Amendment Act of 1962 and the offences set out under the Terrorism Act of 1967. We have argued that these offences should be properly tried in the Supreme Court, particularly because of the gravity of their nature and because of the serious implications, for the accused, upon conviction. I am not one to hold with tradition if that tradition is outdated or obsolete, but I feel that it is wrong to throw overboard a tradition which has stood the test of time. It has always been a tradition in South Africa—and a good one—that the most serious offences are tried in the Supreme Court, and I honestly believe that no good reason has been put forward in rebuttal of this argument. This tradition is, however, being destroyed and the administration of law, I predict, will suffer in the long-term. Not only will the administration of justice suffer, but so will the reputation of the South African legal system. I believe that it, too will take a knock, more particularly in international circles, as offences under these provisions, i.e. the sabotage provisions and the terrorism provisions, are of a political nature and should more properly be tried by judges who, unlike magistrates—no matter how competent—are completely at arm’s length from the State. I maintain that no amount of bluster can, in fact, overcome this one irrefutable fact. As far as I am aware, the hon. the Minister has not advised us what the attitude of the legal profession is to this Bill. I was given to understand that a week or so ago he was informed that the South African General Bar Council was opposed in principle to the increases in jurisdiction.

You were drinking coffee when I dealt with that in the House.

The hon. the Minister said that he mentioned that in the House. Perhaps I was out. The Press report from which I obtained my information quoted the statement of the General Bar Council, but does not enlighten us—certainly not me—as to why the council, after consultation with all its branches, found itself in opposition to the hon. the Minister’s proposals. So I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister whether he has considered the views of the General Bar Council and not merely the fact that it is opposed to it. If he has rejected the views of the council—I may say that those views have not been made public and have not been expressed to members of the Opposition, but have only been privately expressed to the hon. the Minister—I must ask him not to be too secretive and advise us what their views are and why he has rejected them.

Finally, I should like to address just one thought, not so much to the hon. the Minister, but in the light of all the legal legislation, particularly this legislation, to my colleagues in the law profession who have had something to do with this Bill and with others which have been passed before.

Order! The hon. member may not discuss any Bill already passed during this session.

I am discussing this Bill, Mr. Speaker. In discussing this Bill, I wish to make a general statement in closing. It is true that over the years protests and opposition by the profession in regard to more restrictive legislation, legislation such as this and which in our view is wrong, did not result in any major deviation on the part of the Government from its stated intentions. I believe that in many cases—also by this Bill—the rights of the individual have been lessened, the efficacy of the bringing into play of the rights of the individual has been weakened. I think the system of justice is becoming more and more weighted in favour of the State. This does not mean that the voice of reason of people who are trained in the ancient codes of ethnics and law should be silenced. I think South Africans, including lawyers, are becoming punch-drunk, particularly in the face of the continued assaults by the Government on our high standards of justice. I am therefore just a little disappointed with the very weak voice we have heard from the law profession during this session on legislation which has come before this House. This year, in the public presentation of their views and their objections to further incursions into the rights of the individual, the law societies and the Bar Councils have acted very weakly. Their views have certainly not been made known to Opposition members, nor to the public in most cases. I believe that in the eyes of the public the legal profession is in danger of becoming a partner of the Government and its harsh legislation. In the past this has happened in other countries, to the everlasting shame of the profession in those countries. It must not be allowed to happen in South Africa. The time will come when people will ask …

Order! The hon. member is deviating too far from the Bill.

Sir, I only have a few sentences left to say. The people are going to ask: “What have you done to stop that legislation?” I for my part shall answer them that I was in the South African Parliament doing my best trying to fight this sort of legislation where the Government has put it before us. To those who are trained in the law and are officers of the court, I want to ask: “What are you doing about this Government and its legislation?”

Mr. Speaker, not much that is said by the PRP speakers shocks me any more, but when the hon. member for Sandton said tonight that terrorism is a political crime and should therefore be treated in a somewhat lesser light than any other crime, I was absolutely shaken. I think it is the most disgraceful thing to say. As far as we are concerned, terrorism is criminal; it is not political, and it is one of the most heinous crimes that can be committed against the State. [Interjections.]

We in these benches have listened carefully to the debate and we can find no real reason to change the views that were expressed by the hon. member for Walmer during the Second Reading debate. Therefore we propose to support the Bill also at Third Reading. The effect of the Bill is to create a more equitable distribution of cases between the Supreme Courts and the regional courts. The hon. member for Sandton and other speakers seemed to show a remarkable lack of confidence in the ability of regional magistrates. We do not share that lack of confidence; we have confidence in regional magistrates. Many of them are men with years of experience, highly qualified and, to our minds, capable of discharging the greater responsibilities and the greater jurisdiction which are being entrusted to them. The argument that magistrates are officials of the State and that they therefore can be more easily swayed or more easily biased than is the case with judges, is to my mind an equally shocking argument, and I am surprised to hear it coming from an hon. member of this House who is also a member of the legal profession [Interjections.] Let us take a look at one or two of the arguments against the Bill.

In the case of sabotage and terrorism the Attorneys-General will decide which cases should go to the regional courts and which to the Supreme Courts. This is a sufficient safeguard for us. We likewise have confidence in the ability and in the lack of bias of Attorneys-General. They of all people in the sphere of criminal law in South Africa, are probably the most experienced of all criminal lawyers. What is the position of the accused? The accused will have the option open to him as to whether an attorney or an advocate will appear for him when his case is heard in a regional court. In the event of an accused not being satisfied with the verdict, he has the right of appeal to the Supreme Court if he wishes to appeal.

What are the positive aspects of the Bill? The Bill has positive aspects and for that reason we support it. The accused will have a quicker recourse to the courts by the introduction of the regional courts and, in the case of those who are not on bail, we think this is very important indeed. We believe that the delays which are occasioned by the congestion in the courts, are deleterious and harmful to the society in general. We think that every possible effort should be made to eliminate these delays and we say it is the duty of the hon. the Minister to eliminate these delays. It will cut down the number of days which the accused has to spend in goal at the expense of the State and it will, of course, also reduce costs. As regards the position of an accused out on bail, he and his family become literally impotent in the sense that they can make little of a constructive contribution to society because they know that there is a court case hanging over their heads, and we think that in general, is harmful. Therefore we feel that the awaiting trial period should be cut down and this Bill is a way of reducing delays. In regards to witnesses who may have to be detained for long periods occasioned by delays, we feel that this is also harmful and is therefore another argument for bringing their cases to court in the most expeditious manner possible.

In regard to costs, we believe that by hearings in the regional courts there can be a reduction in the costs in certain cases, especially where there is not an appeal from the regional courts. In this way the pressure will be taken off the Supreme Court if the Bill is put into practice. We on these benches believe that our judiciary and our magistrates will retain the healthy respect in which they are already held not only in South Africa, but also in the world, by the passing of this Bill. We do not see that it will harm either the status of the Supreme Court, that of the regional court or of the administration of justice in any way, and for these reasons we support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to convey my appreciation to the last speaker for the support of this Bill by the IUP.

Was there any doubt about it?

If that hon. member had also listened to the speech, he would have heard an intelligent and well-motivated speech. I want to convey my appreciation for it. I also want to thank the hon. member for Brakpan for his reply to the argument advanced by the Opposition.

I should like to say to the hon. member for Jeppe that I am pleased that he quoted an extract from my Second Reading speech. It seems to me that the hon. member cannot remember having in fact read it. He read an extract which he construed to mean that I supposedly considered people’s political affiliations when making appointments.

Admission is good for the soul!

Yes, that is quite correct. But exactly the opposite was meant. I do not take a man’s political affiliations into account at all when he is considered for appointment to the Bench, and I think hon. members will agree with me when they look at the appointments over the last few years. We did not look at a man’s political affiliation at all.

Only over the last few years?

I am referring to the time during which I have been responsible for the appointments. Nevertheless I want to rectify the matter and state very clearly that there are many factors which one considers when appointing someone to the Bench. His party-political affiliations are not one of them.

It will be pointless for me to reply to all the arguments again ad nauseam because I have already done so during the Second Reading and the Committee Stage. The hon. member for Sandton was apparently not in the House when I furnished certain information and I am sorry about that. He again advanced many of the arguments to which I have already replied. Probably he was not in the House when I did so. He asked me about the situation in the Supreme Court. I said very clearly that the Supreme Court roll was overloaded with criminal cases and also with civil cases. Particularly as far as criminal cases are concerned we have to afford these people a measure of relief. The only way of affording relief is either to appoint more judges or to increase the jurisdiction of the regional courts. I have told the hon. gentleman very clearly that it would be of no avail for us to continue to appoint judges because we would be weakening the Bar. As far as the regional courts are concerned, I can tell the hon. member for Sandton that there are more than sufficient regional magistrates and that the rolls in the regional courts are not so overloaded In any event, even though the rolls were to become a little fuller, it would be easier to appoint regional magistrates. We can appoint one or more regional magistrates without any trouble.

The hon. member also put a question concerning the General Council of the Bar. I have already replied to such a question in this House and I therefore do not intend to reply to that point again. The hon. member also referred to the Law Commission. He took it amiss of the Law Commission for having had so little to say about legislation. If the hon. member would stop talking to his leader, he could listen to my reply. Then it would not become necessary yet again for him to ask ridiculous questions later. The Law Commission has nothing to do with this House. The Law Commission has certain work to do and after that work has been dealt with it approaches us with proposals in regard to legislation. However it is not the task of the Law Commission to criticize legislation tabled here. I cannot understand how the hon. member could make such a suggestion. I do not think that the hon. member for Sandton will find our arguments acceptable, and I can understand that. However, I think that the hon. member is unfair when he says that we have not replied to or attempted to reply to all the arguments. We have provided all the replies that there are to be provided. We shall request the Attorneys-General not to allocate the difficult terrorism and sabotage cases to the regional courts because that would defeat our whole purpose. Our whole purpose in increasing the jurisdiction is to utilize the regional courts better and not simply to create more appeals for the Supreme Court. This would mean that two judges would have to go through that immense number of records. This would be a ridiculous thing for us to do. We shall tell the Attorney-General that there must be a better distribution of work, but not an accumulation of work. That is not our aim.

I think that this Bill represents a milestone in our administration of justice and I want to express the hope that next year we shall be able to present a more favourable report regarding the accumulation of work in the courts.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—88: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, P. W.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Hickman, T.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Steyn, D. W.; Streicher, D. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Volker, V. A.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wiley, J. W. E.

Tellers: J. P. C. le Roux, N. F. Treurnicht, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—29: Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Cadman. R. M.; Dalling, D. J.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Enthoven ’t Hooft, R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Miller, H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. M. Sutton.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Hon. members will probably have noted that the proposed amendments are of three kinds; to increase the penalties in general; to prohibit the taking and publication of photographs or the making and publication of sketches of persons detained in lawful custody; and to extend the period of permanent service in the Force before a person becomes a member of the Police Reserve.

The envisaged increase in the general penalties is obvious and does not need any further clarification, except for clauses 5 and 7 which I shall now elucidate further.

Clause 5:

Section 25 of the principal Act is being amended to make provision for the imposition of a heavier penalty in the case of a second or subsequent conviction of any of the offences mentioned in that section. This provision is being included because of representations made to the Police. There are frequently instances of persons who present themselves as members of the Force and who, with threats of arrest or intimidation, extort money from uninformed persons, particularly non-Whites. There was recently another case of someone, who had presented himself as a member of the Force, being arrested and charged. In court, upon conviction, it became apparent that he already had two previous convictions for the same offence. Because the Act did not make provision for a heavier penalty for a second or subsequent conviction of that offence, the court was obliged to impose the existing penalty.

Clause 7:

In this clause, which is substituted for section 27 of the principal Act, provision is made for the fact that assaults on a member of the Force in the performance of his official duties is made punishable, on conviction, by imprisonment without the option of a fine and that interference with a member’s uniform or equipment or any part thereof is also being made a punishable offence.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members will remember that last year, during the discussion of the Police Vote, I indicated that I was of the opinion that assaults on a policeman in the performance of his official duties is a serious offence and that a heavier penalty ought to be imposed upon conviction. I am convinced of the fact, and I am certain hon. members will agree with me, that the task of a policeman is not an easy one. As a personification of the coercive authority of the State, it is essential that he has the necessary protection, in the exercising of his powers or the performance of his duties or functions, when there is an assault on his person.

Likewise I feel that wilful interference with a member’s uniform or equipment while in the performance of his duties should be prohibited by the imposition of a penalty. Actions such as wilfully grabbing a cap, tampering with a firearm, a vehicle, a police dog, etc., which cannot, without some measure of doubt, be classified as “resists” or “wilfully hinders” or “obstructs”, come to mind here.

Clause 8:

I now come to the prohibition of the making of sketches or the taking of photographs of persons who are in lawful custody, and the publication of such sketches or photographs. This is a new provision and is necessitated by the proposed amendment to the Prisons Act, 1959, in so far as this matter is concerned.

It is not the intention, with this provision, to prohibit completely the making of a sketch or the taking of a photograph—and their publication—of persons in custody. The measures are all aimed at preventing the investigation of a case being jeopardized, for example in instances where an accused still has to be identified; where a witness has to be protected until the trial of the accused, in whose case he is a witness, has started; where a person is detained and it is vital, for good reasons, that his detention should not be made known or where, by the publication of a photograph or sketch, an accomplice or conspirator can be put on his guard, thus giving him the opportunity to make good his escape.

As is clearly apparent from the relevant provision, what is chiefly envisaged is a temporary prohibition on the making of sketches or the taking of photographs and their publication, so that the Police’s functions are not unnecessarily obstructed or prejudiced.

Clause 10:

In conclusion I come to the provision in connection with the Police Reserve. Hon. members will remember that Police Reserve was initially instituted in 1972 in terms of section 34A of the Police Act and that the requirement for enrolment in the Reserve was then at least six months’ permanent service in the Force. However, by an amendment in 1975 this minimum period was extended to 12 months.

Mr. Speaker, I regret to have to say that from experience the Police have come to the conclusion that many of the young persons, who normally qualify for military service, join the Force on a so-called permanent basis only to resign after 12 months’ service with a view to subsequently qualifying for enrolment in the Police Reserve. Although they will allege the opposite, it was never their serious intention to join the Force permanently. It is, however, clear that they have seen, in this, an opportunity for avoiding normal military service by ensuring that they resign from the Force after 12 months, thereby qualifying to be enrolled in the Police Reserve. To refresh hon. members’ memories, let me just briefly point out that a person remains a member of the Reserve until he reaches the age of 65, but that for a period of five years after his discharge or dismissal from the Force, he can be called up for police duty for 30 days per year, except in an emergency, in which case he can, of course, be called up for any length of time.

What the proposed amendment envisages is to extend the period of permanent service in the Force to 24 months, with retrospective effect from 1 October 1976; only after such period can a member who has retired from the Force, be enrolled in the Police Reserve. The reason why the provision is being made of retrospective effect is specifically to include members who have joined the Force after 1 October 1976 because a recent survey has irrefutably shown that a considerable number of them have joined the Force, not to make the Police Force a career, but to avoid military service by way of enrolment in the Police Reserve. Hon. members will probably agree that South Africa cannot afford this.

I can also add that with the present favourable manpower position in the Force, it is possible that those who are serious about making their careers in the Force can be adversely affected because those who are not serious about this could possibly fill vacancies before the former can do so.

Another benefit of the envisaged amendment, seen in the light of what it costs the State to train a member of the Force, i.e. about R1 500, is that such a member’s services will remain available to the department for at least 18 months after his training.

Mr. Speaker, as I said initially, those clauses of the Bill which I did not deal with in detail are self-explanatory.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a Bill which will normally detain the House very long because, as the hon. the Minister has said, it involves a number of measures which are largely amendments to the penalties which are to be imposed for comparatively minor infringements of the Police Act, penalties which now have been increased. However, there are two clauses which give rise to some debate and to some concern, unless the hon. the Minister clears up these matters in his reply. I refer to clauses 7 and 8 of the Bill. Clause 7 is clear, and our difficulty there has been explained on a previous occasion relating to the Railway Police, in a Bill which was introduced earlier this session by a colleague of the hon. the Minister. That is in respect of an assault on “any member of the Force in the exercise of his powers or the performance of his duties or functions”, where a person so convicted is liable to a period of imprisonment without the option of a fine. As I explained in the case of the earlier legislation, and without going into details now—because it will be expounded upon by other hon. members on this side—it is quite possible to envisage a situation where there is a very minor technical assault on a policeman, particularly when there is an affray or a fracas of some kind, in which police and civilians are involved. For a very minor technical assault of which the man can only be found guilty, the magistrate is obliged to impose a sentence of imprisonment without the option of a fine.

This would not only be injustice, but it would severely restrict the magistrate in the proper exercise of his duty, and he would probably be persuaded to bring in a finding of not guilty rather than have a finding of guilty and the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment where he genuinely and correctly believes a fine would have been the proper penalty.

That is the first difficulty we have. It is a simple case. There is no problem there. One either accepts that point of view or not. However, one has greater difficulty because of the obscurity of the wording in clause 8, a clause which inserts a new section 27A as a new measure in the principal Act. Here there are arguments on both sides, and it is really a matter of what the hon. the Minister intends to convey and the mischief which he intends to combat by the insertion of this proposed new section. We are dealing here with the question of the taking of photographs or the making of sketches of people, in the first instance, people who are detained in lawful custody with a view to criminal proceedings.

It becomes an offence to make a sketch or to take a photograph of such a person who is, with a view to criminal proceedings, detained in lawful custody. As I understand it, a person is detained in lawful custody if he is placed under arrest. From the moment that he is placed under arrest, whether or not he has been taken to goal or a police cell, he is “detained in lawful custody”. One can envisage a number of situations where a person is in that condition. For example, if a person has been arrested and is being taken down the street by a plain-clothes detective to a place of custody and he is photographed, an offence is committed because unknown to the person who may be taking the photograph this person is detained in lawful custody. Without handcuffs or any sort of restraint he has been arrested in the proper manner and he is then taken to a place where he will be detained. Another case comes to mind. That is the case where photographs are taken of a disturbance. It is perfectly legitimate exercise of, for example, the functions of the Press to take photographs of a disturbance such as may have occurred in Adderley Street some months ago or during the disturbances in Soweto. One may have a photograph of a group of policemen with a group of civilians associated with them in the sense that they were standing together, legitimately taken by the Press photographer concerned. However, unknown to the photographer, those civilians may in fact have been arrested and, in terms of this legislation, would be detained in lawful custody. They would not have been arrested unless it was the reasonable belief of the policeman concerned either that they would be witnesses in a case, which is covered by the clause, or that they were reasonably suspected of having committed an offence in terms of schedule 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act, in which case they could equally have been legitimately arrested and so would be, as I read it, detained in lawful custody with a view to criminal proceedings. That means that if there is publication of the Press photograph, perfectly legitimately taken and without knowledge of what has taken place in either the first instance that I have mentioned or the second, those who published such a photograph would be, as I read the clause, liable to be convicted of an offence. I say this because the question of knowledge is not in the wording of the legislation as it stands before us. That is the negative aspect of this, and if I read the clause correctly this is an undesirable clause which imposes restraints upon the Press and others in the legitimate exercise of their function of informing the public of what is taking place.

At the same time it is conceivable that it is possible to give a good interpretation of the clause. An example which comes to mind immediately is the type of case where one has a person arrested on suspicion. Before a charge can successfully be brought in a court of law there has to be an identification parade. One does not want to prejudice the identification of that man on an identification parade by a premature publication of photographs indicating that he has been arrested with a view to his being charged in respect of a specific offence. One can see that a prohibition on the premature publication of a photograph of a detained person in those circumstances can be legitimate and can indeed further the interests of justice. Similarly, one can think of cases falling under controversial legislation such as the Immorality Act, where a prominent citizen is arrested and detained in custody with a view to his being charged for an offence under the Immorality Act. It would be unjust if photographs were to be taken of him and published before the trial—which is the limitation laid down in this Bill—particularly in the case where the charge might subsequently be withdrawn on proper grounds. One can understand that such publication will not only be prejudicial to the person concerned, but will be contrary to the interests of justice. Quite frankly, I want to say to the hon. the Minister that when one looks at this clause—which is not without its difficulties because I do not think it has been clearly stated—one can conceive of situations where the clause could have some benefit. However, one can equally conceive of situations—which I have tried to outline—where it clearly infringes upon the legitimate rights and interests of the Press and others whose proper function it is to keep the public informed of what has taken place.

Depending upon what the hon. the Minister intends in this regard, the clause can be made acceptable, or unacceptable, as the case may be. To make it acceptable would require some amendment. If the hon. the Minister assures the House that his intention is not to curb the legitimate exercise of, for example, the powers of the Press in the manner I have indicated, we shall allow this Bill to go through and introduce appropriate amendments in the Committee Stage. However, if the hon. the Minister’s intention is the contrary to what I have indicated, I think it will be necessary for this Bill to be opposed at Second Reading.

There is another matter as far as clause 8 is concerned, a matter which reinforces what I have just said. I refer to paragraph (b) of the proposed section 27A. This paragraph stipulates that it is an offence for anyone in any manner to publish a sketch or photograph of any person referred to in paragraph (a) without the authority of the commissioner. There again it is quite conceivable that if, unknown to the public at large or the Press, a personality prominent in the business world or in the social field were to be detained in lawful custody with a view to criminal proceedings and a photograph of such a person were to be published in quite a different context, for example, in regard to a prominent social occasion such as a day at the races, or in regard to a company report, an offence would have been committed. Again it is possible to introduce an amendment along the lines of the idea that the publication is in connection with the detention or the proposed criminal proceedings and so narrow the clause as to exclude an inadvertent publication in a field relating to business, social life, politics or anything else, and unrelated to the reason for which the person is detained. But the clause as it stands, is sufficiently wide for that type of case to constitute an offence. What I have tried to indicate is that the clause as it stands, is sufficiently widely framed to constitute this amendment as a considerable restraint on the legitimate publication of people and incidents of legitimate interest to the public. I would therefore be grateful if the hon. the Minister, in his reply to the Second Reading debate, would give us an indication of what mischief he proposes to combat by the introduction of this clause. If he tells us what he is aiming at and what he conceives the difficulty to be which is not covered by existing legislation, we shall be in a better position to frame amendments during the Committee Stage and to adopt an attitude at Second Reading. I want to say again that, but for those two clauses, indeed but for clause 8, with which we are experiencing our principal difficulty, this is the sort of Bill which, with comparatively minor amendments of an administrative kind, one would normally have allowed to pass through and with which one would have dealt fully during the Committee Stage. But until the hon. the Minister makes his point of view clear in his reply, we are unable to adopt a clear attitude at Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, it is always a special privilege for someone on this side of the House to support an amendment Bill relating to the S.A. Police. The whole House will most certainly agree with me that one of the most important Acts on the Statute Book is the Police Act of 1958 and that it is a good thing that that Act is continually reviewed. It is therefore a good thing that we can have another look at the piece of legislation this evening. I want to refer briefly to what the hon. member for Umhlatuzana had to say, although I believe that the hon. the Minister will reply to him in full. In connection with clause 7 the hon. member spoke of “technical minor assaults”. We are both legal men; we have both already appeared in court and we therefore know that the court has a discretion. What prevents the court, in this case, from imposing a suspended sentence? No court, no presiding officer, is compelled to impose a sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment. Neither can I agree with the hon. member in his interpretation of the provisions of clause 8. In my view the hon. member’s arguments are somewhat farfetched. The hon. member spoke of a so-called “good interpretation” and I think the hon. member should rather confine himself to that so-called “good interpretation”.

South Africa cannot afford to have its police hindered or obstructed in their functions, not to have the uniform or equipment of a member of the police force tampered with. For us in South Africa the policeman must be a symbol of authority and he must therefore get the respect he deserves. If the public does not have respect for the police force, we in South Africa are lost. I should like to quote what the hon. the Minister said on 5 July 1976, in Pretoria, at a passing-out parade for constables—

I feel that the public should also look at those words and behave accordingly towards the police. In that way they can contribute towards ensuring that there will not be a blot on the fine image the police are trying to build up. They ought to co-operate so that the police can carry out their task with optimum efficiency. Fortunately those who try to assault the police, or try to create problems for them, are in the minority. However, one should look at the figures, and during the discussion of his Vote last year the Minister warned against this aspect. The hon. the Minister’s speech was given wide prominence in all our daily newspapers, but apparently there are certain members of the public who still persist in their opposition to the S.A. Police. Let us look at the figures. I have read through many newspapers and tried to do research work with reference to reports about resisting arrest and police who are assaulted. However, one does not find reports about that in the newspapers. Only the negative aspects are given publicity. If a policeman exceeds his authority, we hear about that in this House and we read about it in our newspapers, but we never hear about people resisting arrest or about police who are assaulted. And yet these things are on the increase, and that is why one welcomes this Bill before this House this evening. From 1 July 1974 to 30 June 1975 there were 5 248 reported cases of people resisting arrest and of police being assaulted. 4 962 of those cases were referred to our courts. From 1 July 1975 to 30 June 1976 there were 6 091 reported cases of people resisting arrest and of police being assaulted. 5 705 of those cases were referred to our courts. This is therefore a trend which is on the increase, and that is why we welcome this legislation. All of us like going to a rugby match or some other sports meeting. How frequently are the police not absolutely ridiculed? How many times do people not play football with a policeman’s cap? Sometimes students even throw beer into it and drink from it, or the policeman’s uniform is tom. If we do not have respect for the person, we must nevertheless have respect for his uniform, because it represents authority. There is an image that goes hand in glove with that uniform; there is a badge for which we must surely have respect. Fortunately those who behave in that way are in the minority, but they must realize that the police have a big task to perform and that they should not act in this manner towards the S.A. Police. Who, when all is said and done, buys that uniform? The policemen buy their own uniforms, and what remedy do they have against people who tear their uniforms and throw away their caps? They can have recourse to the civil courts, but we know to what drawn-out procedures such cases can give rise.

That is why we welcome the fact that legislation has been tabled here this evening with a view to also granting the S.A. Police protection in this respect. These people have a big task and they really must be obstructed in the performance of that task. We only have to talk to policemen who go out on raids. They get to a house in a police van in order to investigate a complaint. When they come out of the house, after they have investigated the complaint, they find that the tyres of the van are flat. This happens quite frequently. We only have to talk to policemen. These things must be stopped. We are living in difficult times. Our police must be prepared, and our public must realize this. I therefore gladly support the Bill which is before the House tonight.

Mr. Speaker, this is not an unduly long Bill. The main purpose of most of the clauses is to increase the maximum penalty imposable on convictions for certain specific offences committed in connection with policemen or against the police. None of these increased penalties are unreasonable; they seem to be in keeping with the gravity of the offences concerned. Certainly, in so far as the fines are concerned, they are more in line with the present value of money. We have therefore no objection to these increases, bearing in mind that the final decision as to the actual sentence still lies in the hands of the judicial officer who tries the case and who is, obviously, in the best position to judge accurately the efficacy of utilizing the greater penalties. In fact, the discretion of the court is in no way affected.

There are, however, two clauses in this Bill which give us cause for disquiet. Clause 7 is a rearrangement of section 27 of the existing Act. The present section 27 provides that anyone who assaults, obstructs or interferes with a policeman in the course of his duty is guilty of an offence and, on conviction, liable to a fine, or to imprisonment, or to both. This is quite proper and is acceptable. One aspect of the amending clause involves an increase in penalties for any of these offences. We, in these benches, say that assaulting, obstructing or hindering a policeman in the performance of his duties is a potentially serious matter and accordingly we have no quarrel with the increases proposed in the maximum penalties.

But this clause goes a little further than that. It separates the offences set out in the existing section 27, the one class of offence being that of hindering, obstructing and threatening a policeman, and the other category being that of an assault on a policeman. It also separates the penalties for these offences. For the first category of offence, being that of hindering, obstructing, etc., the Bill gives the judicial officer the option of imposing, on conviction, a fine or imprisonment, or both. We have no objection to this. In the event however, of a person being convicted of an assault on a policeman, the judicial officer is deprived of this option and is compelled to impose a prison sentence. We cannot agree with this provision. There are several good and easily motivated reasons for this point of view, without derogating in any way from the fact that an assault on a policeman is in most circumstances not a minor offence. As has been stated by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, there are in fact assaults and assaults. They can vary in the degree of seriousness. For example, an assault might result in a policeman losing his teeth or being injured in some other way. In other circumstances, for instance at an exciting football match, an assault may amount to no more than an over-boisterous spectator in a ribald moment dislodging the “Bobby’s” helmet. An assault may be the unfortunate end to an ill-judged prank on a New Year’s eve. It may be the result of an argument with a policeman who is in plain clothes and who did not have time to identify himself. The argument is not that the invokable penalty upon conviction should not be increased, nor that the new penalty provided for in the Bill is too high, but rather that the magistrate’s options in trying the case and in deciding upon sentence, should remain. The discretion as to sentence should be left in the hands of the judicial officer. In many cases a fine, and not a goal sentence, whether suspended or otherwise, may well be the proper and best measure to invoke.

If this Bill is passed as it now stands, this choice will no longer be available to a magistrate, not even in the case of a first offender involved in a very minor assault. Furthermore, not even the presence of mitigating circumstances, for instance provocation or personal stress, will confer upon judicial officers the right to impose a fine as opposed to imprisonment. His hands are tied irrevocably by the provisions of this clause. Members of this House are constantly expressing their confidence in the ability of judicial officers and their faith in the justice available inherent to all in terms of our system of law. We have heard it from the hon. member for Overvaal when he spoke. Surely that is but lip-service if we put our courts in a strait-jacket, embroidered with minimum sentences and compulsory imprisonment. Is the Government with this sort of measure not forcing our courts to make gaolbirds of many who really should not suffer such punishment?

Our second objection is a little more positive than that which has been put by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana and it relates to clause 8 of the Bill. Clause 8 creates a new offence, an offence which has not hitherto occurred in the Police Act. It is the offence of making a sketch or taking a photograph, without the written authority of the commissioner, of “any person who is, with a view to criminal proceedings, detained in lawful custody or who is a fugitive after he has escaped from such custody”. It also becomes an offence for any person to publish or cause to be published any sketch or photograph of such person, be it a sketch or photograph taken recently or a long time ago. I can understand, and I think it was clearly put by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, that a case can in fact be made out for the withholding of certain photographs in certain circumstances when those circumstances relate to the protection of the people concerned. I think a case can also be made out for the withholding of the publication of certain photographs in very limited circumstances where the publication of such photographs would in fact act to defeat the administration of justice. However, having said that, I and the members in these benches feel that this clause is worded in far too wide a manner. Why are these powers taken now, in the year 1977, if a serious situation has arisen which should have been taken care of long ago? I cannot see that there is a case to be made out for placing so wide a provision in the Police Act. What, might I ask, is meant by the words “is detained”? I think this wording is going to give rise to a lot of doubt, a lot of worry and, perhaps, much confusion in the public mind.

Let us for instance take the case of a disturbance, be it in Eloff Street or in Adderley Street. Let us take the case of a policeman leading forcibly or gently, as the case may be, a particular person by the arm towards a police van. How would the photographer, who is taking photographs of this disturbance, know whether the man is being arrested or merely detained to be released a little later without being charged, or whether he is merely being led away from the disturbance to be set free elsewhere? By taking such a photograph, the photographer in terms of the provisions of this clause in the way in which it is worded, immediately places himself in jeopardy of being prosecuted and, if the photograph is published, the newspaper places itself in jeopardy of being prosecuted for publishing it. I think this clause could well have the effect of opening a back-door to the censorship of the South African Press. I know the hon. the Minister has always wanted an agreement with the Press and I think it is sometimes in the interests of justice that, with the agreement of the Minister and by arrangement, the Press should not publish certain matters which may not be in the public interest. On the other hand, I do not think it is correct that the hon. the Minister should take so wide a power which, in its present wording, is so vague as to create, in my view, a further mine field for the editors of South Africa, a further set of pitfalls for the journalists and the newspapers. I think this will end up in being a restriction on the Press, whether it is so intended at this moment or not. It is wording which is capable of being utilized in restricting the Press, and the Press is already suffering under the most burdensome set of conditions when it comes to prisons, defence and various other matters, some of which have been dealt with this session. I think it can only rebound to South Africa’s disadvantage if photographic and pictorial evidence of events which are happening are withheld from the public which in fact should be seen by the public. As I have stated, I am unhappy with the wording of this clause and I am also unhappy at what I believe will be the effect of this clause. I am not happy, because we have not yet heard a word from the Government as to the intention of the Government in relation to this clause. We are also unhappy that the option which should be open to a magistrate is being taken away when circumstances might pertain that that option be exercised in imposing a fine rather than a goal sentence. Accordingly, we cannot agree to the passing of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Overvaal squared accounts very well with the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. All that remains for me to do, therefore, is to speak about the hon. member for Sandton. Before I come to him, though, I want to say that I see this legislation as legislation which is calculated to increase the stature of our police force in the eyes of the public. I see it as legislation which desires to further cultivate, amongst policemen, an esprit de corps and a pride in their uniform. At this juncture I think all will agree that it is something we can only speak well of and must approve. A great deal has already been said about this legislation, and I do not want to repeat it, except to say that I am very glad that the misuse of medals, which are now available, will be subject to increased penalties. Medals are the pride of those who wear a uniform, something which goes hand in hand with hard work, dedication, a clean record and bravery. In this connection, and in these circumstances, I want to tell the police that we are proud of their hard work, their zeal and their bravery.

Two aspects were highlighted by the Opposition, in particular, and the first is to be found in clause 7. Clause 7 reads—

For example by throwing stones at him—

As I have said, a policeman is a symbol of law and order, and we must give this symbol the glitter and polish it deserves. Members of the public must know that it is no joke to assault a policeman. A policeman’s uniform also symbolizes and represents the law and order in South Africa. As the hon. member for Sandton said—it is a convenient little joke—there is what is called “dislodging a Bobby’s hat”. “Dislodging a Bobby’s hat” is no joke. When a policeman’s uniform is interfered with, he is no longer properly dressed and is ridiculed by everyone. People laugh at him because “somebody simply dislodged his hat”. I think that to make a policeman look ridiculous when he is performing his duties is to humiliate the police force in general.

A sentence of 12 months is a heavy penalty to impose without the option of a fine. If the person involved is a youth under the age of 18 years, corporal punishment can always be meted out. He could always receive a suspended sentence, periodic imprisonment, a warning or be detained until the rising of the court. In other words, magistrates still have the discretion to send a person to jail or not, and I do not believe they would send people to jail for trivialities. Punishment, however, has a very important function, i.e. deterrence. I think the time has now come in this country when it should no longer be regarded as a joke “just to dislodge a Bobby’s hat”. Here, however, there is the option of a fine.

In regard to clause 8, which deals with the new section 27A, I must respectfully point out to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana that the wording is as follows—

That is the first verb, but the qualification is “in lawful custody”. The hon. member’s argument was based on the fact that before a person is taken into custody, photographs are taken. What must the person do now? He is subsequently taken into custody.

While he is being taken into custody.

I shall come to that in a moment. The fact of the matter is that the legislation states that as soon as someone is taken into custody and is in lawful custody, there can be certain circumstances in which the taking of photographs cannot be allowed. The hon. member for Sandton was trying to drag something else in at the backdoor.

†He spoke about “a back-door to censorship of the Press,” saying the hon. the Minister was taking powers to hoodwink the Press and to restrict them in the performance of their public functions.

I did not say “hoodwink”.

Well, the hon. member nevertheless spoke about “a backdoor to censorship of the Press.” If the hon. member cannot remember what he said, he can take my word for it. [Interjections.] In any case, the position is that this is not the idea at all. There is no intention here of censorship of the Press at all. What is more, the hon. the Minister has nothing to do with this at all. He is taking no powers at all. It is completely unfair …

The Commissioner of Police.

The Commissioner? The hon. member did not speak of the commissioner.

It means the same thing.

The fact of the matter is that it is not the hon. the Minister who imposes censorship. It is the Commissioner of Police who takes the decision—no one else. The fact of the matter is that we cannot get along without this legislation. If it were not necessary to create this authority, it would not be created here now. One can think of instances where it would indeed be necessary to use this authority and to prohibit the taking of specific photographs.

I want to refer to three such examples. The first has already been mentioned. The fact is that the validity of identification parades could be jeopardized if photographs of people, who must appear at such identification parades, are published before the time. Secondly, the detainee himself can be tremendously prejudiced by this. The detainee is the person whose future is affected, the person whose family must live with the fact that a photograph or a sketch has been published. And now I come to the third example. For instance, when a photograph is taken of the scene of a crime, and a witness must later give evidence about that, he will surely begin to reconstruct the events that took place. He would then do this on the basis of the photographs which have been taken from every conceivable angle. Consequently one cannot depend upon getting the proper evidence that the court needs.

In the circumstances I am completely convinced of the fact that clause 8 has to do with preventing what we would like to have prevented. There is no political connotation involved and neither is there any question of the hon. the Minister now wanting to muzzle the Press, as it is termed, or anything of that kind. As far as assaults are concerned, we must decide whether we regard this in so serious a light that we should adopt this course of action. I believe that we should handle the matter in this way.

Mr. Speaker, like the other hon. members who have spoken on both sides of the House, we too are most concerned about the increase in the number of assaults on policemen. We are also concerned about interference with the police in the fulfilment of their duties. I have witnessed the way in which mobs treat the police. In this respect an hon. member has referred to the “spot wat daar gedryf word met die polisie by sportbyeenkomste”.

I have always been of the opinion that it is an awful pity that the police should ever be used in that capacity at all. I have always believed that it would be far better for the sports bodies concerned to provide their own officials to control the crowds at their own sporting events. I believe it is an unnecessary imposition to expect the police to perform those duties as well.

There have also been incidents, incidents which all of us have witnessed and in which, for instance, a policeman has had his cap removed and where the wheels of a police vehicle were flattened by people, incidents as a result of which the police have generally been made the object of public ridicule and disrepute. Therefore we support without any reservation the increased penalties. We believe that they are reasonable, and they have our whole-hearted support.

I would go further and say that the activities of the public, particularly of people of ill will, people who are not well disposed towards the policeman, to ridicule him is part of the technique of some of the elements loose in our country to discredit the forces of the law and order. We in this House have a responsibility towards the police, and if we as legislators can strengthen their arm and give them protection in this particular sphere, I believe it is our duty to do so.

As always I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. His arguments are always cogent and well worth listening to. I am at least influenced and impressed by much of what he said. However, with regard to clause 7 the reply of the hon. member who spoke after the hon. member for Umhlatuzana and who said that a suspended sentence could be imposed by a magistrate, that it was not obligatory that an accused should be sent to goal in terms of the clause, weighs with me, if that interpretation is correct.

When it comes to clause 8 the hon. member for Umhlatuzana gave various examples of what could happen in terms of the clause. He said that a good interpretation could be given to the clause. He particularly referred to the problems that might arise when there was a identification parade where the accused might be prejudiced by the prior publication of a sketch or a photograph. The hon. member also made a good point when it came to the Immorality Act. I have been shocked by photographs which were published in immorality cases where the accused was subsequently found not guilty. But the harm and the stigma still remains even after the case has been heard and the accused has been discharged.

The Immorality Act must obviously be repealed.

The hon. member for Sandton sees in clause 8 an attempt to restrict the Press. In so far as I am concerned, any reasonable attempt to reasonably restrict the Press in the performance of their necessary duties is also to be welcomed … [Interjections.] … because I would say that what we have seen, particularly in this field, of the activities of Pressmen shows that there is an irresponsibility, and on many occasions they have brought the Press in disrepute. I do not have much sympathy with that argument, unless there is an unwanted attempt to interfere with the Press, in which case I obviously would not be in favour of it.

As to the attitude of the members in these benches to the Second Reading of the Bill, I want to say that we are, as I have said, impressed by the arguments of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. We believe that if the hon. the Minister does not give a satisfactory reply, the arguments of the hon. member can be dealt with further in the Committee Stage by moving appropriate amendments to clause 7 and, more particularly, clause 8. However, on balance we think the Bill is a necessary measure, one which contains many more sound than possibly bad provisions, and for that reason, Mr. Speaker, we will support the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me as if the only real objections of the Opposition to the Bill lie in clauses 7 and 8. Clause 7 was purposely inserted because we feel, particularly in this day and age, that a policeman in his uniform must be shown the necessary respect by the public. In my opinion it is a very serious thing to assault a policeman in the course of his duties. That is what the clause deals with. It is not a question of ordinary assault. It does not relate to an argument with a policeman at a party and an assault on the policeman there; it merely relates to policemen who are assaulted in the performance of their duties. I think everyone will agree with me that it is the most serious kind of assault a person can commit. In reality it is an assault on the State because a policeman is someone who represents the authority of the State.

It can be a trifle.

It cannot be a trifle. If it is, in fact, a “trifle”, the magistrate can simply sentence the person to be detained until the rising of the court. He can also impose a suspended sentence together with the warning that if he again assaults a policeman, he will be sent to goal.

Why cannot he impose a fine?

A fine is quite inappropriate in the case of an assault on a policeman. It must be placed on the Statute Book in this form so that it is clear to the public that if someone assaults a policeman he is running a calculated risk because he is fundamentally interfering with the authority of the State if he assaults a policeman in the performance of his duties. That is why it should be placed on the Statute Book in this form.

How does that differ from detaining him until the rising of the court?

These are possibilities, but the law must make it clear that no fine is to be imposed in the case of an assault on a policeman. That must be made obvious.

There is no difference in principle at all.

There is a very big difference. Now a member of the public can read in the Statute Book that if he assaults a policeman in the performance of his duties he will be sent to goal and that there is no doubt about that. What the magistrate can do, however, if he finds that there are extenuating circumstances, is another matter. However, members of the public must know that they are running a calculated risk if they assault a policeman. As far back as 1975 I issued a warning to the effect that I was tired of people slapping policemen around and plucking them by their uniforms. At that stage there were already more than 5 000 serious assaults on policemen in the performance of their duties. The police are there to protect the South African public as a whole. This includes the hon. member for Houghton. They are there to protect the people, and therefore they are entitled to ask Parliament to protect them in the performance of their duties as well. What that protection consists of is that if someone assaults a policeman while he is granting protection to the public, that person must be sent to goal. There must be no doubt about that. Whether hon. members agree with me or not, I want to tell the hon. member for Umhlatuzana …

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister how his argument holds where a policeman is in plain clothes and there is therefore no case of his uniform being assaulted or treated with disrespect?

When a detective arrests a person, one is entitled to ask him to identify himself. He will immediately present his certificate and furnish proof of the fact that he is a detective. Then he may not be assaulted under any circumstances. I know the hon. member for Houghton would like to have the police assaulted. However, that must not happen. We must protect the policemen in the performance of their tasks.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is it correct and parliamentary for the hon. the Minister to allege that the hon. member for Houghton wishes and would like to have a policeman assaulted? [Interjections.]

He should be ashamed of himself. He is a stupid little man.

The hon. the Minister may continue.

I want to tell the hon. member for Umhlatuzana that I expect him in all seriousness to support us with this Bill. If the hon. member does not do so it will be placed on record that he voted against the Bill.

We debated this on a previous occasion when you were not here.

It is the hon. member’s affair if he wants to do that. I am stating, as a general principle, that in the case of such a very serious crime, a person cannot be given a fine.

You are arguing like a bad lawyer.

I am not. The hon. member must give me one reason why an offender should get a fine in these circumstances.

You are already assuming it is a serious assault…

It is a serious crime prima facie to assault a policeman while he is performing his duties. Nobody is entitled to assault a policeman while he is performing his duties. An assault is a deliberate attack upon a man.

If I push you with my flat hand, is it an assault?

Yes, it can be an assault, and one is not supposed to do it to a policeman in uniform.

And out of uniform?

Of course! That is my difficulty with hon. members. They are apparently under the impression that people can knock policemen about as they please. All that we envisage with this Bill is granting the police uniform the necessary significance and value, something which is not highly valued by some hon. members but which is very highly valued by the public of South Africa. That is why hon. members will find that in the clause it is provided that for cases of assault there will be no option of a fine. The hon. member for Sandton mentioned the case of someone knocking a policeman’s cap off in a fit of boisterousness. That is also wrong. To my way of thinking it is no joke to humiliate a policeman at a rugby match, in full view of the public, by knocking his cap off. In my opinion students are not being all that funny when they knock policeman around. In any event, we have taken that into consideration and in such cases there is, in fact, the possibility of a fine. However, when a policeman is assaulted, it is a very serious matter. I should like to indicate how seriously a previous Prime Minister regarded such instances during the war years. The following war measure was applicable at the time—

At the time this applied to soldiers and policemen—

In uniform?

Of course the policeman wears a uniform.

And if he does not wear a uniform?

What is the difference between a policeman in a uniform and one out of a uniform? [Interjections.] If one has told a person that one is a policeman, he must not lay a finger on you just because you are not in uniform. The principle was laid down here very clearly to indicate that the then Prime Minister regarded a matter such as this, during the war years, in the same serious light as we regard it today. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Houghton is interjecting too much.

Does the hon. member want to say something? Why did she not make a speech? Must I now sit and listen to the hon. member’s comments? It is impossible for me to reply to her.

As far as clause 8 is concerned, I want to refer the hon. member for Umhlatuzana to an instance which is still fresh in our memories. I am referring to the case of Anthony Holiday, Cronin and Mr. and Mrs. Rabkin. In that case a garage was rented under a false name, certain articles were purchased under a false name and address and identification, in that case, would have played a decisive role. In spite of that, the next day the morning papers published detailed photographs of the people concerned. When the police subsequently went to the shop where certain of the articles were purchased and asked the shopkeeper whether he would be able to remember the people who purchased the articles from him, he replied that he would because they were the people whose photographs appeared in the paper that morning. How is one to hold an identification parade under such circumstances? In that instance the Press were quick off the mark in publishing the people’s photographs. That can be regarded as completely defeating the ends of justice. Fortunately we could take the case further without an identification parade, but by rights an identification parade was necessary. However, because we could take the case further without such an identification parade, we did not charge the relevant newspaper with defeating the ends of justice. In my opinion the hon. member quoted very positive examples. For example: Someone is taken into custody, but no charge is laid against him. However, a photograph has already been taken of the person concerned, accompanied by the policeman, and such photograph has been distributed. That person’s reputation has then immediately been damaged. I should like to point out to the hon. member that the new proposed section 27A reads as follows—

It is therefore not simply anyone who is detained; it is the person who is detained so that subsequent action can be taken against him or so that he can give evidence at a later stage. [Interjections.] One can ask a person to accompany one to the police station so that he can give one his address. He can go with one and then photographs can be taken. However, this involves instances of proceedings that are to be instituted against a person, or instances where that person must give evidence. What happens is that as soon as the policeman gets to someone, a photograph is taken and published. All the other people involved in the crime can then see who has been arrested. That simply does not do our administration of justice any good. After all, we cannot make any progress in South Africa on those terms. We must surely grant the police the necessary protection. It is clearly laid down in the Act that when such a person comes to court, as many photographs of the person can be published as one wants to. There is no attempt here to adversely affect the Press in any way. It is an attempt—and we must carry it through—to effect the proper administration of justice so that the police can make arrests and hold identification parades. If members of the Press have a photograph they would like to publish, they can simply telephone the Commissioner of Police or his authorized representative. It can then be established whether the Police have finished their business with the person concerned because the Press wants to publish the photographs. If the Police have done with the person, the Press can publish the photograph. We have nothing against publicity in these instances. The whole idea is simply to effect the proper administration of justice.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—85: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, P. W.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Conradie, F. D.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Hickman, T.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Steyn, D. W.; Streicher, D. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Volker, V. A.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wiley, J. W. E.

Tellers: J. P. C. le Roux, N. F. Treurnicht, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—29: Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Cadman, R. M.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven’t Hooft, R. E.; Fisher, E. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Miller, H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.

Tellers: D. J. Dalling and R. M. de Villiers.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Basically this amending Bill deals with three matters: (a) the appointment of members of prison boards; (b) the detention and treatment of offenders certified as psychopaths in terms of the Mental Health Act, 1973 (Act No. 18 of 1973), and (c) the making of sketches and taking of photographs of prisoners, as well as the publication thereof and of biographical sketches or the life stories of prisoners.

I shall now deal with each of these three aspects separately.

(a) Prison Boards: Official members of prison boards are appointed from the ranks of the serving officers of the Department of Prisons. Non-official members, on the other hand, are drawn from all sectors of society and are frequently pensioned teachers, magistrates, police officers and officers of the Prisons Service. The present provisions of section 5(3)(a) of the Prisons Act, 1959 (Act 8 of 1959) require that an official member, i.e. a serving officer, shall serve on a prison board. With a view, on the one hand, to effecting economies, and on the other to the more efficient functioning of prison boards, a start was made a few years ago with the decentralization of prison boards. However, the department came up against the problem that there were not enough officers available, at each centre at which a prison board was established, who could serve as official members on such boards.

However, there were frequently nonofficial members available who were possessed of sufficient background knowledge of the functions of the Department of Prisons and of the basic principles of penology to perform this function satisfactorily. Consequently the necessity of having appointed official members on a prison board at all times, falls away, and it is now being provided that such boards may in general consist of non-official or official members.

(b) The Mental Health Act, 1973 (Act 18 of 1973) assigns certain functions to the Department of Prisons. In the main, expression is given to this in the Bill by providing in the Prisons Act, 1959, firstly for the establishment of hospital prisons for the detention and treatment of sentenced prisoners as well as for President’s patients who have been certified as psychopaths or referred to such hospital prisons; secondly, for the detention of sentenced or unsentenced hospital prisoners who have been referred to such hospital prisons for observation; thirdly, for the interim detention in the prison of any other alleged or certified mentally ill person who is in transit to an institution as defined in the Mental Health Act, 1973, provided there is no institution or public hospital established for this purpose available in the vicinity. In addition there are other technical amendments, for example the substitution of the expression “mentally ill” for the expression “mentally defective” or “feeble-minded”.

The functions assigned by the Mental Health Act, 1973, to my department, therefore consist primarily of the detention and treatment of certified psychopathic offenders.

(c) The third aspect relates to the making of sketches and the taking of photographs of prisoners, as well as to the publication thereof and the publication of biographical sketches or life stories of prisoners. This aspect can similarly be summarized under three headings. Firstly we shall deal with the making of sketches and taking of photographs of prisoners, and the publication thereof. The prohibition on the publication of photographs and sketches of prisoners, as contained at present in section 44(e) of the Prisons Act, 1959, sought to safeguard the prisoner, but in particular his near relations and friends, from unnecessary embarrassment. Unfortunately this has in recent years led to the Press in fact employing the photographs of the near relations and friends, whom we also wish to safeguard, to add colour to their reporting and articles.

We also experienced practical problems with television. During the siege of the Israel consulate in Johannesburg during 1975, it appeared for example that one of the persons arrested in regard to the matter was recognizable in a SABC-TV newscast of the events. For the SABC it is frequently impossible to identify a person in time as a prisoner and then cut that portion of the film. Unlike the case of a newspaper the cutting of such a film causes tremendous disruption of the TV service. Eventually the department had to give the SABC permission to use this newscast. As a result of this it was not possible to refuse the newspapers permission to publish a photograph of this person.

In the light of this problem it was decided during 1975 to relax the prohibition for a trial period and carefully observe what effect it had. As was to be expected, the Press seized upon the opportunity to give great prominence, during the first weeks after the commencement of this concession, to persons who had been involved in sensational trials, particularly murder trials. Afterwards, however, the situation was normalized again.

To date no relation of a prisoner, nor any prisoner himself, has objected to the principle. According to newspaper reports certain misgivings were expressed as to the desirability of the concession in certain church circles and on the part of the National Institute for Crime Prevention and Rehabilitation of Offenders (Nicro). Nevertheless I am satisfied that the Press will deal circumspectly with this matter.

Because the protection of the interests of the prisoner and particularly his near relations, remains an important principle in his programme of treatment, the prohibition on the publication of a photograph of him after his conviction is still being retained, with certain provisos. While his trial is a public matter, the news media may publish photographs of him which were taken prior to his imprisonment or at a court or on any premises adjacent thereto and used in connection therewith. To afford reporting by weekly and monthly publications the same opportunity afforded the daily Press, this period extends up to 30 days after conviction, and in the case of a sentenced prisoner who is being tried on a further charge, also 30 days after he has been acquitted of the particular charge, if such is the case.

In the event of a death sentence being imposed on a prisoner, the prohibition on the publication of his photograph lapses after his execution. This is a direct consequence of the fact that I am of the opinion that this will prevent photographs of family and friends being used in this regard.

Secondly, what is also at issue here is the writing and publication of life stories and similar writings of prisoners. There are those who maintain that a lot of good may flow from the publishing of the life story of a prisoner. Ostensibly it could have a deterrent value for those who have lived a similar life in that they would allegedly benefit from the lessons of those who had already fallen. That may be, and I do not want to start a dispute in this regard. However, it must be borne in mind that the person who is prepared to make his negative and anti-social past public, will not do so without receiving something in exchange, not necessarily material gain only, but also the sympathy of those who point a finger. After all, one must bear in mind that all factors from such a person’s past that gave rise to his behaviour have usually been raked up already in court and that a life story rarely offers anything new, except that it is presented in a sensational and easily readable form. I am satisfied that there is no justified benefit to the prisoner or to anyone else in publishing such a life story.

In order to make provision for those who, for a valid reason, have to refer to the background of a prisoner’s life, leeway has been left in that the Commissioner of Police may also in this case grant approval for that to be done.

In the third place we are dealing with the payment of a remuneration to any person for information on the life story or similar writings of a prisoner.

While doubts may still exist on the desirability of publishing or not publishing a prisoner’s life story or biographical sketch, it is quite unthinkable that the prisoner himself, or any other person, may make financial gain from such a story. There is no moral justification for a person who was known only to his friends and family and who has now become known through a crime which he had committed to derive financial benefit from the stir aroused by such a crime. This evil cannot be allowed.

Mr. Speaker, I must congratulate the hon. the Minister for the speed at which he was able to read his speech. But we on this side of the House have found it most difficult to follow him and I was hoping, therefore, that we would have an opportunity tomorrow morning to study the speech he has so rapidly delivered. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if it would be possible for you to allow me to move the adjournment of the debate. There is only a minute or two left, and it would be disadvantageous to the good speech that I want to make if I were to start now.

I think the hon. member has a valid point. If he still wants to study the Bill I shall give him the opportunity.