Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to pick up where I left off on Monday before I moved that the debate be adjourned, and to say that there seems to be a lack of clarity, or even confusion, in some circles concerning the principles of the Bill. As I see the matter, the three main principles are, firstly, the extension of the period of service after completion of the initial continuous period of service of two years; secondly, the increase in the number of days of service; and thirdly, the extension of national service to a larger proportion of White male citizens.

Mr. Speaker, since the hon. the Minister has just detailed three principles, and having established through you, Sir, that a Select Committee would be competent to restrict the periods and ages involved in applying those principles, would the hon. the Minister himself have any objection to the Select Committee considering and, if necessary, amending the figures?

I shall reply to the hon. member’s question a little later. I just want to deal with the principles first. Obviously, other principles are also contained in the Bill with a view to achieving the objectives I have spelt out, but the proposals associated with these three principles are the main questions which the Select Committee will have to resolve.

I shall now reply to the question which the hon. member for Durban Point has just asked me. The extension of the period of service after the two-year period of service, i.e. after the initial period of service, from eight years to twelve years, the increase in the number of days of service to 720, and even 1 000 in certain cases, and the extension of national service to persons up to the age of 60 are details which should be discussed by the Select Committee rather than in a public debate in this House during the discussion of the Second Reading. When the Select Committee has concluded its deliberations, and when a report has been published, there will certainly be an opportunity to debate the recommendations of the Committee in this House. I think this answers the questions put by the hon. member for Durban Point.

The proposals related to these three principles offer the best solution, all factors considered, which the investigating team was able to arrive at, and the team worked on this investigation for two years. It was precisely because I realized that these could be construed as drastic amendments that I decided to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, so as to subject it to the political experience and opinions of hon. members of this House. I believe I am right in saying that this is the first time that a statutory amendment of this magnitude, and one in terms of which a system of national service is being designed, has been referred to a Select Committee. In any event, it is the first time since 1970. By following these procedures, we can place the most reasonable and most realistic measure on the Statute Book. I repeat, therefore, that I expect the Select Committee to ascertain whether the proposed twelve-year period of service, the service of 720 days or 1 000 days, and liability for service up to the age of 60 years, as well as the other proposals, are reasonable and realistic. The Select Committee will have to decide this in the light of the threat which faces us and of the levels of force we need to combat it.

Other inquiries are also being conducted in the S.A. Defence Force at the moment. Although the inquiries do not have a direct bearing on the proposed new system of national service, they may lead to statutory amendments which may influence the implementation of the new system. These inquiries concern the position of immigrants and foreigners who are employed in the Republic of South Africa for long periods. Then there is also an inquiry into ways of increasing productivity in the S.A. Defence Force, so as to ensure that every day of the period of service of a member who is called up will be used effectively. Last but not least, there is an inquiry into the question of how religious objectors should be dealt with.

With these words, and the information which has been supplied to hon. members on both sides of the House over a long period, I trust that they will now fully understand the proposals and that they will support the principles and discuss the proposals thoroughly in the Select Committee, and that they will then make recommendations.

Mr. Speaker, first of all I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Secondly, I want to express a little disappointment right at the outset at finding on my bench only this morning when I came into the House the White Paper on Defence for 1982. We are now entering into a debate on an issue which, at a first glance into the White Paper, is very substantially dealt with in it. While I have always pressed for White Papers to be presented and while I am grateful for the White Paper, I wonder whether it would not have been possible for it to have been given to us yesterday instead of today. Really, it is imposing quite an unfair obligation on all the hon. members of the House, and I assume that NP members did not receive it any earlier than we did. I am now expected to get up and speak on this subject while in the White Paper there are pages and pages about the very subject we are about to debate. With great regret, therefore, I must at the outset voice my protest at this not having been done 24 hours earlier, which would have made life a lot easier. Normally one gets the utmost co-operation from the hon. the Minister himself. I am quite sure that he is not responsible for seeing that this was delayed by 24 hours or perhaps even a little more.

In dealing with this measure, I think it is necessary in the first instance that we should set out our policy towards the Defence Force and the defence of the Republic of South Africa. The PFP is committed to peace and stability and the preservation of law and order in South Africa, and it is clear that for this purpose both a police force and a defence force are necessary. The party’s commitment to change is a commitment to change exclusively by peaceful and constitutional means. To achieve this, those who seek to use violence must be opposed, peace must be maintained internally and the territorial integrity of the country must be defended against both conventional and insurgency attacks. That is why the shield concept was in the past advocated by me and other hon. members of this party in the House and is again advanced today. The Defence Force acts as a shield to enable South Africa not only to live in peace, but also to effect changes by constitutional means, and particularly by means of negotiation. The Defence Force is a shield to protect South Africa from aggression and violence while South Africans seek by peaceful means to find solutions for co-existence.

However, the long-term solution of South Africa’s problems is not military. It is political, it is social and it is economic. The military can only hold the position while a solution is evolved. The peace of the country can best be achieved, we believe, through the contentment of its people. This not only means the application of political solutions to deal with constitutional structures and personal liberties, but also that economic answers must be found which give the whole population a stake in the country and a desire to participate in its defence. Expenditure on education, training, job creation, housing and other social serverces is therefore vital to achieve long-term stability, and will make the evolution of political solutions much easier.

When the PFP says that it is committed to the concept of a defence force to preserve peace and territorial integrity, it is implied that there must be an effective defence force, because without an effective defence force, there is no point in the existence of a defence force at all.

Mr. Speaker, permit me to react to an article which appeared in the Rand Daily Mail of 31 March 1982. It states—

whoever “they” may be—

I want to say just a very simple thing in reply to whoever “they” may be. I believe that to achieve a political end, one is not entitled to jeopardize the security of one’s country. I believe that the public wants stability and law and order. This also applies to all of those who really want change by peaceful means.

Recently an opinion poll was undertaken in South Africa amongst all races. I want to summarize it in one sentence, namely that law and order are what people want and that every race group in South Africa gives the maintenance of law and order in the nation its first priority. I therefore do not believe that in seeking to advance a political cause one should in any way seek to jeopardize the stability of this country. I think the PFP has made it very clear over a period of time that in the existing circumstances of South Africa it supports the concept of national service, the adequate equipment of such a force and the creation of the armaments industry to counter the arms boycott, which it opposes. Furthermore, this party has also continually stressed the need for political and economic solutions to the country’s problems and the relatively long-term nature of these solutions in relation to the military situation.

For some years, virtually from the day that I came into this House, I have tried to stress the desirability of increasing the size of the Permanent Force. I have advocated altering its role as set out in the earlier White Papers I saw when I first came into this House, from one of training and leadership to one of the creation of a full-time Permanent Force fighting unit, a fighting unit which will be part of a standing Army, and have stressed the need for the Defence Force to project a South African multi-racial image and to that end to recruit on a volunteer basis members of all race groups in South Africa.

Since these ideas have been advanced, much has been done in that direction, but I believe that more can and should be done. It is still so that 92% of all the members of the Permanent Force are White. Only 5,86% are Coloured, 1,09% are Asiatic and 1,05% are Black. A further point I want to stress, is that the percentage ratio of the Permanent Force to the total Force is far too low. It is clear that even the plan set out in the 1982 White Paper to extend the Permanent Force by a mere 17% by 1987, is utterly unacceptable and falls far too short. In our view a larger Permanent Force is a more cost effective instrument than the extension of the call-up to produce the same results.

The suggested call-up of Citizen Force regiments to produce the equivalent of 10 000 Permanent Force soldiers to be on service at any one time, would require in excess of 100 000 Citizen Force men, bearing in mind in particular the 30 and 90-day cycles over two years, suggested in the draft legislation, and the time needed to call up, equip and transfer, as well as the time needed to retrain and acclimatize. In addition to this, the problems that arise from deferment and exemption would fall away. A larger standing army has other advantages. It has the advantage of ready availability. There is no need to give advance notice to call up. The units can be put into action at much shorter notice. Time can be utilized for training when the units are not needed for action and, as conscription is not involved, all races can in fact be recruited. In recessionary times this actually creates new jobs and we could do with new jobs today. The cost of the economy of taking 10 000 men into the Permanent Force is far less than the disruptive effect of getting the same result by calling up over 100 000 men periodically, not only in direct production, but also inmorale, bearing in mind, firstly, the burden on employers in paying men who are away on service and who are not productive in that period and, secondly, employees’ fears, which in many cases are very real, in respect of competition for their jobs from others who are not away on service, and in respect of their promotion in those particular firms. We therefore believe that a multiracial Permanent Force, paid on a non-discriminatory basis, is a far more effective way of dealing with part of the problem that faces the S.A. Defence Force.

May I just draw attention to the fact that the argument about the disruption of the economy—to which I shall come back later—has in fact been accepted in past White Papers on Defence. If I may I should like to quote from two of these White Papers which I have available here. I have available the 1977 White Paper and I quote from it the following—

In other words, the disruption of the national economy as a result of these call-ups is an agreed and, I believe, accepted fact. I should now like to quote from the 1979 White Paper where the question arose of increasing the period of national service. It says—

In other words, in testimony to the arguments that I advance I can refer to two factors. The one is that a standing army is a more effective instrument than an army which is dependent upon call-ups from time to time. A standing army is more effective as a military instrument. Secondly, I can call as witness the fact that the main reason for increasing the period of national service was to phase out the employment of members of the Citizen Force and Commandos for periods of up to three months at a time. The reason for this was to reduce the consequent disruption of the economy. I think I need bring no stronger testimony than the White Papers on Defence for 1977 and 1979 in that regard.

I am, however, aware of the problems that face the S.A. Defence Force in respect of manpower and of the specific difficulties that exist. I should like to summarize some of them to point out how we see them. Firstly, there is the problem of the competition by the private sector in respect of the recruitment by the Permanent Force to strengthen its leader and specialist elements as well as its fighting units. I believe this could be overcome by, firstly, more in-service training in the Permanent Force itself and, secondly, by a more imaginative recruiting campaign. I am not alone in the view that there needs to be greater imagination in respect of the recruiting activities and the projection of the Defence Force in South Africa.

Secondly, there is a need to maintain the strength of the officer element in the Citizen Force and the commandos, and I believe this can be remedied by making it more attractive, not only for officers to volunteer and to continue to volunteer, but for employers to let them volunteer. I am pleased the hon. the Minister of Finance is present in the House, because I believe tax incentives should be given to employers to let volunteers serve in the Citizen Force, as is being done in regard to decentralized indistries and has been done in the past in respect of border and other industries. If this is done, one will make it worthwhile and give the employer an incentive to let an employee volunteer. I believe this will not cost a lot of money and that it will serve a much better purpose than the programme which to some extent is being implemented now.

I also believe the Citizen Force volunteer should receive the remuneration he receives while on service tax-free. If these two things are done, namely that one ensures that the employer has a tax incentive to let a man volunteer, and if one lets the man who volunteers get his income from the Defence Force tax-free, one will be going a long way towards solving the problem of volunteers.

Another factor which the Defence Force itself needs to consider is the greater potential for promotion in the Citizen Force beyond the rank of commandant. The reality is that once the Citizen Force officer gets to the rank of commandant, his prospects of further promotion are very small, in fact almost minimal. There are only isolated people who can advance to higher ranks. I know of commanding officers who have served for 10, 12 or 15 years as commandant and who remain commandant with no prospects of promotion, even though they are capable officers who in the ordinary course should get promotion. If these people can advance to higher ranks than commandant, it would be a further incentive for them to stay in the Citizen Force.

There is also a problem in respect of the Commandos. I think this is perhaps the biggest problem the Defence Force has. Commandos are no doubt under-strength and, particularly in rural areas, action is needed. There are cases of Commandos being so under-strengthed that people who have just returned from the border have to go there again because the commando units cannot otherwise perform their functions. One then realizes that something has to be done about it. I believe the S.A. Defence Force is to be congratulated on presenting the concept of the area-bound commando. I think this is an extremely sound concept and certainly deserves of support. The question is: How does one apply it and who is to serve on it? I want to suggest that we do the same than what was done in the United States by President Reagan only recently. The first step is that one should have a register of who is available, who is fit, who should get exemption, and that one should make an assessment of the available manpower. Only then should one go to the public and tell them who the people are who are going to be called up. To say immediately, and to create the impression immediately, that everybody in the country, whether young, whether old, whether fat, whether thin, or whether with a coronary problem or an ulcer, up to the age of 60 are going to be brought into the picture, has done us a lot of harm. [Interjections.] It is no use making a noise; the reality is that it was badly handled and wrongly projected. It was not done in the way in which it should have been done. That is the reality. It is no use saying it is not so. The reality is that the wrong impression has been created among the public, and once a wrong impression has been created, it does harm. That is the truth of it. I say regretfully that the Government has failed in its endeavour to motivate the public, not only in the manner which I have just pinpointed but to motivate them also to volunteer for the Defence Force, or even fully to appreciate the nature of the threats against the stability of the Republic. I challenge hon. members to rise and tell me that that is wrong—that they have failed in their endeavours to motivate the public against the threats which face our country.

What happened at your congress?

Don’t talk about my congress; you worry about your’s, old chap! [Interjections.] I believe that the reasons for this are quite clear. The public do not accept the existence of a direct threat, a direct Soviet threat to South Africa. They will accept the threat of terrorism and the fact that Soviet and other communist powers are lending assistance to such movements. However, the continuous cry of total onslaught has become meaningless and the result has been the normal reaction to the cry of wolf when that cry is made too often. This is where I belive the Government has failed in its motivation of the people.

This brings me to the manner in which this particular Bill has been projected to the public. I do not discuss confidential discussions and neither do I disclose what transpired at such confidential discussions. I do not intend to do so now. However, everybody knows that when this matter was first brought to my attention, I warned of the risk of the impact upon the public being adverse. This Bill has been misunderstood and misinterpreted particularly in regard to the provisions for extending commando service up to the age of 60 years. Once incorrect images have been created it is difficult to correct them. Both here and abroad there is the image of a massive White mobilization and it helps little to say now that this is only planning for contingencies, as the hon. the Minister said at Bloemfontein a matter of 24 hours ago, and that the demand at this time will not be as great as stipulated in the Bill; that service in area-bound commandos will not be as arduous as normal military service; that only maxima have been laid down. The reality is that the harm has been done. A senior general said on television the other evening that if the public had listened carefully to what the hon. the Minister and the Chief of the Defence Force had been saying for some months they would have been prepared and not shocked. That, however, is the very point. To project to the public what you want them to understand you tell them that they should have listened carefully. With great respect, is that the way to conduct a public relations campaign? To say as was said the other evening—and this has become a talking point—that one can do one’s commando service from one’s lounge and one’s bedroom is to make many people fascinated to know what commando service one can do from one’s bedroom! [Interjections.] I hope that the hon. the Minister will be prepared to tell us that because then, Sir, one might get the volunteers! [Interjections.]

From the very outset I have indicated that while I believe that the Defence Force must be assisted in its manpower needs and while it is clear that the Defence Force must be effective—and I want to rule out any misunderstanding that may exist in this regard—my attitude was and is—it is also the attitude of my party—that the provisions requiring military service up to the age of 60 years for all White males, the increase in Citizen Force service from eight to 12 years and in the Commandos to 20 years and the increase from 240 to 720 days’ service and in the Commandos to 1 000 days are not the solutions that we seek and should not be passed in this form in regard to the number of days, the number of years and the question of ages without modification. We believe that a Select Committee of Parliament should examine the manpower needs of the Defence Force in the context of the manpower needs of the economy, the work and family life of the individual which we think it is important to bear in mind, and the need and desirability of spreading the burden equitably between those who serve in various capacities in the S.A. Defence Force and those who do not serve at all; in other words, to share the burden of those within the Defence Force equitably with those outside the Defence Force bearing in mind age, health and other factors. I also want to pose the question of whether in fact greater credit for actual front line service should not be given in any system that may be applied. It must also examine it in the context of the position of the White male non-citizen who has been permanently resident in the Republic in excess of five years, and are qualified for but do not acquire citizenship. In other words, they could acquire citizenship if they wanted to, but prefer not to do so for a number of reasons. In respect of these matters one should, on the one hand, bear in mind the need to attract skilled immigrants and on the other hand bear in mind the equities of the situation.

The committee needs to examine all the alternatives available, in particular the feasibility of more civilian employees for certain jobs and, as I have indicated, increasing the Permanent Force. It should also examine the more effective use of the existing manpower resources of the S.A. Defence Force to ensure that the time that national servicemen and others actually spend in the forces is used to the best possible advantage.

We need to look also at the psychological effects of the legislation on the individual and the community, and the possibility of full-time service to compensate for part-time service, not only because full-time service is of greater benefit to the SADF but because of some servicemen who like to get things behind them. Those who have served in the forces know that one always looks forward to the day when one will have completed one’s service.

With this legislation in view, what does a young man today see ahead of him? He sees two years of national service, 12 years of service in the Citizen Force, five years on the reserve, and then commando service until he reaches the age of 60. Whatever it is, the realities sound formidable. Many young men might gladly do extra full-time national service if they knew that they would then have completed their compulsory service. Should they wish to serve in the forces thereafter, they could do it on a voluntary basis. A longer period of national service on a voluntary basis by those young men who are prepared to undertake it, would once again be more cost effective for the Defence Force.

Undoubtedly, the question will be raised in the debate why we cannot deal with these matters in a Select Committee after the Second Reading of the Bill and why we request a Select Committee before the Second Reading. In addition to the reasons that I have already given, there are a number of other reasons for this. Firstly, I believe that we need to get a return to public confidence. It is desirable to demonstrate to the public, and also to the country and abroad, that there is not to be a general mobilization, but that there is planning for contingency and a desire to remedy certain limited problems and that, equally important, there is a desire to remove the image, created both at home and abroad, not merely of a mobilization but of a massive White mobilization that would indicate a serious military problem that would have other very serious implications.

Secondly, there should be a review of the principles as far as manpower is concerned. That, to my mind, is most desirable.

Thirdly, the question of immigrants cannot be dealt with in a Select Committee after the Second Reading. It can only be dealt with in a Select Committee before the Second Reading.

Fourthly, there is the issue of conscientious objectors, an issue which is dealt with in one amendment of this Bill and to which the hon. the Minister also referred to this morning. This issue needs to be considered and should come before a Select Committee of Parliament. It cannot be dealt with if the Select Committee is instituted after the Second Reading.

In the fifth place, amending other provisions of the Defence Act, including section 118, as recommended by the first Steyn Commission, is a matter that cannot be considered by a Select Committee after the Second Reading. In all these circumstances we believe that a Select Committee before the Second Reading is the correct procedure. We believe that the country needs confidence, not only in respect of defence, but also in other respects, particularly in regard to the economy. The country also needs confidence in the future. People ask why we need the Bill in this form, and to this day, regretfully, the campaign has been of such a nature that they have not all been convinced of the reasons for it. I believe a Select Committee before Second Reading could prepare a new Bill in consultation with the interested parties, with great expedition and with considerable benefit to the community at large.

I want to deal now in some detail with another very important factor. That is the question of manpower. Manpower in South Africa is a precious commodity. South Africa has a shortage of skilled workers. Virtually every State department shows figures indicating massive shortages, with consequences for effective service to the public, the expeditious completion of tasks, efficiency and control. Private business compete for skilled manpower both within itself and with the public sector. Almost daily there is another speech by somebody on education, training and remedial measures for this problem. Manpower is a precious commodity and we should treat it as such.

It also means that available manpower must be used to the best advantage of the community. Those who advocate violence would like as much manpower as possible to be diverted from training and productive activities because the less South Africa produces, the less it is able to solve its long-term problems. They do not want equal quality in education. They want the housing problem to remain unsolved. They want unemployment because this brings the revolution nearer. They certainly do not want a strong security apparatus, but the diversion of too much manpower and resources is actually regarded by the advocates of violence and revolution as a victory. That is because if we divert too much away from the resources which we need to solve the long-term problems of the country, we are to some extent helping the revolutionaries.

What the Republic of South Africa therefore needs is a careful assessment of the needs of both the economy and the defence and then taking into account confidence, morale and home life in order to strike a balance. Perhaps it is a delicate task. A balance must be struck, however, if the forces of violence are not to succeed in their purpose.

The manpower figures of South Africa need examination. The total population of South Africa is 23,6 million, according to official statistics. The Republic’s defence, however, cannot be conducted in isolation from the independent homelands, and their population should really be included. Only 42% of the Whites in South Africa are classified as economically active. The number of economically active individuals who are White is only 1,9 million. Of these one in three is a female. More than one in four of these are employed in the public sector. That figure would be even more if we included all the companies which are actually part of the public sector. Of that total of all the economically active individuals 1,27 million are White males. The age structure of the White population is such that about 10% of all Whites are over 60 years of age. That means that about 120 000 economically active White males are over the age of 60, so that the economically active White males below 60 years of age are only 1,15 million people. This group presently provides more than 70% of the total labour force for professional, managerial, clerical, sales and artisan posts in South Africa.

This figure, for the purpose with which we are concerned, is reduced even further—to below one million—if economically active males who are not South African citizens are taken away from that figure. That means that the burden on less than one million males is therefore enormous. Those people will have to play their role in defence, in industry, in social work, in their homes, in their jobs, in charity, in church and everywhere else. Each individual aspect is important. It is therefore clear that the burden on this one million is substantial. I call them the indispensable million because from this labour force we now have to draw everyone needed for national service.

National service itself deprives that force of two years of the working life of the fit, non-exempted White economically active male individual, which means that effectively the total White labour force under 60 years of age is reduced by about 4%. If we add to it the 720 days spread over 12 years, and say half that number of days for commando service until the age of 60, the effect is that 11,9% of the period between 18 and 60 years of age in the life of every White economically active male is spent on military service. So the problem really is that this one million cannot really bear the burden that is expected of them, and therefore the pool from which people are drawn has to be increased. Our concern is to see to it that we do not aggravate the skilled labour shortage any further at this stage. In the long term we believe that the situation will ease up because we are going to train more people and educate more people, particularly once the Government’s more recent labour and education policies come into their own. The manpower situation will then be different, because one would then be able to draw, to a greater extent, on all races, something we can now only do on a volunteer basis. We therefore reasonably ask that we all give this matter further thought. This party supports the defence of South Africa, but let us do it in the most effective way, with the fairest possible distribution of the burden, always bearing in mind that the solution is not, in the long run, a military one, but rather a political and economic one. Let us also get on with that aspect of our defence with greater urgency.

I therefore appeal to this House to agree to the motion to refer this Bill to a Select Committee before Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to give my full support to the Second Reading of this Bill. I think it is important, in these times in which we live, to appreciate the seriousness of the matter and to understand what is going on in South Africa and what the onslaught is that is being made on us. For that reason, I consider it a privilege to support this Second Reading.

In the course of my speech, I should also like to touch on certain points raised by the hon. member for Yeoville. The hon. member for Yeoville spoke at some length. I do not have the same amount of time available to me, but I shall try to reply to certain points raised by him.

I believe that it is expected of a responsible Government—and, of course, of a responsible Opposition as well—that it should not politicize the Defence Force. I do not think either that the Opposition should politicize the Defence Force within or outside their party, because the Defence Force has received certain instructions for the protection of this country from the House of Assembly. Let us consider the aim which the Defence Force has set itself in the Estimate of Expenditure. I think it is important that we should look at this. It reads as follows—

This means inside or outside South Africa, by the ANC or Swapo—

This is the aim for which the Defence Force has set itself, and therefore I believe it to be the duty of this House of Assembly to enable the Defence Force to achieve its aim.

In that connection there are two important facets which I should like to mention. The first one is the financial aspect, which is not relevant now, of course, but then there are also the force levels, the manpower, which are necessary to enable the Defence Force to achieve its purpose.

I should like to refer to the White Paper which I received on my desk today. I want to thank the hon. the Minister and the Department, because we can put this White Paper to very good use in the discussion of the hon. the Minister’s Vote. We received it in good time to enable us to study it. In the foreword, a statement is made which I consider to be important, and I quote—

Reference is made to “force development”, That is what we are dealing with today. I believe that the proposal which is before us today was drafted after wide consultation over the whole spectrum of our national economy. It was done by experts who devoted their lives to a study of these matters. I believe that this Bill—I shall have more to say about this later—is the best one, considering the aims of the Defence Force and the interests of the rest of the national economy. This is my conviction at this stage.

I should like to come to the principles of the Bill. The hon. the Minister pointed out in his speech this morning that there were three main principles, although there are also other principles involved. The first main principle—it is important that I should identify it at this stage—is that the period of service commencing after the initial two years should be extended. The second main principle is that the number of days that have to be served during the period referred to should be increased. Then, too, a larger proportion of the male citizens should be involved in national duty—that is the third main principle. I should very much like to elaborate on these principles, but I believe it to be in the interests of this House and of the people outside that certain background details should be pointed out and that our position should be clarified. In dealing with this, I shall also refer to certain aspects raised by the hon. member of Yeoville.

I want to begin by conveying my special thanks, on behalf of this side of the House and especially on behalf of the defence group of this side of the House, to the hon. the Minister and the Head of the S.A. Defence Force for having kept us properly informed over a long period concerning the threat and the possibilities and planning in respect of the way in which the manpower requirements would be met. I want to thank them for their frankness, for the tours we were able to undertake, for the information they furnished and for the frank way in which they replied to our questions. It is correct that the representatives should be informed. It is not correct that defence legislation should be approved by the people outside by way of a “referendum”. It seems to me that this is what the PFP would like to have. In terms of our system, we cannot allow the legislation to be approved by the people outside by means of a referendum. The Defence Force acted correctly by informing the representatives and the defence groups within the system. I also believe that the defence groups in their turn informed their caucuses in a well-considered manner—at least, I hope so. The members of the defence groups of the PFP and the NRP studied this matter on the same basis with the members of the NP and thoroughly examined the requirements and the need for more manpower. I also want to say that the Head of the S.A. Defence Force and his officers and the hon. the Minister himself burnt the midnight oil and had long discussions and that they did everything in their power to inform us. The point I want to make here is that the S.A. Defence Force and the hon. the Minister have not politicized the subject of this legislation in any way, because all the groups have been treated on an equal footing.

For this reason, I think it is particularly objectionable that there should have been certain leaks of confidential information. In the first place, I think these were also of a malicious nature. In this connection. I want to refer to what was said in the Sunday Express of 28 March this year. The following is said—

I believe that—

This is what it says here—

In the second place, it is a very great pity that this information was leaked, especially because it was incorrectly leaked.

Who leaked it? Did you leak it? [Interjections.]

The point I am trying to make is that it seems to have been incorrectly leaked that White women and Coloured people would be involved in terms of a ballot system. That was incorrectly leaked. The hon. the Minister said that after discussions with this side of the House, the idea of involving women and Coloureds was abandoned. This was said in the Second Reading speech. I now see that some people on the other side of the House are claiming credit for this or trying to derive political advantage from this by saying that they are the ones who were responsible for this. However, the hon. the Minister says that the talks were held with this side of the House and with other people as well.

Are you saying that no talks were held with us on this matter?

I am telling you what the hon. the Minister said. Do you deny that the hon. the Minister said what I am saying here now? [Interjections.]

… the truth.

The hon. the Minister said that and you have only to read his Second Reading speech to see it. It is written here. Or is he not telling the truth?

It is for him to say that.

Very well, go and ask him then, do not ask me.

But you know.

I now want to make the point. The hon. member must not be so sensitive; I was not criticizing him. In fact, I was trying to protect him. The hon. the Minister said—and this proves that talks were in fact held—

In other words, that this was not being proceeded with.

The second aspect which I found particularly upsetting is the fact that there has been a deliberate leak of incorrect information.

In the third place, one-sided information has been publicized in order to create a climate of negativism. What are the consequences of this, Sir?

†Words have been bandied about to the effect that there is complete mobilization and that we have a dad’s army. This is used in a derogatory sense which is belittling of both the escalating onslaught and the objectivity of the military leaders.

*There are people who appear on television—and I am thinking of the editor of the Financial Mail—and who then use certain words, saying, for example, that a slegde-hammer is being used. However, I want to make the following point very clear. According to my information, this person was invited to a briefing on 26 March, which he did not attend.

†As my hon. colleague knows, we have a saying in law that there is a certain diligence in ignorance. I would suggest that this gentleman has been very diligent so as to remain ignorant of the complete facts. The worst thing of all is that this gentleman has seen fit to blame the S.A. Defence Force for the climate that has been set. I will come to that in a short while.

Which gentleman are you talking about?

I am talking about Mr. Mulholland. Is he not a gentleman? He is the editor of the Financial Mail. I did not want to mention his name, but I have now done so on request. I would say that the leakage is particularly regrettable as this was a breach of confidence.

I want to come now to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Yeoville. I would like to start off by saying that an amendment to the Defence Act was on the cards and everybody knew that it would be put before the House this year. I would say that everybody who was informed, particularly members of Parliament, knew about this. This was not something that was hidden under a bushel or did not see the light of day, because, as far back—I want to give the whole relevant sequence of events—as 25 September 1981 the Minister said words to the following effect (Hansard, col. 4648)—

I think it was admirable that we had to wait for the committee to make certain representations to us, but as long ago as 25 September the Minister had indicated that something would be done about this. I want to go further. On 23 October one could read the following, and here I should like to stress the fact that this report was in the Financial Mail, of which Mr. Mulholland is the editor—

This obviously means that it is going to remain at two years. The article states further—

These are exactly the two principles that we are now discussing, and these were already disclosed on 23 October. However, I want to go further. Again in the Financial Mail, on 15 January 1982, we find that the Chief of the S.A. Defence Force held an interview and during that interview he said—

That is correct. That is the prerogative of Parliament. The article states further—

This is exactly what the hon. the Minister has said. The article states further—

That is very clear. He goes on by saying—

This means that people living in an area must be organized to defend themselves. Everybody living in a particular area must be called upon to defend himself. They must be the first line of defence. Our full-time force must be the reaction force. What more clarity than this was expected at that stage in time?

The next saga in this story is that of the despicable—I call it despicable—leak. Reference is made to mobilization. I want to ask hon. members a question. We have a commando commitment today of 30 days per year. We are reducing this to 12 days per year. Is that mobilization? Secondly, I should like to ask a further question. If one looks at the Active Citizen Force reserve one finds that they have no actual commitment whatsoever during the five years that they are on the reserve. Is this mobilization? How can this possibly be said? Obviously stupid people would say stupid things, but how could an enlightened person, reading what we have read, understand this to be mobilization? I would say that people who have used this term have really done an economic disservice to South Africa.

A second term that is now apparently in use is that of the “Dads’ Army” idea. I do not understand how this term came to be coined in the first place. A maximum parameter is being set within which certain callups can be done, if necessary, progressively as required. Nowhere has it been said that these people will do border duty. Nowhere has it been said that they would go into the army or go to the border. Mr. Brown who appeared on the same television programme with Mr. Mulholland was very, very reasonable. He said that he was slightly confused. He used words to that effect. He was correct, but the confusion must not be blamed on what the S.A. Defence Force did. It must be blamed on the incorrect leaks. We must be honest about this matter, and let us not have a scapegoat—the S.A.D.F.—where there is nobody else who should be blamed for it. Having said that, it has been moved by the PFP spokesman that this Bill be referred to a Select Committe before Second Reading. If one looks at our Notes on Select Committee Procedure one finds on page 66—

There are then no principles really; they are thrown into the melting pot. The Notes state further—

To what principles is that party opposed? The hon. the Minister singled out three principles. Are they opposed to any of them? If not, why then do they want the Bill referred to a Select Committee before Second Reading? It must therefore imply that the PFP is against the three principles. The sentiments of the hon. member for Yeoville are at this stage completely beyond dispute. However, his sentiments are not representative of the sentiments of his party. He has not taken his caucus with him in this case, as he thought.

I now want to come to the principles which the PFP would like to have incorporated into the Bill. I want to refer to the youth congress of the PFP held on 2 August 1981. A motion was put there—I do not say it was approved—which was indicative of the sentiments of the PFP. Part of the motion reads—

Your whole speech is based on petty politics.

Is it correct or incorrect that this motion was put?

What happened when the motion was discussed?

I am coming to that. To get the answer to that, one should perhaps look at what happened at the PFP congress held on 23 November. The Star said “Schwarz is perturbed” and The Citizen “Schwarz loses on conscientious objection”. What was said at the congress? Firstly, that there should be an alternative form of national service available to conscientious objectors. That is what they want. The hon. the Minister has said that that whole matter is being considered. The report on the congress stated further—

That means that a particular political viewpoint should now entitle one to do a different kind of national service. This is obvious ridiculous. Is this one of the principles the PFP want incorporated into the Bill? Obviously it is. But the hon. member for Yeoville did not mention this. Why not? After all, these are decisions taken by the PFP congress or do they place little value on their decisions?

I want to make a further point. The PFP congress also expressed the view—

Then follows the sting in the tail—

This is the old story that there is no total onslaught againt South Africa. Why is it necessary that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee before its Second Reading? I shall tell hon. members why. It is because the PFP congress also accepted an amendment calling for a party commission to investigate alternative forms of national service. The PFP wants to incorporate its commission into the Select Committee. I would have thought the hon. member for Yeoville would be honest and also mention these points.

To come to grips with this matter, let us refer to what the Sunday Times of 28 March says. My time is running out and I shall therefore be very brief. Hon. members of the PFP must tell me whether the following is true or not. I quote from the Sunday Times—

Is it correct so far? Then follows the first faction—

This is the first faction—

That was the first faction. The second faction were the following—

That was the second faction. Is that true? The paper goes on to state—

Therefore, it was a compromise decision. However, I would say that if there were to be a free vote on that side, the required 15 persons would not be found in one faction to support this particular amendment. If that is not good enough for the PFP then it certainly is not good enough for us. That is one reason why I say, among others, that we cannot accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Yeoville.

*Many members on this side of the House will be taking part in this debate. There is a programme for this and I do not wish to encroach on the areas to be covered by those hon. members. However, I want to say that we are convinced that South Africa is a country which faces serious threats. Assistant Secretary Dr. Chester Crocker recently said so—on 22 March this year. He said these were the real facts. I do not want to read it, as I believe that hon. members have all received the text of his statement. I repeat that our country faces serious threats, and the fact is that that onslaught with which we are faced is not being appreciated. It is not being appreciated by that side of the House. They fail to appreciate it, and they tell us so every now and then by implication. The hon. member for Yeoville said his reasons for the appointment of a Select Committee would be, in the first place, “the return of public confidence that there would be no mobilization”. I have dealt with that. That is not a point. He said: “We must look at the immigrants, we must look at the conscientious objectors.” The hon. the Minister has told us that this matter is being investigated at the moment. Should this legislation be referred to a Select Committee before these investigations have been completed, or should we rather wait? Of course we should rather wait. I listened to the arguments of the hon. member for Yeoville, and there is no argument in this connection. I should be surprised if the NRP were able to support the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville, because this amendment is intended to reserve temporary unity in that party, which is splitting on defence matters. [Interjections.] Surely it is true that our country faces serious threats. It is also a fact that the present system has shortcomings and those hon. members know what the shortcomings are. One of those shortcomings is the fact that the burden of defence is not evenly distributed; in other words, we do not have guaranteed manpower either. The hon. member for Yeoville spoke about an enlarged Permanent Force. This is one of that hon. member’s hardy annuals. I should like to put a few points to the hon. member for his consideration.

In the first place, when we remove some of our trained manpower permanently from our economy, that economy is permanently harmed. Then, when we have an enlarged Permanent Force, we shall still have volunteers, and there will not be a guaranteed manpower pool. I hope the hon. member for Yeoville will understand that. The Permanent Force consists of volunteers, and in these times we need a guaranteed manpower pool. His idea is not worth much to us under these circumstances. The hon. member said it would be cheaper, but he did not give us any figures.

You have never made a study of it.

The hon. member did not give any figures. I want to tell the hon. member that according to a rough estimation, on the basis of information obtained, there will have to be an initial expenditure of R4,5 billion in respect of the infrastructure required for this—housing and so forth—and thereafter an additional amount of approximately R1,7 billion every year. He may shake his head, but he did not give us any figures. He should go and do his homework, and then we can talk again.

There is one very important aspect which the hon. member for Yeoville must remember. As a former military man who is well disposed towards the Defence Force, he will realize that blanket cover cannot be provided to the same extent by a full-time Permanent Force as by the commandos in terms of the proposed new system. The full-time Permanent Force cannot provide the blanket cover which 180 000 men could provide on a part-time commando basis in the rural areas of the Transvaal, for example. [Interjections.] If I understand the hon. member correctly, it means that in spite of having a bigger Permanent Force, we would still have to call up the commandos or people in the age group concerned.

I do not think you were listening while I was making my speech.

Perhaps the hon. member did not express himself very clearly. I suggest that he express himself very clearly in the future.

I gladly support the Bill, as it gives us a system of manpower provision within certain maximum parameters which will enable us to call up more people progressively as we are forced to do so by our enemies. It is not the intention to use these maximum parameters without good reason; the initiative lies with our enemies and they will decide whether they will force us to resort to this. We believe, with General McArthur—

One can argue this any way one wants to, but the cardinal point remains: There is no substitute for victory.

If I may sum up the Bill briefly, I must point out that provision is being made for a full-time force in that some citizens have to serve in it for at least two years. Provision is also being made for an enlarged Citizen Force and for an Active Citizen Force Reserve, a big National Reserve and a Commando Force. I think that what has been submitted to us here represents thorough planning in terms of which there will be the minimum interference with the meeting of the other needs of our national economy. There are an exemption board and a manpower board which will be able to examine the personal circumstances of every individual in terms of the individual’s needs.

†I think the hon. member for Yeoville has really pointed out the obvious because Edward Burke, I think, says—

We agree with that statement. It is very difficult to reconcile the economy with war, even a low-intensity war.

*I must point out that this Bill serves to give notice to our enemies that we intend to defend this country at any cost. It also serves as a notice to our friends that we are going to use our ability in the interests of everyone in Southern Africa. For that very reason I believe it to be important that the Bill be approved at Second Reading. Then we can thrash out the details of the legislation on a Select Committee. I gladly support the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pretoria West must pardon me for not reacting to what he said. My time is limited, and I must turn in particular to the hon. member for Yeoville.

To begin with I wish to react to two points which he raised. He repeated a statement which he has made frequently before, i.e. that the Permanent Force element should be enlarged. His statement is true, but the question which now arises is where those men must come from. We have a critical shortage in the other sectors of our national economy, and therefore I simply cannot see how we will be able to supplement the Permanent Force element.

The other standpoint I wish to react to is his statement that it is his standpoint, and that of his party, that we should rather extend the initial period of national service.

There should be a choice in this connection.

He wants us to extend the initial period of national service, and not make the ensuing period so long. Surely we looked into these things together, and the problem that was in fact confronting the Defence Force was that we had a group of men who had been well and intensively trained during their initial national service. Subsequently they were liable to a certain follow-up period, but unfortunately they then disappeared from the scene. These are all well-trained soldiers whom one should be able to utilize in the interests of the country until they reach an age where they are no longer able to do so.

I wish to point out a long-felt need which exists particularly in constituencies like mine. The headquarters of the Christiaan Beyers Regiment and of the Pietersburg Commando are situated in Pietersburg. If there is one deficiency or loophole which must be eliminated, we find it to a large extent in the Bill now before this House. The volunteers of this very important section of the Defence Force are, inter alia, voters of mine with whom it has been my privilege to have lived and worked very closely during the past seven years. I was also in the privileged position of having been a member of the Defence Study Group of the NP, and I say this with great appreciation. That group made an intensive study of the problems of our Commando and Citizen Force elements, in all conceivable circumstances throughout South Africa. Consequently I want to thank the hon. the Minister for the privilege I had of participating in that intensive, in-depth inquiry. One thing in particular that struck me during that inquiry was that, just as the topography of our country, the scenic beauty of this wonderful country, varies, with its mountains and valleys along the coast, its vast expanses and flats in the interior, and the charm and wonderful sentimental value which the Bushveld has for us, so the operational conditions of our Commandos in particular vary from place to place throughout South Africa because they are area bound. That is why I am requesting the hon. the Minister not to concede to the leftist elements here in this House. Let us accept the principle of this Bill at Second Reading, without the least trace of a doubt.

I also wish to ask the hon. the Minister not to give way to pressure, within or outside this House, to change the principles contained in this legislation. While the hon. the Minister is now prepared to refer this legislation to a Select Committee after Second Reading, I want to request him earnestly not to allow the important aspects of the legislation to be watered down in that committee, because that would not be in the best interests of South Africa.

I predict that the PFP is going to do its best to achieve its object, for otherwise there is going to be trouble in its ranks. Only yesterday I read a report in The Citizen …

Do not believe everything you read in the newspapers.

… in which the following was stated—

The reporter went on to say—

I am asking the hon. member for Yeoville whether that is true or not. I hear that they held a long caucus meeting and at the same time I wish to congratulate the hon. member for having won. He has really struck a blow.

Did your present group win or lose?

From that I have to infer that even the politics of the PFP has moved to the right a little, for on a previous occasion the hon. member for Yeoville was still in a minority. [Interjections.] Because I myself am still an affiliated member of the Pietersburg Commando, I should like on this occasion to spell out a few of the problems in this commando. I am doing this to emphasize in particular the most important principles of this legislation. The task of this commando in particular is, inter alia, territorial protection, the protection of national key points, and of home and hearth, assistance to the S.A. Police on an ongoing basis, as well as civil defence organizations and the collecting of information. That task has to be carried out by three companies, of which B company and C company consist of volunteers, and the membership of which in any event displays a downward tendency. It is not I who says this. The recently published White Paper on Defence mentions this itself. On page 13 of the White Paper we read—

To what is this downward tendency in the membership attributable? That is what I now wish to discuss. Why has this problem of below strength force levels arisen? There are many reasons for that. I do not have the time now to mention all of them, but I do wish to refer to a few.

In the first place, volunteers do not receive any remuneration from their employers while they are doing voluntary service. This means that only the volunteer who joins has to make sacrifices. The others earn money, enjoy their leisure time, etc., without any worries whatsover as far as the defence of their fatherland is concerned. If a volunteer does join this carefree corps outside there are at present no disciplinary steps which can be taken against such a volunteer. The presence of many a volunteer in the so-called small business undertakings, or even in farming practice, causes tremendous financial losses, while the volunteers in question have to perform their compulsory military service. Too great a burden is being placed on the shoulders of those volunteers. Then, too, there is the attitude of some employers which, I must say, is not what it ought to be. It is an attitude which is sometimes extremely unsatisfactory as regards the volunteer employee who goes to do his national service, in contrast to the national serviceman. The crux of the matter is that an ever growing burden has to be placed on the shoulders of an ever diminishing corps of volunteers. Consequently the actual state of affairs is that a large country town such as Pietersburg, with a population of more than 12 000 adults, has a commando of which the effective strength is far less than one tenth of its population. In general, therefore, it is in my opinion true that there is indeed an estimated minimum to 800 000 citizens, people between the ages of 17 and 60 years, who find themselves in the so-called uncontrolled national reserve and who have never yet made any contribution whatsoever to the defence of this country.

I do not wish to hurl any reproaches at them. However, the present system lends itself to the situation that has developed over the years. The vast majority of that 800 000 will therefore, without the least trace of doubt, have to play their part in the defence of South Africa. It is imperative that our national service obligations should in the Defence Force be more equally distributed in order to restrict the burden on the individual as far as possible, and also in addition to eliminate as far as possible any disruption of the other obligations of the citizens of our country.

We can argue further over the best way in which a plan may be implemented to realize this ideal in the most effective way. We can argue about that mattter when the Select Committee has enquired into the matter in depth. But what I want to state clearly and unequivocally in this House today is that, in regard to the principle of the present legislation, the CP supports the hon. the Minister wholeheartedly. This is a matter which, we believe, is entirely in the national interests. The escalation of hostilities on our borders, and the evidence of a stockpiling of armaments, is clear for everyone to see, and hon. members were with us on the border after Operation Protea. Surely the arms and ammunition which we saw there were not intended for a terrorist war. Surely they were arms and ammunition which indicated a conventional onslaught on South Africa. That is why I say that it is expected of every patriotic South African—every citizen of the country—to play his part to ensure that the heritage of his forefathers is preserved for posterity.

That is why I should like to support the motion of the hon. the Minister on behalf of the CP. We shall give him our full support throughout.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pietersburg spoke longingly of the days when he was still a member of the NP study group on defence. It seems to me he is almost regretful that he left this group. [Interjections.] He really spoke like a Nationalist again.

He is still a Nationalist.

Those hon. members discarded the name of Nationalists—but let us rather leave the matter at that.

We retained the principles.

I just want to say …

Adriaan, do you want him back?

No! We are grateful for the support of the CP for this Bill. I think it would be a good thing if we tried to keep this matter out of the political arena as far as possible.

At the outset I should like to exchange a few words with the hon. member for Yeoville. We know where we stand with the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Wynberg on defence matters. We do have problems with certain other hon. members of the PFP, but we have no misgivings over where the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Wynberg stand when it comes to the defence of our country. Nor do I have much fault to find with many of the things which the hon. member for Yeoville said here this morning. However, the hon. member for Yeoville, as the hon. member for Pretoria West pointed out, came forward with his annual request to us to expand the Permanent Force, as though that would be the whole answer to our defence problems in South Africa.

Not the whole answer, but part of the answer.

The expansion of the Permanent Force is the declared objective of the Defence Force and of the Government. There must be no doubt about that. However, it is not the whole answer. [Interjections.] Let us for a moment consider the realities of South Africa. Our country is too vast, and if we want an umbrella defence cover of people throughout the country at all times, 24 hours a day and 12 months of the year, how on earth are we going to succeed in doing it with a Permanent Force? Can hon. members imagine how large the Permanent Force will then have to be? I think it is a perfectly simple fact that we should tell one another frankly that we would not be able to afford it. That is why it is essential that we should try to solve the problem in some other way, as the Defence Force and the hon. the Minister are now in fact trying to do. We are doing so by saying that we are going to expand the Permanent Force, and indeed we wish to expand it. This is the objective we have set ourselves, and we are working towards it. However, we must make use of people throughout the country as our eyes and ears. For example, they must be able to concentrate on farms in the widely scattered, remote areas of our country. That is why I think that the proposal made by the hon. member is an impractical one which will provide no answer to our particular problem.

The hon. member for Yeoville also said that he and members of the public had the impression that we had not informed them on the situation in South Africa.

Not well enough.

That is really absolute rubbish. Do we have another Rip van Winkle? Where was the hon. member during the past few months and years when the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Defence told the people of South Africa of the threat in this House, as well as from one platform to another, told them what was happening, what South Africa was heading for? One really should not hurl an accusation at this side of the House to the effect that we did not do this, and then try to hide behind that accusation. It is a very thin screen for those hon. members to hide behind, and all I can say is that it is not going to work.

But you have failed.

The hon. member for Bryanston says we have failed. That may be, but do hon. members know what contributed to our possible failure? It was also attributable to the behaviour of the hon. members of the Official Opposition.

Did you read the NP newspapers?

The hon. member for Yeoville admitted in this House that there was a threat to the country. To this country. He had occasion to say this, but there are other hon. members on that side of the House who said that there was no threat to South Africa. [Interjections.] Surely there are people outside who listen to what those hon. members say. There are not many of them in this House at the moment, but at least there are some people who listen to them.

Who is dragging politics into the political debate now?

If the official Opposition minimizes the threat against South Africa, surely they are not making our task any easier.

What are you doing to the level of this debate now?

Wait a minute. We shall come back to the hon. member for Yeoville in a moment, but I wish to dispose of the accusations made by the hon. member for Yeoville. Consequently it was he who determined the level of the debate. He must now take what is coming to him, sit back peacefully and listen to what I have to say.

You have a problem, man.

Mr. Speaker, I did not interrupt the hon. member for Yeoville while he was speaking. He must please give me a chance now to talk to him for a while.

If the amending Bill which we are debating here today contributes to bringing home more emphatically the seriousness of the situation in which South Africa finds itself today to people here and to those outside this House, then it is a good thing. We have no doubt about that. I see the hon. member for Bryanston is rising. I would be glad if he did not leave, because I wish to say a few words to him in a moment. The hon. member for Yeoville said that we expected too much from our people. I wish to admit that with the amendments which we are now going to effect, we are going to expect a great deal from our people, but the price of freedom is high. Only those who are prepared to pay that price will retain that freedom. That is why I believe that, as I know our people, the average South African will be prepared to pay that price for South Africa.

The story is now being repeated and is doing the rounds outside—we heard it the other evening on the television—that the Defence Force did not consult employers’ organizations and other people in South Africa properly. It was said that these proposals had come as a terrible shock to them. But what are the facts? During this investigation on which the Defence Force was engaged for two years, the investigating team consulted and was briefed by many persons and organizations. I have here a list of approximately 25 organizations and other interested parties who were consulted, who were involved in the inquiry and with whom discussions were held from time to time.

Read it out.

I shall! There was, inter alia, the Secretary to the University Principals, the S.A. Agricultural Union, organized commerce and industry, the controlling body of the ex-servicemen’s organization and the defence manpower liaison committees, on which representatives of the following organizations serve: The S.A. Agricultural Union, the Association of Chambers of Commerce, the Steel and Engineering Industries Federation of South Africa, the S.A. Federated Chamber of Industries, the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut, the S.A. Institute of Chartered Accountants, the Association of General Banks and Finance Houses, the Building Industries Federation, the Association of Building Societies of South Africa, the Chamber of Mines, the Automobile Manufacturers Employers’ Association, the Motor Industries Federation and others. I can continue in this vein but I just wish to make the point that there were wide-ranging consultations and discussions with the employers’ organizations to indicate to them: “We have a problem: we are thinking in this direction; we should like to seek a solution with you”.

The hon. member for Bryanston, during the speech made by the hon. member for Pretoria West this morning, in which he spoke of the leak which had occurred, insinuated by way of an interjection in his normal manner—after all, he puts his foot in it every time—that we on this side of the House had leaked that information. [Interjections.] Surely he was the one to do so.

I was only asking.

What are the facts now? The first report on this matter which appeared in detail in the Press, appeared in an English-language afternoon newspaper here in Cape Town. Surely that much is true. We on this side of the House to not really have any sound relations with that newspaper. [Interjections.]

Are none of you able to speak English?

Are you unable to leak information in English?

The hon. members must give me a chance now. I wish to call upon someone to give evidence for us on this matter. On 28 March a report appeared in the Sunday Express under the headline “New call-up Bill may mean public split in the PFP”. Let us forget about the “split” for a moment. They are enjoying this division in the ranks of the NP terribly, but we shall come to that again later. The report went on to read—

Order! The hon. member may not quote that report.

It is a banana split.

If I may not quote the report, surely I may refer to it. [Interjections.] I heard that an hon. member of the PFP leaked certain information to the newspapers. Furthermore, my information is, in addition, that a senior hon. member of the PFP allegedly said: “We have a Judas in our midst”. It is not hon. members on this side of the House who said that. Somewhere on that side of the House you will find a Judas, and we wonder who he is.

I said that South Africa is being threatened from all quarters and in numerous areas today. This is a harsh, irrefutable fact, and I think that hon. members on that side of the House must by this time at least agree with us on that score. The entire Southern Africa is being threatened by communist expansionists forces which are moving down on us. They are spear-headed by Swapo in South West Africa and the ANC here in South Africa. During the past few weeks we heard this again from Washington in the form of evidence given by people who are not friends of South Africa, but who were our enemies and who at one stage were fighting us. That is why I wish to emphasize very emphatically here this morning that any person who ignores that evidence is a fool. It is a fact that grave dangers are descending rapidly on South Africa.

Russia’s objective is the Republic of South Africa. It means to capture us and gain our strategic situation. What is more, it is seeking the minerals which are to be found here, because with those minerals it will be able to force the Free World to its knees.

Apartheid is its biggest ally.

You are talking rubbish! This is not a dream, it is reality. When these revolutionary warmongers threaten a country such as South Africa, there is a classical pattern which they follow. Firstly an effective organization is established to engage in the struggle. A command structure, with logistical support and men under arms, is established and is then expanded. In the case of South and Southern Africa, this already exists. We have Swapo in South West Africa and the ANC in this country. A second phase follows in which acts of terror, aimed at the local population, are committed to an increasing extent. Hon. members all know that this stage was also reached long ago in South Africa. Terroristic deeds have, during the past decade and even before that, become part of our pattern of life here in South Africa. What is more, in spite of our best efforts these acts have increased by more than 200% during the last six months of last year.

The third phase in such a revolutionary war is the entry of guerilla forces into the struggle. This means larger and better equipped forces, with heavier armaments. This we have already seen in South West Africa. We saw the heavy armaments there and those heavy armaments—the tanks and anti-aircraft guns—are not the weapons of terrorists, but those of a guerrilla force. The hon. member for Pietersburg also referred to this aspect. Once such an organization exists, acts of terrorism are constantly committed, and once there has been an attack or attempted attack by a guerrilla force, the time is ripe for a large and well-equipped mobile force to enter the fray to engage in conventional warfare. This is the fourth and final phase. In Southern Africa this classical pattern is being assiduously followed. Only the effective actions of our Defence Force have prevented it from developing further. We know that these things are not a figment of the imagination. Russia has brought forward the time-table for the completion and disposal of this operation. The hon. the Minister stated here in this House that the next five years would be of critical importance in this connection. That time-table was brought forward from 1990 to 1985. We are saying this with the utmost seriousness to hon. members on the other side of the House and also to the general public outside to please refrain from making the accusation that we are not keeping people informed of these facts. It is the objective of our enemies to do in South Africa what they want to do within the next five years. Let me make that plain now. We on this side of the House have no intention of sitting with our arms folded and waiting until they descend on us. We are not prepared to do that. We are not going to be led like lambs to the slaughter. This we say with the greatest emphasis, and everyone will simply have to take cognizance of it.

This Government does not consist of mere talkers. We on this side of the House are men of action. The hon. the Prime Minister built up our Defence Force over many years until it became the strongest in Africa. South Africa’s armaments industry is one of the largest in the world. We are also very proud of the fact that our soldiers are among the best in the world. This was brought about through hard work and dedication. We have trained them until they reached the point where they need not be afraid or ashamed to look any enemy of our fatherland in the eye. But it is also a fact that we are too few to do what has to be done. We do not have enough men to use for the defence of South Africa. This is what the Defence Force has communicated to us authoritatively, and we ourselves have also observed that they are scarcely able to cope with the present level of threat, and that any further escalation of violence, whether internal or across the country’s borders, would be very difficult to deal with. To do this with the present manpower would in any event only mean that we would have to place a heavier burden on the manpower which we have at our disposal today.

It is a pity to have to make the admission that our people in South Africa are unfortunately no longer prepared to enter the Defence Force voluntarily in sufficient numbers to contribute their share to the Defence Force. We have the evidence to prove this. So we have heard, for example, that in an urban area of Pretoria where an urban commando has certain key points to guard, there are approximately 72 000 White men between the ages of 17 and 60 years living there, and that fewer than 200 of them are prepared to serve voluntarily in that commando. We have witnessed the same phenomenon in the Far Northern Transvaal. We have seen in the Eastern Province Command that people who were involved in the commandos in that area dwindled from more than 5 000 in 1978 to less than 4 000 in 1981. The Defence Force has informed us, we who are sitting here today and who have to take this decision—because we are responsible—that they have too few men to perform the task which we expect them to perform. That is why we are seeking people to use our weapons, which are effective and among the best, properly in the defence of our fatherland. We need them to prevent our Christian values of life, our civlization and the stability which prevails in South Africa, from being destroyed by the forces of revolution and violence.

While I am talking about the forces of revolution and violence which are descending upon us, I also wish to point out that those forces have increased dramatically during the past five to 10 years. The hostile forces, the soldiers themselves, have increased at least fourfold during the past 10 years, enemy tanks and other armaments such as aircraft have increased at least threefold in Southern Africa. They are drawing a curtain of steel right across Africa and around South Africa. We cannot ignore this, these are the realities.

As I have said, we shall not sit back and accept this situation with folded arms. In the past the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Defence did not hesitate to take action when South Africa’s interests were endangered, nor will they hesitate to do so in future. In view of the proven threat against South Africa, however, we are equally determined to adopt the necessary precautionary measures in good time by training manpower wherever necessary, so that we can be prepared when the day arrives when we need it. If we cannot get them as volunteers, we have no other choice but to require them to come forward to stand by us when this work has to be done. The idea of compulsory training is not a new idea, or such a terrible idea either. After all, we are today, under the present national service system, obliging a certain number of men to participate for a period of 10 years in the defence of our fatherland. Actually we are simply extending this now to other people in South Africa. In passing I should like to make a few observations about the Coloured and Asian South African citizens. I want to tell them this: South Africa is your fatherland too, and we admit it. We are prepared to stand up and be counted in that regard. We are also telling the Coloureds and Asians to stand by South Africa, because it is their only fatherland. We are not compelling them to defend South Africa. We think that certain matters, to which we are at present giving attention, should first be rectified. The Coloureds and Asians must know that we are in earnest—and we are proving this as well—but they must also know that if the Whites who are today bearing the heaviest defence burden in South Africa should go under, nothing is going to remain of them either in South Africa or in the whole of Africa. Without the Whites there is no future for the Coloureds and Asians in Africa. We were all born in this country, and we will all die in this country. We are bound together by fate, and consequently whatever happens to the Whites will inevitably happen to the Coloureds and Asians as well.

We are therefore addressing a friendly invitation to the Coloureds and Asians to come to us. We are extending the hand of friendship to them all and inviting them to join the S.A. Defence Force voluntarily to help defend their fatherland as well. They have a role to play and can help to defend South Africa. If they do this, they will pluck the fruits of their actions in future.

With this Bill the Government is demonstrating in a tangible way its determination to maintain the stability, prosperity and peace which prevails in this country. The Government is in this way proving once again that it appreciates and accepts its responsibility for the safety of all population groups in South and Southern Africa. We are demonstrating that the safety of South African and all its people—White, Brown and Black—enjoys the highest priority and that the Government will under no circumstances flinch from this task, even if unpopular steps have to be taken in the short term. Moreover, the Government is committed to peaceful evolutionary change and is proving this by its deeds. But we wish to declare with the greatest emphasis that we are not prepared to allow changes to be forced upon us over the smouldering ruins of chaos and disorder. For that reason we need a strong and efficient Defence Force. This legislation is a thoroughly planned and well-considered attempt to ensure this. We in this House enjoyall the rights and privileges which any free, democratic system of government and country can offer a person, and everyone who enjoys those rights and privileges is compelled to help to protect those privileges, even with our lives, if that should be asked of us. There is no honourable way in which we can escape this duty which rests upon us.

As citizens of South Africa we must discharge our obligation. If other methods do not succeed, one must be prepared to defend one’s country with everything one has. It does not matter in this respect what Government is in power, and the issue is not whether one is suffering hardships or not, because that is not relevant. All that is important is that the survival of one’s country and one’s way of life is at stake. One must be prepared to stand up and be counted in favour of these things. If one is not prepared to do so while one is living in safety and in abundance, it is disloyalty towards one’s fatherland of the worst degree. Any person who, by word or deed, incites people into failing to discharge their obligation to defend their fatherland, is a disgrace to his nation and deserves to be treated with the utmost contempt. Such a person is not worthy of the name of patriot, and is nothing but a traitor to his country and his people.

The envisaged system will require sacrifices from all of us, but if we wish to survive the threats which are staring us in the face, we must also be prepared to make sacrifices. These envisaged amendments however, do not ask so much of us that we are unable to make those sacrifices, and that is why we on this side of the House gladly support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whom the hon. member for Verwoerdburg was trying to convince with regard to the threat to South Africa, because I think we all accept that there is indeed a threat to South Africa. [Interjections.] Although I do not defend the PFP very often, I have to say, in all fairness, that that was not what the hon. member for Yeoville said. He did not say that there was no threat. I must say that to an extent I agree with the hon. member for Yeoville that the way in which that threat is being used is causing its impact to be lost to South Africa. Right or wrong, we cannot escape the fact that the public in general regards it as an exaggerated warning. The Defence Force itself is to be blamed for this to a certain extent. I have before me the Press release issued together with this Bill. It was issued on 19 March this year.

†This document starts off with the usual phraseology, namely—

That is correct in regard to the broad philosophy of communism. However, it does no good to start off with this sort of phraseology when everybody knows that the real threat on the ground is the surrogates being used by Russia and by communism in the form of Swapo, the ANC and other forces.

But surely that is covered by the quoted statement?

Yes, it is covered. However, in the same document—and I quote from page 6—we find the following—

In other words, we are the people who are on top. We are the people who are in control. We are dictating the course of operations. The statement goes on to say—

It goes on in the same vein and I agree with it. I agree entirely that we are on top. This is one of the big problems that I am experiencing in connection with this measure. Although I have the greatest respect for the hon. the Minister, I think he was a very much better soldier than he is a politician. I am afraid that he has handled this measure like a rookie with two left feet. [Interjections.] It is true. I say this because what concerns me is not so much the content of the Bill which we can deal with in the debate.

What does concern me is the false impact this legislation has made inside and outside South Africa. I do not blame the S.A. Defence Force for it because they have fulfilled their obligations. They had a specific manpower problem and they carried out a standard exercise to set out the guaranteed manpower requirements necessary to meet the worse prognosis of the possible situation that could arise in South Africa. In other words, they planned their manpower requirements based on the worst contingency. It is also quite natural—I do not blame anybody for it—that the planners and unit commanders would plan for the most ideal situation that they could visualize. They would plan for a situation that would remove all their problems and their headaches. Then they would also add something here and there to make provision for contingencies and the possibility that they might not get all that they asked for. However, with a former chief of the SADF as Minister, there is probably the expectation: Ask and ye shall receive. I do not blame the Army in particular, because this is mainly an Army problem, for asking Parliament and South Africa for the maximum manpower which they have calculated they ought to receive. They are carrying out certain tasks. The letters have changed since my days, but they did what is now the procedure for orders, i.e. the “S.M.E.A.C.” formula. They had a problem “Situation” and their “Mission” was to work out a solution for it. The “Execution” of that mission is this Bill, and so it leads to the “Administration” and the “Command and control”. That was correct; that was the duty of the Army. Our duty as a Parliament, however, is the combat appreciation: i.e. the “G.R.O.U.N.D.” appreciation of the “Given picture”.

Here I want to join with other speakers who have expressed appreciation for the briefings which we have had, the information that has been given to us and the contact we have had with units in order to hear from the units themselves what their problems are. That is the “Given picture” which we have received. I join the hon. members and add to theirs my own thanks to the hon. the Minister and the Chief of the SADF and his staff for all the information put at our disposal.

The second point in a combat appreciation is the way which one is going to travel, the “Route” to be followed, the terrain and the planning of one’s attack. That is our task, and with that we are now dealing in this House.

In a combat appreciation one also has to look at the third letter, the ‘O’ in “GROUND”, i.e. the “obstacles”. We have to look at the obstacles which stand in the way of carrying out the mission as the Army sees it. Then there is also the question of “Undercover”.

The second last task in a combat appreciation, the letter ‘N’ is to look for “Non-passables”; i.e. the blocks, the impassable situations which one must bypass or deal with in another way because one cannot get past them.

Lastly—this is the whole essence of the measure—there is the D in “GROUND”; i.e. the “Distance” and time. The essence of what we are dealing with here is time and distance.

I have outlined the task of Parliament. Against that background I am sorry that this debat has taken the turn it has, that it has become politicized, that it has moved in a direction which I think is not in keeping with the spirit in which we have always dealt with defence matters in this House.

To a large extent I agree with the hon. member for Yeoville and in my speech I shall cover a lot of the field which was covered by him. I agree with, I should say, 70% of what he said, but it was his conclusion that worried me, the reason why this Bill should go to a Select Committee before Second Reading, because in the reasons which he advanced there was nothing material which concerned the Bill. The content which matters, the period of service, the ages until which people should serve and the number of days they should serve are all aspects which can and will be considered by the Select Committee. That is why I approached the Parliamentary authorities through my Whip to make certain that in terms of the Rules of Procedure of Parliament these issues, the question of years, ages and periods of time, were not principles, but matters which a Select Committee appointed after Second Reading would be competent to debate and amend. The scope of the measure can be limited provided that there is no conflict with the principles. The principles have been outlined by the hon. the Minister. Therefore the Select Committee will betotally free to consider and amend the detail.

There is, however, another thing I regret. The hon. the Minister in his introduction this morning said he was not only agreeable—and I asked him the question specifically—that the Select Committee should look at and debate and, if necessary, recommend changes in the time, period, number of days and ages. He, in fact, expected that they would do this. He put it as a specific expectation that the Select Committee should, in fact, look at these points in depth. The question of disagreement over time, period and ages is therefore not a reason to refer the Bill to a Select Committee before the Second Reading.

The Bill already has had an impact on the public, and I have already said that in my view this legislation has been badly handled because it has made a wrong impact upon the public. Referring the Bill to a Select Committee before the Second Reading is therefore not in any way going to change or wipe out that impact. I do not blame the hon. the Minister entirely for this, because how was he to know that there was some traitor—and I use the word “traitor” deliberately and explicitly—who, for motives that I regard as obvious wanted to stir the pot and leak the original draft incorrectly to the Press? I believe the motive behind that is quite clear. It was done in order to make the worst possible impact on public opinion in regard to what was to be proposed. For that the legislation had to be seen in bald form, with no explanation of how it would be applied, nor of its intention. Where I do, however, criticize the hon. the Minister and those who dealt with that aspect is that I believe that they could have dealt with this matter in a much better way after the leak than it was in fact dealt with, and in this regard I have the news release from the hon. the Minister himself. The impact created was that South Africa was in a panic and that we were mobilizing our total manpower. The very first thing the hon. the Minister says in his Press release which he issued in an effort to put things in perspective is—

The immediate impact of this statement was that the military threat against South African is escalating to the extent that we now have greater force level demands. It is, however, not the full picture. The full picture is that the force availability has to an extent been reduced because of less people volunteering, because of the greater number of applications for deferment and exemption, and a number of other reasons. It was therefore not the full story to say that the escalation of the threat and chiefly greater force level demands were the chief reasons for this legislation. In explaining the needs for this measure, we have for instance the statement that volunteers cannot be depended upon as a force and that those who still remain as members are seldom available for operational service. What a way to talk of the people who are the key, the backbone of the whole Citizen Force structure—the volunteer officers! How can it be said that they cannot be depended upon and that they are seldom available?

[Inaudible.]

That is not what was intended. It is not what the hon. the Minister meant, but that is what he said.

Mr. Speaker, before business was suspended I was dealing with the question of this measure being referred to a Select Committee either before or after Second Reading. I pointed out then that in terms of the Rules and Procedure the matters contained in this Bill are all of such a nature that they can be dealt with in the Select Committee. I have said that I also have problems in regard to periods of service, ages, etc. However, the other reasons raised by the hon. member for Yeoville why the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee before Second Reading have nothing to do with this Bill or with the purpose of this Bill at all. This is a Bill designed basically to deal with the manpower requirements of the S.A. Defence Force. I regret very much the fact that extraneous issues should be dragged into this debate.

I was asked by hon. members of the PFP who had started bringing politics into the matter. I must say it was the hon. member for Yeoville. After a good speech, in which he said the right things, things with which everybody agreed, positive things relating to attitudes towards security, he brought in as reasons for why this measure should be referred to a Select Committee before Second Reading, the quesion of conscientious objection, the secrecy provisions relating to section 118 covering disclosure of information, and the position of immigrants.

Those matters can also be brought up in the Select Committee. What is wrong with mentioning them here in the House?

The hon. the Minister has indicated that two of these issues—conscientious objection and the position of immigrants—are being dealt with at the moment.

How can that be party politics, Vause? You are not so stupid, are you?

That is the point, Mr. Speaker. I am not so stupid. [Interjections.] This is clearly and obviously a ploy to enable the PFP to say they voted against this measure … [Interjections.] … and to say that they voted against it in principle. [Interjections.] They are not voting against this measure. They are voting in order to passify those in their own party who want to raise issues such as conscientious objection and the matter of secrecy contained in the Steyn report. I regret it. [Interjections.] I regret it as much as I regret the reaction by some hon. members on the Government side who also responded by bringing in politics from a different angle. That indicated indeed an unwillingness to look at anything pertaining to this Bill other than to accept it exactly as it is.

I know that is not the attitude of the hon. the Minister of Defence because he has said so here. We are not going to be dragged into the politicization of a measure which has one objective, the objective of dealing with manpower. The hon. the Minister has outlined the three principles contained in this measure. I want to make it absolutely clear that by voting for this Bill to be referred to a Select Committee before Second Reading, the official Opposition is voting against the principle of the Bill.

Who is playing politics now, Vause?

The principle of the Bill, as set out clearly by the hon. the Minister, has three components, viz. the extension of service, the bringing in of everyone into an active national reserve, and the area service. Once that is opposed one completely ruins the possibility of getting agreement on changes which could be effected by the Select Committee.

It is a pity that the hon. the Minister did not take notice of the warnings voiced by us over the years in regard to the effect that the 90-day border service was having, particularly on the volunteer leadership cadre. I referred earlier to the reflection on volunteers in the hon. the Minister’s Press statement. In the very next paragraph he states that virtually the entire cadre of senior leaders in the part-time forces comprises volunteers. I warned that the 90-day camps were going to undermine the position of the volunteer leader who wanted to serve, who was dedicated to the forces but who could not give up three months every year or every other year because of his business and domestic commitments. I believe that in the Select Committee we will have to look very hard indeed at this question of the 90-day provision. We must look for alternatives, something to which the hon. member for Yeoville referred, e.g. greater full-time forces. Every single person serving in a full-time capacity avoids 10 Citizen Force members having to do border service. This is something we can do in the Select Committee.

One thing I do welcome is the correction of the iniquity that has pertained, one of the few things we have voted against in a Defence measure in this House. I am referring to the principle of calling a person up for 90 days and giving him 30 days credit. I welcome the fact that that provision is going to be removed and that that iniquity is going to disappear. We cannot accept, however, that the quid pro quo should be 720 days of service. We want to look at that figure, look at the requirements, and see whether we cannot get some other solution that is not going to place so heavy a burden on the economy, especially on the leadership echelons for 12 or 14 years of those people’s lives.

I believe that it is possible to find solutions to these problems. These are things we can discuss, but rather than take a stand in this debate, a public stance, which means one cannot negotiate without losing face, I would prefer to accept that in principle there will be an increase, without placing any conditions on what that should be at this stage of the debate. We can then deal with it with an open mind, with hands untied, in the Select Committee itself. Once one has voted here, one has voted against the principle and one’s hands are tied in the Select Committee.

The third principle that I welcome is that everyone will have a military commitment, will play his part in the defence of the country. There is nothing that causes more resentment than the fact that there are men sitting at home comfortably who, when their friends are called up, say: “Cheerio! I am all right, Jack. Have fun!” Then those who have not been called up sit back, pull in the money and get the promotions. I believe that it is right that those who have escaped service should be brought in, but again we have the theoretical overkill. We are going to call up people for 1 000 days, up to the age of 60 years, at a rate of 50 days per year! Obviously it is not the intention to apply those provisions fully. But there are visions of annual 12-day camps, with grandfathers going off to camp in uniform with their kitbag. That is all wrong.

I wonder if you can fit into a uniform.

I happen to have a uniform. I happen to be a serving associate commando member, and they did find a uniform to fit me! [Interjections.] I must admit that the belt is a little tight. What is more, I wear the uniform, proudly.

Vause, do you do your service from the lounge or the bedroom?

The kitchen!

I am doing part of my service now, in this debate, speaking up for the soldiers of South Africa, the youth of South Africa, so that we can get them the best possible deal. Obviously one cannot call up 800 000 men on the uncontrolled reserve. It is simply nonsense. Why, then, put this into a Bill and thereby create a certain impression? I believe that what we have to look for is a method—perhaps the phasing in of additional service—of providing compulsory service for the minimum requirement, a realistic requirement, then providing for contingency obligations to meet emergencies or escalation. Then people will know, not what they might have to do in five years’ time, not what the theoretical indications on the drawing board indicate, but what is needed now to provide for additional requirements if the need should arise.

Then we shall have the whole argument all over again …

One should not make provision for this ab initio, on the basis of figures that are frightening the life out of the people of South Africa. Those hon. members may be blind to that, but it is creating a reaction. A commanding officer has told me that he has eight officers—a small unit—who say they are now going to inquire about emigrating from South Africa. That is how serious it is. There will be people who will emigrate, not because of what they will have to do, but because of what they have been told they will have to do in terms of this measure.

That is absolute nonsense.

That is why I believe we must go into the Select Committee with an open mind and try to set out more specifically the details of what people will actually have to do. We must let the public know that the 12 days can be done in one-and-a-half-hour, three-hour or four-hour shifts, that 24 eight-hour periods of guard duty will give them 12 days’ service without interrupting their life or work at all. This is not understood properly and that is why I criticized the hon. the Minister. I believe he has not put across to the people, and that it is not understood by the people, exactly what is intended.

Another consideration is that after Operations Protea, Carnation Daisy and Super, those fantastic operations, those tremendous successes, the last thing South Africa must do is to create any impression that we are in a crisis or that we are losing the battle. We are not, and therefore we do not want to create that impression by doing drawing-board calculations which mislead the enemy into thinking we are a nation in arms. We are not. All we are seeking to do is to provide requirements against possibilities.

For that reason I believe it can only do harm if we continue this sort of debate, which will escalate and turn this into a political issue. I could talk about commandos who say to me: “Ek het padgegee, want dit word nou deur ’n klomp Rapportryers beheer en daar is offisiere met ’n St. VIII-sertifikaat” and so on, but that is of no help.

Why then are you mentioning it?

Because it is something that is said, in the same way that other people have been throwing accusations about today.

We shall support the principles of this Bill and we shall vote for it at the Second Reading. In the Committee Stage, however, we shall seek to amend those provisions with which we disagree. I shall specify them. They are the period of 720 days, over 14 years, the cycle of two years with a 90-day camp every other year, the compulsory commitment up to the age of 60 and the 1 000 days over 20 years. Those are the things the details of which I believe must be looked at to determine what is practical. It is obviously not possible to call up 800 000 people. It is obviously not practicable to have them all in the Force; it is not practicable to provide them with uniforms, to arm them and to have them in service. Why then include a provision which we know cannot be carried out? These are things we can look at in the Select Committee. I do not believe, however, that this is the time to start raising matters like conscientious objection and the secrecy provisions of section 118, which for the purposes of this Bill are entirely red herrings.

A political ploy is not going to remove the shame which rests on the person, the traitor, who forced this debate by leaking this measure to the Press, forced it to the detriment of South Africa and the Defence Force. I hope that his shame will live with him and that we as a Parliament will be able to undo the damage by getting the greatest possible measure of agreement on the details to be amended. Our final stand will depend on the extent to which we can reach an agreement which will be acceptable to us. This will appear at the Third Reading.

The hon. member for Yeoville has requested the opportunity to make a personal explanation. I grant him that opportunity now.

Mr. Speaker, a report has appeared in the afternoon Press that I am alleged to have said this morning that the Army has lost the confidence of the public. I think that you, Sir, and hon. members of the House know that I did not use those words. I referred to the lack of confidence in regard to the projection of the Bill. So I want to make it quite clear that I did not use those words. As far as I am concerned I have complete confidence in the S.A. Defence Force and I also believe the public has full confidence in the S.A. Defence Force as a fighting force. I believe that the report was probably due to an endeavour to try to paraphrase something in a hurry and I have already asked that it be corrected. I think it would be unfortunate if it were said that the public does not have confidence in the S.A. Defence Force.

Mr. Speaker, before reacting to the argument of the hon. member for Durban Point I want to say to the hon. member for Yeoville that personally, I accept his explanation. I have always know him to be a man with very strong sentiments as far as the Defence Force is concerned. It would have been unfortunate if he had indeed said what he has been interpreted as having said. At the same time I must say that if a man is to stand up and explain what he really wanted to say, then he should perhaps have chosen his words a little more carefully in the first place.

I did not say that, and you know it.

I accepted that.

To come back to the argument of the hon. member for Durban Point, he was his old self again, in his idiom “true to type”. The hon. member has the habit if he has very little to say or if someone else has already said what he wanted to say, of periodically coming up with something cutting and angry. His cutting reference to the hon. the Minister of Defence as one who is about as at home in politics as a recruit with two left feet, was uncalled for and was not worthy of the hon. member. I want to say to the hon. member that he is quite a lovable person but he would have greater entertainment value if he were to leave sarcasm of that nature.

I also wish to refer to his reference to the hon. the Minister’s statement. He said that the hon. the Minister’s statement in regard to this Bill was supposedly alarmist, that because there was a manpower shortage in the Defence Force, he said that people would believe that there was all of a sudden going to be a total mobilization. Surely that is absolute rubbish. In South Africa, where a manpower shortage is a very well-known phenomenon in all the sectors, is it all of a sudden alarmist if the hon. the Minister says that there is a manpower shortage in the Defence Force as well, similar to that in the other sectors in South Africa? I do not wish to cross swords with the hon. member. All I want to do is as a radio personality once said, to give him, a few friendly clouts.

I also want to refer to the statement by him and the hon. member for Yeoville concerning the expansion of the Permanent Force. It is expressly implied that this must mean that fewer of our men from the Citizen Force, in other words, from the private sector, should be involved in border service. Do those hon. members not think that they have totally underestimated the morale-building effect on those men? The need only ask the senior members of the S.A. Defence Force. They will tell hon. members that when people go to serve on the border, they begin by moaning and groaning, but once they are there, they regard it as a privilege to fight for South Africa. That man comes back to his family, his circle of friends and his job with that motivation, and he spreads that motivation. We must never underestimate that. The S.A. Defence Force and its predecessors have always been a national Defence Force and will remain so. If one has the best motivated and most effective Defence Force in the world—and there is evidence to that effect—why then should one tamper with its structure, apart from the other considerations that have been and will be mentioned by hon. members on this side of the House? Due to the special circumstances and realities in South Africa, the S.A. Defence Force has always been very conservative in the number of personnel utilized for operational purposes. Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with the reference by the hon. member for Pretoria West to the statement by Gen. McArthur that “there is no substitute for victory”. Sir, in the case of South Africa this is even more valid, because our enemies have in mind not downfall, but destruction. Victory signifies success, and I want to say a few words about the success of our Defence Force. The present S.A. Defence Force and its predecessors have without doubt built up a very glorious military tradition for South Africa over the centuries. We are all acquainted with that history, and therefore I do not wish to dwell on it now.

However, I want to refer to certain recent events. In 1976, due to circumstances, we became involved in Angola. In spite of the fact that some of our weapon systems were not of the same standard as those of our adversaries—as we were told a few days ago as regards artillery weapons—a mere 2 000 South African soldiers succeeded in chasing 15 000 Cuban soldiers, and many more thousands of Angolan soldiers, around Angola, virtually at will. Within a very short time the military lot of Angola was, as it were, in the palm of the hand of the S.A. Defence Force. Since then we have won one success after the other. There have been other successful operations such as Smokeshell, Vietnam and Moscow. However, I want to refer more specifically to operations Protea, Daisy and the more recent Super, and to hot pursuit operations which have taken place. Since 1976, the sons of South Africa have written incomparable chapters in the annals of South African military history, and we thank them for that.

Hear, hear!

What has been achieved during these operations? During the last three operations, and certain hot pursuit operations, 1 467 terrorists have been killed and a large number wounded. Sophisticated weaponry, including Sam 7 missiles, artillery and Stalin organs valued at almost R300 000 have been captured, and weapons valued at far more, destroyed. The most important effect of the actions of the S.A. Defence Force on our border is that Swapo has been compelled to move its bases further and further back into Angola. This means longer lines of communications for Swapo, so that it has to convey its arms and equipment over longer distances, meaning that it can only move at night, out of fear and in the knowledge that if it moves by day, the S.A. Defence Force will ascertain the location of its new base. The break in their system of communications has undoubtedly led to the intensity of their activities in Ovambo having levelled off to a large extent. One now has the wonderful situation—if one could call such a thing wonderful—that our men are now looking for Swapo, rather than the other way around. Statistics show that in 70% of the cases where contact is made, it is made on the initiative of the S.A. Defence Force. Moreover, the actions of the S.A. Defence Force have shown Swapo that wherever they establish bases, the S.A. Defence Force is able, prepared and determined to exterminate them. It has also been shown that even moving under the umbrella of the Fapla forces of Angola guarantees Swapo no security or safety whatsoever.

During Operation Protea, the S.A. Defence Force dealt the Russian Bear a telling blow in a very sensitive part of its diplomatic anatomy, by shooting Russians and taking them prisoner, and thereby showing the world beyond the shadow of a doubt that in spite of the Russians’ own denial, they are indeed active in the destabilization of Southern Africa.

What, then, is the sum total effect of this action, using small numbers, of the S.A. Defence Force? Swapo has now been limited exclusively to the north of South West Africa. In the south, hardly any terrorist incidents still occur. Even their physical presence has become such a rarity in the north that we regularly have to cross the border to seek contact. The following is even more remarkable, and I find this very interesting: In spite of the fact that the terrorist has all the advantages on his side, that he does not have established bases that are visible, that he does not have to be at a specific place at a given moment because he has no task of defence or protection, but only a task of attack, that they move in small numbers and that they have a wooded terrain which affords them the possibility of concealment and that they therefore enjoy the full benefit of surprise, the mortality ratio in South West itself is 14 terrorists to one member of the Security Forces. In Angola it is even more dramatic—34 terrorists to one casualty for our forces.

I wonder whether we always fully grasp the circumstances in which the S.A. Defence Force is performing this task so outstandingly in South West. Do we always realize that these people have to act in a totally alien milieu, in an alien world with alien circumstances, with virtually no infrastructure, with no farms, hamlets and villages where they can make contact with their own people; only strangers with a strange tongue who, moreover, are initially fairly antagonistic? I think that all of us have heard about these facts before now from our sons, and from the sons of relations. They had to establish communication with these people, they had to win their confidence and gain their co-operation, and in this they have achieved truly dramatic success, as we know is the case at present. They are making it more and more impossible for Swapo to operate effectively in South West Africa.

I think we can say the S.A. Defence Force has accepted its challenges and succeeded dramatically. Once again, the main point is that our men, although small in number, are motivated and effective. Due to their individualism and daring, and the exceptional qualities of leadership that stem from that, they must certainly be regarded today as qualitatively among the best in the world. I think that one can say this with little fear of contradiction.

For the majority of hon. members this may be general knowledge, but what does a well-known militarist like Gen. Sir Walter Walker say of the S.A. Defence Force? Listen to this—

He goes on to say—

That is the crux of the matter.

We have always been conservative in our use of these extremely high calibre men of ours. For the world at large, the world which, according to the hon. members for Yeoville and Durban Point, is in turmoil about this terrible call-up that is at hand, I say that that is untrue. Our men will again be utilized and withdrawn circumspectly and conservatively in our military system, taking into account operational requirements only. I can imagine that in a sparsely populated border area, the majority of able-bodied men will be involved in the system, but I can also foresee that in regions where one has smaller tasks with higher concentrations of population, great circumspection and judgment will be exercised in first involving the more able men in the military system. Surely there is no doubt whatsoever on that score.

My time is expired and I must therefore conclude. Like the newspapers, the hon. member for Durban Point also referred to a “daddies’ and grandfathers’ army”, and I want to say to him that my late father regularly told me: Man, I do not see the sense in the young men, the flower of our nation, to go and fight; why do they not send the old men, because in any event they are not worth anything? I can imagine that there are a lot of men in this House who could be used to good effect in this regard.

We have these sons of ours in the S.A. Defence Force, the national defence force, who are so motivated, but the 800 000 men at home are surely their older brothers, their cousins, their fathers or their uncles; are they, then, not equally motivated? Is there any doubt on that score? Why, then, is there so much panic, according to the hon. member for Durban Point, if these men are brought in to fight for South Africa? I have no doubt that they will do so unhesitatingly and very willingly.

Mr. Speaker, thus far this debate has to my mind been characterized by three features. Firstly, after a week of rather interesting “broedertwis” we are now back to business as usual with all the other hon. members in this House against the hon. members of the PFP. Secondly, although the hon. member for Yeoville went out of his way to put a quiet, reasoned and logical case in support of the amendment that he moved, there has not been a single material argument from the other side of the House as to why our amendment should not be accepted. [Interjections.] We have had some fishing around in odd newspaper cuttings by the hon. member for Pretoria East, we have had some bluster about communism from the hon. member for Verwoerdburg and, among other things said by the hon. member for Sasolburg to which I shall return later, was the sinister little remark that the propaganda effect of serving in the military must not be overlooked.

What did you tell Springfield Convent?

However, we had no substantive argument as to why our amendment should not be accepted.

The third characteristic of the debate thus far was that we witnessed the active mating dance of the NRP in respect of the NP progressing here this afternoon. [Interjections.] I can only say that anybody who wishes to mate with the Hon. member for Durban Point is welcome to do so. [Interjections.]

At least he has got credibility. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mooi River says that at least the hon. member for Durban Point has credibility.

I thought he said “virility”.

If my information is correct, in 1967 the hon. member for Durban Point as chief spokesman for Defence moved the same or a similar amendment to the one we have moved in this House, and the Government accepted it. If it was right for him to do that in 1967, what has changed now that it is no longer right for him to do it in 1982?

He wants to join the Nats.

The difference is that he wants to go over to the other side. [Interjections.] The only thing he did wrong today in the eyes of the NP was that he missed his cue in getting up to ask his obviously staged question at the beginning of the debate.

The general point that I wish to make is that the debate on this Bill in this House is premature. I wish to motivate this by referring to three main arguments. Firstly, I believe it is premature because it should, before Second Reading, have been referred to a Select Committee where it would have been quietly reasoned and fully discussed and an attempt made, as far as possible, to achieve consensus among all the parties in this Parliament. In previous years we have gone out of our way to be accommodating in regard to the question of defence and the so-called multi-party approach, and what do we get for it? We have the ramrod approach of pushing through the Second Reading before a Select Committee and had the opportunity to adopt a reasoned approach towards the legislation. The hon. member for Durban Point has said that this Bill deals mainly with the manpower requirements of the Defence Force. He also said that it was acceptable in its present form. However, the manpower requirements of the Defence Force can be seen in terms of a package deal. This Bill focuses upon only one possible element of the manpower resources of the Defence Force, namely White male South Africans who are also citizens of this country. There are other resources to which the hon. member for Yeoville referred and which could also have been part of this package deal if the matter had been fully discussed and debated in a Select Committee, and these are now being overridden and shunted to one side. Such a package deal that could have been aired and discussed in a Select Committee could have included and should include the question of conscientious objection and the question of immigrants who can apply for citizenship of this country, but who choose not to, who could be drawn in to spread the load and assist those boys who are at present carrying that load. There were also the other points which the hon. member for Yeoville mentioned. This is the position notwithstanding the fact that the hon. the Minister himself has given notice that he is going to broach the question of conscientious objection later on in the session. Are we then going to have another Select Committee appointed in that regard? Why not one Select Committee in advance on Second Reading to thrash out an entire package deal instead of ramrodding a small segment of the issue through the House at Second Reading? [Interjections.]

I want to make a point just in passing. The hon. member for Pietersburg quoted from The Citizen, and I want to do so too. The Citizen takes our side in almost nothing, but even that newspaper in an editorial backed the point that we have made, and that is that there should be a Select Committee before the Second Reading. I believe hon. members on the other side of the House should really think again on this point.

The second reason why I maintain that the debate on this Bill is premature, is because a massive extension of civilian service is being proposed here. As an observer of the scene in military terms, it seems to me to be a massive over-reaction to the actual situation. The hon. member for Sasolburg has just told the House how we are clobbering our opponents in South Africa. He has emphasized how we are clobbering them and driving them out of sight. Indeed, we hear every month that we have the upper hand and have no reason to disbelieve this.

But don’t you understand what this is about?

I am coming to the hon. member for Verwoerdburg. On the diplomatic front we hear that we are about to move out of phase 1 and into phase 2 of the South West Africa/Namibia settlement which, presumably, means that we are on the road to a military withdrawal or at least a de-escalation of military activity in South Africa. Moreover, we are told that the Government has urban terrorism, such as it is, fully under control, that at the moment it is just in the pinprick stage.

Finally, we hear from the young men in our own constituencies that while doing their military service they have to spend long periods kicking their heels in frustrated boredom. In any Army there will be periods of frustrated boredom, but in ours these are at the moment considerable. I cannot see, therefore, that the situation is so urgent that the Second Reading of this Bill must be taken today and finished by a certain date so that the principles can be established. As far as I can see, the situation does not warrant such urgent action at all, and I do not support the hon. member for Sasolburg in what he said here today in this respect. [Interjections.]

The Government cannot have it both ways. Either we are in a crisis, in which case we should be told about it, or we are not in a crisis, as the propaganda wants to have it. What the hon. the Minister had to say in this regard did not enlighten us in any way on this point.

I should like to dwell on the third aspect of my motivation that this Bill is premature. Before this Bill can be properly debated in this House, we need to know considerably more about the Government’s plans for reform on the political front. [Interjections.] Well, somebody must say it, that one cannot debate a Bill of this nature—and this is a Bill with far-reaching implications—without considering the political background against which it is presented.

Now you are starting …

The importance of the whole background is that the Government’s attitude to reform is going to influence the attitude of large sections of the public to this Bill and its provisions. [Interjections.] The PFP has always expressed its support for the shield concept in South Africa. We have said repeatedly, and I say it today again, that we support the need for a shield behind which peaceful change can take place. We say the shield buys time for reform. It is a tragedy, however, that there are those—most of whom are sitting in the CP, but also others elsewhere in this House—who do not want the shield to buy time for change. They want the shield to buy time for no change. The reality is that there are many thousands of South Africans who are not prepared to defend apartheid. [Interjections.] They are not prepared to do it. Apartheid is not a bulwark against communism or against the escalating threat. It is an invitation. We have been warning for years that we have been caught up in a vicious spiral which is ultimately going to lead to a conflict situation. The reality of this Bill is that it represents at face value a twist in that spiral which is going to cause some form of conflict unless it is linked with a programme of active reform.

There are many spokesmen on all sides of the House, as well as spokesmen among the military, who have said that the solution to South Africa’s problems is 80% political and 20% military.

The Minister has said so himself.

Therefore we cannot escape from debating the political implications of the situation. When the hon. the Minister said, as other spokesmen also say, that this measure is necessary because there is an escalating threat, we in the PFP pose the question whether the threat would be escalating the way it is escalating if we were to do such things as call a national convention, extend political rights to other race groups, scrap the pass laws, phase out the Group Areas Act, etc. [Interjections.] Would the threat be escalating if we were carrying out educational reform? [Interjections.]

Van Zyl, what are you doing with that man in your party? [Interjections.]

To which clause are you speaking now?

We believe that the escalating threat can only be combatted satisfactorily by way of politics of reform and politics of negotiation. It would be self-defeating to respond only in terms of a military approach. The escalating threat must be combatted by reform. It cannot be met only with guns. If it is to be combatted by reform, if there were to be an active programme of reform—sound and credible reform—there would be a wide public response to the defence of the stability which is necessary for that reform to take place.

The hon. member for Durban Point has referred to this document, which opens with the extravagant phrase about Marxist-Leninist ideology. One has to respond to it because the hon. member for Verwoerdburg has raised the matter. Having read through this document very carefully I am left with the feeling that it is overstated. I cannot help but feel that this document, which talks so extravagantly of Marxist-Leninist threats, does not reveal the whole truth. It does not reveal the true perspective of the matter. [Interjections.] I am not alone when I say this. In recent testimony given by him Dr. Chester Crocker said the following about American policy—

We must remember that Dr. Chester Crocker is a friendly Republican diplomat representing the friendliest Administration we have had in America for many years. He says this is opportunistic fishing in troubled waters. This is the reality of the international chess game. Moscow sits trying to make its best move, while Washington sits trying to make its best move. The chess game goes on. That is the reality. Given that reality we must assure that our waters are not troubled.

You are really stirring up those waters now!

It is a myth to talk only of communism. If there were no communists there would still be the ANC to be reckoned with. We are not fighting Russians on our borders. We are not fighting Russians in our cities. [Interjections.] The unfortunate reality is that most of the young men bearing arms in these situations, who have tragically chosen the road of violence and may be imbued with an ideology which is not acceptable to the majority of people in South Africa, were born in this country. We must face that reality. Instead of whipping up emotional paranoia about a generalized communist threat we need to focus sharply on the claims for reform coming from our own people. When the Black man in this country dreams of a better deal in his own country, the land of his birth, those ideas must be met with better ideas, not simply with guns. I want to say, with all the seriousness I can command, that to frustrate the Black man in South Africa is to fail the White man. For all these reasons, I say that the Bill is premature. It should be referred to a Select Committee and should not come out of that Select Committee until the true nature of the reform the Government proposes is spelled out, until the true nature of the immense threat to the Republic is spelled out and until a full assessment has been made of the manpower resources that are available to the military. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying to the hon. member for Constantia that if there is one man in this House who is living in a fool’s paradise, it is he.

He belongs under the bed.

Today, in my opinion, he gave us, in an irresponsible way, a miscellany of data, a series of vague statements which made no one any the wiser. He also tried to drag politics into this matter. I think the hon. member for Durban Point is right. An old warhorse like him has already mentioned that those people will make politics out of this, and there is the proof, because they have made politics out of this. Therefore one cannot deceive an old warhorse like the hon. member for Durban Point. Nor did they fool him.

Hear, hear!

The official Opposition had the fright of their lives when this legislation was introduced. They had such a fright that leaks began to occur. It seems that the leaks were quite extensive, too. I have before me a report which appeared on the day just after the leak. I do not wish to rub their noses in it. This report appeared in Die Burger. It is entitled: “Russe kap S.A. Weermagplan”.

Order! The hon. member should rather not quote from newspaper reports about this matter.

Refer to it in your own words.

I just wish to say that the Russians were immediately on their feet to condemn this legislation. They accuse us of being a threat to world peace.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I had always understood that an hon. member was not allowed to quote from a newspaper …

But he is not quoting now.

I am not putting a point of order against him. I am putting a point of order in his favour. I have always understood that an hon. member may not quote from a newspaper report about a specific debate, but that he could quote from reports about general matters which took place before the time.

Order! The hon. member is quite right. I therefore give the hon. member Mr. Vermeulen permission to quote the extract in question.

I am not going to cause uneasiness in this regard. However, if it is said that we are a threat to the world, I just wish to state here that just the opposite is the case. South Africa is the country under threat. Hon. members on this side of the House—I think the hon. member for Verwoerdburg was one of them—gave a very clear picture of the threat faced by our country. Moreover, in my opinion he did so very effectively. In the light of this threat facing South Africa, it is necessary that our people be made more prepared. A Bill such as that before us can contribute enormously towards causing our people to realize that the threat facing the Republic of South Africa is not a lot of talk, but that it poses a real danger for us. I want to dwell on this for a few moments.

The Russian military involvement in Angola, together with Swapo, Fapla and the Cubans, is also linked up with Mugabe of Zimbabwe, with Mozambique and with instruments of the Communist Party in the Republic of South Africa, viz. the African National Congress and, to a lesser extent, the Pan-Africanist Congress. The increasing direct involvement of Soviet Russia with these people is cause for serious concern and must be taken into account. What is more, this must be taken into account not only by the Free World, but also by our people in South Africa itself. Every time our Security Forces have carried out operations in Angola, they have, on their return, made new facts public. Russian arms, Russian food and Russian propaganda documents have not been an unusual phenomenon. Operation Protea, in which a vast number of arms were captured, which hon. members are all aware of, and in which Russian soldiers were directly involved, undoubtedly gave a new dimension not only to the struggle being waged, but also to the battle fronts which have changed.

Hulley does not say so.

What this means to us, irrespective of the attitude in the West and elsewhere, is that the struggle has become an open struggle. It means that we, the citizens of South Africa, simply cannot get away from it. We shall have to undertake this struggle with a will if we are to survive it.

It is therefore imperative that we should identify the enemy—or enemies—in their activities, not only those beyond our borders, but those in our midst as well. In the first place, I think we have sufficient knowledge and proof that the onslaught on the Republic of South Africa is being waged under Marxist leadership and inspiration. Therefore Marxism appears to be the greatest and most dangerous enemy, and we must have no illusions about that.

Hulley does not say so.

The hon. member for Constantia must have no illusions on this score. In the second place, we have sufficient evidence that Swapo is not only supported financially by world communism, but also obtains sufficient arms and funds from other satellite States. Even the UN provides approximately a million dollars to Swapo annually, 400 000 dollars of which is given to Sam Nujoma personally. Swapo is a terrorist organization which wages a cowardly campaign of terror by murdering and terrorizing responsible and peace-loving Black leaders and civilians in the northern parts of South West. According to reliable reports and sources, Swapo is at present training approximately 35 000 terrorists at Kabuta and other places. A few days ago, the Secretary of Defence of Swapo, Mr. Peter Manjemba, declared in The Voice of Namibia that the armed struggle against South Africa was the only effective way to achieve freedom and independence. Thirdly, according to factual data at our disposal, the ANC, the PAC and the Communist Party are in fact one organization.

Hulley, do you believe that?

The ANC is regarded as a revolutionary arm of the Communist Party which is chiefly concerned with unleasing riots within South Africa in an effort to bring the Government to its knees, thereby placing the RSA in the power of the Soviet Union.

Hulley, do you believe that?

It is also part of the strategy that Swapo should engage the security forces for as long as possible while the ANC launches a similar terrorist onslaught and creates new extended fronts within the Republic of South Africa. The hon. member for Constantia should listen now. These people also have visible and invisible fellow-travellers. However, I shall confine myself to the three mentioned. They are deserving of our undivided attention. This common enemy is inspired by an ideology of power and domination which, as they see it, is already within their reach. These people are in a hurry to do what they want to do. They are inspired people. They suffer hunger and forfeit essentials. They live by the gun. They receive training in terrorist camps throughout the world. They receive training in warfare of all kinds—men, women and children. For this purpose the most refined and modern arms are provided by the Soviet Union. The number of aircraft, tanks, armoured cars, anti-aircraft artillery, projectiles, tracking apparatus, etc. has in some cases increased by more than 300% during the past five years. During the same period, from 1977 to date, the number of workers has increased from 87 000 to 270 000. In this regard I also wish to refer in passing to a newspaper report which appeared in London. Under the heading “Nightmare arms race in full blast in Africa”, they say—

That is how arms are pouring into Africa. And then our people still say that there is no danger! Why, then, this tremendous buildup of weapons, in bases being established in our neigbouring states? After all, these countries are not being threatened by the Republic of South Africa. I do not believe that South Africa has yet threatened any neighbouring State; on the contrary, this Government is prepared—and it has confirmed this on various occasions—to enter into non-aggression treaties and agreements with our neighbouring States. This has been stated time and again. The enemy makes no secret of its real aim. Indeed, the Freedom Charter of the ANC—I think the hon. member for Constantia has also read it—makes no secret of its aim. In that same Freedom Charter they say: “We do not differentiate between the English and the Dutch. They are both White and they are both oppressors.”

Hulley would have the fright of his life if he were to know that!

I do not think he would get away with it. Nor, of course, does Swapo make any secret of its ultimate aims and goals. Moscow has advanced its plans—as the hon. member for Verwoerdburg has just indicated—to 1985; i.e. in three years’ time they want to establish the hammer and sickle on our soil. I have already pointed out that Russia is becoming more directly involved and that at present it has a military staff of approximately 28 000 poeple in Southern Africa. The ANC is at present within our borders, right here in the Republic, intensifying its activities among the Black people by way of intimidation. It makes use of certain front organizations and fellow-travellers to preach revolution against the Government of the country in all imaginable spheres. What is more, the ANC is creating terrains where the S.A. Defence Force can be engaged and held on various fronts, so that they can pin the S.A. Defence Force down as far as possible and for as long as possible. The propaganda war against the Republic of South Africa is increasing. Anyone who does not want to recognize that must be absolutely blind.

I just want to mention one example of this. The propaganda broadcasts to the Republic of South Africa have increased from 9 588 in 1979 to 17 519 in 1982. There are several examples of how the threat against South Africa is steadily increasing. In this regard we have had several warnings. We have had warnings from our own military leaders, people who are equipped to look after the security of our country and its people. We have also had warnings from political leaders. We have had warnings from generals in America, England and several other countries. We have also had warnings from professors, journalists, newspaper editors and writers from throughout the world about the activities of Russia. However, there are people in South Africa who do not want to accept that.

One need only consider what went on at the latest session of the Senate Committee in America to see what is being planned against us. We are living in a dream world if we do not want to recognize the realities of the onslaught on us. We are living in a dream world if we want to sit back at our ease and use a handful of militarists to wage the struggle for survival for us, instead of rolling up our sleeves and helping ourselves. I believe we must all be serious about making this small sacrifice and should accept it with pride and in a cheerful spirit.

I wish to conclude by quoting what the Chief of the S.A. Defence Force, Gen. Viljoen, said on one occasion—

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the remarks made by the hon. nominated member, Mr. Vermeulen. I agree there is a threat and the appreciation of the military situation is very interesting. As far as the magnitude of the threat is concerned, we can spend a lot of time discussing it, but I do not think this is the right place for that particular discussion.

The hon. member for Pietersburg asked where the people for the increased Permanent Force would come from. I want to refer the hon. member to the “Witskrif” which we received today. I quote from page 3, paragraph 14, of the Afrikaans text—

It is therefore absolutely clear that while there is conscription for Whites only, the Permanent Force can call upon all people for increasing its size.

The hon. member also asked why we did not ask for an increasing of national service. The hon. member for Yeoville did not suggest that the period of two years be increased. He suggested that if a person voluntarily wishes to serve longer, for three or four years, then, instead of having to serve his non-continuous training as is laid down in the Bill, he should be able to complete his non-continuous training by doing this continuous training.

The hon. member for Verwoerdburg said the new system does not involve total mobilization. I do not think people in this House understand words and it is very important that we try to undertand what we are talking about. “Mobilize”, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, means: “To prepare an army or fleet for active service.” This is exactly what this Bill is about, namely to prepare the Army or the Navy for active service. If it were not so, what does one then want an Army for? When one talks about this Bill as a Bill which calls for mobilization, that is exactly what it means. It is no good people saying this is not total mobilization.

The hon. member for Verwoerdburg made another interesting point. Why did he make an appeal to the Indians and the Coloureds only, and not also to the Blacks? That is the policy of the SADF. Please abide by its policy. [Interjections.]

I should like to deal finally with the hon. member for Durban Point. I want to congratulate the hon. member for Durban Point on making an outstanding speech in favour of all the points that we have raised. The only thing that he did not say was that he wanted this Bill to be referred to a Select Committee before Second Reading.

The hon. member for Yeoville raised three very important points which I want to deal with during the course of my speech. The first of these is immigrants, the second is conscientious objectors and the third is the System Commission Report on page 515 of which hon. members can read the recommendations of that Commission.

But they are not in this Bill. They have nothing to do with this Bill.

We should do everything at once. They should be included in this Bill. Let us introduce a new Defence Bill that covers everything and not wait for a few years before tackling various aspects of this matter.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to make an earnest appeal to the hon. the Minister to refer this Bill to a Select Committee before Second Reading. There are many matters of a delicate nature that have to be discussed before the principles of the Bill can be accepted. I shall allow no-one in this House to question my loyalty to my country because I have served it voluntarily both in peace and in war. This very experience has taught me how delicate and emotionally arousing this call to arms, this mobilization for potential combat is. Let all of us in this House learn some lessons from our unfortunate past history in that when we have had mobilization among our people, we have so often been divided. Let me mention only four years in our short history, and for obvious reasons. I shall try to choose my words carefully because I do not wish to arouse the feelings of hon. members here because we all come from different cultural backgrounds. I mention the years 1914, 1939, 1950 and 1982. These were years when events relating to mobilization led to a great deal of bitterness in this land. I think this is sufficient for all us to realize that this has always been a delicate subject which can arouse the passions of people in different ways. However, despite this historical background, even though I believe South Africa does need a sound Defence Force to maintain its integrity, I appeal to the hon. the Minister to have this Bill referred to a Select Committee before Second Reading. I believe that the odds favour a suitable and satisfactory compromise in another few weeks even though it may appear at times as though the machinery of negotiation has broken down. This is absolutely normal, par for the course, when negotiations as delicate as these have been taking place. Let me assure the hon. the Minister that if he adopts our suggestion we are sure that he will find an equitable solution even if at the end, on all sides, a few egos will have been bruised in the process and some pet attitudes of certain persons will have been abandoned. I wanted to tell the hon. the Minister—the hon. member for Durban Point has already said this—that the future of the Citizen Force Regiments depends upon the encouragement given to and the maintenance of the senior cadre of commissioned officers above the rank of captain and NCO’s above the rank of sergeant. I said last year and I want to repeat that the circumstances prevailing in the Citizen Force units are not conducive to this essential cadre remaining to serve. The extention of compulsory service may temporarily alleviate the problem but it will not solve it. As a matter of fact, it may be counter-productive because it may deter the most needed people from accepting rank. From the most senior officer in the Citizen Force to the most junior national serviceman, there is a squeal—and South Africans know how to squeal—about a waste of time and a lack of motivation. However, squealing is a sign of a good soldier. It is no good getting in more bodies unless and until this situation has been resolved. When a Citizen Force unit is called up for a camp it spends the whole of its first week drawing stores and knocking up tents and, in the last week, knocking them down and going home.

I believe that now that the commandos are to be area bound, there should be an affiliation between a commando unit and a CF unit. In the old days it was always said there was a battalion at home base while another battalion was overseas. This allows Citizen Force persons to be transferred to particular commandos, and persons in commandos to be used in Citizen Force regiments. The claim is made that this can only apply to infantry units. I agree that most units in the SADF are infantry units. However, instead of a specialist regiment being allocated in toto to one command, it should be possible to split the regiment into company equivalent units so that batteries or squadrons can be allocated to different military commandos, and the administration can be decentralized at company level and not concentrated at regimental or battalion level. It is not necessary to have an artillery regiment at Cape Town for instance. It can have its headquarters at Cape Town with perhaps one battery here and two other batteries in different places. The problem of the control of units by either O.C. Command or O.C. Brigade must be resolved as soon as possible by the Chief of the General Staff.

I believe that there should be closer contact between commanding officers and the exemption boards for better control and evening of the burden of service.

I believe that the number of days laid down in the Bill is too high and that it suffers from a very pertinent weakness. Whether a man serves on the border or in a depot in Pretoria where he can go home every evening to sleep, the period of service counts the same. I believe that the hon. the Minister must give serious consideration to service in the operational area above the red line counting double. Even though danger pay is granted at present, this is not a sufficient incentive. I am sure that if service on the border were to count double, commanding officers would not be confronted with the difficulty of finding bodies when the call to the border takes place.

This Bill has jokingly been dubbed the “Dads’ Army Bill”. It reveals only half of the story because it neglects to tell of the mothers and wives who say, like Milton said of his blindness—

Spare a thought for the wife of the man who spends one or two nights a week at headquarters, or the man who has to go to camp for one weekend every month or the man who has to go to camp for 90 days. Surely the SADF could make some gesture towards these wives, even a little gesture like the presentation of a brooch to her when her husband gets a long service medal. On that brooch there should be some sort of insignia of the particular medal.

I would be failing in my duty if I did not bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister the feeling of distress among many serving South African soldiers that persons, who are not South African citizens, but who have spent many years in this country and have reaped the benefits of the protection our soldiers provide, are not called upon to serve in the defence of our country. Particularly the young men who are called up for the two years’ national service and who see non-South Africans working in comfortable jobs and finishing their apprenticeships and university careers while they serve in the Army, feel distressed at this legal loophole. I believe that this is a delicate matter that must be fully discussed by the Select Committee we propose. Since it is not a principle in the Bill, I appeal to the hon. the Minister to have the Bill referred to a Select Committee before Second Reading.

I think that it is time that we introduce just a little bit of humour into discussions around this Bill. One of the problems which this Bill seeks to remedy is the position of the man who is in business on his own. Well, steps are being taken to rectify this position. Nevertheless, I want to tell the story that during World War II Private Cohen was awarded the Victoria Cross for valour beyond the call of normal duty, in that after several days of intense battle, he single-handed captured a whole island in the Pacific manned by thousands of tough, fighting Japanese. Every commanding officer who had had Cohen in his unit, had found him so useless and difficult that at the first opportunity each successive commanding officer transferred him to another unit. One previous commanding officer telephoned Cohen’s last commanding officer and asked: “What did you do to transform Cohen? to which he received the reply: “He was intolerable, but unfortunately here in the Pacific there were no more units left to which he could be transferred, so I called him and said: ‘Cohen, here is a machine gun, 20 000 rounds of ammunition, rations for one month, and a boat. Now you are in business on your own.’”

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout who boasted that he had previous military experience and so forth, accused us of mobilizing our forces. However, it is crystal clear what we are doing. The hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Durban Point stated that the public was confused as to what this legislation sought to achieve. Then the hon. member for Bezuidenhout also created confusion. He also broadcast the message that we were mobilizing.

However, what has shocked me the most thus far in this debate, is the speech of the hon. member for Constantia. When I first heard that this legislation was being planned and what its content was, I had not the least doubt that our enemies were not going to like it. This legislation is aimed at preparing us for every eventuality. However, the hon. member for Constantia alleged that the ANC had nothing to do with the communist threat against South Africa. [Interjections.] The hon. member went on to say that when we had withdrawn from South West Africa and were concentrating on reform and change, our problems would be solved. He says the ANC would then cease their attacks on this country. The hon. member is living in a dream world!

He did not say that.

The people with whom I had contact, the voters in my constituency, welcomed this legislation. One therefore wonders who are the friends of those people who do not support the legislation.

Why don’t you…

Harry, you must not speak.

We are proud of what the Defence Force has achieved thus far. The hon. member for Sasolburg referred to successes achieved in the past, and the official Opposition replied that in view of those successes it will not be necessary to extend our manpower further. Many of us are probably aware of what is going on and will agree that we must be prepared at all times. Can hon. members imagine the fuss the official Opposition would make if we were defeated and we had not taken the necessary precautions? Or is that perhaps what they would like to happen?

Timeous adjustments in the national service system are imperative, particularly in view of the expected escalation in enemy activity. It is our duty as representatives of the nation to support this legislation. We must keep the morale of our people, particularly our national servicemen, high at all costs. Every loyal citizen of the country is expected to make an unyielding and determined contribution to ward off the threat, and under these circumstances the words of Langenhoven are extremely apt—

All loyal citizens are prepared to make sacrifices for this country. We are grateful and proud of everyone who reacts positively to this call and welcomes this new system.

I want to refer briefly to the commando system, which I consider the backbone of our South African Defence Force. We have three sorts of commandos—the rural, the urban and the industrial commandos. The problems we are experiencing with the commando system and which are now being eased by this legislation, comprise inter alia the present voluntary basis on which the commandos operate. The hon. member for Pietersburg also referred to this. There is also the unwillingness and the lack of involvement of many people in our community, which results in the burden resting only on certain people. In the Richards Bay commando it is nothing out of the ordinary for members of that commando to do up to 139 days of duty every year. As a matter of fact they do this very willingly. If we can involve more people, the burden can be distributed more evenly.

We are also faced with employer resistance. This legislation will overcome employer resistance because it will now be possible to compel people to participate in the commando system. This will also break down employer resistance because more people will be involved, and the burden will therefore be distributed more evenly as well. As far as the source for the commandos contemplated by the legislation under discussion is concerned, it appears that national servicemen perform their two years of national service and may then apply to be declared area-bound. This can take place immediately, or during the period of 12 years in which that national serviceman must perform 720 days service during the 12 years. This applies to anyone who, owing to the circumstances of his employment, cannot perform his army training away from home. As a quid pro quo, anyone wanting to be declared area-bound is expected to do longer service; he must do 1 000 days of service spread over a period of 20 years. It is essential that there be a greater obligation on such a person, otherwise more people will try to evade their obligations to the Citizen Force.

We welcome this measure, particularly in the light of the fact that there are also people who underwent two years of training and who will now be used in the commandos. A further category of people who can be used are those who have served for five years in the active Citizen Force. Now they, too, can be used in the commandos for periods of 12 days per annum, which is absolutely minimal.

We also have the controlled reserves in the Citizen Force and in the commandos. Anyone with less than five years’ service will now first be placed in the active Citizen Force, where he will complete his five years. After that he may be allotted to a commando. Anyone who has completed five years’ service can be transferred directly to a commando.

Then there is also the present national reserve. It is estimated that there are approximately 800 000 people who have never received any training whatsoever. In this regard too there is a great deal of confusion. One need only consider newspaper headlines such as “New call-up plan will net 800 000 more” and the like, to realize that there is confusion in the mind of the public. Many people are under the impression that everyone between the ages of 17 and 60 will now be called up to serve in the commandos. However, the fact of the matter is that the needs will be determined in each region with due regard to what is necessary and what manpower is needed. Then the number of people needed will be drawn from each region.

I should like to bring the following to the attention of the hon. the Minister at this stage. It is a matter that rather worries me. One would not like to find, when this measure is eventually implemented, that for example, people join the civil defence merely to follow the path of least resistance. The ideal situation in any given area would be for the police commanders, the commando and the civil defence branch to put their heads together to determine the manpower requirements, and for an allotment to be decided on which will prevent people from taking the path of least resistance. One of the most important tasks is regional protection. If one can place the commandos throughout the country on a sound, well-organized basis, then one will be providing blanket coverage for the entire country, which will also have a psychological effect by serving as a deterrent to our enemies. The commandos are also very important for the gathering of information. The ideal situation would be for each farmer in the rural areas eventually to involve his Black people, to be able to communicate with them. A farmer can get very good information from those people. I also consider it the task of the commandos, particularly in the rural areas, to be able to speak to the Black people, but even if they can speak to those people, they must still learn the necessary terminology to understand those people properly. The other evening I was in Pongola, near the border. We held a braaivleis there and I asked the farmers if they could all speak Zulu. I asked whether they spoke to their employees, and the farmers replied: “Yes, we do speak to them.” To ascertain whether they had the necessary terminology to do so, I asked one of the farmers what the Zulu word was for “politics”. He replied that he did not know. I beckoned to a Black man who could speak Afrikaans and asked him what “politics“ was in Zulu. He replied: “Uyakhuluma, uyakhuluma, kodwa uyaze ukuthi uyape.” For those hon. members who do not understand Zulu, this means: You talk and talk, but you do not know where you are going. [Interjections.] This illustrates how important it is that our farmers have the necessary terminology to communicate effectively with those people regarding the threat, particularly in our border areas. It is important that our commandos have the necessary manpower to be able to provide the S.A. Police and the S.A. Railway Police with the necessary support, for example at road blocks, etc.

National key points are another very important aspect, particularly for our industrial commandos. There must be enough people to protect key points and other “soft” targets. Every citizen who has undergone training is in a much better position to protect hearth and home. Once one has given the necessary training to all the farmers in the rural areas, one has total protection for hearth and home.

Civilian affairs and aid to our homelands, self-governing States and national States are also ways of improving goodwill and good relations among people, so that those people can form a different impression of and attitude towards the man in uniform. Every one of us here must join in motivating the nation to stand together for the security of our country. It is a pity that the official Opposition has adopted this attitude here this afternoon, irrespective of the loyalty of certain individuals. It is a great pity, because their attitude can be seen in an adverse light by our enemies. A strong security service is needed in this country to ensure security, prosperity and stability.

I therefore wholeheartedly support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I shall react in a moment to what the hon. member for Umfolozi had to say about the commandos in the rural areas.

If there is one member in this House—he is unfortunately not present at the moment—who succeeds in making one’s blood boil, it is the hon. member for Constantia. There used to be a member in this House who, whenever he wanted to say anything serious, always said: “Mr. Speaker, before I say anything, I am first going to take a deep breath.” When one has to reply to the hon. member for Constantia, I think one should also take a deep breath, because what that hon. member says gives his party a specific image which it will have difficulty ridding itself of. His contribution compels me to say that every time he speaks his petticoat is clearly showing, and it is a somewhat reddish petticoat. Having listened to his contribution here this afternoon, one can rest assured that it is only when Nelson Mandela is head of the Defence Force that he will encourage our sons and our people to play their part with regard to national service.

You are talking rubbish.

That is the impression he gave us. It is in line with the atmosphere created by the Press which supports that party. In these times we have seen this very clearly. They encourage antagonism towards changes in and adjustments to our system of national service. One cannot get away from the fact that those contributions in this House were really not patriotic contributions. We are sorry about this, but that is the impression one forms.

Only among dense people.

I should like to tell the hon. the Minister that the change in the system of national service is really very welcome, specifically that change providing that all men in the age group 17 to 60 years will in future perform some form of military service. I welcome this in the sense that I foresee that the branch of the Defence Force which will really benefit by this will be the commando units. I have already said on previous occasions that I am really worried that there is such a lack of support and involvement in our commandos. I think one can ascribe this to the fact that membership of the commandos has always been on a voluntary basis. As far as the country’s northern borders are concerned, the people there have always had a particular cause for concern. We are in fact concerned about the security in those areas. Adequate support for the commandos in those areas is of great importance to us. We expect the new adjustments which have now been made to breathe new life into our commandos, and we welcome this. There cannot be the slightest doubt that the majority of farmers in the border areas will welcome the envisaged amendment to the system of national service.

I make this statement in consequence of the very interesting, enlightening and thoroughly scientific document I have before me. It is the report on an investigation ordered by the South African Institute for Historical Research at the HSRC. That specific institute undertook an investigation into a specific section of our northern border areas, i.e. the areas bordering on Botswana, Zimbabwe and Mozambique. The investigation concerned the role played by fear of terrorism in the decision by South Africa’s northern and eastern border farmers to leave their farms. That is why I think that we in this House should congratulate the HSRC on this excellent undertaking because they have focused attention on a variety of facets of the problems in those areas, problems of untenanted farms, etc. One facet they elucidated very clearly was the attitude of our farming community in those areas. The investigation included approximately 2 000 farms, and when one reads the report, one gains the impression that the attitude among the farmers on those specific farms is not one of fear. Their attitude is one of total willingness to become involved. What I find so wonderful is the fact that the age distribution of those farmers, which was checked, was for the most part between the ages of 31 and 60 years. 63,3% of that farming community is in that age group. In other words, they are useful people who are available for service in our commando units. I referred to their attitude, and in this connection the report states—

The report continues—

For this reason I am telling the hon. the Minister that we need have no fear that this provision will create a degree of restlessness or unwillingness among the farmers in our country. I want to go even further and say that the criteria set in that specific area could really be taken as the norm for all farmers throughout South Africa. That is why we particularly welcome this expectation that the numercial strength of our commandos will now again be substantially and clearly increased when this system comes into effect. After all, there is always concern among our people when anything new is tackled. That is why the hon. the Minister said in his Second Reading speech that it was necessary to point out once again that although the Bill makes provision for compulsory military training for all White male citizens between the ages of 17 and 60 years it is not intended that everyone between those ages will be forced to undergo military training. The hon. the Minister went on to say that the process will begin with the registration of those persons, but that the details will first have to be worked out and that what exactly is going to happen will be announced later. Then they will gradually become part of the defence machine on a regional basis, as safety requirements in a specific geographic area dictate, and within the bounds of the Defence Force’s ability. I believe this will also be applicable not only to the farming community but to the platteland as a whole. As this is going to take place, I should be much obliged if the hon. the Minister, when he replies to this debate, could give us an indication of what he expects the effect of this to be on the civil defence organizations. One must deduce from this that civil defence will also be given a tremendous boost. We on this side of the House want to support wholeheartedly the steps to change and amend the military service system to bring them into line with the demands of the times, to use the words of the hon. the Minister. These are essential and, without a doubt, good improvements. One can understand that there will be reservations regarding the practicability of some of the changes planned. However, I think that the right time to discuss this will be when the matter is dealt with by the appropriate Select Committee. There is no one in this House, of whatever party, who will be unable to support the aims spelt out by the hon. the Minister in the legislation. We shall support it wholeheartedly and no one will be able to refuse to support it. The issue at stake here is guaranteed manpower for the S.A. Defence Force, a more equitable distribution of military service and an effective regional defence system. I think I am speaking on behalf of the farming community as well when I say that the amendments envisaged are extremely welcome.

Mr. Speaker, the realities of the serious times we are now passing through, emphasize the necessity for the legislation now before this House. However, there are those persons who make out that the NP is exaggerating the total onslaught on our country in order to make political capital out of it. Some of those persons are outside this House and some of them are in this House. These people deliberately fail to recognize the realities in order to make political capital out of them to achieve their own ends. In the process large-scale confusion is sown by the Opposition-supporting Press. This leaves the public wondering whether these claims regarding a threat are not exaggerated. This creates a truly dangerous situation. It promotes doubt, and doubt dampens enthusiasm and interest, and has a negative effect on the honest attempts of our Defence Force to protect us at all times against internal and external attacks on South Africa. Disregarding or even watering down the onslaught on South Africa is treason. It sabotages the attempts of the S.A. Defence Force to promote prosperity and peace in South Africa.

The question arises: Is there still anyone in South Africa who believes that Russia is not seeking world domination? One could quote from several documentary sources to support this. I want to quote from a speech published recently in the USA under the heading “The world-wide Soviet threat”—

Afghanistan is mentioned as an example in the speech, but one could certainly use South West Africa as another example. If we consider recent publications, we see that the following appeared in Die Burger of 1 April 1982—

When we read this, there can be no doubt that Russia has a direct share in the onslaught being waged in Southern Africa and in South West Africa. Is there anyone else in this House, besides the hon. member for Constantia, who believes that Russia does not have a share in the war in Southern Africa? The hon. member for Constantia said emphatically: “We are not fighting Russia on the borders”. He said so this afternoon in this House.

I said “Russians”.

Russia or Russians, what is the difference? Mr. Speaker, can one really be so naïve? What does the hon. member want to imply by saying that? Does he want to imply that the Russian ideology is not involved in the struggle in Africa? What is at issue here is what Russia wants to achieve, and not who it uses to fight its war for it. [Interjections.] What does it matter whether the hon. member is fighting on behalf of Russia or whether Russia itself is fighting? I want to give hon. members the assurance that if Russia could succeed in doing so, it would also use that hon. member to promote its cause here in South Africa. The hon. member also referred to “over-reaction to the actual situation”. He suggested that the time has come for us to withdraw our troops from South West Africa. How did he arrive at that idea?

Aren’t you aiming to do that?

Why is he thinking along those lines at this stage?

Are you not planning to do just that?

Mr. Speaker, that hon. member said …

And his party.

Well, I cannot say “and his party” because I want to get to the point we want to make, namely that there is a tremendous difference of opinion in that party when it comes to this matter. The hon. member said: “We need to know more about the Government’s plan for potential reform in South Africa before we can approve of this Bill”. What on earth has that to do with the defence of South Africa? [Interjections.]

Let us surrender to the communists and then you will be satisfied.

That is the conclusion he arrived at. That was why he said it had something to do with the defence of South Africa. He said: “Many people are not prepared to defend apartheid”. By implication the question he was asking in consequence of the statements he made here in this House was whether this legislation would be necessary if political rights were given to everyone. The hon. member wanted to imply that we could solve South Africa’s defence problem by means of a unitary State, one man, one vote on a common voters’ roll. [Interjections.] Can the hon. member give me a single example in Africa where this has worked? He is dabbling in South African politics to benefit himself and his party politically at the expense of the security of South Africa. I accuse him of doing this. He is prepared to sacrifice South Africa’s …

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he agrees with the view expressed by senior members of the Defence Force that the solution to South Africa’s problems are 80% political, social and economic and only 20% military?

I made it very clear that the hon. member for Constantia was sacrificing South Africa’s safety for the sake of his political views.

Reply to the question.

But as far as we are concerned, whether it be the Defence Force or the political leaders on our side, there is no doubt that the political solutions here in South Africa are cardinal and important and must therefore be found as soon as possible. The allegation I made is that if that hon. member would adopt the NP’s solution, we would have a solution, but he wants to harm South Africa, even with his political policy, because he wants majority rule in South Africa. The hon. member wants his own way at the expense of the interests and the security of South Africa. I have no doubt about this.

The hon. member for Yeoville also made a fuss about this matter this morning and said—

He said he was therefore not in favour of military action outside Parliament in order to bring about change. He went on to say that the Government had not succeeded in convincing the citizens at large that there was a total onslaught on us in South Africa.

That is not true.

Whether it is true or not does not matter. I now want to assume that it is true and I want to ask whether the hon. member for Constantia is not another reason why the process of persuasion cannot make any progress.

Are you saying it is not making progress?

I am asking the hon. member for Yeoville whether he is satisfied with the behaviour of the hon. member for Constantia. Does he agree with the hon. member for Constantia when he says “there is an over-reaction”?

What do you say, Harry?

I think the hon. member for Swellendam is a fool.

I say the hon. member for Constantia’s suggestion that there is “over-reaction” is a direct reason why the general public wonder why doubt is being sown. Why does he blame us for not being able to succeed in persuading people when he and his party have had a share in preventing us from doing so? Does the hon. member for Yeoville agree that we should refer the Bill to a Select Committee before the Second Reading because there are people who do not wish to vote for apartheid?

But did you not listen to my speech?

Yes, I did, and that is why I am asking him. In his speech he had nothing to say about this. In this regard his speech was so vague that I could not follow it at all. I should very much like to pay tribute to the hon. member for Yeoville as a patriot in South Africa, a patriotic citizen of South Africa. I do in fact pay tribute to him for being one, but I object strenuously to his taking it amiss of the Government for not being able to achieve certain things, while people in his party are the reason or part of the reason why these things have not been achieved.

I am not responsible if you are mentally handicapped.

Does he agree with the hon. member for Constantia’s statement that “we are not fighting Russia on the borders”?

There were only two Russians.

What difference does that make?

The hon. member and his party have done a great deal to bring about the situation he is blaming us for.

In the process I have not been able to make the speech I wanted to make at all. However, I just want to say that I welcome this legislation because it will be a great help to agriculture in particular, to the farmer working alone on his farm. Agriculture plays a tremendous role in the economic pattern of South Africa, and it is therefore essential that a farmer should remain on his farm to meet his obligations. It is not possible for him to be away from his farm for three months at a time. Bearing in mind the tremendous contribution which agriculture makes to the economy of South Africa, I think it is important that we support this legislation and that we dispose of the Second Reading as soon as possible, so that the solution we are endeavouring to find for agriculture in South Africa as well, may be applied.

Mr. Speaker, I shall deal with some of the points raised by the hon. member for Swellendam during the course of my remarks.

It is a pity that this debate has to take place before this Bill has been before the Select Committee because in its present form it presents us with something which will have very far-reaching implications for South Africa and all her people. It is presented against a background of persistent Government claims that the country is faced with a total onslaught.

Do you dispute that?

Yes, I do dispute it. I certainly dispute that there is a total onslaught.

Now we know where you stand.

The Bill comes 40 years after the last global war—and if the hon. member wants to know something about total onslaught he should think about that—in which South Africa was involved on the side of the nations of the Free World against the mightiest war machine the world has ever known, which sought at that time to subjugate and to dominate all before it.

I know all about that.

Now we are being told that there is a crisis in South Africa of even greater proportions than existed in those times, necessitating conscription or mobilization of manpower the likes of which this nation has never before experienced. This is the situation, Sir.

In the Second World War of 1939-’45, we in this country relied on a volunteer Defence Force which served with considerable distinction on the battlefields of Africa, in the Western Desert and in Europe, alongside our allies, and which also at the same time provided, sea, land and air defence of our borders and the maintenance of our internal security. Our Defence Force did all this in a time of a global war, in a time of a global onslaught. That volunteer army wrote a glorious chapter in our national and military history, and it responded to the challenge of the time with distinction and considerable glory.

At that stage there was an enemy that was identifiable as powerful and evil, and a threat to all sections of our population and to all of the Free World.

They were not physically on our borders.

In those days there was a motivation among able-bodied and patriotic South Africans to rally to the call of the country as volunteers, and at that stage there was no need for conscription.

So much for that situation. But, of course, the position has changed at the present time. [Interjections.] I am sketching the background against which we are looking at this Bill that mobilizes more than has ever been mobilized before in the history of South Africa. The situation has changed. We are not involved in a hot war alongside powerful allies, against great armies, navies and air forces. We are now involved in a localized struggle against those who seek to subvert the existing order in South Africa. In their struggle they are aided, abetted and sometimes manipulated by influences outside, but even then, on their own they would constitute and do constitute no match for the existing defence capabilities of this country, as we have seen in the operations along our northern borders in recent years. There is no doubt about it. The hon. member shakes his head. Does he believe that our Defence Force is acquitting itself well or does he not believe it?

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

No, Sir, my time is very limited. The hon. member can take part in the debate later.

The situation is that there has been no suggestion that our Defence Force is not coping with its task along the borders at the present time. They are certainly a match for anything that can be thrown against them. What makes the situation different, however, is that another dimension is added to the armoury of these people. This is clearly the motivation behind this Bill. The real threat from these forces, who, as I have said, are on their own no match for our Defence Force, lies in their possible ability to rally internal support in South Africa by playing on the grievances of our own people, and by exploiting the injustices and inequalities which exist in our own society, in order to subvert internal security and bring about change by violent means. That is the real threat which we are facing. It is that threat which we have to meet.

It is a real threat. It is also a dangerous threat to all who seek peaceful change in South Africa. How do we meet it? How do we meet that threat? Is there a need for an effective Army? Is there a need for a commitment on the part of all our people to rally against violence and subversion in this country?

I ask those questions. The answer is yes. There is a need for both those things. We in these benches have no doubt about that at all.

We have said, however, that indeed the Defence Chiefs have said—it was also referred to earlier in this debate—that the solution to our problems is only 20% a military one, and that 80% of the solution lies in the socio-economic and political fields in South Africa. In these circumstances it has been said—and it is the view of this side of the House—that the Defence Force should be seen as a shield behind which the necessary reforms in our internal situation can be made in the hope that those reforms and those changes can come about peacefully in this country. That is how we see the Defence Force. That is how we see the function of the Defence Force in South Africa at the present time.

This is also the justification for young South Africans to be involved in military service provided, and for so long as, those socio-economic and political changes are being made by the politicians and others in this country.

The hon. member for Swellendam asked plaintively what reform had to do with defence. I should say it has everything to do with defence, with the commitment to defend the country, because there are thousands of young South Africans who will defend South Africa because they love South Africa. They will not, however, defend South Africa because they want to defend the policies of the NP. They will not defend South Africa because they are defending apartheid. [Interjections.] They will defend South Africa because they want to see peaceful change, because they want to see a shield behind which peaceful change can take place in this country. That is why it is important that reform should take place. Reform is vital to defence in South Africa.

This Bill, I believe, in its present form holds out diminishing hope of that reform taking place. This is what concerns me, because the principle—the main and the overriding principle of this Bill—is for a massive mobilization, conscription, or call it what you like, of Whites in South Africa. That is the principle which is being seen and which we are discussing at this Second Reading stage. It is a mobilization, with all its consequences for our economy, with all its consequences for the private lives of those people and their families, who, from the time they leave school until the time they reach the age of 60, are going to have their private lives affected by these implications. Above all, if one looks at the implications of this measure, one sees the consequences which it might have for race relations in South Africa. It is that about which I am most concerned.

The principle in the Bill which we are discussing is a greatly extended mobilization of Whites for our Defence Force, Whites to have power and responsibility not only for the defence of our borders, but to have power and responsibility also for the internal security of this country, to the exclusion of the masses of our population who are the targets for the forces of violent insurrection. This is the power which we are going to give to a White conscript Army. In other words, one section of our population is going to be involved in compulsory service for 40 years and more in their lifetime to perform not only the task of defending our borders against outside incursion and insurrection, but also to perform a policing task within our own country, which is already riddled with discontent amongst the masses of the unrepresented and the underprivileged people. In the light of experiences we have already had in this country it is not difficult to imagine that circumstances may well arise in which much of the attention of those to be involved would have to be directed, not against an outside enemy, but against our own South African population, whether it be in the townships or any other area of South Africa, if there happened to be political and social unrest. This sort of situation would, I believe, be bitterly resented by all those involved, including many of those in the White conscript army. The situation carries with it the danger of an invitation and commitment to confrontation and will, I believe play into the hands of those who seek violent change in South Africa, those who would use it to portray the Whites as rushing into the enlarged laager to protect the present order. That is an image we can least afford at the present time in South Africa.

What is needed—in fact what all sections of the population desperately seek in this country—is evidence that there are real moves towards meaningful change in South Africa so as to relieve the tensions in the socio-economic and political situation internally. In other words, what is needed is the 80% part of the solution that the hon. the Minister and his Defence Chiefs have talked about, the solution that has to be found in the socio-economic field. I believe that if we could achieve that, there would be no need even to contemplate a Bill of this nature at this stage. In its present form the Bill could, for other reasons, be counter-productive as far as change is concerned.

Are you opposed to the principle?

I am opposed to the principle we are discussing at the present time, the principle of a massive extension of mobilization in South Africa, and I am asking that this matter should be looked at by a Select Committee of Parliament, which is the whole import of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Yeoville. We have to ask ourselves what the effect on the economy is going to be. We also have to ask ourselves what the effect on the morale of our people is going to be. I do not think that these aspects have been properly canvassed, and I believe that they should not be canvassed in open debate during a Second Reading debate. These matters should be canvassed in a Select Committee of Parliament. There is general concern, throughout the country, about the impact which this Bill, in its present form, is going to have on the entire socio-economic structure of the country.

Yes, because it has been misrepresented.

No, not because it has been misrepresented. People are able to understand the measure when they see it reported.

Reported by whom?

I want to quote—I think the hon. the Minister and that hon. member who has been interjecting would be interested to hear this—from a message received by this side of the House from the Natal Chamber of Industries. It is a telex message that arrived yesterday, and I quote—

They have not been told about it, they have examined it and this is a responsible body—

It goes on to say—this is the Natal Chamber of Industries—

1. (a) seriously interfering with and dislocating administrative and productive capability,
2. (b) discouraging new investments and thereby the creation of job opportunities which in itself is critical to the survival of this country.

It goes on to say that the Republic cannot afford this and to suggest that one should look at a much larger Permanent Force. It goes on to suggest that one should look at the possibility of including Coloureds and Indians and members of other races in our army and encouraging them to join our army. It ends up saying—

Then comes this vital sentence—

They must of course be political, because one cannot conscript people into one’s army if one is not prepared to give rights of citizenship to them—

This really is the problem of South Africa.

The manpower problem of the army is such because we are only looking at the small segment of the White population. If the army was able to build up a greater Permanent Force or if it was able to encourage volunteers from the other race groups to join the Defence Forces, many of its problems could be resolved. In its present form this Bill needs to be reconsidered and I urge that it be referred to a Select Committee before the Second Reading is passed.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Berea kicked up a fuss here this afternoon in his same old characteristic way. He spoke a great deal without really saying anything. He put forward very few new arguments here. The whole tenor of speech was negative. It had a negative impact on the important matter we are dealing with here today.

It was very propagandistic as well.

I shall reply further to some of the arguments of the hon. member for Berea in the course of my speech.

The hon. member for Pretoria West pointed out that there were three factions in the ranks of the official Opposition. However, after I had listened to four or five speakers on that side, I gained the impression that there were more than three factions there. If one looks at the various shades of red which appeared on the face of the hon. member for Yeoville while various members of his party were speaking, it is very clear that this is true.

Now he is quiet.

We in this country are living at a time when military resilience and preparedness should become a way of life among our people. We cannot get away from this. Our Defence Force has always been a national defence force, a national defence force in the true sense of the word, a defence force of the nation, by the nation and for the nation. Before a misunderstanding occurs once again concerning the term “nation”, I wish to say that I mean thereby the citizens of the country.

Of all colours?

These are people who share the common purpose of defending this country and all its people against the onslaught threatening this country. At this point, it is necessary, by way of repetition, to tell some of the hon. members in this House, particularly in that party, those who have eyes but do not see, who have ears but do not hear, of the onslaught against South Africa, and to tell them that the threat we are faced with is aimed not only at one specific race group, but at all the people in the country. Every reasonable person knows that South Africa is the focal point of international politics today, and that this country of ours has become the most sought-after prize in the power struggle for world domination. We know this. I do not wish to go into all these things.

However, what do we hear today? This onslaught is being scoffed at by one speaker after another from the ranks of the Opposition. Are those people who speak like this, blind to what is happening in other parts of the world? Are they blind to what is happening in Africa? Are they blind to the fact that a red band stretches from Angola in the West to Mozambique in the East and that the tentacles of the enemy are snatching at our people across all these borders? Hon. members on that side of the House think differently, however. They have other philosophies as far as these matters are concerned. Last year the hon. member for Constantia said in this House that he would have his throat slit before he would persuade young people to go and fight on the border for the apartheid policy of this Government. That is an outrageous thing to say. The hon. member for Berea repeated this in so many words. We are now becoming sick and tired of this type of hit-and-run politics used in the arguments of those hon. members.

We need a national defence force in South Africa today, because we can thereby effect the involvement of all our people in this country. In this way, the burden of national service is distributed as evenly as possible among our people. In this way, we afford each citizen in this country the privilege of serving his country and giving substance to his patriotism, his loyalty and his love of this country. Furthermore, by getting the population involved in territorial protection, in hearth and home protection, we are extending a security blanket right across this country, and we are establishing an information network which is essential for our future efforts.

Many objections were raised in this House today concerning this legislation. I want us to consider some of those objections. The hon. member for Yeoville made reference to a dangerous setback to the economy of the country. Now, we must be very careful, but also consistent when we consider this matter. A strong economy is certainly a prerequisite for stability and the ability to create a formidable defence force, in the light of the money and manpower that is required. One would readily concede that the withdrawal of economically productive manpower is detrimental to the economy, but we are restricted in our choice. The only choice we really have is to arrange our system of national service in such a way as to cause the least possible disruption. One can only do this by spreading the burden as evenly as possible. Other hon. members will go into the economic aspects in greater detail, but in this regard I should just like to say that maintaining a defence force, and fighting a war are expensive processes, expensive in money and manpower. However, we should also bear in mind that it is precisely because of this that the economy is one of the main targets of our enemy. Therefore every sector and every individual will have to pay his premium in the economic field, for the sake of the protection of that very economy.

Today further reference was made, and the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Berea mentioned this, to the idea that it would be better to establish a full-time force sufficient to ward off the onslaught or the threat. That is a lot of nonsense. The hon. member for Yeoville pretends to be the main spokesman of his party on finance as well as on defence in this House, but he has not done his homework and he has not done his calculations, or else he is incapable of calculating.

You are talking nonsense.

Other members referred to what it would cost to establish and maintain a full-time Force.

Completely incorrect figures.

The hon. member for Yeoville has had his opportunity. This is what he said, and he did not do his calculations.

Do not talk rubbish.

I wish to draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that merely to extend our full-time force by a little more than 20% in the next five years, will cost in the vicinity of R523 million. This kind of statement is typical of people who wish to buy off with money their duty and responsibility to the defence of their country. This is symptomatic of the relative prosperity and the lack of involvement of our people. There is a syndrome of “let it be done, we shall pay”. I want to warn against this syndrome today. It is time that our people become more involved and that we do more and have less done. If we have to pay, let us pay in a manner in which it can be meaningfully applied. However, we cannot do what the hon. member for Yeoville proposed.

As far as a full-time Permanent Force is concerned, I wish to say that no matter what salary one pays some people, they are not capable of becoming soldiers. Certain people have a calling in another direction. I maintain that whatever we pay people, we are not going to get enough people to become professional soldiers. Sufficient manpower will not be available. If, in addition, all these people are withdrawn from the economy and are placed in a full-time force, what is to become of the economy?

You are only speaking of Whites, what about all the other people in the country?

I am coming to the people of colour now. There has been talk in this House this afternoon as if people of colour are not involved in the S.A. Defence Force, but surely this is not true. The Defence Force is open to everyone. Already there is the Coloured Citizen Force unit and the Cape Corps. There are also Black units for the national States that undergo their training in co-operation with the S.A. Defence Force. There are also multi-national training groups such as 21 Battalion, as well as the voluntary system where people report for service. At the moment, more people are reporting for service than can be accommodated. The planning for the establishment of regional units is already far advanced, and the hon. member for Yeoville is aware of this. There is also the Indian Corps, as well as a large number of people of colour who work in a civilian capacity in the S.A. Defence Force. However, the Defence Force must also determine its priorities in accordance with the threat against South Africa, and this is important. Funds, facilities and personnel, especially in the leadership group, should be utilized efficiently and meaningfully.

South West Africa has become our top priority during the past few years. A great deal of manpower and funds have been applied to first establish a sound territorial force in that area.

In his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister referred to the planning and what is envisaged in regard to the greater utilization of people of colour, as well as women, in the S.A. Defence Force. He said that the situation would have to be reviewed in five years’ time, and that it remains the goal of the S.A. Defence Force to establish a larger full-time force. He said that these measures should therefore be seen as an interim step in the achievement of the ideal, in terms of which other race groups and White women will also be involved to a greater extent. This is a typical case which hon. members on the other side of this House tried to turn into a political football today.

In conclusion, I wish to refer to the so-called “Dad’s army”, which has been referred to in the Press, as well as by hon. members in this debate. It is a pity that the hon. member for Durban Point is not present in this House. I wish to ask the hon. member for Durban Point, the hon. member for Yeoville, the hon. member for Berea, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout—I do not wish to be unkind to the hon. member for Houghton, but if one takes her age into account, one could also ask her the question—do they consider themselves too old to be members of Parliament?

There is life in them yet. [Interjections.]

They are not reacting, but I think they would all say that they are still full of life and that they will still be here for many years; they still want to do the job. If they remain here, we could also then refer to them as the “Dad’s army” of Parliament, or, as the newspapers mockingly referred to them, the “Salusa Scouts”.

There is a big difference between “Dad’s Army” and “Oupa’s Army”.

The point I wish to make, is that I know of farmers, as well as other people in our cities, who are 70 years and older, but who still do a full day’s work every day of their life. They are people who are physically capable of doing a full day’s work and therefore they would, if called on, also be capable of doing their share in the commando, or wherever they wish to be used. I have not doubt about this. Even if someone like this is not physically strong, he could have considerable expertise which could be put to good use in the S.A. Defence Force.

I wish to thank the hon. members who took part in the debate for not being guilty of this to any great extent, but outside this House and in the Press, there are people who referred scornfully to this so-called “Dad’s Army” and who wilfully disparaged the role of the volunteer who serves in our Commandos, and tried to make the volunteers look ridiculous. These are the people who have carried the commandos up to now. Some of them were serving at the time of the Second World War, and are still doing their share today as far as the defence of the country is concerned. I wish to appeal to every one to put a stop to this kind of reference to volunteers, the story of the “Dad’s Army” and the name “Salusa Scouts”, as it is not to the credit of the S.A. Defence Force.

Let me conclude. The Bill before us is probably the most exciting legislation in a long time as far as the S.A. Defence Force is concerned. I believe that it is essential in our present special circumstances. I hereby appeal to the Opposition to get away from petty politics in this matter and to assist us, the Defence Force and South Africa, to establish a national service system which will not only be reasonable under the circumstances, but which will also be fair to all as regards doing their share in this country. I support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to make two preliminary remarks before I deal with the Bill itself. The first one is that I think that every speech made on that side of the House is a demonstration as to why the amendment moved by the hon. member for Yeoville ought to be accepted. Again and again there has been misunderstanding, there have been critical points, party politics, call it what you will, brought in which would never have occurred had there been a Select Committee before the Second Reading of the Bill. Therefore I am convinced that the right thing was done when the hon. member for Yeoville moved his amendment.

The second remark is that the hon. member for Kroonstad referred to hon. members on this side of the House, including the hon. members for Durban Point, Yeoville, Bezuidenhout and Berea and said that because they were able and fit enough to serve in this Parliament, they should not hesitate to serve in “Dad’s Army”, but is he not aware of section 97 of the Defence Act which excludes or makes it impossible for members of Parliament to be called up? I find it somewhat invidious, to say the least, for members of Parliament to discuss the necessity for young men and old men to go into the army when we ourselves are excluded. [Interjections.] I wonder whether I should not ask the hon. the Minister to give attention to this point. Is it not invidious that we should be discussing this matter and talking such a big fight while we do not have to go? I say that is one of the matters that could be considered by the Select Committee or any other Select Committee. I am not sure whether the people outside understand why it is so easy for us to consign so many people to the armed forces when we ourselves do not have to go.

I think it is very important to clarify once again the fact that there are a number of important details and principles contained in this Bill. We have asked that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee before Second Reading so that we can discuss not only the principles as outilined by the hon. the Minister but also the overall thrust of this legislation. Our major objection to it is the drastic extension of the call-up system. It can only be described as drastic. I want to repeat that it is our submission that the South African public have been given no adequate motivation for this general mobilization. I speak without having read the White Paper that has been given to us only today and that White Paper may well contain such motivation. I do not know what that White Paper contains. However, the hon. member for Yeoville exphasized this point and I want to stress it again. Let me put it to the hon. the Minister in this way. Imagine, if you will, the ordinary South African reading his newspapers, watching television and listening to the radio. He gets his news, his ideas and his views from those sources. From military statements there is every indication that the S.A. Defence Force has achieved military dominance on the South West Africa/Namibia-Angola border. Swapo casualties have been consistently high. Equipment has been captured and bases overrun and destroyed. That is the message that is coming through to the general public. Nobody can be blamed for believing that Swapo has been totally demoralized and that the South African forces are victorious.

In the second instance, it is a well-known fact that neighbouring countries are in no position to attack South Africa even if they feel so inclined. Their economic situation and their general instability leaves no room for aggression towards South Africa. Furthermore, we know that the South African Army has a degree of sophistication, professionalism and expertise, both in regard to its armaments and its training, which has no rival in Southern Africa and perhaps indeed in Africa.

In the third instance, while there is general discontent among Blacks towards the fundamental policies of this Government, surely there can be no suggestion that there is to be a mass armed uprising which could motivate or justify this major mobilization; or—and I put this question to him—does the hon. the Minister have information that we do not have? Is the situation far more serious than the near parrot repetition of “there is a total onslaught” which has now become a party political slogan? Some of the key people in South Africa, inside and outside of this House, in business and in commerce and industry, simply do not believe it. They do not accept it. They certainly do not accept the words “total onslaught”.

Do you?

I do not, I say it again. [Interjections.] Again and again we have stressed the fact that there is an onslaught against South Africa, that we have major difficulties and problems both inside and outside this country. However, immediately we exaggerate the situation, immediately the all-embracing word “total” is used and people know that this is not so, then we cannot motivate people. That is why there has been an outcry about the general mobilization. People do not understand. One moment it seems as though we are tough, commanding and in control. The next moment we are told that everybody from the age of 17 to 60 years must be conscripted. There is a complete breakdown in the communications that are forthcoming from the S.A. Defence Force and from the hon. the Minister.

Does the hon. the Minister believe that we in South Africa are on the brink of war, because that is the kind of mobilization that seems to be suggested here. I put it to the hon. the Minister that unless adequate motivation is forthcoming, this new development can actually be both alarmist and demoralizing to White South Africa and hardly encouraging to Black South Africa.

My son is at present doing his national service and has just finished his basic training. Many of his friends who have completed their two years’ training wrote to me or came to see me as their member of Parliament, and complained that whilst doing their basic training they worked hard from early morning to late at night, but again and again it was stated that they were bored or did not have enough to do for the remaining 18 months. Of course, there are exceptions and I accept that immediately.

The basic approach to the utilization of manpower is to make the best possible use of the available manpower before it is extended. Any company director or any manager in a factory knows that by having more people, less work is done, because there is not good management. There is no ability and responsibility to direct, control and train the work force. I put it to the hon. the Minister: Are we making the best possible use of the available manpower before we introduce further mobilization?

Against this background of severe and critical manpower shortages, we are not persuaded in the arguments and non-arguments that we have heard that this extension of mobilization is warranted. Let me give the hon. the Minister a few examples. On 16 March 1982, the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications had this to say in the Post Office Appropriation debate (Hansard, col. 2958)—

In the annual report of the Department of Health, Welfare and Pensions there is listed in Annexure 8: “Vacancies in representative White entry posts.” The authorized number of posts is 6 882. Of these, only 3 205 are filled permanently; 1 579 are filled on a temporary basis; 267 on a part-time basis, and the number of actual vacancies in the Health Department is 1 831. The Deputy Director-General of that department is on record as saying—

In the building industry the total shortage of artisans has now reached 5 600. This means a 15,6% shortfall. It has been estimated that additional skilled labour requirements between 1981 and 1984 will be 555 per annum. Then the report goes on to state—

I can refer to the Department of Manpower itself. This department is charged with the responsibility of making sure that there is adequate manpower in South Africa. What does the former Director-General say? He says—

It is well known that the Public Service as a whole is stretched to breaking point. The manpower crisis in the Public Service has spread so far that—although this sounds amusing, it is in fact very serious—the Government Garage in Pretoria now has only one remaining mechanic who has to tend about 2 500 vehicles. Incredible! [Interjections.] So we can go on, but let me sum it up in the words of Prof. Jan Sadie of the University of Stellenbosch, who says—

If one bears that in mind one will appreciate why we are concerned. There is nothing wrong with being concerned about the economy of South Africa. There is nothing unpatriotic in fighting for a strong economy and for the best possible use of manpower. However, immediately one does that, one’s motives are called into question.

Let us take as example a man with a one-man business, or even a young man who wants to go farming. Instead of doing his 720 days over a period of 12 years, he can do local service in the commandos for 1 000 days over 20 years. If he were to do this in one-and-a-half-hour time periods, he would have to do this service for six days a week, for 50 weeks a year over a period of 20 years. He would then have a five-year break, after which he would have to go on doing six days a week for 12 weeks a year until he is 60 years old. I have taken some trouble, as the manpower spokesman for the PFP, to quote these figures because it is imperative that South Africa gets her priorities right. It is generally accepted and stated and acknowledged by all parties in this House that there is no military solution to the growing situation of conflict in Southern and South Africa. Therefore the resolution of conflict must be primarily sought in the political, social and economic fields.

If we are going to lay further stress on the Public Service in an economy which is near the point of collapse because of the acute shortage of skilled and semi-skilled labour, are we not in fact giving up on the political, social and economic solutions, with an even greater commitment than ever before to a military solution which, we say, is not on? Every single cent which has to be spent on a further mobilization is a defeat of a political and economic resolution of conflict in South Africa.

Indeed, the general mobilization advocated in this Bill, could well exacerbate the conflict. Has it not occurred to the hon. the Minister that this massive, exclusively White mobilization conveys a message to Blacks in South Africa? Are we not in danger of a further polarization instead of reducing the possibility of confrontation? Surely, a better alternative would be a multiracial volunteer Permanent Force. This is the alternative we are posing, and that is why I believe this House should support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Yeoville.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. dove that has just finished cooing would appear to have flown into this House straight from the trees outside St. George’s Cathedral. [Interjections.]

When one listens to the hon. member for Pinelands, one must of necessity come to the conclusion that there is no threat in South Africa. There is no danger on our borders. Then one must also come to the conclusion that the Bill under discussion is quite unnecessary. True to the company he keeps the hon. member for Pinelands tried to make light of the entire situation in which our country finds itself. For example, he referred to the fact that members of Parliament—and allow me to deal with this matter immediately—will not be liable for compulsory military service in terms of this measure, which of course is not the same as in the case of the Defence Act. He said it was a disgrace that we could debate military matters while we ourselves were not liable for national service.

I said scandalous. There is a difference.

Would the hon. member for Pinelands have wanted it in any other way?

[Inaudible.]

Would the hon. member for Pinelands like to be subject to the Defence legislation? Would he like his freedom of speech to be curtailed? Would he like to see the legislature in this country subject to Defence legislation? [Interjections.] No, the hon. member was merely indulging in a little gossip. He merely wanted to create the general impression that we in this House arrogate to ourselves the freedom of not being subject to any military obligation. However, he omitted to say anything about the important democratic concept that the legislature should be able to exercise judicial administration in this country in any event, whether there is peace or war. This is the principle underlying the fact that members of Parliament are excluded from the provisions of this legislation. [Interjections.] However, the hon. member omitted to say anything about this point in an attempt to bring this House into discredit with the public at large. However, that is not all. He spoke of “parrot repetition” of the idea of a total onslaught.

Yes.

Just like the hon. member of his party, that hon. member is trying to imply that the total onslaught is actually being exaggerated and made to appear worse than the Government and the Defence Force experts know it to be. That is why I referred to a dove flying in here, because throughout the world we find that people whose intentions do not augur well for the security of their country, try to make light of the threat against the country’s security.

In the last half of his speech the hon. member tried to weigh up the interests of the Defence Force against the interests of the economy of the country. However, the two cannot be compared because one is dependent on the other.

Exactly what I said.

It is just as important for South Africa to have a strong economy so that we can protect ourselves properly as it is for South Africa to have a strong defence force so that we can have a proper economy. I do not want to elaborate on this much further, but just allow me to refer to the attacks on Sasol or the Silverton bank. One could mention many examples. There have been many attacks on South Africa during the past few years. One could also point to the escalation in the attacks inside the country. I am not even referring to the attacks on the border with South West Africa; I am only referring to internal attacks. One could point out that these attacks are escalating. This proves that the economy of the country is just as dependent on a strong defence force as a strong defence force is dependent on the economy.

The hon. member for Pineland’s entire speech was aimed at suggesting that this country’s strong defence ability was not really all that important, that everything is in fact going well or as the hon. member for Hillbrow likes to say: “Everything in the garden is rosy”. The hon. members of the Opposition are trying to give an impression that everything is rosy. This is also reflected in their newspapers. The hon. member for Kroonstad referred very effectively to the derogatory references in the Opposition newspapers to “Dads’ Army”. They want to dismiss the army as something that is in fact a little ludicrous.

Was it only the English-language newspapers?

The hon. member for Constantia said we should fight ideas with ideas. If the hon. member considers the number of tanks in the States on our borders to be ideas, I can agree with him. If he considers the number of cannon lined up along our borders to be ideas, I can agree with him. However, the fact remains that what is aimed at South Africa today is not ideas. What is aimed at South Africa is ordinary elementary military hardware. If the hon. member wants to wage war with his ideas, he is quite welcome to do so. As far as this side of the House is concerned, we shall ensure that South Africa is properly armed.

I do not think that the hon. member for Yeoville tried to dispute that the onslaught on South Africa was becoming greater, that it was escalating. I think that hon. members of all the parties in this House may take cognizance of the fact that in the field of armaments, manpower, intense propaganda and other sphere, the onslaught has intensified over the past 10 to 15 years. Our Defence Act has been on the Statute-Book for the past seven or eight years and made provision for a situation which applied at the time. No one here can logically deny that that situation is not the same as the situation today. Like any other western country we must also allow ourselves to be led by the advice we receive from our experts. If military experts tell us that the country is more threatened today, we must take cognizance of this, we must take cognizance of the situation applying today. If there are experts who tell us that there are certain deficiencies, certain shortcomings in our defence ability under the present Act, surely we must give attention to this.

As regards the details in this legislation, surely it is obvious that the Select Committee will decide on this. I think there are three aspects in particular affecting the principle of this legislation. These are that at the moment we have a shortage of manpower in our military situation, that we devote insufficient time to training leaders and that our regional defence is inadequate. These are the three aspects, as the hon. the Minister said, that lie at the root of this legislation. These are the three aspects about which we must reach finality in this debate.

As far as the manpower situation is concerned, this is not a matter we can argue about. We simply must find an answer. We have one of two choices. We can either, as the legislation proposes, involve a broad spectrum of the country’s population in the defence of the country, or retain the young men we call up for national service for two years at present, for a longer period. In this regard we could therefore hit the economy harder and we could perpetuate and aggravate the present situation where a reasonably limited number of members of the population have to bear the entire burden of the defence of our country. Neither the hon. member for Pinelands, the hon. member for Yeoville, the hon. member for Durban Point nor I are qualified to assess the necessity for more people to defend our country. However, if our military experts tell us that we need more people, we can all decide how we can find them. Now I want to challenge the hon. members of the Opposition to tell this country that they would rather involve our young men for two and a half, three or four years in the defence of our country instead of involving a broader spectrum of the population in the defence of our country.

We shall talk about that in the Select Committee.

I did not even say that in any case.

No, I know that. Of course that hon. member does not want to defend our country at all. [Interjections.]

The most important merit of this legislation is that it spreads the burden of the defence of our country over a wide area, not only as regards the total population, but also as regards the age of our able-bodied population.

In the second place there is a shortage of know-how of leadership. This is closely allied to the fact that we do not have our young men available for military training for long enough to use them to train people to defend our country. The second principle this legislation tries to implement is therefore that we will be able to involve South Africans in the defence of our country for a longer period; in other words that we are given more time to identify, draw on and use elements of leadership for the defence of our country.

The third principle of this legislation concerns regional protection. This is the third important aspect in which our Defence Act is deficient at the moment. We have the situation that we probably have one of the longest borders in the whole of Africa. If one looks at the map of Africa, one finds that our entire northern border is potentially a vulnerable area. Up to now our commando system has been based on voluntary assistance. This legislation makes it possible to draw up an area bound defence force on our borders.

I believe these are the elementary things we must decide on in this debate; more manpower, the better identification of leaders and more area bound protection. If we are unanimous on these principles, the Select Committee will be able to decide on the details of this legislation. However, in order to comply with these princples, it is necessary for this Parliament to reach finality on it. This is really why we are at loggerheads with the Opposition. The Opposition does not want our defensibility to be strengthened.

Rubbish!

They can argue as much as they like, but that lies at the root of their entire opposition to the passing of the Second Reading of this Bill.

Nonsense!

They are too afraid to say that they are opposed to the defence of South Africa and now they use this parliamentary ploy of saying that they want the Bill referred to a Select Committee before the Second Reading. This Parliament and no other body must decide these principles.

Mr. Speaker, it is hardly possible to reply to the ridiculous arguments of the hon. member for Umlazi, since he apparently did not listen to the speeches. Throughout the debate, we continually said that a defence force was necessary to ensure the safety of the country, so that we could continue to make changes which would eventually, in the long term, safeguard our country against an overthrow of the system by possible methods other than political action.

Arising out of what the hon. member for Constantia said, the hon. member for Umlazi said that one would not fight ideas with ideas, but that tanks were not ideas. This is certainly true, but I wish to tell the hon. member that if every tank of our neighbours is seen as a direct threat, the hon. member wants to plunge us into an arms race which would escalate unceasingly. Does the hon. member want to tell us that such an escalation could go on for ever? We must fight the tanks of our enemies with diplomatic and economic actions. It is the Government’s duty to act in such a way that our neighbours would like to be our friends. Only in this way, will we stand a chance.

†Unfortunately, the White Paper was not available earlier. I have attempted to establish what the Defence Force saw as its manpower requirements and how those will be met by the new Bill. On page 15, under the heading “Citizen Force” it says—

I take that to mean an increase of 23% in the manpower of the Defence Force. It refers here to the Citizen Force component of the Defence Force. This alone is reason enough to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, because, surely, this is a complete miscalculation of the effects of the Bill. For instance, if someone were to serve for 60 days per year for eight years, he would serve for a total of 16 months, in other words one year and four months. Added to the original two years, his total service comes to three years and four months, or 40 months. Any extension of one year only adds two months to this. It is therefore two months over a period of 40 months. That is, in my calculation, 5% and not 23% as stated in the White Paper.

In dealing with the manpower implications of the Bill one must look at it from two points of view, namely from that of the S.A. Defence Force and also from that of the overall economy. The main objectives of the Bill are indeed to meet the growing manpower demands of the Defence Force, as it is stated in the news release.

*The Press release reads as follows—

The Press release also mentions that this opportunity is being taken to eliminate certain deficiencies. The Press statement and the reasons should further be read together with the news statement under the heading “The escalation of the threat against South Africa”, which serves as justification for the higher level of power.

Let us not take the merit of the analysis into account for a moment, and accept that it is correct. One must therefore conclude from the final viewpoint, as given on page 12, that the threat is largely a border war situation; in other words, an external threat. This we have constantly heard from hon. members on that side. In the Press statement, we read words such as target for the USSR and its goal of worldwide domination, external threat, Swapo and its surrogate forces, also external, and a conventional attack from within our neighbouring States; in other words, we should assume that the reasons for the submission of this legislation is to avert that external onslaught and, of course, because the threat is internal as well.

I wish to spend a moment on the analysis of the influence of the amended national service, to see to what extent it will influence the manpower supply, for the system is to be criticized largely because it brings about a tremendous increase in national service. What is the case in reality? It is clear from the available statistics—and I used the education statistics because they are the most recent—that the yearly intake, whether it be after school or university, has neither decreased or increased very much during the past few years—this will also be the case in the future. In reality it remains very constant. The White Paper also mentions this. It says—

We also know that the school intake is, in fact, decreasing as far as Whites are concerned. One does not need to know what the real number of people per age group will be, in order to calculate in terms of the new formula what the increase in numbers will be, although this figure is between 30 000 and 35 000 people per age group. I do not wish to bore hon. members with long calculations or tables, but one can calculate the growth rate in manpower by means of a few logical assumptions and a few simple calculations. We assume that only Citizen Force members will be taken into consideration for border duty, and that during the first year of national service, such a member is only available for one-third of the year and that he is busy doing his basic training during the remaining eight months. Thereafter, a member will be available for 90 days or one-third of the year every two years, as the alternative 30 days are a training camp period. At present, members do military service for eight years and an average of 45 days a year, as we know that the service period has been extended from 30 days to 90 days, and we can assume that the average extension would be only 15 days. In the first year after the proposed scheme, the manpower figure will remain precisely the same. Under these circumstances, the calculation is simple, as we then have eight years from which to choose, plus the first years of continuous national service. After that, the growth rate in many-years—this is the only criterion I know of with which one can measure manpower—is approximately 5,4% per year in the first year after that, 5,1% in the following year, 4,8% in the following year and 4,6% in the final year. This therefore gives us a total of only 21% over a period of five years, which one arrives at by applying the new formula. One could change certain of the assumptions slightly, as, for instance, if some of the 30-day camps are used for active service, but this figure does not differ dramatically from the percentages which I mentioned. Furthermore, the Citizen Force Comprises only 47% of the total manpower of the Defence Force. We see this in the White Paper. In reality, therefore, the increase in the percentages in the total Defence Force are even less than that.

As far as the period in the area-bound commando is concerned, it is slightly more difficult to make accurate calculations, but if one assumes, as the White Paper says, that only 25% of our male adults have already done service, then one can accept that, say, in the age group 35 to 50 years, only about 10% are now involved in commando service. I do not have the exact figure, but let us say 10%. If one assumes that the average person would be approximately 36 years old after he has finished his commando service plus five years in the reserve force, then one has a potential increase of 90% for internal security, or, if we spread this over a period of approximately five years, an increase of 20% a year. This is certainly a very big increase; in fact, a massive call up for internal defence to oppose internal unrest.

Let us see what the effect is on the economy as such. Over the next four years, as the national service increases from 10 to 14 years, this therefore means a withdrawal which may be calculated as follows, if we say that there are approximately 32 000 people per age group: 32 000 times 60 days divided by 360, and this gives us 5 330 man-years which are withdrawn every year from the economically active population. These people are in their tenth to their 14th professional year and, as we know, they occupy positions in the professional and administrative ranks in the economy. It is also clear from population statistics, that that type of person is in the ratio of approximately one to four, compared with the lower income groups. What this amounts to is that, while we are waiting for growth, one has an effective decrease of approximately 5 300 man-years in the growth rate of the economically active White manpower, one is speaking of approximately 22 000 work opportunities in the other lower income groups which are in jeopardy. This is, of course, something which we can hardly afford.

The additional salaries which employers need to pay because they have to have more staff, amount to R55 million a year, if one calculates this on the average salary of R860 a month. This is the amount which the economy has to produce annually for the increase in service alone over the next few years.

As far as the people in the period of 12 days are concerned, if we accept that such a person does an average of only six days a year, then the sum 6 days divided by 360 times 30 000 times 20, gives us the total of 10 000 man-years. The 30 000 is the number of people in every year group and the 20 is the number of year groups. We therefore have a loss to the economy of 10 000 man-years.

Against this background, I am therefore of the opinion that we will really have to reconsider this, and we can do so if we refer the Bill to a Select Committee before the Second Reading, since, notwithstanding the considerable extension in the national service, we have only reached a slight increase in real manpower. Secondly, this could be seen as a White army, and in this regard I believe that a permanent force, as proposed by the hon. member for Yeoville, could assist in avoiding that polarization. I therefore support the amendment that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee before the Second Reading.