Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I should briefly like to reiterate clearly the attitude of my party to the legislation under discussion.

Unfortunately I was absent during the Committee Stage debate. I apologized for my absence. However, I am fully informed of what happened during the Committee Stage. Essentially there is no change in the position as it was during the Second Reading debate. Nothing has happened to eliminate the basic objections which the PFP has to this Bill. I understand that during the Committee Stage two points were raised to which reference ought to be made.

In the first place I refer to the amendment moved by the NRP, one by means of which they, as I understand it, sought to ensure that the legislation would make provision for at least a certain measure of reporting to Parliament—reporting with regard to the spending of secret funds. In that way they tried to ensure that although Parliament would not necessarily have control over such expenditure, there would at least be a certain measure of reporting to Parliament on what had been done with the taxpayer’s money. I understand that that amendment was rejected.

In the second place I understand that the hon. member for Pinelands raised the matter of “the national interest” as used in the Bill with reference to the purposes for which the funds concerned may be utilized. I also understand that the hon. member suggested that some other definition—a narrower and stricter one than merely the definition of “national interests”—ought to be used with regard to determining the purposes for which secret funds may be utilized. I understand that the suggestion by the hon. member for Pinelands was received by the hon. the Minister not completely unsympathetically. Therefore, if any possibility exists of narrowing this definition, we in these benches shall certainly welcome it. In our opinion this would limit to a certain extent the field in which the secret funds may be spent, and in that way—although the control would not be placed in the hands of Parliament—the purposes for which the appropriated funds may be utilized would at least be limited. But even if the definition were to be narrowed, it would still not eliminate our major objections by any means.

Simply to stipulate that funds appropriated in terms of this legislation be utilized exclusively for the security of the country, for example, still does not penetrate to the root of the objection we raised during the previous stages. This is, to be more specific, that what we are being asked to do here amounts to placing to an important extent in the hands of the Executive the prerogative of this House to vote public funds for the purposes for which such funds are to be utilized.

† We are being asked to surrender important privileges of the legislature to the Executive. We are being asked in future to vote a global sum of money. This is in fact the difference between the proposed position and the present position. At present at least we do know how much we are voting and to which department the money is to go. Here, however, we are being asked to allow a globular sum of money to be voted without any assurance or any guarantee that we are going to know, either when we vote the money or at a later stage, where that money is going to go. That being the case, we in these benches believe that in spite of what has been said about the special circumstances obtaining, we would be untrue to our duty to this House if we supported this measure.

I want to say, Sir, that I am glad the Second Reading debate took place in an atmosphere which was to some extent objective. I am glad that hon. members on the other side did stand up one after the other to proclaim their own care and their own concern for the privileges of this House. They said, however, that they thought the situation in which South Africa found itself was so serious that those concerns which they did have for the rights of Parliament were overshadowed by their greater concern for the national situation. That at least indicates that there is a shared concern on both sides of the House for the privileges of Parliament when it comes to the handling of the people’s funds.

As far as we are concerned, nothing has been said in this debate or elsewhere which justifies a departure from parliamentary control of public expenditure on the scale which this Bill envisages. Therefore, Sir, we remain opposed to this Bill at this Third Reading stage.

Mr. Speaker, we may accept that, for the purposes of the discussion of this specific Bill, the Government and the Official Opposition will never agree with one another. We accept that situation for the purposes of this Third Reading. The hon. member for Parktown, however, thought fit to make the allegation that that party is jealous of the rights of Parliament as regards the voting of funds for certain specific purposes. I want to point out that there is no one on this side of the House who is not also jealous of those rights. The difference lies, however, in the fact that we are living in a completely different situation today than the situation in which we found ourselves a few years ago. The hon. member for Parktown says that we must be jealous of the voting of funds for a specific purpose, but I want to tell the hon. member and other hon. members in the Opposition that the establishment of a secret account is one of the very things which Parliament can do, for just as Parliament can vote funds for expenditure by a specific department, it can also make provision for the voting and spending of secret funds. The principle is exactly the same. But in this case no particulars of that Vote are provided. Even hon. members on the opposite side will agree with me that when secret funds have to be spent, there can be no question of particulars being furnished in this regard. The principle of voting of funds by this Parliament, however, remains the same. On the one hand Parliament votes funds for a specific purpose, and in this case Parliament also votes funds for a specific purpose, viz. the expenditure of money on a secret account. These two aspects run parallel to one another. Hon. members on the opposite side would very much like us on this side of the House to concede that these secret funds must be spelled out specifically. On the other hand those hon. members are not entirely opposed to the fact that we must spend money from a secret account. The simple fact is that we must be realistic in this regard. In the past we had the situation that certain secret accounts were already in existence. Here we now have an extension of that principle; I grant this. If we on this side of the House could have had our way, we should not have liked to bring about an extension of that principle. However, I say once again that Parliament is not being bypassed in the process. The Auditor-General, who is not a parliamentary institution, but is in fact part of the parliamentary machinery, has a certain amount of say in the auditing of this secret account.

In conclusion I just want to say that hon. members on the other side of the House would do well, for the future of South Africa, to take the view that, just as it is essential to budget for a specific department, it has become just as essential, in the history of South Africa, to budget for a specific secret account. They are both budget items. Furthermore, we must co-operate in confidence as regards the details of this secret account. Parliament is still consulted in the process.

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the arguments which were raised in connection with this Bill once again today. I really do not think I can add anything to what I said during the Second Reading debate and the Committee Stage. I also think my friend, the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke, has restated the case of this side of the House very clearly. I just want to emphasize that the reason for this legislation is that we are living in extraordinary circumstances, and we therefore feel that it is in the interests of the country that there should be measures from time to time to counter the type of attack made on South Africa. This is one of the methods which we use. We drew up this Bill with great circumspection, and I trust that, in reconsidering the Bill, the House will in fact accept it in its entirety.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

I want to express my thanks to the members of the Select Committee who gave their attention to the various provisions of this measure after the Bill had been referred to the Select Committee. As is indicated in its report, the Select Committee effected changes, changes which in my opinion are improvements, in clauses 1(b) and (d). On its recommendation a new paragraph (e) was also inserted. I want to thank the members of the Select Committee cordially for the cooperation which they displayed and for the measure of agreement which they reached.

Since there is a large degree of unanimity on this measure, I do not think it is necessary for me to take up any more of the time of this House with it.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has correctly pointed to the degree of unanimity there was in the Select Committee. I think that in this regard tribute to a considerable extent should be paid to the chairman of the committee because I think it is partly due to his skilful handling of the committee’s affairs that that unanimity was arrived at. When it looks as if there are differences of opinion which are not really differences of opinion, it is the chairman’s skill that brings the varying points of view together and brings about unanimity. I should therefore particularly like to thank the chairman for what he did in the committee. His actions here were in fact in accordance with how he functioned on other committees of a similar nature in the past. One has to thank one’s colleagues for their co-operation and therefore I should also like to thank the other members of the committee for the degree of co-operation they showed.

It is also not inappropriate to thank three other persons who were present throughout the deliberations. These are the Personal Staff Officer, Brig. De Wachter; the Director of Military Law, Brig. Pretorius, and, thirdly, Adv. Verschuur, a Senior State Law Adviser. These gentlemen also deserve thanks for their work in respect of this particular committee. If I may single out the man who was mainly responsible in this regard, I must single out the Director of Military Law. In him I think the servicemen have a very substantial friend. I think they should remember that he is, in fact, their friend.

The fact that the committee was able to function in this manner is indicative of the fact that the problems which the servicemen encounter as a result of their service are problems concerning which there is no difference of opinion in the House. On the contrary. What has to be said in addition is that there is little doubt that one has to continue to keep a piece of legislation such as this under review. Seeing that we are toying with the idea of having new and standing Select Committees, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister will not consider whether we should not have a standing Select Committee on defence, as has been suggested so often in the past, which could sit throughout the time the House sits. Indeed, perhaps the Standing Rules could even be amended so that such a committee could sit when the House does not sit in order to keep legislation of this nature continuously under review. I would like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to give consideration to this.

There are a couple of other things which I think need to be mentioned. Firstly, I think in this type of legislation it is necessary not only to consider the needs of the serviceman. We also have to bring about a balance between the needs of the serviceman and the legitimate rights and needs of the business community. Whether we have managed to achieve this or not, only time will tell. However, we certainly tried. What I think will have to receive increasing attention is that whereas on the one hand we are prepared to give all the protection to the serviceman who acts legitimately and acts in the ordinary course of events, we also have to protect the business community to prevent the incurring of credit by certain individuals with the intention of taking advantage of the provisions of the Moratorium Act, particularly by not disclosing the possibility of military service and thus misleading in this manner. While we are trying to cover this situation, we will in due course have to give further attention to possible abuse in this regard.

The second matter which I think needs attention is one which we cannot ignore. That is that if one has a massive moratorium in terms of which a large number of people are not obliged to pay their debts for a period of time, there may well be businesses which may be seriously affected by this situation particularly in so far as it concerns the cash flow in their businesses. There have been occasions in the past when the State had been prepared to make money available to the business community where they had been adversely affected when particular circumstances had arisen. The most recent example was the financing of the purchase of television sets. The IDC made money available for this purpose. Has the time not arrived where we should try to arrange that a body such as the IDC will have money available so that it can make advances to businesses whose cash flow is seriously and adversely affected by the application of a law of this kind? When we make a plea like this we also have to pay attention to the fact that whereas after the Second World War we had a completely structured situation through the DSDC in terms of which one could get facilities and loans for the resettling of individuals, assistance for further education and assistance in regard to business where it was adversely affected as a result of military service, we ourselves should provide—not by way of regimental funds or by way of the funds of the Defence Force—by way of a body created by Government for financial assistance to servicemen whose careers, businesses or occupations have been adversely affected by service on behalf of the country. I believe this is something which the hon. the Minister, together with the hon. the Minister of Finance, should pay some attention too.

In regard to the specific provisions of the Bill as it is now in its amended form, let me say again that the principal of the Act as it was first put before the House, met with our approval. We also approve of the amendments in this Bill which go further to improve the situation.

In regard to the second report of the Committee (S.C. 8-’78) I would like to point out that we support the principles put forward in paragraphs (1), (2), (3) and (4), with one proviso. We have some doubt on the question whether it is desirable to grant a court a discretion to grant a moratorium. There needs to be a measure on certainty in regard to these matters, and whereas it may be an easy way out to leave it to a court to decide whether or not to grant a moratorium in particular circumstances, it appears to us that both the business community and the servicemen need certainty. Once one opens the door to uncertainty by leaving the matter to the discretion of a court, problems might be created. Therefore we have raised the issue for debate and for consideration. At the moment we would merely like to record our reservations in regard to the practicalities of this particular matter.

I want to end off by saying that we welcome the piece of legislation in this form and that we shall support it in all its stages.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yeoville has already saved me a lot of time by expressing the necessary thanks to the hon. members who served on the committee and to other persons who assisted the committee, and I can therefore proceed immediately with matters which will be of more interest to the House. I just want to stress the fact that this was a joint effort and that all the parties who participated, made a contribution. Because we do not have evidence on record before the House, it is necessary that we should explain the committee’s line of thinking, in order that the hon. the Minister and the House may be able to judge whether the committee was correct in its approach.

Hon. members will note that the committee has found it necessary to propose four amendments. In considering these amendments, we kept in mind certain lines of approach—as the hon. member for Yeoville has already indicated. The hon. member would like this to apply in future deliberations on the Moratorium Act as well. We did take this into account, but I should nevertheless like to stress the importance of what he said. That approach entails, inter alia, that a citizen who performs military service in defence of the Republic, or a comparable service as defined in the Defence Act, ought to enjoy protection in connection with the settling of his debts while he is performing such service. A further approach is that civil remedies against a citizen should be suspended for the period during which he is performing that service. There are however different types of service which can be performed, and in the Bill which initially served before the House, we took cognizance of the different types of service which can be performed. We accepted them and left the matter at that. We are of the opinion that it is a wise distinction to grant total protection against civil remedies to the man who is operationally involved as against the man who performs his service on the home front, in which case he does not enjoy protection in respect of delictual actions, but only with regard to contractual matters. In the case of the individual who performs service on the home front, we have assumed that a period of two years is involved and that if we accept the principle of the Bill, namely that the period of a contract is extended by the period of service, it can have a considerable influence on our economy in that land transactions, for example, can be extended by two years. For that reason we regard the distinction between the different types of service as an extremely wise one.

A third approach is that there should be the least possible disruption of our economy by the granting of such protection. Our economy is, after all, the lifeblood of our national defence, and a delicate balance between the interests of the citizen on the one hand and the interests of commerce, industry, professional and financial services on the other hand, must therefore be maintained. It follows from this that on the one hand, the committee had to ensure that there would not be encouragement for irresponsible incurring of debts, but on the other, it had to make it possible for a serviceman, a citizen whose financial affairs were disrupted due to his defending his country’s borders, to perform his duty without worry and financial pressure. We constantly had to keep this delicate balance in mind. However, the approach of the committee is already largely contained in the existing legislation as amended during 1977. In this connection the committee had to ask itself, taking into consideration the Bill at present before the House, whether it is fair that the limitation on the applicability of moratorium should be extended to all contracts and obligations incurred after a citizen has commenced his service. In this connection there is already a provision in the existing Act which, in certain circumstances, excludes from moratorium, inter alia, the debt for actual necessities of life supplied to a citizen and therefore also to his wife, accommodation in general, and instalments on hire purchase contracts. The committee therefore had to consider whether a comprehensive provision which excludes from moratorium all contracts concluded after a citizen has commenced his service, would rightly and fairly be in the interests of such citizen. The committee gave serious consideration to this and I must place on record that the committee endorses the philosophy that the extension of the limitation would be salutary in the sense that it would be in the interests of the citizen and his dependants that they should, as far as possible, live on a cash basis while he performs military service and that they should not incur debts in the knowledge that the payment thereof will be suspended. It has in fact up to now been an anomaly in the legislation that moratorium could not be obtained for real necessities of life supplied after the commencement of service, but that moratorium could be obtained, for example, for debt on a television set. The second reason why the committee thinks that this is salutary, is that it is expected of the citizen to make arrangements for the care of his family before he commences service. Although the committee supports this as a motive, it must be pointed out that it can only be a valid motive if administrative guidance is given to citizens to make such provision before the commencement of their military service. In this respect we must look to the administration of the Defence Force. It is a wide-ranging task. In the second place, it can only be a valid reason if a citizen’s dependants do not become indigent as a result of military pay or emoluments from the serviceman’s employer not reaching the dependants. For this reason an effective welfare service, such as the S.A. Defence Force at present has and maintains, is a very important requisite for the successful implementation of this approach. A third consideration is that dealers would be reluctant to supply goods on credit if they were aware that a person could obtain moratorium therefor. This is a difficult aspect, but if a person thinks it over calmly, this would appear to be the case. A final consideration for the acceptance of the broad limitation is that the Bill is aimed at preventing the payment of double instalments after completion of military service, as happened in terms of the 1977 legislation.

In fact, therefore, the proposed legislation entails a considerable benefit to the citizen. As I said at the outset, it has the effect that the period of duration of contractual obligations is extended by the period of service. In the case of the first period of service, this can be as much as two years. That is in itself a considerable improvement. It is obvious that this benefit is not intended to be available in respect of contractual debts which are not payable during a period of service. For that reason, the committee has effected the second amendment, so that the legislation now provides that “contractual debts incurred by any such citizen and which do not become payable in terms of the contract during the period during which he is rendering service”, are excluded from moratorium.

The committee’s intention is therefore that the new section 2(1) should mean that the obligation of a citizen performing military service to pay contractual debts incurred by him before the commencement of his service and which become payable after he commences military service and before the termination of such service, is suspended for a period equivalent to the period for which he performs military service, plus one month. I mention this because in his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister pointed out the complexity of the legislation and said that we should have to look at it from time to time. I just want to place on record that it is the committee’s intention that moratorium should be available for each separate period of service of a citizen. I wish to state the following with regard to the second amendment, keeping in mind the basic approach that the interests of our economy must be taken into account, the Select Committee has given consideration to clause 1(d) of the Bill whereby the limitation in respect of hire purchase contracts is extended to all contracts. It is therefore envisaged, in terms of the Bill, that verbal contracts be included and that all citizens, including those who perform later periods of service, be required to advise dealers in writing of the fact that they are citizens who have been assigned to military service and are liable for service in terms of section 67 of the Defence Act before being entitled to postponement of the obligation to pay.

The Select Committee was, however, of the opinion that an amendment should be effected here, because it is unfair with regard to later periods of service to expect of people who already occupy responsible positions, who plan their business and have already started building their own financial world, always to have a lot of written notices on their hands. That can make moratorium absolute. On the other hand, the committee felt that the nature of and the period prior to an initial period of service is such that dealers and businessmen should be protected and that they should be enabled to decide whether they are willing to conclude a contract with a citizen who is still performing, or has still to perform, two years of service—a citizen, therefore, who can obtain a suspension of contractual obligations for as long a period as two years. In this connection I have in mind hire purchase contracts, contracts of lease, land transactions and certain assurance contracts. The Select Committee therefore proposes that the provision should only be applicable to written contracts, because otherwise it can lead to a great deal of legal uncertainty and also nullity.

As far as the first proposed amendment is concerned, the Select Committee proposes that it be brought into line with the one month which is added as a moratorium in the previous subsection. The benefit this entails is obviously that it gives the citizen the opportunity to orientate himself after he has completed his period of military service. He can, for example, give notice of intention to defend an action, a marriage can be saved, and over-hasty creditors and claimants can be interviewed. It is, however, only available to people employed in terms of section 92ter, that is to say, people who have been operationally involved. In this connection I refer to paragraph 4 of the Select Committee’s report.

In conclusion I want to associate myself with the reference by the hon. member for Yeoville to paragraph (1)(c) of the report. What this amounts to is that we are putting forward for consideration an amendment which will empower a court in future to handle all ad hoc cases for which the Act does not make provision. I wish to stress that this was an idea which cropped up in the course of the functions of the Select Committee and that it does not necessarily enjoy the support of the committee. In conclusion I wish to express my thanks for the opportunity to discuss this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, my party and I want to associate ourselves with the words of appreciation addressed to the Chairman of the Select Committee, who has just spoken. I can give the hon. the Minister the assurance that the hon. member for Cradock and I as two laymen among 10 lawyers had a very difficult task to keep this Committee on the track. It was an extremely difficult task, but we laymen managed to stop them from going wild. We solved the problems while the 10 lawyers spoke at length.

† I think perhaps the hon. member for Yeoville will now agree that we were right when we supported the motion that this measure be referred to a Select Committee. I remember the hon. member for Yeoville’s enthusiasm for the simplicity of this measure and the fact that it could be settled in a few minutes in the House.

Some people are more simple than others.

We noticed that during the many hours the Select Committee sat; the hon. member for Yeoville demonstrated very effectively the truth of his words. He made a long and considerable contribution to the discussions. Otherwise that discussion would have had to take place in this House. So I hope that the hon. member for Yeoville will be wiser next time we discuss whether a defence measure should go to a Select Committee or not.

Will you support the next one?

If the next one requires it, I shall support it. If it does not require it, I will not support it. The point is that this measure required a Select Committee because it dealt with a number of tricky legal points which required careful analysis and careful consideration. I do not intend repeating the discussion which has already taken place on the Select Committee amendments to the legislation. That I believe is the purpose of a Select Committee. Matters are discussed in the Select Committee and an agreed measure is then put before the House. However, what I do want to state is that the doubts which I had about the measure—and which I still had during the discussions in the Select Committee—were finally put to rest by legal opinion and by the specific confirmation that the meaning of what we are trying to achieve is as reflected in the commission’s report. I wanted to be sure that we were in fact giving the coverage and protection to those servicemen which it was intended we should cover, and I am now satisfied that this cover is given and that the definition of who is serving on the border is covered by section 92ter of chapter 10. This was a matter on which I had some doubt, but which is now absolutely clear as a result of the report of the Select Committee.

I believe that the other matters have been dealt with effectively, but I do want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he can give us an indication of his reaction to those recommendations which fall outside the scope of the Bill. I refer to the second report where we dealt with matters which could not be covered in this Bill without an instruction, and where we asked that further attention be given to them. I am particularly interested in the question of post-service illness and injury and in the question of the cost of litigation by not requiring a Supreme Court hearing. Here again, the hon. the Minister will understand that with only two laymen on the Select Committee, it was difficult to get a provision through that servicemen did not have to go to the costliest of litigation in order to get a decision, but that a magistrate’s hearing would be sufficient.

But you opposed it then …

No. I keep as well away from litigation as it is possible for the devil to keep away from holy water, because I know what happens to one once one gets into the hands of an advocate. I do not want our national servicemen to find themselves in that situation.

The other point on which I should like to hear the hon. the Minister’s reaction is the question of an omnibus clause dealing with special cases which cannot be foreseen and which are not covered by the Act. I realize that there is the danger of this creating uncertainty or misuse, but I believe it is necessary to have some sort of general omnibus clause in terms of which a court could grant such remedy as it considered just and fair in cases which are not fully covered by the Act as it is to be now amended. I hope the hon. member for Yeoville and I can serve again on a Select Committee which will consider these additional matters with which we were unable to deal in this Bill.

With these words I am pleased to support the Second Reading of this measure and to say that we shall support it fully in all its stages.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that it was a pleasure for me to serve together with other hon. members on the Select Committee which investigated this legislation. It was a great pleasure, particularly because there was such a large measure of unanimity. Right at the outset I want to refer to the hon. member for Durban Point. He mentioned that he supported the idea that a court should be established which would provide in certain cases for needs for which provision could not be made in the Act. I think that further attention could definitely be given to this idea. I want to add that I am an advocate and that I do not agree entirely with the hon. member when he states that advocates are always and only out to increase costs. On the contrary, I believe that advocates consistently do their best to cut costs. [Interjections.] The fact of the matter is that this could be a good idea for inclusion in the Act, viz. that magistrates could have jurisdiction.

The aspect of the Moratorium Bill which I believe should be given a degree of emphasis is the fact that each and every member of the population is affected by the circumstances threatening us today. We must display an attitude towards each other which will be conducive to better mutual understanding, compassion and appreciation for the role played by each with regard to the security of our country. The soldier doing duty day and night on the border and making great sacrifices, is a person performing a specific task which also relates to the protection of the businessman in this country, enabling him to make a living. On this basis, both rely on and are dependent on each other. We must coexist and support each other. What underlies these ideas is that when a member of the Defence Force is performing national service, he ought not to be worried about how things are going at home. A worried soldier is an ineffectual soldier, and when he cannot confine his thoughts to his patrol work and so on, he and his comrades are likely to pay the price. That is why the protection under the Moratorium legislation is aimed at enabling such members of the Defence Force to do their duty as effectively as possible. This will have the effect that those who remain behind can continue in safety to bring about peace and prosperity for our people. To me this underlies this piece of legislation as a whole.

The fact of the matter is that we are dealing with circumstances which are constantly changing. That, too, is why it is necessary for this legislation to be revised repeatedly. This statement of mine is proved by the fact that the legislation under discussion is constantly being revised. The mere fact that this is the case once again shows that the Government is in earnest in doing its best for our soldiers on the border irrespective of the circumstances, while at the same time, of course, fully taking into account, and having a balanced approach to the businessman who has to carry on his affairs and make a living in the interests of the country.

I believe that this legislation strikes a balance whereby the interests of all are secured. All we ask, and, in all fairness, all we expect is that the problems of each be approached in a spirit of sympathy and understanding and that we should be honest towards each other. If, therefore, businessmen encounter problems, I believe that such problems will be considered if they approach the hon. the Minister. On the other hand, I am also convinced that the hon. the Minister will give his sympathetic attention to the problems of the members of the Defence Force. For that reason I wholeheartedly support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Bloemfontein West for the customary thorough exposition he gave as Chairman of the Select Committee which considered this measure. The Select Committee made certain additions to the original legislation. I think they are improvements, and I wish to associate myself with those who expressed their appreciation to him for his chairmanship.

† The hon. member for Durban Point referred to himself and the hon. member for Cradock as “lay members”.

*Sir, one does need lay preachers from time to time. Apparently it had a good effect.

A stabilizing effect.

Yes, it had a stabilizing effect.

† The hon. member also asked me what my reaction was to the further recommendations referred to in the second report of the committee. He was referring, I think, more specifically to paragraphs (3)(a) and (b) of that report, referring to the question of illness and litigation. I must be quite candid with the hon. member. I did not have the opportunity to apply my mind to these questions. I shall go into the matter properly during the recess and, as has been the practice in the past, before drawing up any legislation for final presentation to Parliament, I shall refer it to the hon. members for Durban Point, Yeoville and Bloemfontein West for their comments. That is the only promise I can give the House at this stage.

The hon. member for Yeoville said that he would very much like me to refer all legislation to a standing Select Committee. I do not think that is necessary. I agree with the hon. member, however, that it is advisable to refer defence legislation to a Select Committee when it is necessary so that the matter can be properly dealt with. The hon. member will know from past experience that that was the attitude I adopted when I deemed it necessary. Sometimes, however, one has a straightforward measure which it is not necessary to refer to a Select Committee. I must stress one point, and that is that I do not think that we can ever reach the ideal situation in this regard through legislation. Basically it remains a question of good relations between employers and employees who are servicemen.

Businesses and employees.

Yes, businesses and their employees. Unless a proper relationship exists in that regard, there is no hope of ever reaching an ideal situation. We have gone out of our way, especially through the agencies of General Webster, to bring about proper relationships in this regard, and I think we have already succeeded to a very high degree in this direction. Whenever possible we shall try to improve these relationships and to create a spirit of goodwill which will guarantee the interests of the servicemen.

*The hon. member also referred to the question of the further interests of servicemen. That is how I understood him. I believe this question of the treatment of servicemen returning from military service, should rather be dealt with under the Defence Vote. It could be more fruitfully discussed on that occasion.

Sir, I should like to express my gratitude once more to the hon. members of the Select Committee. In this regard I am also referring to the hon. member for Pretoria West, who has just spoken. In view of the fact that we have become such a mutual admiration society today as far as this measure is concerned, I shall say nothing more.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should start off by saying, to the hon. the Minister, that we regret that he has not seen fit to refer this matter to a Select Committee so that he might perhaps have had the same kind of result he had with the previous measure we discussed. Having given him the bad news first, however, let me now give him the good news.

Thank you.

The good news is that we shall support the Second Reading of this measure. Whilst we support the Second Reading of the Bill, since the principle is such that we can support it, I nevertheless think that we must point out to the hon. the Minister that there are a number of aspects of this Bill on which we cannot agree with him. In some respects we cannot agree with the detail and in other respects we cannot agree with specific provisions of a clause.

Because this is a Bill containing a number of principles, may I start off by referring the hon. the Minister to the very first portion of his piece of legislation. This appears to be connected with the legislation we passed recently, legislation concerning the compulsory acquisition of citizenship—the alternative being the loss of a permanent residence permit—by persons who have attained the age of 25 years. The difficulty is that we in these benches believe that if a person comes to South Africa, enjoys the benefits of living in South Africa and shares in the privileges of being here, he should be prepared also to undertake the defence of this country. He should also be prepared to participate in the defence of this country. We take the view that there is no magic in the age of 25. One may be a youngster, or even a person who is only one year of age for that matter, a person who would therefore not be affected by these provisions, but we believe that if one has all these privileges, the obligation to participate in the defence of South Africa is something that specifically rests on one’s shoulders.

What does clause 1(1) of the Bill do? It states, quite innocuously, simply that—

Those particular subsections, however, are of significance in regard to the position of the immigrants in South Africa. In terms of subsection (3), for example—

In subsection (4) it is also provided that—

1. (a) shall provide for exemption from liability to render service under this Act of persons who have at such time and in such manner as may be specified in the proclamation, declared that they do not intend becoming citizens.

I quote further. It is stated that the proclamation—

1. (c) may apply the provisions of section 63 with such modifications as the State President may consider necessary in order to provide for the registration under that section of any person who has been domiciled in the Republic for five years, before the date upon which he attains the age of 25 years.

The view which we take is that there is a considerable gap in time in respect of the new immigrants who will be coming to South Africa from now on, immigrants to whom the citizenship provisions apply, and the people who are in South Africa at the present moment in time. That gap may be 23 years. Whereas clause 1 provides that the repeal of the relevant provisions shall only come into operation on a date fixed by the State President by proclamation in the Gazette, i.e. it does not have to be immediate, this issue becomes necessary for South Africa for 23 years because in our view, which I want to repeat, the obligation to render service rests on the individual when he seeks to obtain the benefits of residence in the country, all the benefits the country has to offer.

Let us take the example of the United States of America. At the time of the Vietnam War there was conscription in the USA and, if one was a resident of the United States, whether one was a citizen of that country or not, one was obliged to be available for the draft. Seeing that that was good enough for the USA in those circumstances, surely it cannot be condemned by other countries when South Africa takes such a step in circumstances which are far more serious for South Africa than Vietnam ever was for the USA? Where does the difference lie? It is true that, according to something I read, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands recently said that any Dutch citizen who is employed in the military forces of South Africa may be deprived of his citizenship …

Or if he serves in the Public Service.

Yes, it may go further, but at the moment we are dealing with defence. In my view—and, with respect, I believe it should also be the hon. the Minister’s view—if the man is living in South Africa and is enjoying the benefits attached to that, he must bear the risk of losing his Dutch citizenship if he wants to enjoy the privileges of living in South Africa. It is a choice one has to make. I believe the hon. the Minister should not make it easy here but that, on the contrary, it should be made clear that, in so far as the non-South African is concerned, he has the same obligations the South African has.

I would really like to hear the hon. the Minister on this magic age of 25 years. Why should it be the age of 25 years as provided for in the new citizenship provision? Why should the people who are now affected by it be relieved of their liability? We would like to hear the hon. the Minister on that. Until he can give us a satisfactory explanation, we regret that we shall have to vote against clause 1 of the Bill.

Clause 2 deals with the question of apprentices. We support this provision. It has become necessary because now, by reason of the longer periods of service, it is logical that there should be a greater concession in respect of apprenticeship. However, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is right that it should only apply to apprentices. Let me give the hon. the Minister an example with which I am perhaps more familiar than most. When I came back after the Second World War, I received a remission of my articles to become an attorney. In those days the law provided that one could receive a remission of the length of one’s military service with a maximum of two years.

That explains it.

It explains a lot of things about that hon. member as well because he never got any remission and is unlikely to get any remission for the same reason that I got mine. I do not like that kind of interjection. I am talking seriously to the hon. the Minister and he knows it. I would like the hon. the Minister to consider whether the same facility that is being given to apprentices should not also be given to other professions, such as lawyers, accountants and others who do not fall within the Apprenticeship Act, but who in substance served a period of time which is similar to that served in respect of an apprenticeship. I would like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to use his good offices in this connection. It needs the co-operation of professional bodies and other vocational bodies. I would like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to apply the same rules in that regard. For example it applies to architects in regard to practical work. It also applies to a whole series of people who are affected by this measure.

May I also draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to section 4(2)bis(b)(i). Here we have a provision which provides that where certain rights accrue to one in terms of one’s conditions of employment in terms of which one is entitled to increased remuneration, paid sick leave or other facilities as a result of a period of time elapsing, one has the right to reckon in respect of any one unbroken period of service more than four months of the absence of one’s employment occasioned by such service. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether in view of the amendment to subsection 2ter, this period of four months not also requires attention. It is a similar sort of provision, and it does appear to me that if one is entitled to increments or to particular privileges because one has rendered a particular period of service, the period of one’s service should be counted for the purpose of those increments, for the purpose of those sick leave benefits or for all these benefits in exactly the same way as if one were rendering service to one’s employer. The period of four months to my mind appears to require revision.

We then come to the next clause, clause 3, which deals with the safeguarding of our borders. This is a provision which we support. We would not do so in ordinary circumstances, because it is a very far-reaching provision. However, we recognize the dangers which exist to the borders of South Africa, we recognize the dangers to the security of the State which exist at the present time, and because of this we support the principle which is contained in this clause. However, there are some interesting facts which we need to look at in relation to this particular provision. Before the activities of the Government in respect of its homeland policies commenced, the borders of South Africa, excluding the sea, totalled no more than 4 550 km. What has happened? As a result of the independence of the Transkei and Bophuthatswana our borders with African States, other than former homelands, are 4 080 km. Our borders with the Transkei and Bophuthatswana are 4 130 km. In other words, our borders have increased from 4 550 km to 8 210 km. If all the homelands become independent, what will the situation be? Our borders with African States which were not homelands will be 3 670 km and our borders with the former homelands will be 10 075 km. That gives us a grand total of 13 745 km compared with the 4 550 km we had before. When one multiplies that by ten, one gets an area of land which is tremendous and which is almost equivalent to 15% of the total surface area of the Republic of South Africa, and, Mr. Speaker, bear in mind that we have only given away 13% of the surface area of South Africa to the homelands.

So, what we are doing here is very significant in that when we look at the Government’s homeland policy, at what it does to the borders and what it does to the problems of the defence of South Africa, we cannot afford to overlook these matters.

To come back to the provision, I believe it is necessary that, unless there is urgency, entry upon somebody else’s premises should be after due notice to the owner or occupier where it is practical. We shall move an amendment to that effect during the Committee Stage. In the second place, if we look at the provisions of this measure, we here exculpate the State and the persons concerned with this activity from any responsibility for damages. The principle that we would like to put before the House, and which we ask the hon. the Minister to consider, is that the burden of sacrifices which must be made for the defence of South Africa must be shared equally by the community. There should not be the unlucky people who are deprived of assets, who are deprived of rights and who are not compensated; the burden should be borne equally. We believe that one must give compensation and that people should be compensated where their property is taken from them.

In the ordinary course I would imagine that what the hon. the Minister has in mind—I do not propose to discuss what he has in mind in detail, because I do not believe it is in our interest to do so—is that what is contemplated will not cause damage to people’s property. I believe it should not cause damage or can be done with a minimal amount of damage. That is all the more reason why, when there is injury done to property and people do sustain loss, that compensation should be granted. Here again we shall move amendments in this regard.

One should also draw attention to the fact that it now becomes even more important that this provision is retrospective to 1 January of last year. This means that if in fact damages have been sustained by people, retrospectively they are being deprived of their rights. We regret that we cannot support that principle.

In terms of clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill the intention is—one of my colleagues will deal with the matter in greater detail—that here we will have the military tribunals dealing with all matters concerning offences which are committed, to the exclusion of the civil courts, and which becomes material when a period of service ends. We feel that the amendments requested in this regard are logical and proper and we shall support them.

Clauses 6 and 7 of the Bill deal with what can perhaps be termed as a delicate subject. The delicacy of the subject arises from the fact that one does not wish, in anything one does, to offend against the religious concepts of any individual. As far as we are concerned, we obviously wish to respect the emotional religious feelings of any person and I am quite sure that the hon. the Minister holds the same view. When it comes to defence and military service, there is no doubt about it that there are some people who sincerely and honestly feel that the taking of human life and resort to violence is against their religious conviction. I respect those views where they are honestly and bona fide held. It is not for me to criticize the religious views of others. I perhaps have a different view in regard to the matter, because I believe that where violence is used, one is entitled to retaliate with violence. That is my philosophy. I do not believe—if I may quote a topical example— that I must sit back and allow a Clemens Kapuuo to be murdered and then merely turn the other cheek. I do not believe that that is a solution to the problem. The world requires strength, and my personal view is that if one wants to protect oneself against violence, one must be strong, be prepared to defend oneself and be prepared to retaliate in appropriate circumstances when it becomes necessary. That is my own belief. But the fact that that is my belief does not mean that other people may not have a different belief. I also take the view that where there have been people with religious views of this kind, the Defence Force has acted in a most understanding manner. In cases where people hold bona fide beliefs, the Defence Force has tried wherever possible to see to that that these persons are put in non-combatant jobs where their religious views can be respected. I think the Defence Force has done a reasonable job in this respect and that there is very little of their action that can be criticized in this regard.

We in these benches hold the view that one cannot refuse to recognize the authority of the State. In the case of persons who will not have anything to do with the authority of the State most civilized countries in the world take the view that they cannot tolerate such behaviour. Some religious sects in South Africa are treated here in no different way than in other countries where the same sects have created very real problems for the State. In those circumstances one accepts that the State has to do something in order to assert its authority.

In the light of these principles we look at this particular section and take the view that as the period of service has been extended it seems as if one does need amendments in order to make sure that people do not take advantage of a situation in which it may be better to seek to refuse to serve in the armed forces than to serve. In other words, it certainly appears to us that it would be illogical that a situation should be allowed where a person who can prove that he adheres to a recognized religious denomination the tenets of which forbids him to participate in war, would be better off in regard to the service which he has to render than the ordinary person who is prepared to do his duty and recognize the authority of the State. We can therefore see the necessity for an amendment to deal with this. We have, however, some reservations about the period that is being imposed, because we fear that detention for such a long period of time may have an adverse effect on the persons in detention. I have been assured that the type of detention is such that this will not be the case, that it is, in fact, not the type of detention of 30 or more years ago. However, be that as it may. We feel that the length of the period that people are required to be in detention may in the circumstances be too long and we ask the hon. the Minister to consider this aspect because whereas there has to be a change to prevent a situation where one will have a benefit if one refuses to serve, it does appear to us as if this period in these circumstances may be too long.

The hon. the Minister may also consider that some of these people might be more usefully employed in activities other than being in detention. One of my colleagues will deal specifically with one of his ideas on this subject. I do not want to enlarge on it, except to mention that to me the useful employment of persons rather than detaining them might well be something which the hon. the Minister might consider.

I have dealt with all the provisions in detail. It is really impossible to deal with a Bill which contains that many principles without dealing with every provision individually. As I have indicated right at the beginning, and as the hon. the Minister will have seen from the manner in which we approached the matter, we support the Second Reading of the Bill, although we have reservations about certain of the provisions. We support many of the provisions of the Bill in the full belief that in normal circumstances these provisions would not have been necessary and that the hon. the Minister would then not have thought of introducing many of them.

Mr. Speaker, while the hon. member for Yeoville was speaking, I asked myself whether it would have been a good thing if the Official Opposition had consisted of 17 hon. members of his calibre. I found the answer to this in the following: If they would all act as responsibly as the hon. member just did with regard to defence, something for which he is known, we could have benefited from that. At the same time, however, I could not help thinking that in that case we would possibly have had many more parties. The fact of the matter is that we welcome the support of the hon. member for Yeoville. I shall try to reply to a few of his arguments. Those arguments I do not deal with, will be dealt with by hon. members on this side of the House.

As regards the hon. member’s argument in connection with the first clause and his question concerning a period of 25 years being pegged down, I want to point out that there is a similar provision in the existing Act and that it is the administrative arrangement as expressed in the Act. It is indicative of the fact that it is practical to call up people between the ages of 17 and 25 years for military service. The Act is an expression of the practical need of the Defence Force to train people in that age group. As we argued last year when we introduced military service for a period of two years, that is the time of life when people are not yet as deeply involved in either the economy or family life as people over that age are. Consequently, it is also the time in a man’s life when he is best able to serve his country. Nevertheless, we must not create the impression that a person is altogether exempt from duties in terms of the Defence Act after he has attained the age of 25 years. On the contrary, the fact of the matter is that a person who did not do his military service under the old ballot system up to roundabout 1967, is on the national reserve list. Everyone at present not assigned to the Commandos or to Citizen Force units, is on the national reserve list up to the age of 65 years.

Hear, hear!

I just want to tell the hon. member for Stilfontein that we may do well to look at the provision exempting members of the House of Assembly and Senators in this regard.

If an immigrant does exercise an option in terms of the South African Citizenship Act to become a citizen within a shorter period of time than the four plus one years, and he is over the age of 25 years, he is placed on the national reserve list and he may be called up if the hon. the Minister so wishes. Consequently he is not exempted. Moreover, the hon. member for Yeoville will recall that when the Civil Defence Act was discussed last year, we came to the conclusion that there was a need for different age group categories in which national service could be done and that people who were not otherwise required for national service ought to be made available for services like civil defence, etc. Consequently I foresee that with the development of our national service system and the application and adaptation of the Defence Act, it will be possible to have these people render service as well. However, if the hon. member were to argue that we would lose control over a certain group of immigrants if we were to delete these clauses now, he would be correct. But the hon. member should have regard to the fact that subsection (2) provides for this section to be deleted at a later stage or even by proclamation by the State President. An hon. member on this side of the House will take this matter further. I shall leave it at that.

As far as clause 2 is concerned, I want to avail myself of this opportunity to point out once again that there is a close interaction between our economy and our Defence Force and that they complement each other. Basic to this is the requirement that our entire national service system must have due regard to our manpower requirements. The concession which is now being made once again in the Defence Act with regard to the training periods of certain apprentices, is a recognition of this principle. I want to support the hon. member for Yeoville in his suggestion that in order to prevent an unnecessary waste of time, a look may be taken at other statutory periods people are required to train in order to obtain their qualifications. I am thinking, for instance, although this is not directly connected to this matter, of the fact that the training period of doctors at our universities has been reduced to five years. I do not think we are going to produce less efficient medical practitioners as a result of this. Consequently, one asks oneself whether we should not take a look at the entire spectrum. We must look at the total time which is spent at our universities. We must look at the time taken up by first-year students who, according to statistics, have a high failure rate and have already done national service. It is officially known that 40% of the intake at our universities this year will be persons who have completed their military service—I am speaking of the males.

I am thinking of the initiation practices which mean that a first-year student like this has to surrender a tremendous amount of time to the matter of initiation. I do not want to do away with this, but what I am asking—and this affects our universities—is for a judicious look to be taken at the way in which time is utilized so that we shall not lose manpower as a result of students remaining at university for longer periods, as is the case already, since, as I have already said, 40% of the first-year students this year will have completed their military training. We must see to it that they use their time as productively as possible. That is why I support this idea of the hon. member for Yeoville.

We are dealing with technical legislation, and it is actually strange to amend the Apprenticeship Act by means of this Bill, but it is a good thing to do it in this way as we have to amend that Act as soon as possible. It is a measure which meets with the approval of the Ministry concerned. Nevertheless, I want to recommend that we take a look at the Apprenticeship Act in order to see whether there is any provision which has to be supplemented so as to ensure that we are not passing legislation here which may be in conflict with the Apprenticeship Act. Consequently, I may give notice of an amendment in this regard during the Committee Stage.

As regards clause 3, another hon. member on this side of the House will deal with that clause, and he will give attention particularly to the aspects raised by the hon. member for Yeoville. I just want to add this: We must make it clear to ourselves that we are dealing with an unconventional onslaught. The motivation for the measures which hon. members on that side of the House piloted through Parliament during the war years, are applicable at the present time as well. For instance, during the war years, they would have taken possession of a person’s property for use by the State without turning a hair, and they may possibly have made an ex gratia payment. This is completely justifiable under the circumstances. There are other examples. Last year we had the Indemnity Act. I do not want to anticipate the matter, because other hon. members will deal with it.

I shall not deal with clauses 4, 5 and 6 now, but with clause 7. Since it is a clause which makes it an offence to fail to do military service, I want to contend that it is a considerable improvement, since previously we could not have prosecutions due to the subjective test which was applied. It had to be ascertained whether the person was in fact refusing when he did not present himself for service. It had to be ascertained why he had acted in that way. Now the mere fact of his not presenting himself, is being made an offence, subject to certain qualifications, and as far as penalties and consequences are concerned, there is differentiation between the person with religious objections and the other person who intentionally evades doing his military service. This is a good distinction. With regard to religious objections, I should just like to point out to the hon. member for Yeoville, that the Defence Act makes provision for a person who has religious objections and who presents himself for military service, a person who follows a recognized religion and who objects on the grounds of that religion, may do service of a different kind. In this way he discharges his liability as far as military service is concerned. I do not know what the hon. member for Yeoville and other hon. members on the opposite side will say, but I want to put the standpoint of the NP, and that is that anyone who has religious objections has, in terms of the Defence Act, adequate opportunity to raise any such objection. If the objection which is raised proves to be valid, it will be recognized. What we cannot tolerate or allow, however, is for a person who has a religious objection to use that objection as a pretext to evade national service and on that basis fail to report when he is called up to do national service. I am saying this particularly because an objection of this kind—as was proved in the war in Vietnam—can be used as an excuse for completely undermining national service and frustrating the defence of the country in the long run as a consequence.

This brings me to a very serious matter. The discussion of the hon. the Minister’s Vote may be the appropriate time to deal with this matter. Perhaps now is just as appropriate a time to discuss it. To be more specific, I want to point out that an organization has come into being abroad, an organization which is an off-shoot of Okhela, the organization in which Breyten Breytenbach, too, was involved. This new organization is known as Salscom. Amongst others, a former clergyman, a certain Don Morton, is involved in this new organization. The hon. member for Pinelands probably knows him well. This new organization has as its objective the complete undermining of military service in South Africa. I should like to quote from an official document of the aforementioned organization. In the document they give an exposition of the way in which they plan to undermine national service in South Africa. I quote—

Mr. Speaker, it is in fact relevant here because, in the same document, this organization intimates its desire to link up with the activities of the World Council of Churches. Since the South African Council of Churches has already made unpleasant utterances in this regard, I feel it is good that we raise this matter now.

With reference to the proposed new section 126A, I just want to say that we believe that prevention by means of legislation, as far as this matter is concerned, is a good thing. However, what is the very best? The very best is the motivation emanating from this side of the House and from the opposite side of this House. Why do hon. members never reply to letters which appear in the newspapers in connection with military service? Why do we not hear in private conversations clearer, more definite things about the positive aspects of military service? We do hear such things at times, but we must definitely propagate these things in a more positive way. We must motivate our people to such an extent that they will realize that they, too, are serving while others are active around the conference table. They must be motivated to strengthen the hands of those sitting around the conference table. This is the type of motivation which must emanate from our parental homes, and last but not least, from this Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches support the Second Reading of this Bill. In fact, we support most of the clauses. I was glad to hear that the Official Opposition will also be supporting the Bill, although I note that they have objections to five out of the seven clauses. I have only one serious objection or problem—or, as we say in certain circles, one serious “Harry”—and that is in clause 3, which relates to the question of compensation. When this Bill was first drawn up and before it came before Parliament, the original intention was to provide some form of compensation, although limited. We believe that even in time of war there should be provision for compensation under certain circumstances. Under any conditions whatsoever, in terms of various statutes, there can be compensation to a person who has suffered, even as a result of enemy action. Here, although we are admittedly in a state of cold war, we are providing that damage can be done not in the heat of the moment and not under fire or when an immediate decision must be taken, possibly to protect life, but coldly and deliberately after long-term planning. Under those circumstances damage can be done without any compensation not only being payable, but in fact being made possible. As I read the Bill, it specifically excludes the right to have compensation paid. We shall therefore in the Committee Stage move an amendment in this regard. I shall have a look at the amendment the hon. member for Yeoville intends to move. We shall then either support his amendment or move one ourselves, but we do believe that there should be a provision, specifically in the new section 99A(3), allowing for the payment of compensation at least in respect of crops, buildings, structures and improvements to a property.

We do not accept that when you cut down natural bush or grass, you should have to receive compensation, even although it may technically be grazing, but where a building, a fence, a dam, a silo or a farmyard is damaged or taken over or in some other way made unusable, we want to see that the owner of that property is protected. We also feel that provision should be made for due notice to be given when it is possible to give such notice. In the case of an absentee owner who lives miles away and simply keeps a herder on the farm, it is obviously not always possible to give notice, but where it is possible and there is a resident owner or resident manager and the Defence Force moves in with a view to building defence structures or takes action which affects that property, we believe that it is common courtesy that the person concerned should be given notice and should be told what is going to happen. In fact, in the protection of the Defence Force itself, this could be necessary. There are a lot of people who are very jittery these days in some areas of our borders, and if they see somebody operating on their ground whom they do not recognize they could very easily take him to be hostile. They could then very easily take action which could be unfortunate. Therefore we believe there should be due notice and that provision should be made for compensation. Apart from that, we support the clause.

As regards the provisions relating to citizenship in clause 1, I cannot agree with the hon. member for Yeoville, because this clause is simply a question of words on paper. The hon. the Minister knows that I was one of the persons who pushed for this year in and year out, in season and out of season, until the provision was eventually introduced in the Select Committee. The trouble is, however, that the hon. the Minister’s colleague, the hon. the Minister of the Interior, has never had the guts to apply his sanction. The sanction in section 2 of the Act was not a military sanction, but the sanction of the removal of permanent residence. The Government has never been prepared to take away a man’s permanent residence if he opted not to do service. Therefore, although we technically have the right to call a man up, he simply has to sign a certificate to say that he is not going to be a citizen, to be freed from service. Therefore it is in any case a dead letter. I prefer the solution of compulsory citizenship which will now cause these persons to serve.

The question of the age limit of 25 years, which was raised by the hon. member for Yeoville, is another difficult question, but I do not agree with him here either. Most of our young men are called up at the age of 18 years or 19 years, and I do not believe that it is in their interests that one should put, into the same units and the same formations, large numbers of mature or older men of 30 years or 35 years of age. Let us rely, as we do, on the young men up to 25 years of age for the initial training. I am not in favour of putting older men into the same formations with a large number of youngsters.

One is getting them now.

One is getting some, but they are a limited number. If one were to do this on a large scale, however, that number would increase, and I believe this would be harmful. What one is getting now are largely those persons who have opted to go to university first, who have qualified and come back in leadership positions as NCOs or officers, but at least mostly with some qualification. That is different. They come in with authority, but if one brings in, holus bolus, anyone of any age, and especially from any country, one could have influences which might not be in the best interests of morale. We therefore support the repeal of the relevant subsections at a date to be fixed—not of immediate effect—when the 25-year provision comes into effect.

I should have liked to have seen a longer period of recognition for apprentices, but I understand that that is not the fault of the Department of Defence, being in effect the view held by the Department of Labour and the Apprenticeship Board. I think that when a person is doing a specialist job for 24 months, say as a motor mechanic, an electrician or in any other specialized job, he should be entitled to more than eight months’ recognition for his final apprenticeship qualification. I therefore hope that the hon. the Minister will bring pressure to bear on his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Labour, so that the hon. the Minister of Labour can bring pressure to bear on the Apprenticeship Board with a view to having some trades, at least those trades in which the conditions of work, the type of work and the similarity, of the work he is doing in the forces, is such as to count for civilian apprenticeship.

It was not so bad when he was doing a one-year period of service, but now that he is doing a two-year period, and has to do a further five minus eight months’ camps while under apprenticeship, this is a big slice out of a young man’s life. It is the same, of course, for universities, but there are fields, I am convinced, in which greater recognition could be given for trades learnt during military service.

We support the provision involving military courts instead of magistrates’ courts, and we also support clauses 6 and 7 dealing with conscientious objectors.

I must say that I also had some doubt when I saw the additional six months added to the two-year period.

Twelve months.

No, it is proportionately six months more. It used to be 15 months for one year, and one would have thought it would have been 30 months for two years, whilst it is, in fact, 36 months.

I had certain doubts and we discussed this and came to the conclusion that under the present circumstances, in which men doing their national service face far greater dangers and there is a far greater likelihood of their suffering physical harm than was the case in the days when this provision was first introduced, the exactly equivalent period of service was not enough. A young man now does his two years, which is 24 months, and he then does eight camps of one month each which makes for a total of 32 months. In addition, he has other commitments such as parades which are spread over ten years. He therefore does 32 months of continuous training and has commitments for ten years. Therefore, I think that an extra four months for those who refuse to do any service is a reasonable and acceptable additional penalty for refusing to serve. We shall therefore support the 36 months and the proportional 18 months.

I am glad to hear that the Official Opposition accept the principle and the obligation of a person to serve. I am concerned at the tendency in recent times in some church circles to try to undermine the will of our youth to do national service. I believe this does not flow only from religious institutions but that the origin can be found elsewhere for some of the agitation and some of the influence which is being brought to bear to try to destroy the will of South Africa’s youth to serve their country in the military forces. I believe this is a danger to which we must present a united front in Parliament and I want to assure the hon. the Minister that he has the unqualified and total support of my party, the NRP, in fighting and eliminating any attempt to undermine the will to serve of our people. I welcome very much the hon. member for Yeoville’s commitment on behalf of his party to the same approach, because this is something on which we cannot stand divided, but on which we have got to stand together because, if we should be divided, we would in turn divide our youth and those who are called up, being divided, would not give the sort of inspired and committed service which we require of them.

Mr. Speaker, we shall therefore support the Bill at Second Reading. We shall move an amendment or support the amendment of the Official Opposition, as may be necessary, on clause 3 in respect of compensation and on notice being given. As regards the other clauses, we accept them as they stand.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to express gratitude to the hon. member for Durban Point for his support of the Bill. Much of what he said was sensible. I shall only reply to one particular aspect he mentioned, namely that of compensation. The hon. member stated that the Bill specifically excludes the right to pay compensation. I should like to correct the hon. member on that and refer him in particular to the proposed new section 99A(3) as contained in clause 3 of the Bill. That subsection provides that—

I stress the words “shall not be liable”. That does not exclude payment of compensation by way of an ex gratia payment.

*Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member will agree with me if he takes another look at the clause.

It takes place by means of an ex gratia payment. It is no right.

The right of compensation by means of an ex gratia payment is not taken away here and this is no exceptional measure either. I wish to remind hon. members on the other side of the fact that at more or less the same time last year we also dealt with a particular measure with regard to indemnity in this House. In that measure it was provided that compensation would not be payable, but that the Minister of Justice, in that particular instance, would be able to refer the matter to a committee which could make recommendations to him with regard to compensation. This is a possibility which the hon. the Minister of Defence could also consider, i.e. to act in this manner in deserving cases.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he would support the amendment of the Bill on that basis?

No amendment of this Bill is necessary. In the Act which I referred to, the Indemnity Act, there is no provision with regard to an ex gratia payment either. Therefore the question of the hon. member for Yeoville falls away. I wish to touch upon another point. If anyone feels that he has suffered because of malicious acts on the part of the State or an official of the State, this Bill does not deprive him of the right to go to court in the usual manner on the grounds of mala fides or malicious acts.

A particular argument advanced by both the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Durban Point is that the owner must be notified if his property is set foot on. I really believe that this is an administrative measure and that any good administration will do it administratively in any case. Therefore I do not believe that something like this need be embodied in legislation. Those two hon. members have few supporters in the rural areas and in my opinion they are merely raising the question of compensation in order to recapture the votes which they have lost in the rural areas.

We are not interested in votes, only in justice.

I believe that they fail to see the point. I live fairly close to a border. In fact, I could be called a border farmer. I should very much welcome it if the hon. the Minister of Defence should enter upon my farm in order to set up defence works, not only for the combating of terrorism, but also for the combating of stock theft and of damage to my crops. I should welcome it because it would increase the value of my property.

And if he constructs a road across your farmyard?

I am not the only one who feels like that. The hon. members have been caught on the wrong foot now because they know that they have blundered. They realize that they are not talking on behalf of the landowners on the border.

I think you are a borderline case.

Is that hon. member being personal again? These works have been going on for more than a year. Have hon. members received any letters of complaint about that?

They did not even know about it.

Yes. They did not even know about it. There is great contentment and we have every reason to congratulate the Defence Force on the fact that they are handling this matter very efficiently and that they are negotiating with and talking to these people. That is why the formality of notifying, this formality which hon. members would like to see in the Bill, is superfluous since it is already taking place and forms part of the process. Good relations have already been established and the negotiations are really proceeding smoothly.

Some hon. members are very concerned about the compensation aspect. We have to contend with instances of urban terrorism as well nowadays, and I am referring in particular to the recent case of the explosion at the Carlton building. I read in the newspaper that the owners of the building afterwards proceeded, at their own expense, to have a different kind of glass installed in the building which would better withstand explosions in the sense that bystanders would sustain fewer injuries. Is it therefore not true that, if the hon. members’ argument should be carried to its logical conclusion, the owners of that building, as well as the owners of other buildings who will surely have to guard against terrorism and that kind of activity to an increasing extent, should also be compensated for those steps they are taking in order to protect the general public?

Surely provision has been made for such events.

That is no answer. The hon. member should think about it and see whether his argument does not go round in a circle and fall flat.

Don’t give him too much to think about; he has many sins to ponder. [Interjections.]

There is a possibility that the hon. the Minister could pay compensation on an ex gratia basis in deserving cases. If a caterpillar tractor should destroy a beautiful onion field while the actual works are being constructed a few kilometres away from there, that could be a good example of a case where the hon. the Minister could compensate the owner of that field by means of an ex gratia payment. If there was any malice on the part of the driver of that caterpillar tractor, if there was any recklessness, the owner could bring an action in an ordinary court in order to be compensated for the damage to his field.

The Opposition side did not tell us during the Second Reading debate how they saw compensation in this regard, whether they had market value compensation in mind or whether it was aimed at income compensation. Therefore we cannot argue about that now, but we should like to talk about it in the Committee Stage. Under these circumstances we cannot support this particular aspect of compensation raised by the hon. members of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion this amendment Bill provides for five basic changes or additions to the Defence Act of 1957. Firstly, we must look at the South African Citizenship Amendment Bill, which provides that any person under 25 years who is entitled to permanent residence, who has lived, or has been living, in the Republic for two years and who has not been found guilty of certain offences, automatically becomes a South African citizen and can therefore be called up for military service and has to perform military service. Subsections (3), (4) and (5) of section 2 of the Defence Act, No. 44 of 1957, which will be deleted under this legislation specify that a non-South African citizen domiciled here for five years can be called up for military service unless he takes recourse to stating that he does not intend to become a South African citizen. To me, that right of recourse to stating that he does not intend to become a South African citizen, is an important one.

You are dealing with the wrong legislation!

It is now being proposed that this provision be deleted. This would mean that non-South African citizens living in South Africa and intending to remain here will escape the obligation to perform military service. We cannot agree with this. It has been said that these people escape military service in any event and that as far as defence is concerned we are only really interested in men between the ages of about 18 and 25 years. This is true as regards the primary training but it does not apply in a case of emergency when people have to be called up who are older than 25 years but are able to make a contribution. For this reason we are not in favour of the deletion of these subs sections.

The second important amendment proposed in the Bill is the extension of the “credit period” granted to apprentices during the period in which they have to perform their military service. As my hon. colleague has said, we have no problem in this regard. However, we do feel that consideration should be given to curtailment of the training periods of young men entering the professions, to make it easier for them to enter their profession more rapidly than would be the case if they did not obtain certain exemptions in regard to their periods of training. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could not make an appeal to the professions in this regard so that these men could perhaps be accommodated in some way.

The third important insertion in the Act which is being proposed in the Bill is the provision being made for a strip of land 10 km in width which the S.A. Defence Force can occupy and in which it can effect certain changes and improvements with a view to more effective defence of our country. As we have already indicated, we have a problem in this regard in that the proposed section makes no specific provision for the payment of compensation for damage caused. In my opinion, the hon. member for Eshowe who has just discussed this subsection was not being quite fair when he more or less made a joke about compensation with regard to his specific farm, in that he said that he would appreciate the Defence Force performing certain work there and would be much obliged if they did. In my opinion it is not a question of profits or money which an owner of land wants to make from the fact that the Defence Force takes action there; the question is one of very definite compensation for damage caused. The hon. member then asks on what basis the compensation should be paid. There does not appear to me to be any difficulty in this regard. One does not expect to receive from the Defence Force money which is not owing to one. As far as I am concerned it would be a matter of the replacement value of those items, buildings, barns, dams or whatever, which would either have been removed or damaged through the action of the Defence Force.

The hon. member went on to refer to the windowpanes replaced in a certain building in Johannesburg by the owner or owners of that building. I see no difficulty in this regard. It is not the Defence Force which effected certain changes to the building; they were effected by the owner of the building. That was the owner’s affair and I cannot see that he had any claim to compensation by the State for changes they effected there.

Another matter to be discussed is the issue of ingress onto land or property without giving notice to the owner of that land or property under normal circumstances. One gets the impression that the hon. members who discussed this matter are under the impression that the 10 km wide strip of land can only be situated in a far-off rural area, somewhere where agriculture is the only industry. However, this is not necessarily the case. We could have the case where our borders consisted of fairly densely populated areas where people live and do business and where it is necessary under normal circumstances—I stress that I am not referring to conditions of war now, but normal circumstances, or cold war circumstances—to avoid inconvenience. In such a case notice must in fact be given of ingress to that property or area. That would be fair under normal circumstances.

Section 104(5)(b) of the principal Act specifies who is subject to the Discipline Code. Paragraph (b) contains a provision which limits the period of punishment to that period in which the national serviceman has to perform military duty. Moreover, it often happens that because the national serviceman has to perform military service for a short period only, the military court has to refer the matter to a civil court. On the basis of the principle which we endorse, namely that military courts should as far as possible deal with all military matters, we therefore also endorse the deletion of section 104(5)(b) in order to confirm that principle of military affairs.

Fifthly, section 126A makes provision for failure to report for service, or a failure, after reporting for service, to render it. We are dealing here for the most part with people who object to military service owing to religious reasons. My hon. colleague has already pointed out that this is an extremely sensitive sphere. Although we on this side of the House feel that it is the duty of every young man to render national service, we feel that in view of the period of punishment which may be imposed or will be imposed, it will be necessary to act circumspectly so that the impression is not created that in the defence of South Africa young men with such problems are regarded as enemies of South Africa. Consequently there are certain amendments which we shall move in terms of which the period of punishment laid down in the legislation is somewhat reduced.

We have been informed that the Defence Force really goes out of its way to accommodate young men who have objections to the use of a rifle and to afford such people the opportunity to perform service in other subdivisions of the army. This is appreciated. It is praiseworthy and the army receives full credit for this. We regret to hear that there are a number of young men who refuse to render any service to the State in any sphere. It is these men who must be dealt with, and we agree with that. What we do have misgivings about, however, is the period of punishment which may be imposed. As far as the “DB’s”, as they are called, are concerned, we have been assured by senior army officers that the detention is not, as some of us thought, of such a nature that a period of two years or possibly longer in detention will harm a young man’s ability to subsequently enter civil life. This too is appreciated.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Wynberg made a relatively responsible speech, and one appreciates the support of that party for this Bill. However, he said one thing here which I do not think was entirely fair. He referred to the hon. member for Eshowe and said that that hon. member had acted unfairly when he said that he would be pleased if the Department of Defence would effect certain improvements on his property. I think one is right to be pleased if the Department of Defence does certain things on one’s land, when it adjoins the border, so that one’s property, land, people and farming activities will be protected. That is right; one should be pleased. It is a fact. After all, the land is there. Farmers bought the land there. If I were a farmer living on the border, I would be very pleased to have the Department of Defence erect fences, etc., there which would protect my property against terrorists who could harm me. The hon. member for Wynberg also said it was very easy to determine a basis of compensation. But I do not think it is all that easy. We are still waiting for a proposal from hon. members opposite on a solution as far as a basis for compensation is concerned. After all, there are various ways in which compensation may be determined. The hon. member suggested that we should consider using replacement value as a basis. Of course that can only apply in cases where buildings are demolished and in other similar cases of removal. But there are various methods, various formulae according to which compensation may be determined. I am referring for example to the formula contained in the Expropriation Act. Then, too, there is the formula contained in the Civil Defence Act, an Act which was passed in this House last year. Of course there are others as well. The hon. member for Wynberg must realize that it is not all that easy to find a basis or a formula for the payment of compensation. We are still waiting for hon. members of the Opposition to tell us what specific model or formula we should adopt in this case.

The hon. member for Wynberg, as well as other hon. members, referred to clause 1 of the Bill. Even if it is only a short clause, I believe that it is a very important one. As has rightly been said already, the provisions of clause 1 were inserted in the Bill as a result of the passing of the South African Citizenship Act earlier this year. The hon. member for Durban Point expressed his support for the deletion of clause 1. He submitted, however, that it was merely words on paper and that he was in favour of the compulsory clause which was being inserted under the South African Citizenship Act. However, the hon. member for Durban Point is completely mistaken. There are thousands of immigrants in South Africa—and in this respect I agree with the hon. member for Yeoville—who, if this provision were to be deleted immediately, would be completely free from compulsory military service. They are, as I shall subsequently indicate, people whom we will not even know about. I think that the Afrikaans saying that half an egg is better than an empty shell, is true after all.

Particularly half an ostrich egg.

Yes, particularly if it is an ostrich egg. The hon. member for Yeoville also referred to clause 1 and alleged that a person who wanted to enjoy the privileges South Africa offered him, should also be prepared to defend South Africa.

We can agree whole-heartedly with that sentiment. The hon. member also referred to what happened in the USA during the war in Vietnam. So although we agree in principle with the hon. member, I still believe that there is a difference in approach between hon. members on this side of the House and hon. members opposite. I cannot refrain from reminding the hon. member that we served together on a Select Committee on civil defence last year. At the time, before he and other hon. members persuaded me otherwise, I was convinced that we should compel people to do civil defence work. In a very serious plea the hon. member for Yeoville then told me that we should not compel people, that it was better if people did civil defence work voluntarily. Our approach to this matter is now the same. We want immigrants in South Africa to do their national military service. They should not simply enjoy the benefits of South Africa. We want them to enjoy those benefits, but we also want them to play their part in doing civil defence work. However, they should do so voluntarily. Now I wonder whether the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Wynberg—both of them discussed this matter—want us to amend this legislation in such a way that it is compulsory for the present immigrants to undergo military training. Do those hon. members want it to be made compulsory? They can reply to me by merely nodding their heads. It seems to me they do not wish to reply. They are now looking the other way. [Interjections.]

We allow people to come to South Africa as immigrants, but under certain definite conditions, and we do not go back on our word. We keep it. We maintain that we should like to have the co-operation of these people on a voluntary basis, but we cannot compel them to undergo military training. However, let us try once again to achieve a balance as far as clause 1 is concerned. Let us quickly take another close look at the clause. Clause 1 provides, inter alia, that section 2 of the Defence Act, 1957, be amended by the deletion of subsections (3), (4) and (5). At the same time I want to emphasize that this provision will be put into operation at a subsequent date which the State President may determine. I want to refer briefly to the principal provisions of these subsections (3), (4) and (5), the deletion of which is being proposed. Subsection (3) provides that the provisions of the Defence Act may under certain circumstances be made applicable to people who are not yet citizens, but who have already been in the country for five years, in other words people who are domiciled in the Republic. Subsection (4)(c) of section 2 provides, inter alia, that persons who are less than 25 years of age and who are not yet citizens, but who have been domiciled in the Republic for five years, are required to register. The hon. member for Yeoville also referred to this. Now one may ask, as he in fact did, what the value of these provisions is. In the first place one may say that a person who is not a citizen, but who has been domiciled in the Republic for five years, may report voluntarily for service. The provisions of the Defence Act may then be made applicable to him. In the second place all aliens who have been in the Republic for five years or longer and have been domiciled here, and are less than 25 years of age, must register. If such a person registers, we at least know about him. He may then offer his service voluntarily, even though we cannot compel him to render military service. The provisions of the South African Citizenship Amendment Bill are not—and I want to emphasize this—applicable to any alien residing in South Africa prior to the commencement of that Bill. In this regard I wish to refer to the statement made by the hon. the Minister of the Interior in Hansard, column 2180. In terms of that statement it is very clear that any person who would like to render compulsory military service, can very easily do so. He accepts citizenship and then he is simply liable to military service. Such a person does not create problems for us either. But if a person under 25 years of age who is already in South Africa refuses to do military service today, that legislation can do nothing to him; the position remains unchanged. If these provisions were to be repealed, the Department of Defence would relinquish the right to make the Defence Act applicable to an alien who is voluntarily prepared to do military service.

The obligation which rests on those persons to register is also being relinquished. Therefore the question may rightly be asked whether this is in the best interests of the defence of South Africa. We are very pleased that future immigrants will in fact have to register, but I repeat that we do not feel happy about the fact that there are thousands of immigrants in South Africa today who are going to escape this national service completely without our even knowing about them. On that score I agree whole-heartedly with the hon. member for Yeoville. If we take all these things into consideration, I think that the registration clause although it is ostensibly not worth much, together with the requirement that the Defence Act may be made applicable to any person, must continue to remain in existence for a very long time—I think for at least 25 years! Immigrants whom we already have in South Africa today will then be able to enjoy the benefits which South Africa offers them, and they will still have the right to defend South Africa on a voluntary basis if necessary. That is why we say to these people today: You are in South Africa; you enjoy the advantages; you reap the benefits of South Africa; join us, then, in defending South Africa voluntarily. I think that this is something which hon. members of the Opposition should also help us to emphasize.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to thank hon. members on both sides of the House sincerely for the spirit in which they discussed this measure. In the times in which we are living it is very welcome. I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Durban Point said, and also with the spirit which was manifested by the hon. member for Yeoville, and by other hon. members on this side of the House, and say that in respect of the basic concepts of defence we should adopt a unified standpoint in Parliament and that there should be no real, fundamental differences of approach between us. Various hon. members raised certain objections which, in my opinion, have already been applied to effectively in the course of the debate, but I nevertheless want to refer to a few of them.

I want to begin by referring to the objection by the hon. member for Yeoville to the deletion, by means of clause 1, of certain subsections of section 2 of the Act. There will of necessity have to be a period of transition, and for that reason subsection (2) is being inserted, to provide that we take into thorough consideration a period of transition between the implementation of the Bill which is at present before the Other Place and the deletion of the subsections concerned. This does not mean to say that it will of necessity take place within a few weeks or months.

The hon. member for Verwoerdburg said 25 years.

My information is that it is not going to take that long. I had further inquiries made of those in the Defence Force who work with this matter every day. I do not wish to hide behind the Chief of Staff now, but my information is that it is not as comprehensive as we think it is. In the first place we must bear in mind that immigrants come to this country under specific conditions. Contracts are concluded with them by the State, contracts in terms of which they were able to come to this country. Therefore, they came to this country on a specific understanding. After hours of talks between various departments, we considered including certain other provisions in the Bill, which is now before the Other Place. Very thorough discussions were held between the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of the Interior and the Department of Defence. The hon. member for Durban Point referred to the fact that this is a problem of many years’ standing which cannot be solved all that easily. People came to this country on a certain understanding. When they came to this country, South Africa needed those people for the sake of our economy. Therefore we should not merely proceed on the assumption that we can simply ride roughshod over the existing rights of those people, as if they had not come to this country in terms of a specific understanding. But a start has to be made somewhere. I agree with that in spirit. Consequently we went out of our way to convince new South Africans by means of the radio, the Press, by means of speeches here in Parliament and by influencing immigrant organizations that they will associate with and be assimilated in the population more easily if they lend themselves to national service as well. In spite of that a large number did not do so, for reasons which I do not want to condone. However, I do just want to say that there are those who still have obligations in terms of legislation of their countries of origin.

Not all these people can simply surrender the citizenship of their own countries. There are privileges which some of them enjoy under that citizenship. Thus there are various facets to this problem. Once one sits down at a conference table and considers all the problems, one realizes that it is not a matter for which there is an easy or obvious solution. There will of course be a period of transition, and then the State President will be asked to effect an abrogation by way of proclamation. The fact that the State President has to promulgate this proclamation proves that the subsections concerned will not be repealed lightly. It means that this will also have to bear the imprimatur of the Cabinet. Therefore it can only take place after there has been proper consultation as to whether the time for it is ripe. Consequently I think that the objection of the hon. member falls away in the light of subsection (2), which in fact guarantees that it will be possible to continue with the existing measures.

The hon. member also referred to the question of the final call-up which extends to the age of 25 years. That matter has already been replied to here. The hon. member for Bloemfontein West referred to that, but I would just like to say in passing that one would not, after their 35th year, like to see people … [Interjections.] At present that person can be called up until his 25th year. That means to say that he is liable to service in the Defence Force until his 35th year before he is placed on reserve. If this age limit were to be raised, it would mean that he would be placed on reserve at a more advanced age. The hon. member knows that when the previous amendments were effected to the Defence Act, that matter was discussed very thoroughly, and that it was decided for practical reasons that the administrative practice which is being followed today is in fact the best one under the circumstances. Therefore that is the answer I want to give the hon. member in this regard.

In regard to clause 2 the hon. member said that he agrees in respect of the agreement which was concluded with the National Apprenticeship Board to the benefit of the apprentices. He asked why it could not apply to other professions as well. Well, one can initiate a study in order to see to what extent changes may be effected in this regard. It most certainly cannot be done by means of this Bill. In any event I can immediately think of a few objections. In the case of medical practitioners, for example, we allow the people concerned to complete their studies before we call them up and use them in the Defence Force. The question of whether it should not apply as his hospital year if he serves in the hospitals of the Defence Force, is something to which consideration may reasonably be given. However, it is a matter which will have to be thrashed out with the Medical Council and the provincial authorities. I do not wish to furnish a reply in this regard today. The same applies to the legal profession. In that case, too, the persons concerned first complete their studies and qualify before they are called up. They indicate clearly that they are going to university and that they will do their national service afterwards. In this case it is different.

Would it not be better if they first did their service and then studied?

Well, it cannot be done throughout. It is not practicable in every case. But I should first like to make a study of the matter to see whether there are cases in respect of which new agreements can be concluded.

As far as clause 3 is concerned, the hon. member, as well as the hon. member for Durban Point, had problems in regard to compensation. As the hon. member rightly said, this is not a matter which one should like to discuss in detail in public. I had a look to see what we can do in this regard. We have been working on this since January 1977, without legislation. Valuable work has already been done with the co-operation of landowners. It would come as a shock to me if I were to learn that we have, up to now, experienced any difficulties with an owner in regard to work that we have already completed. However, that work is not being done in one form only. I think the point which was not taken into account properly was the provision in clause 3 of the Bill. It reads as follows—

I want to emphasize that reference is made here to “a strip not exceeding 10 km in width”. That does not necessarily mean a strip 10 km in width. It does mean, however, that work may be done within that strip. The width of the strip may differ from place to place, depending on the topography of the area. I have seen cases where certain works could not be effected immediately adjoining the border, and for that reason it was done within a certain distance from the border, precisely because of the topography of the area. The margin of 10 km allows one to overcome precisely that kind of problem which may arise with developed land, and to accommodate owners.

In the second place I want to emphasize that we can offer safeguards in various forms. There is not one form of safeguard only. I do not want to go into all the different forms, but it is a fact that this problem is dealt with in various ways in various countries. At present we are doing it in the cheapest way, and I would be very sorry if we were, by inserting a provision in the Bill, to create a spirit of compensation which will cause our entire effort to collapse owing to the claims which can be brought in against us. I must warn against this. The owner of a border property is the first to be threatened, and therefore he is the first to be entitled to protection. The steps taken by the State and the cost incurred by the State, are in fact aimed at safeguarding that owner. If that owner is not safeguarded, the next owner is not safeguarded either. It is therefore to the advantage of that person if one takes such steps. I do not know why one should pay a person if one is benefiting him. I cannot understand that. In the second place, the work which we have already done extends over a distance—I may as well furnish this figure—of more than 600 km. It is work which we have already completed without legislation, and we have not yet experienced any problems. Why should we now word this measure as though we were going to do people an injury? The measure which we are adopting, is a safeguarding measure. That hon. member gave free rein to his imagination and eventually arrived at a distance of 10 000 km. Apparently he proceeded on the assumption that each homeland is a potential enemy of the Republic of South Africa. I do not proceed on that assumption. I proceed on the assumption that there are certain quarters from which terrorists may be let loose on South Africa and that that is what we have to adopt certain safety measures. However, I also proceed on the assumption that it is not necessarily the entire border which has to be safeguarded by means of these measures.

The fact of the matter is that we are able to adopt various measures in this regard. The measures have to be flexible in case one cannot, for topographical reasons, for reasons of access, or for patrol reasons, do certain work in a specific area because it can be done more easily in another area. If we were to introduce the principle of compensation now, we would be creating a spirit which would mean that whoever is going to receive protection is going to come to the Minister and say: “Oh no, before you enter upon my land, I first want to know what the compensation is.” This may lead to protracted discussions and in this way the years go by, for we have a long border.

That is not our intention.

I am not saying that that is your intention, but that will be the result of such action.

That is not our proposal.

I am sorry, but we have already considered the principle of compensation. We had proper regard to its consequences and arrived at the conclusion that we should prefer not to do it.

The hon. member for Eshowe is quite correct that there is nothing in the legislation which prevents proper ex gratia payments from being paid where any person has really been prejudiced. However, I doubt whether anything of this nature can happen. Consequently I should like to see this hon. House adhering to the provision as we are proposing them.

Hon. members also referred to clauses 6 and 7 of the Bill, which differentiate between refusal to render service for whatever reason and refusal to render service owing to religious considerations. I want to say at once that I consider this to be a delicate matter. No person who wishes in any way to maintain a civilized way of life would like to take action against people in this sphere. If there is one provision in the Defence Act which I personally, do not like at all, then it is this provision.

Every country in the Western world is wrestling with this problem. During the past few years I have, on more than one occasion, discussed this specific problem with bodies in other countries. As hon. members are doing I, too, have sought a solution in this regard which will cause the least friction and arouse as few feelings as possible. There is one country in the Western world which provides that if a person refuses for these reasons to render service, he has to render service in a civilian capacity for a period twice as long as his ordinary period of service. Is that a success? My inquiries in this regard revealed that it was not a success at all and that it only created new evils. In other countries where refusal to do military service is allowed, taxes are doubled. Is that a success? That, too, did not prove to be a success. I am of the opinion that South Africa is in the forefront with its solution to the problem. South Africa’s solution is that if a person really has conscientious objections to the rendering of service and if he comes forward and states that he does not want to serve in a fighting capacity, we offer him the alternatives embodied in existing legislation. Such a person may serve the country in various capacities within a Defence Force context. However, if it is not a recognized religious denomination whose tenets of faith decree that one may not under any circumstances participate in the defence of the country, and people state that they object to rendering any service whatsoever, whether in a hospital, an office or whatever kind of service it may be, then it becomes a different matter. The other person is expected to render his two years of national service and, over and above this, he still has to be available for a further eight years for periodic service in the Citizen Force or in the commandos. In contrast to this we are dealing here with a person who simply states that he does not wish to render any service at all. I think the fact that we have so far succeeded in keeping the number small and within limits, proves that our solution of imposing detention on such a person is the best one. Detention is the least of all evils. Such a person is properly treated during his detention. We are quite prepared to show hon. members who are interested how we treat them. If it is taken into consideration that the other person has to render service for a two-year period and thereafter periodically for eight years, I do not think that the period of 36 months is too long.

I want to add that we also consulted representatives of the churches in this connection. As hon. members know, all the churches in South Africa today are represented within the Defence Force context. We therefore consulted representatives of the churches. All of them were consulted in this connection. The vast majority of the churches are in agreement with the period of 36 months. A few suggested that the period should be a few months less, but all of them nevertheless accepted the principle. I am not referring here to the churches as such, but to the representatives of the churches whom we consulted. At present the relationship between the Defence Force and all the churches in South Africa is excellent. In spite of what is published from time to time, I can state here this afternoon that I have satisfied myself that the relationship of the Defence Force with all the churches is very healthy. We are grateful for that. I think we are being fair to all national servicemen when we insert this provision, i.e. 36 months, as the period which they must serve. It is in accordance with the existing provisions, and I do not think the period is excessively long.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein West also referred, with reference to an objection which came from the ranks of the Opposition, to another very important principle, viz. that there should be a proper interaction between the S.A. Defence Force and the needs of the economy. I am in agreement with that. Indeed it is to an increasing extent a very important factor with the Defence Force that regard should be had to the economy of the country in everything which we plan. The Defence Force adopts the standpoint that only a healthy economy can enable South Africa to establish a healthy Defence Force to the best of its ability. We therefore have to take this into account.

The hon. member for Durban Point also raised the question of compensation. I think I have already dealt with most of the problems which were raised in that connection.

You did not satisfy me.

The hon. member says that he was not satisfied. I did not proceed on the assumption that I had to satisfy him. I simply motivated our standpoint. I do not think it is possible always to satisfy the hon. member. Just as long as he is not too unsatisfied, I am satisfied.

† The hon. member also asked me to bring pressure to bear on my hon. colleague, the Minister of Labour, in connection with the artisans. All I can say is that we are living in days of pressurizing; everybody is pressurizing everybody else. I do not think I want to join that chorus.

*The hon. member for Wynberg raised the same points of objection as the hon. member for Yeoville. I do not think that I am obliged to repeat the replies which I gave the hon. member for Yeoville for that hon. member.

I also want to thank hon. members on this side of the House sincerely for their prepared speeches and for the fact that they could refute argument with argument. I think that this measure is not necessarily one which one would introduce in its present form under normal circumstances, but we are not, after all, living under normal circumstances. We are living in a time in which we are making a great appeal to South Africa’s population, both as far as financial and physical contributions are concerned, on behalf of the defence effort in our country. Because the circumstances in which we find ourselves are extraordinary ones, this Parliament owes it to those who have to ensure the security of our borders to give them extraordinary powers. However, I think we should be very careful that we do not, in respect of the defence of our country, cultivate a spirit in which every person who makes a contribution has to be compensated for any contributions which he has to make, even if it is a small piece of land. We shall apply this measure sensibly. In fact, the Defence Force has applied it sensibly up to now, and I am confident that this measure will in future, too, be applied sensibly and humanely.

Mr. Chairman, as has been indicated during the Second Reading of this amending Bill, we are having a certain amount of difficulty with the definition of the word “psychologist” as it appears in paragraph (c) of this clause. The introduction of the Medical, Dental and Supplementary Health Service Professions Act, No. 56 of 1974, did represent a tremendous stride forward in the professionalization and enhancement of the psychology profession in South Africa. It is well known that more than 50% of the patients who visit a general practitioner are dealt with in terms of psychosomatic disease. It is also evident from other studies conducted both overseas and in South Africa that approximately one-third of what can be termed the “normal” population of a community at some stage before the age of 45 are in need of the services of a profession such as that of the clinical psychologist. It was because of the recognition of this need in South Africa that the medical and the psychological profession welcomed the introduction of Act No. 56 of 1974. In order to obtain the necessary instrument for the registration of psychologists in South Africa it was necessary at that stage to bring in an all-embracing and very wide definition of the word “psychologist”. But this definition referred to in paragraph (c) has now been utilized in a different context, i.e. to provide for a facility which, I hasten to add, the profession and this party welcome. For the first time in the history of South Africa provision is made for patients, who utilize the services of a clinical or counselling psychologist, to benefit from the medical aid schemes. But this definition of “psychologist” is so wide that it will present the Minister with problems of interpretation when it comes to the introduction of a tariff of fees for a service which is provided by different spectrums of psychologists.

The definition as stated in paragraph (c), i.e. in terms of Act No. 56 of 1974, is all-embracing because of the fact that it defines diagnostic procedures which are applicable to clinical psychologists, counselling psychologists and industrial psychologists. We appreciate the fact that the Minister in 1974 had, of necessity, to use an omnibus type of definition in order to ensure that people involved in these procedures did actually render themselves liable to registration with the Medical and Dental Council. But if we now take that definition as set out in paragraph (c) and utilize it, in the context of this amending Bill, for the purposes of the Medical Schemes Act, the Minister will find that he is going to have a certain amount of difficulty in arranging a tariff of fees which will be applicable to procedures which do not actually fall within the scope of a clinical psychologist, but rather that of a counselling and industrial psychologist. The problem we have with this particular definition is that it would be inappropriate within the context of this amendment to make a recommendation for a further amendment to it. The problem goes back to the definition used in Act No. 56 of 1974. We do want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the problem which he is going to have with this very wide definition of the word “psychologist”. At the same time, let it not be said that this party in any way wishes to retard the progress which is being made in terms of offering patients the benefit of medical aid in this particular context. I would appreciate it if the hon. the Minister would give further consideration to that very wide definition in the other Act.

We have a further difficulty in the same clause in paragraph (f) which states—

A new definition then follows, which refers to section 53A of the Medical, Dental and Supplementary Health Service Professions Act. That section does not exist as such at the moment. Obviously it should be read in conjunction with an amending Bill which will be introduced in this House at a later stage. It is just a matter of strategy, but it may well have been better if we had dealt with the other amending Bill first rather than to include a reference to a section in this Bill which does not exist in the Act at the moment. Here again, in paragraph (c) of this definition we are going to experience the same problems of definition. If we look at the definition of “supplementary health service profession” on page 5, line 3, we are going to come across this difficulty again of defining what is a psychologist in terms of benefits which the patient can obtain from a medical aid scheme. To give an example, an individual may go to a clinical psychologist, he may go to a counselling psychologist or he may go to an industrial psychologist for vocational guidance. The problem could be a behavioural one, it could be a lack of knowledge or it could be a lack of information regarding the individual in a non-clinical and therapeutic sense. Once this amending Bill has been passed, it will probably become opportune for the relative councils to prescribe fees for this type of activity, this diagnostic procedure or this particular technique. If we leave the definition of “psychologist” as wide as it is, it may mean that a clinical psychologist, an industrial psychologist and a counselling psychologist may now advise their patients or their clients to claim vocational guidance service on their medical aid. These are the kinds of practical difficulties we are going to face with this very wide definition.

Further, I would like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that the profession itself is suffering at the moment due to a lack of clarity of definition of the four categories of psychologists referred to in Act 56 of 1974, a definition which is now used very extensively in this very Medical Schemes Amendment Bill. It is causing the profession itself a considerable amount of disarray. It is delaying the process of professionalization of all aspects of psychology. I refer again to research psychology, as well as to industrial, counselling and clinical psychology. It may be opportune for the hon. the Minister and his department to get together at this stage to iron out the problems of omnibus definitions, because whenever that particular section is referred to as a definition of a psychologist we are going to have this particular practical problem.

At the same time we do not have the wherewithal to make a recommendation to the hon. the Minister on an amendment in this particular context. We can only request the hon. the Minister to go back to Act 56 of 1974 at an appropriate time, as soon as possible, to iron out the very practical difficulty which we have. Other than that, we are quite prepared to support clause 1.

Mr. Chairman, it is quite clear to me that the hon. member may have problems as far as vague definitions are concerned. The definition in this particular clause actually refers to clause 7. Clause 7 amends section 28 of Act 72 of 1967 in so far as it relates to certain charges which may be made.

† The hon. member should realize, however, that it is quite impossible to give a detailed specification in the legislation of the various categories of psychology, just as it is impossible to detail all the various categories of medical practitioners, gynaecologists, surgeons, general practitioners and the like. I believe that it is part and parcel of the duties and of the functions of the Medical Council to bear in mind these specific categories when they determine fees. I must point out though that the amended new section 28 has nothing at all to do with fees. I am also aware that there may be some degree of confusion due to the supposed omission in clause 1(f) which states that—

1. (a) under section 53A of the Medical, Dental and Supplementary Health Services Professions Act, 1974 (Act No. 56 of 1974) …

I can point out that attention was also given to this and that I have been advised that all amendments are in fact included here. It is legally in order. Therefore we are not really in trouble as far as this is concerned. Nevertheless, I am taking into account the various reservations put forward by the hon. member. I will certainly bring it to the attention of the Medical Council because I believe that many of the details the hon. member worries about are things they can sort out. I think it is possible to solve some of these problems by way of regulations, provided such problems are really present and provided that what concerns the hon. member is really regarded as a problem by the Medical Council.

Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned, we had indicated that the NRP would be supporting the principle of the Bill. There are, however, a number of points we should like to raise. Firstly, we should like to comment on the composition of the council, reflecting as it does what we believe is an improvement. Previously eight members were appointed by the Minister and nine were elected by the professional people themselves. That proportion has now been improved to ten appointed by the Minister and 14 elected by the professions. A move like this is always welcome, because it is fitting that the professional people themselves should feel that their influence in a council of this nature is substantial.

Clause 3 brings about a further improvement in that the fees will now be set by a tariff committee whereas previously the remuneration commission set these tariffs. The tariffs committee will be appointed by the council itself. In this regard it is hoped that professional people will be realistic in the tariffs which they determine, and that there will be less friction in future regarding such tariffs.

With regard to clause 11, I am afraid we have some problems. I think this is perhaps the scorpion clause of this Bill. I refer to it as the scorpion clause because it appears to us to have a certain amount of sting in the tail. The hon. the Minister will know that a scorpion’s sting is very painful and can in fact lead to what is known in medical terms as anaphylactic shock. We do not wish the provision we are about to refer to, to lead to any such unpleasant things as anaphylactic shock.

As regards the prohibition on strikes and go-slow strikes, let me say that this is an issue which has been dealt with thoroughly and which was accepted earlier this year in other legislation before the House. The hon. the Minister indicated, in his speech introducing the Second Reading debate, that the profession itself had asked for this provision. We accept this and have no quarrel with that portion of the clause at all. There is a problem, however, in connection with the proposed section 55A(2)(b), in other words from line 36 onwards. I quote—

The offence relates to a person who takes part in a strike or a go-slow strike. This is where we find ourselves at odds. We wonder why it has been necessary for the inclusion of this particularly harsh sting in the tail, and we shall explain why we feel that it is unnecessary for this clause to be there.

Firstly, it would appear to us that the inclusion of the provision “shall remove the name” does not afford the person, who has been prosecuted for his participation in a strike or a go-slow strike, any opportunity to put his case to the council, a normal procedure in disciplinary matters of this nature. It would appear that there is no provision for such a person, once his name is removed from the register, to be re-registered at any stage. We should like some clarification from the hon. the Minister about whether this is the implication or not, because if it is, it is something which is unnecessarily harsh and, in fact, totally unnecessary, as I shall endeavour to explain.

The existing legislation makes provision for the Medical and Dental Council to deal with transgressions of the law or any improper or disgraceful conduct, by its members, in a manner which is very clearly laid down. I should like to refer, if I may, to the relevant section to put the matter in perspective. Section 45 of the Medical, Dental and Supplementary Health Service Professions Act, No. 56 of 1974, states that—

“Any offence” would presumably cover prosecution under the strike or go-slow strike clause. I quote further—

Section 42 gives the various penalties which can be imposed by this council. For the benefit of the House I should just like to quote them. The penalties are as follows—

1. (a) a caution or a reprimand or a reprimand and a caution; or
2. (b) suspension for a specific period from practising or performing acts specially pertaining to his profession; or
3. (c) removal of his name from the register.

So the provision is there for a person, who is found guilty, to be removed from the register should his peers on the council judge that his behaviour has been improper, disgraceful or unbecoming to a person in such a calling or a profession. Section 42(2), however, states that—

I think it is important that we understand that.

That Act further provides that any person who is aggrieved by a finding or a penalty imposed may, after notice to the council and within a period of two months, appeal to a provincial or local division of the Supreme Court. One has therefore the provision for a person who is so charged to make representations to explain his conduct and then to be tried or heard by his peers. The new legislation, however, goes far beyond that and just states bluntly that the registrar shall remove the name of the person so convicted. We find it very difficult to accept that that provision is necessary. We have indicated that we shall move an amendment to it in the Committee Stage. We should like the hon. the Minister perhaps to remove the relevant four lines, viz. line 36 onwards. In the event of his not being able to do that, we hope he will give due consideration to our amendment.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are pleased that the Opposition agrees with the provisions contained in this Bill, because we are convinced that these matters should not fall within the scope of party politics, but that they rise above it. There are some minor matters with which the hon. member for Berea does not agree or in respect of which he should like to see an amendment. For instance, as regards clause 11, which provides for the prohibition of strikes or go-slow strikes, I should like to point out that in the other Act, there are certain degrees of penalties which may be imposed in the case of professional offences. In this specific case, on the other hand, it specifically concerns inciting people to take part in a strike or a go-slow strike in a highly strategic profession like the medical profession. In my opinion, anyone who is guilty of this should not even be warned first, but should summarily be prohibited from practising as a medical practitioner or in related profession in this country. Then he can rather leave the country like other professional people who have already left the country for political reasons, rather than to continue to practise medicine here.

Since this amending Bill changes the composition of the S.A. Medical and Dental Council, it is surely fitting on this occasion to point out the important role which this council plays in connection with the standard of medical service which is provided in South Africa. The Medical Council to a large extent determines the standard of medical training in the country, the requirements with which a medical practitioner must comply in order to be allowed to practise, as well as the requirements with which he must comply in order to be allowed to specialize and to call himself an expert in one or other sphere of medical science. This council takes the greatest care to ensure that the sick man, the patient of the country, is treated by the best which medical science can offer. The high standard of medical services in South Africa is therefore largely due to the activities of the S.A. Medical and Dental Council. Of course, it is also necessary for this council to guard against malpractices which may occur in the ranks of the medical profession. Cases of malpractice, exploitation and disgraceful conduct are investigated very thoroughly by the disciplinary committee of the council and the necessary disciplinary measures for the protection of the public, but also for promoting the prestige of the medical profession, are applied without hesitation. This is a major reason why the Medical Council is held in great esteem by the public as well as the medical profession, as an authoritative body with a fair opinion about the quality and manner of practice in South Africa. Consequently, the Medical and Dental Council is recognized everywhere, not only as a statutory control body of medical affairs, but also as a council of experts which has always been able to make a fair judgment where the interests of the medical practitioner have come up against the interests of the public in this country. The decision by the hon. the Minister to enlarge the Medical Council, so that over and above the council’s normal functions, it will also determine the statutory tariff for medical schemes, should enjoy all-round support and is definitely a step in the right direction.

Indeed, it has always been the function of the Medical Council to determine what a fair remuneration for a medical procedure is. The Medical Council had to be able to determine this in order to deal with any complaint about excessive charges made by medical practitioners. The additional provision in clause 2, according to which the number of elected members of the council is increased from nine to 14, should completely eliminate the criticism expressed by a section of the medical profession, viz. that there were too few elected members on the council. The additional provision in clause 3, in terms of which the principal Act of 1974 is amended by inserting after subsection (2) the provision that the tariffs committee shall consist of an even number of members appointed by the council and that the other half of the committee shall be appointed in consultation with the professional associations—these must be people who are in private practice and half of them must be contracted in—should remove many of the problems which have arisen since the introduction of the Medical Schemes Act of 1967.

Since we are now returning to a situation where the medical profession itself decides about fees, I want to predict today that any objections which medical practitioners had to the principle of the determination of fees by a remuneration commission will fall away and that the vast majority of medical practitioners will contract back in terms of the Medical Schemes Act, also because of the practical advantages of contracting in. The public do not have to fear that they are now going to be placed at the mercy of excessive fees. In fact, the medical practitioners and the Medical Association of South Africa have always acted with a great deal of responsibility in this regard in the past. Here I quote what Prof. J. A. Lombard, head of the Department of Economics at the University of Pretoria, said in October last year in commenting on the report of the fifth remuneration commission—

Therefore, in spite of the fuss which is being made about high medical and dental expenses in South Africa, the cost of these services at present is not much higher than it was three years ago, i.e. 1,5% of the total consumer expenditure. If we also take into consideration the fact that the average practice costs over the past three years have increased by 42% while the fifth remuneration commission put the unit value at 80 cents—and this represents an increase of only 9,2% on the previous tariff—one can almost agree with the hon. the Minister of Agriculture that the medical practitioners in private practice and the farmers have not received any increases in this time of salary increases. Indeed, there are some items in the tariffs list in respect of which there has actually been a drop in tariffs. This Bill introduces a new dispensation which may make a real contribution towards the recovery of the traditional good relationship between medical practitioner and patients which has been showing a tendency to deteriorate for the past decade. I do not want to allege for one moment that the way of determining the statutory tariff is the principal cause of a disturbed relationship between patient and medical practitioner. Nevertheless, the chairman of the Federal Council of the Medical Association said the following in his memorandum in November, in which he sketched the establishment and history of medical schemes, and I quote—

It has been a source of conflict between the medical profession and the remuneration commission since 1967 that this so-called priority tariff has been the basis for the determination of further tariffs. However, there have also been other factors like the urbanization of our population with the concomitant industrialization and everything else that involved. In this regard I may particularly mention the development of a consumer community which degenerated into a mere medical-commercial relationship without personal involvement. One finds this so often with provident funds like those of the Railways, the Mining industry and other large undertakings.

Another aspect which I should like to mention here is the shortage of district surgeons. District surgeons have to cover tremendous areas and they have to accomplish tasks which are humanly impossible for one man. At many out-patient departments of our hospitals there is a loss of personal involvement and relationship situations. Elderly people, pensioners and the under-privileged are the ones who suffer most in this respect. There is also the intervention of the third party, the medical schemes which have intervened between doctor and patient and have to a large extent assumed the financial responsibility. In some cases this has led the patient to make excessive demands on medical services, but on the other hand it could have also tempted the doctor into prescribing unnecessary therapeutic treatment.

In this regard I should like to mention the role of the Press too. Here I am thinking in particular of negative reporting about the functioning of medical schemes and the relationship between the public and medical practitioners, by means of which medical schemes, doctors and the public are incited against one another, by means of which an attempt is made to create a certain atmosphere and to sow suspicion and mistrust towards the medical profession amongst the public. Last year, during the discussion of this Vote, we came across several examples of this in the Press. I want to make a serious request to the Press this afternoon to handle this delicate matter with circumspection and responsibility, because ultimately it only harms those members of the public who are ill.

Then I refer to the provisions of clause 10, which recognize the right of the private medical practitioner to practice outside the statutory tariff of fees. If there was ever a measure which belied the argument that we are moving towards state medicine or socialism today, then it is this one. In cases of special services, of which we have many examples in our medical practice, it grants medical practitioners the right to lift these practices out of the framework of ordinary practice, everyday matters. Even in general practice today, we find that a more comprehensive service is being provided. Three-quarters of an hour and more is spent in consultation and the patient receives a more comprehensive service. Surely it is senseless to expect such a medical practitioner to ask the meagre R4,40 for a consultation like this. On the other hand, however, it also offers the public the privilege of making use of a special service like this. Indeed, in a capitalist dispensation, based on supply and demand, there will always be a need for special service. However, what is extremely important to me is that the sparkle, the attraction and excellent quality of our medical service in this country will be maintained. It is important to me because the attraction which the medical profession holds for young people in South Africa, for our brilliant young men and women, must be maintained.

In conclusion I want to come to clause 11, which was quoted by the hon. member for Berea as well, the so-called prohibition of strike clause. This is a measure which is actually welcomed with mixed feelings. On the one hand it is a pity that it has become necessary to have such a measure due to certain elements in the medical and related professions which have already tried to create strike situations. It is a pity that a measure like this had to be included in the Medical, Dental and Supplementary Health Service Professions Act at all. It should not have been necessary. However, we also have those people amongst us, for instance the professional people, who have already fled the country for political reasons, or who may possibly think of trying to organize strikes as a result of future political considerations. We have already learned of 250 medical practitioners who left the country last year. I do not want to allege that they all left the country as a result of political considerations, but some of them definitely left the country due to those considerations. I want to say today that on the one hand it is a good thing that they have left, because in the serious times which await us, we need men and women who will stand fast and provide the highly strategic medical services in this country through thick and thin and through all crisis situations. In these times there will be no room for strikes or go-slow strikes which can cripple our country in such a strategic sphere. This country and its people simply cannot afford something like this in the serious times in which we are living. Since the Bill must help to promote medical care, especially in the sphere of private practice, and since in the recent past reproaches and accusations have often been flung at one another by various interest groups, interest groups which are closely affected by this amending Bill, I want to make a serious appeal to all the interested parties to put aside their differences and give this Bill a fair chance. I honestly believe that the Bill will ultimately promote the interests of everyone in South Africa in this sphere. To the medical practitioners and dentists of the country I just want to say, in the words of the motto of one of the greatest medical faculties in South Africa: “Salus aegroti suprema lex” which means “The care of the sick is your first duty.” All the other interests of the medical profession are essentially secondary to this, including the statutory tariff of fees which we are now discussing in this House. It is the right of the people, and of our ill compatriots in particular, to lay claim to this first duty of every medical practitioner of this country. That is why I am pleased to support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, today and before the recess as well, I listened with great appreciation to the discussion on both sides of the House. I should very much like to associate myself with what the hon. member for Pietersburg has just said, and in particular I wish to address myself to the hon. member for Berea who, in spite of the general unanimity on the Bill on both sides of the House, has nevertheless raised a matter which in his view warrants attention. What I find interesting, is that the hon. member’s argument, namely that the penalty for those who want to “go slow” or strike is in fact too drastic and that no possibility of an appeal against such a penalty exists, was not raised in any of the numerous newspaper articles and clippings which have been quoted in the House. I can well imagine what the hon. member for Berea’s problem is. When, in a House such as this, and in a country such as the Republic of South Africa, one discusses the medical profession in one’s capacity as a physician, it is difficult to dissociate oneself from a situation which is similar to one which a delegation of our country’s nurses experienced a year ago when they attended an international congress abroad. At that congress, the nurses’ profession had to make a definite choice as to whether or not they wanted to agree to a clause which prohibited them from a “go-slow” or strike. I can today state with justifiable pride that South Africa’s group of representatives were the only ones who, at that congress in Canada, when they realized the consequences of the matter, and also foresaw what it could lead to, had the courage of their convictions to say that they wanted nothing to do with such a resolution or with the congress.

They walked out and were prepared to return to South Africa. It is difficult to make out a case for that in this restful atmosphere where there is not much agitation for such matters. On the other hand, I myself agree to and whole-heartedly support this particular clause which the hon. member for Pietersburg has very clearly defined, and I believe that the hon. member for Berea will, after reconsideration, yet decide that he was anticipating trouble unnecessarily in regard to this aspect.

It is extremely essential to see matters in perspective when a Bill such as this is tabled and considered. I wish to refer to a correspondence which was conducted in the Press, and refer firstly to a remark by the hon. the Minister of Health which appeared in the Press. I specifically wish to draw attention to the headline which read: “Van der Merwe vat sy kritici vas.” If the general public had been aware of the normal approach which is adopted for the positive promotion and organization of the medical profession, such a headline would never have been placed above such a report. The hon. the Minister put the matter briefly, clearly, in a friendly spirit and without aggression when he stated in the report—

Finally, the hon. the Minister said that he found it deplorable that the Medical Association had decided to recommend to its members to contract out in protest against the legislation. The hon. members will notice that the whole attitude which is evident from the words of the Minister is totally different from the headline which appears above the report. That was why I said just now that it was necessary that the general public should know, for their own benefit as well, that a White Paper had been made available to the public for general cognizance.

Comment in connection with the White Paper is being awaited. This comment has to be processed so that it may subsequently be laid before the Cabinet as findings before it is decided to refer the matter to Parliament. It is not true that the hon. the Minister simply gets an idea into his head and feels like doing a certain thing; it takes place in accordance with orderly rules. In the meantime, representatives and organizations had certain meetings with the hon. the Minister and the Secretary for Health. Adjustments were made with which, I believe, the general public as well as the profession are very pleased. Three things in particular were pointed out, which I just want to refer to again. I believe that medical practitioners in general are satisfied at the fact that they are free to contract in or out as they choose. In other words, no justification exists for the socialization principle about which so much has been written. The medical schemes have obtained their security. The non-striking clause, which I support whole-heartedly, is contained in this Bill. As a result, we have a Bill which is generally satisfactory. It is a Bill of which many Western socialistically-orientated countries are jealous, and which they would very much have liked to have had taken up on their Statute Books. However, they dare not do so, because they are afraid of the implications. To do so may perhaps result in their no longer being in power tomorrow or the day after. I am referring to interviews which I had with people in this connection.

There are two problematical situations which, in my humble opinion, are developing. I think it is advisable that we should consider them for a moment. In the first place it appears to me as if a breach is developing between the legislature on the one hand and the general public on the other. What is Parliament doing in this connection? In my view, Parliament is doing what it can to give the judicature legislation whereby it is possible to act functionally, and juridically correctly. Furthermore, the Bench and the jurists as well as certain relevant organizations take cognizance of the process and are informed or perhaps partly informed.

Then the Press, the radio and television come into the picture again. They again do what is, in their judgment, necessary to guide and inform people, to interpret the law and to give guidance. Nevertheless it seems as though the ordinary man is not normally aware of what is going on. Not everyone reads the Government Gazette, and that is understandable. Cannot the Press, the television or the other news media, when contentious matters such as this Bill are mooted, furnish an exposition or explanation of such matters?

A great many aspects are covered by this Bill. I just want to illustrate a few of them. In the first place it is phenomenal that the composition of the S.A. Medical and Dental Council has been extended, that the number of members has been increased, that medical practitioners have been included, and further that it has obtained the power to appoint tariffs committees. All these things were done to deprive agitators of their stings. The council has the power to appoint tariffs committees, and also to undertake the registration of certain professions. It is extremely important to ascertain who is capable of rendering certain services and who is not capable of doing so, who must write certain examinations and who need no longer write them. Strikes and go-slow strikes are prohibited. Provision is made for many additional matters. Unfortunately, however, the request by the hon. the Minister that they should consider the White Paper and submit memoranda if they were of the opinion that these could make a contribution, was not acceded to.

There is a second matter which is important to me. Provision has been made for the medical practitioner. Medical schemes have been afforded security in this set-up. But I experience a problem in the sense that in the modern world set-up, insufficient consideration is given to the patient. I shall try to explain this. There is a strong tendency among medical and related professions to perceive the person and his illness rather than the fellow human being in distress. To many physicians it becomes an interesting case for “closer inspection” when a patient enters their consulting rooms. To many physicians, the sick person in distress subsequently becomes a mere biopsychicum. They no longer regard the human being in his totality, consisting of spirit, soul and body. To many, all that is important is the concept bios and for others again only the concept psyche. To me that is where the problem arises. This situation deteriorated in the period between the two World Wars, and after the Second World War it virtually began to get out of hand abroad. The cry of the person in distress to be seen as a fellow human being in distress, as a person with dignity—Würdig-keit—was silenced by the doctrines of Freud, Adler and Jung, who want to typify man as a being motivated by passion or by a craving for power.

Gradually people began to revolt against this and refused to agree willingly to being made to don the cloak of naturalism, materialism and existentialism. Then a miracle occurred. I should like to mention that in the context of the spiritual world which I am trying to portray. A Copernican turnabout took place in the thinking of Victor Frankl, a medical practitioner, physician, psychiatrist, neurologist and medical anthropologist of Vienna, in Austria. He is known today as the leader of the Third Viennese School. He reversed everything which Freud, Adler and Jung had taught us. He retained psychoanalysis, but rejected other aspects. I want to mention the most important. His so-called logotherapy entails that the greatest needs of present-day man, a fellow human being in distress, is in the first place that we should see him as a human being and that there should not be an attitude of “the world owes me a living”. When the world makes certain demands on a person, he is tested by that standard, viz. that he is able to accept the demands which life makes on him. Many other people followed in Frankl’s footsteps, including Paul Tournier. The titles of his books tell us enough, e.g. The Meaning of Persons and The Healing of Persons. In Berlin, there was Medard Boss and in Switzerland, Thurneysen. New sciences began to develop, such as social psychiatry which tries to reconcile the human and the natural sciences, sciences which all deal with mankind in distress.

One predominating spirit is beginning to grow, namely that the professional disciplines are mutually dependent. In the multidisciplinary field—that has already been said, but I repeat it—every person is not a threat to the other. It would be a sorry day, also for the peoples of South Africa, if a certain professional discipline were to be afraid that another would intrude on its domain. Such a process would be very prejudicial to humanity. I want to plead that the following must constantly be kept in mind. In the first place it is essential that the medical and related professions should constantly be kept informed of new developments. It is just as important not to neglect the essential. Furthermore, the medical practitioner as a human being will have to keep up with the latest developments and he must not submit to the demands that he be replaced by a computerized medical model.

The fundamental values of both the physician and the patient must be jealously guarded. Nostalgically one remembers and hankers after the good old days of the family doctor, who did not only examined the body but also listened to the voice of the heart. The physician must guard against the possibility that as a result of the spirit of materialism and spiritual insensitivity, he might lose the initiative in his community and be compelled to see how quasi-doctors—in other words, charlatans—who have sufficient time to listen to the complaints of a patient, ultimately rob him of that patient.

To me, these three aspects are important. In the first place, a new amendment Bill, which I support wholeheartedly; in the second place, the situation which arises that what we discuss here in the House and what is reported in the newspapers and periodicals is not always the same; and in the third place, the extremely dangerous situation which is developing, in which a loss of role is taking place between the doctor and the patient and in which we find that the person in distress is being robbed of his dignity, that the human being is merely regarded as a bio-psychical phenomenon, something which is merely interesting for the purposes of investigation. It means that man is now refusing to be that which offends against his nature. The doctor cannot afford to function as a degenerating automat, because then he misses his purpose as interpreter of the medicina sacra.

I should like to close by quoting a short paragraph from a letter by the Secretary of Health which was recently reported in one of our medical journals. To me that is the essence of the medical profession. He wrote—

If we abide by these ethical codes, I do not fear that problematical situations will ever arise in connection with the medical science in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I shall try to be brief. Hon. members have raised some very interesting points today.

† In the first place, I should like to thank the hon. member for Bryanston, who is not here today, for his support of this Bill. I can only answer one specific point which he made, namely that the strike clause will be applied in a very responsible way.

*In the second place I should like to assure the hon. member for Fauresmith that medical schemes are here to stay. Problems which we have experienced have not prevented medical schemes from growing over the years, so that almost 75% of the Whites in South Africa and an increasing number of our non-Whites are now covered by medical schemes. In this way they can therefore acquire some measure of protection from medical costs. I am glad he is accepting the Medical Council as the body that will determine medical tariffs in future. I think this is generally accepted, by physicians as well. They may not say so, but after our discussions they accepted it. They are only one of the three parties involved here. I am very glad that the hon. member has such a great regard for the status of the council and the council’s ability to solve these problems. It is a fact that there could be negotiations and this is a very flexible section which provides for the determination of tariffs. We are also giving the Medical Council a tariff arm by means of which it can bring together the various interest groups within the medical field, which in my opinion will lead to a better and more satisfying way of determining tariffs in future.

I just wish to express a short word of gratitude to the remuneration commissions which determined the tariffs each year since 1969. They did so in the face of criticism and with very little gratitude. However, a tremendous amount of hard work was done in those years, work in which the bona fides of the people involved—Mr. Justice Erasmus, who was chairman throughout, and his assistants, highly qualified people and people dedicated to do only the best—were questioned. It is interesting that in most cases the representative of this profession who objected so strongly to the tariffs also gave his full support to the decisions of the remuneration commission.

† As far as the hon. member for Berea is concerned, I can also only thank him for his support. He is not quite right about the constitution of the council in the new Bill, because 20 of those members are appointed and only 14 are selected by the professions themselves. I have listened carefully to his problems about the scorpion clause, but as he has put his case very well, I think it would be only fair if I allow him to formally move his amendment in the Committee Stage and then I shall reply to him.

*The hon. member for Pietersburg paid tribute to the high standard of service. He also discussed the problem the Medical Council encounters in performing its functions. What I particularly welcome is that he has called on his colleagues to contract in again as a sign of confidence. It is very clear that there was a lack of information here, information which was to a certain extent distorted by emotion. During this period I did receive more than one sensible letter from the public, as well as from physicians, but it was clear none the less that the silent majority did not really make itself heard. On the other hand, I think that we have solved our problems very well and sometimes, one may say, something good comes from that.

In these times I think mutual confidence between the authorities and the profession is even less important than between the patient and the profession. In the long run the authorities will always be regarded with some suspicion in any case. What is more important, however, is confidence between the patient and the profession. The authorities are there to take into account the interests of the patient to the same extent as that of the profession. We are dealing with an emotional matter—the question of the illness of people. We have an enormous duty and we cannot permit ourselves to be influenced in one direction or another to the extent of becoming one-sided and acting in a biased manner. I am sure the bargaining power of the profession is important. It should be important However, the real principle involved here was not the bargaining power of the profession.

If we view it in that light, we are using trade union language, and that is objected to. What was in fact involved here was the trust between patient and physician and their right to determine a tariff between them. With respect to the majority of patients, however, we gave up that principle many years ago because we want security for the patient, security in that he should not continually be saddled with the troublesome bargaining aspect of tariffs. However, we shall not enlarge on that.

Finally, I should like to turn to the hon. member for Brits, who enjoys my full support in the tribute he paid to the Nursing Council. The Nursing Council is a loyal council, but they also differ very often with me and with the authorities. Sometimes they are convinced that some of the things they strive for are matters about which something definite has to be done. However, when they act, they do so within the profession, and in this respect I should like to praise them for the sense of responsibility which they always show, as well as for the fact that they hold their own abroad. I am grateful to the hon. member for his explanatory exposition of the recent controversy, and, as I have said, I believe something good will emanate from that. I do not want to go any further into that matter.

He raised certain matters which he found disturbing, such as the gap between the legislature and the public. It is a fact that when one is dealing with scientific legislation—and legislation very often is scientific, technical, expert—one is dealing with legislation on, for example, the economy, customs and excise, monopolistic conditions and criminal procedure. It is predominantly expert people who are concerned with this. However, I should like to call on hon. members to show a little more interest, particularly in medicine, a science which contains a considerable social element, a science with an uncommon number of very interesting facets. Medical science has facets which we do not always understand. However, if we make a study of it, we shall derive much greater pleasure from it than from some of the debates in which we take part, debates which are conducted perhaps to impress, but which prove to have very little substance.

I wish to mention that I believe that the Press could do a little more to impress scientific expertise upon journalists when they report on matters of this nature. By the way, one of the most able journalists which South Africa has yet produced is someone with a pure B.Sc. degree. He is of course Prof. Piet Cillié of the University of Stellenbosch, formerly editor of Die Burger. Although he was trained as a journalist by Nasionale Pers, he was a pure physical scientist.

Last but not least I should like to say to the hon. member for Brits that I greatly enjoyed his—if I may put it that way—normative philosophical views on all aspects concerning the patient in his totality. I am not quite familiar with all the older philosophers whom he mentioned. I was, however, particularly impressed by the hon. member’s reference to Viktor E. Frankl and his logotherapy. It is true that from the struggle and problems which Dr. Frankl had to contend with in the concentration camp, a particularly beautiful philosophy emanated. In that way he could contribute to psychotherapy, as well as to psychology and—one could almost say—to the industrial psychology of today. The hon. member therefore made a very fine contribution today. I regret that all hon. members did not listen to him so attentively. There are really times when we should try to listen more attentively. We can learn a lot by listening to an expert talking on his subject. The inter-dependence of professional disciplines is something which we shall bear in mind. If hon. members would acquaint themselves with the process which this department goes through when preparing legislation, they would notice that we have a great regard for the necessity of expertise and of interdisciplinary action and co-operation.

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

Mr. Chairman, this is, what can be called, the scorpion clause of the Bill, and I welcome this chance to motivate my amendment. I think the hon. member for Pietersburg made a valid point when he drew a comparison between acts which are unethical and acts which are illegal. I believe this is a very important point to bear in mind when we discuss this clause and this amendment, because the provision of this clause clearly makes a strike or a go-slow strike an illegal action. Clause 11 proposes the insertion of a new section 55A, and I refer to the proposed new section 55A(2)(b). Here we really move now into the realm of the ethical implications of a doctor’s involvement in legal action. What we perhaps would like to see is that the two be taken as separate offences, if one might put it that way. We prefer to let the legal people deal with the legal implications. If a doctor has been found guilty of an offence he should be sentenced accordingly, but in accordance with the principles of the legislation. I might add that other criminal offences are of necessity dealt with, as the hon. the Minister knows, by the council, because the provision therefor is in the legislation. Provision is made for court proceedings to be instituted against a professional person who has committed an offence. Such proceedings are subsequently automatically considered by the council.

Let us take an extreme example. A doctor, who, for instance, procures an abortion, is guilty of committing a criminal offence. A doctor who rapes a patient is committing a criminal offence. [Interjections.] I am told it is a criminal offence. I understand, however, it does not happen every day. Nevertheless, it is a criminal offence and such offence is dealt with by a court of law. Such case then comes before the Medical Council where it is considered from the point of view that the offender is a doctor who should be considered in the light of his calling or his profession. The council may, under such circumstances, punish him further, reprimand him, caution him or even remove his name from the register. It is important to realize that the State does not execute the second punishment. The State, through its legal proceedings, punishes the man and the Medical Council then takes the matter further in the light of the ethical implications. The council may then further punish the doctor for the offence he has committed. As a principle that is perfectly acceptable and we will be quite happy for that to be applied, also as regards the amending Bill now before us.

We do hope that the hon. the Minister will consider the amendment I have moved. If this amendment is accepted it is then obvious to anybody who studies the proceedings that the State has punished and has then left the ethical considerations to the council for its attention.