Immediately before the adjournment of the House last night the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford), in a very constructive speech to which I listened very attentively, referred to the incidence of asbestosis in the occupational sphere and urged me to take suitable preventive steps. In reply to him I can say that it is my earnest desire to reduce the occurrence of this and all the other industrial diseases as much as it is possible to do so. To this end I recently appointed a departmental committee to investigate the occurrence of the more prevalent occupational diseases in factories and to determine their causes. This committee has to report to me and make recommendations in regard to the curative and preventive measure to be taken. The investigation, the first of its kind ever to be undertaken in South Africa, was originally carried out on the Witwatersrand and was confined to pneumoconiosis, lead poisoning and dermatitis. The investigation was of considerable magnitude and the correlation of the extensive data obtained is proving a time-consuming task. I am awaiting the committee’s report and recommendations with very great interest. As the hon. member stated very clearly, asbestosis is an occupational or industrial disease of comparatively recent manifestation. My Department informs me that its incidence has so far been relatively insignificant. The hon. member apparently possesses information about the disease which the Department could usefully employ. It would be of great help to my Department to get as much data about this disease as it can in order that suitable counter-measures can be worked out, and any information which the hon. member is able to supply to the Department would therefore be greatly appreciated.

Vote put and agreed to.

I move—

That the Chairman report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Agreed to.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.

First of all I want to express my appreciation to the hon. Leader and Whips of the Opposition that at short notice they have consented to this matter being dealt with to-day. The short notice is due to the fact that all Government Departments had to be consulted as to whether there was any legislation in South Africa which might affect Commonwealth countries as a result of South Africa’s withdrawal from the Commonwealth. To secure this information took some time, and the last of it was received only two or three days ago. In view of the urgency of this matter, I asked whether the Opposition would be agreeable to an intrusion being made into the Agenda, and this matter being considered to-day.

Mr. Speaker, the Bill before the House is intended to deal with the situation which will arise after 31 May, when South Africa will no longer be a member of the Commonwealth. South Africa’s withdrawal from the Commonwealth does not mean, as has been suggested in certain newspapers, and by certain persons, the immediate automatic discontinuation of all relations with the United Kingdom and other members of the Commonwealth. On the contrary, as far as the South African Government is concerned, it is our desire to continue and further to improve existing relations between South Africa and the United Kingdom and other members of the Commonwealth and to promote co-operation in regard to matters of common concern with those Commonwealth countries that are desirous of continued cooperation with South Africa in such matters. This could be by means of arrangements between the countries concerned, or, if necessary, it can be done by means of bilateral agreements. South Africa’s relations with the United Kingdom particularly, and also with some of the other Commonwealth countries, date back to the establishment of the Union in 1910. With a view to maintaining such co-operation in regard to matters of common concern, means must now be found, some basis must be devised, which will take account of the new situation arising from the fact that South Africa will no longer be a member of the Commonwealth. The desirability of having such arrangements was recognized by the South African and the British representatives at the recent Commonwealth Conference. It was then understood between them that the United Kingdom Government would introduce legislation which would ensure continuance of the existing laws that govern certain relations between the United Kingdom and the Union of South Africa, such a law to be operative for a period not exceeding 12 months. It has generally been referred to as the “Standstill” arrangement. That measure was passed by the House of Commons, and last week it was approved by the House of Lords—where it was well received. There were, I am glad to say, friendly and sympathetic references to South Africa in the speeches made in the House of Lords. In passing, may I mention that trade arrangements do not fall within the scope of either the British or of this Bill, because they are governed by bilateral agreements. I discussed the matter with Mr. Maudling, the President of the Board of Trade, before we left London and it was fully agreed that trade agreements would not be affected in any way, and would continue as heretofore, in spite of South Africa’s withdrawal from the Commonwealth.

In accordance with the understanding arrived at between our Prime Minister and Mr. Duncan Sandys, it was arranged that the British Government would introduce legislation, and that similar legislation would be introduced in the Union Parliament. That arrangement is embodied in the Bill now before the House.

Mr. Speaker, the provisions of the United Kingdom Act and the measure now before the House, differ in certain respects, because of certain different circumstances. The main difference is that the United Kingdom continues to be a member of the Commonwealth, and the British Act of Parliament therefore makes provision only for the effect on the United Kingdom of South Africa’s withdrawal out of the Commonwealth. South Africa, on the other hand, must adopt legislative measures which will permit the Union to maintain, even though it be temporary, the maintenance of relations, provided for in our laws, also with regard to other Commonwealth countries if, naturally, such is desired by them. The position, therefore, is, to put it more plainly, that while the laws of other Commonwealth countries may not apply to South Africa after withdrawal, South African laws which may affect the relations between South Africa and other Commonwealth countries will continue to be in force until repealed, because of the fact that the other countries have retained their membership of the Commonwealth.

The British Standstill legislation provides for the maintenance of the status quo for a period of 12 months. There is a proviso that the period can be shortened if it should appear with regard to any particular measure, that it is no longer necessary to maintain it. As I pointed out, in the case of South Africa the Bill does not deal only with our laws which may affect the United Kingdom, but also those which may affect other members of the Commonwealth.

The position is that unlike the position in Britain, where Parliament is in session practically throughout the year, in South Africa our Parliament is in session only for a period of roughly six months and in the remaining part of the year it is not possible to introduce legislation. Therefore, as hon. members will see, there is the possibility that one or more of the other Commonwealth countries may prefer not to maintain their existing laws governing relations with South Africa, and for that reason the Bill provides that the Governor-General—it will be the State President after 31 May, but the Governor-General has still to be mentioned now—is empowered by proclamation to suspend the provisions of this Act in so far as they relate to a particular Commonwealth member, or Commonwealth members.

After a careful survey and inquiry by all our Government Departments, there do not appear to be any laws which would automatically lapse when South Africa becomes a republic. In fact, our law advisers are of opinion that his measure is not really necessary because of the entirely different circumstances prevailing in South Africa. But in view of the arrangement which was made by our Prime Minister and Mr. Sandys, and also in order to make assurance doubly sure, because it may later appear that there is some law or other which may have to be provided for, it has been decided to introduce this Bill. But apart from that aspect as to whether this measure is really necessary, its introduction to-day is an earnest, or a proof, of South Africa’s desire to maintain friendly relations and co-operation in matters of common concern with both the United Kingdom and with such other Commonwealth countries as are desirous of co-operating with South Africa in such matters.

As the hon. Minister has pointed out this Bill was only introduced yesterday and it was only made available to members this morning, and whilst we on this side of the House have agreed to have it dealt with to-day, I must say that I have not been satisfied by anything the hon. the Minister has said that it was so essential to push on with this measure to-day, because in spite of what the hon. the Minister has said, this is not a small thing we are being asked to do and both the purpose of the Bill and the content of the Bill are very far-reaching indeed if one has a chance to examine it and analyse it. On this side of the House we concede that legislation is necessary, or probably necessary in spite of what the law advisers say, and it is at any rate desirable, and we accept the hon. Minister’s expressed views that he is anxious and his Government is anxious to continue friendly relations and co-operation with other members of the Commonwealth, and that this Bill is to be taken as an earnest of that desire. I accept that the hon. the Minister and his Government are very anxious to save as much from the wreck of what they have made of things as they can. This Bill, Sir, is really incidental, it is incidental to the state of affairs in which we find ourselves at the present time. It is a state of affairs which makes this legislation necessary, simply another step, another stage in preparing for the miserable isolation with which we are faced in the very near future.

A miserable speech!

I don’t blame any hon. member for feeling miserable under the present circumstances. Sir, I think the title of this Bill is somewhat misleading—

That is perfectly true as far as it goes, but the Bill goes much further than that, because it makes provision for very drastic—how drastic we can’t say—alterations in those very laws without further reference to Parliament at all, and whilst we concede that legislation is necessary, we cannot agree to the form in which the hon. the Minister has presented it to this House. The hon. Minister has pointed out that the British Parliament has recently passed a Bill and that our Bill differs slightly from it. I agree with him. But he did not, I think, point out all the ways in which our Bill differs from the British one. In the first place the British Act is confined to a period of 12 months, which means that if by the end of 12 months all this tangle has not been sorted out, the British Government will have to go back to its Parliament and account for what has happened in the 12 months and ask for leave to prolong the Bill for a further period, for whatever reasons they may put forward. The hon. Minister has not included any such provision in this Bill. The other difference, I think, is that prima facie this Bill does not go as far as the British Bill because it only enables the Government to act if other countries act first, as the hon. Minister explained. In other words, there is nothing constructive about this Bill, it is a purely defensive device to cope with action which may be taken by other governments. And lastly, of course, the method of action proposed in this Bill is quite different from that contained in the British Act. Apart from the object, the machinery which this Bill proposes to deal with a situation which may arise is simply that those situations will be dealt with by proclamation on the basis of the Minister’s opinion about that situation. Of course the Governor-General is the Governor-General-in-Council, and in effect of course is the Minister. Now the title of this Bill is misleading because it does not only propose to create a standstill agreement. It clearly envisages that during the 12 months a good many of these problems may well be dealt with. In fact I think in the English House of Commons it was made quite clear that they did not intend to wait 12 months before tackling these problems and such of them as could be dealt with during the 12 months would be dealt with. That means that possibilities in this Bill for action which may have to be taken in the next 12 months are very great indeed. Having regard to the magnitude of the changes which may have to take place in these 12 months, I cannot see how Parliament can be asked to abdicate its authority in matters of such wide-spread importance, to abdicate in favour of action based simply on a Minister’s opinion. After all, without any reflection on any Minister, the Bill says that the action which may be taken is to be taken “if in the opinion of the Minister” it is felt necessary. In view of the importance of the things that may have to be done, it seems to us that it is not right that such actions should be based on the opinion of any Minister, or of any Committee of Ministers. At the very least, I suggest, provision should be made for a specific approval and ratification by Parliament as early as possible of any action taken by the Minister. After all we are assuming that we are going to deal with people with whom, whilst we are being divorced, we are still going to remain on friendly terms. We are assuming, and I take the Minister at his word, that we are hoping that a close measure of co-operation and consultation will continue with our erstwhile fellow-members of the Commonwealth. Therefore surely we have not got to assume that during these next 12 months there is going to be sudden vindictive or unnecessarily harsh action taken by our ex-fellow-members of the Commonwealth with whom we have relations which are protected by laws in this country. After all, even with ordinary trade agreements, Mr. Speaker, the practice now is and has been that whilst they may be concluded and signed, they do not become law until they are ratified by resolution of both Houses of Parliament, and if that is the practice in regard to trade agreements, surely in matters far more important than trade agreements, the least we could expect is that a similar practice would be followed. Now, even when Parliament is sitting—and I say we are entitled to assume that during the recess any action which is taken by other members of the Commonwealth who are legislating or acting will not be taken precipitously or vindictively, and it is most unlikely that any sudden action will become necessary—but in this Bill even while Parliament is sitting decisions having the widest effect on the various phases of our economy may be taken and proclaimed by the Minister without Parliament knowing anything about it or without any reference to Parliament at all. I therefore wish to move the following amendment—

By “abuse” I do not mean to imply wilful abuse at all. Abuse is a very wide term and it is so easy in the heat of the moment for actions to be taken which in the light of subsequent events prove to have been quite wrong. There is so much more involved than mere trade agreements to which I referred just now as having to come to this House for ratification and to indicate the vast range of matters which may fall within the scope of this Bill to be dealt with by proclamation during the coming months, based on the Minister’s opinion, I want to ask the hon. Minister some specific questions. I want to ask them for two reasons, first of all to try and show hon. members who perhaps have not had the opportunity of studying this Bill, the scope which is covered by the powers asked for in this Bill and secondly to try and get some inkling of what the Government has in mind in dealing with these problems. After some two months this House and the country are utterly and completely in the dark as to the Government’s plans and intentions to cope with the changing circumstances with which we are faced. I am going to ask the hon. the Minister: (1) Are other Commonwealth countries taking similar action and passing standstill legislation, and if so has he been in contact with them, has there been any consultation, has he any idea just what they are doing? The Minister has pointed out that trade agreements are not affected by this Bill, but has the hon. the Minister any idea as to what the other members of the Commonwealth are thinking on the subject? He has discussed the matter with the United Kingdom Government, but does he really think that other members of the Commonwealth who are competitors of ours in the British market on terms of preference will be satisfied to allow us now that we are no longer a member of the Commonwealth, to enjoy similar privileges? The hon. the Minister will agree with me that the whole position has changed.

Why?

Because after 31 May we are going to be a foreign country in the eyes of the United Kingdom and all the members of the Commonwealth. That is why. It is no good the hon. member shaking his head. This is the stone-cold fact, and as the hon. the Minister will agree, in future when we are negotiating these agreements, it is not going to be a matter of family discussions and goodwill, it is going to be a matter of horsetrading, to use the hon. Minister’s favourite phrase, horsetrading and bargaining. Can the hon. the Minister give us any information as to the attitude of the other Commonwealth countries vis-à-vis the preferences which we enjoy and which they enjoy at the same time? One very important question of course is the Commonwealth sugar agreement. That is a matter of the most immediate concern, both to the sugar industry and to secondary industry as well, because whilst we have the British preference, which is one thing, under the Commonwealth sugar agreement, which is specifically a Commonwealth sugar agreement, we have a substantial quota, and if we were to lose that quota, not only would it be a disastrous thing to the sugar industry in Natal, but it would be equally disastrous for the whole canning industry in South Africa which depends on the sugar at the price at which they are getting it to-day, to be able to compete in the overseas markets. We have no expression of opinion from the Government at all in that matter, and the sugar industry are vastly worried about it. There is the question of our defences. Our whole system of defence is based on membership of the Commonwealth and close interrelations particularly with the United Kingdom. We have had a system whereby our officers were sent abroad, and not only officers, and trained at staff colleges and kept up to date in the most modern techniques. That will go. There has been exchange of military information on a very high level. That will go. We have obtained arms and equipment on a very high priority. That presumably will go as well. There is the Simonstown Agreement; we are told that that will continue. Whether it will continue in its present form, of course I do not know. But it means this that the whole system on which our defence arrangements have been based is going by the board, and we want to know what is the Government thinking about for the future. Are they considering a bilateral defence treaty to try and fill the gap which is there for anybody to see? Are we going to wake up one morning to read in the Government Gazette that a treaty of this magnitude has been completed and has become effective without Parliament knowing anything about it?

There is the Airways Agreement. Will that continue or will it have to be altered? There are the very important questions indeed about our relationship with the Protectorates. What is the Government’s plan in this respect? Is it proposed to negotiate a fresh treaty with the United Kingdom to govern our relations with the Protectorates, and with the people living in them, or do we have to sit in the dark and wait for the hon. Minister to publish a new arrangement? What is going to be the position in regard to Commonwealth citizenship with all the various complications arising therefrom? Are we going to wake up one morning to find a notice in the Gazette that, as far as the rest of the Commonwealth is concerned, we are utter and complete aliens and will be treated as such when we visit those countries? [Interjections.] Hon. members do not like one referring to these things because they are unpleasant but they are, none the less, facts, and unless this House has the opportunity of examining the problems with which we are faced and everyone making the contribution he can to solve them, to make the best of a bad job, then the prospects of solving them are far less. What is the hon. Minister going to do in regard to his consular and diplomatic relations abroad? This is a very important question apart from the political aspects. It is very important for our trade and shipping people. Consular services are being rendered to South Africa all over the world by the British consular service at the present moment. What is going to take its place? Something must take its place, otherwise our trade and shipping will be placed in an impossible position. What is going to be the position in regard to the many Commonwealth scholarships and bursaries at present enjoyed by students of this country? They go, of course. But, surely, it is important that that channel, that opportunity, for our younger people to get training in the various professions during visits overseas, should be kept open. What is the Government going to do about it? Is it going to replace these Commonwealth bursaries and scholarships with Government grants? This is a question, Sir, on which the Government should take an early decision because students have to draw up their plans a year or two in advance. Many of them will, at any rate, lose the opportunities they would otherwise have had. There is also the question of the Merchant Shipping Act which requires very careful examination to determine in what way it has to be altered. There is also the question—which I have already raised in this House before—of our Government stock in the London money market. Will this be considered as trustee stock, or not? Will it still be open for trustees in England to invest in South African Government stock? Lastly, Sir, of the many points which I might raise, is the question of the European common market. It is perfectly clear that the European common market is having a great success. It is also very clear that Great Britain is approaching the point where it will join the European common market. It is also clear that what is holding that decision up is the necessity for her to make proper provision for members of the Commonwealth with whom she has such close relations, so that when she does join the European common market, they can come in too. And, of course, we shall not be included in that any more. What will the position then be? Are we going to be left out in the cold completely by this strong economic unit which is growing up in Europe? This is a matter of tremendous importance for the near future, and I challenge the hon. Minister this afternoon to show me one of the subjects I have mentioned which will be changed thereby bringing any gain or benefit whatever either to the country as a whole or to any individual in the country.

Tell us something now.

It is of no use asking the hon. member for Cradock to understand or realize anything and I am therefore not addressing myself to him. I wish he would keep quiet, because it is difficult to develop a serious argument under this type of interjection.

Order!

Every member of this House should realize two things. The first of these is, that whilst this Bill is only a short one, it nevertheless deals with a revolutionary change in our status, our economy, and our defence. The second is that changes which are far-reaching and fundamental—one cannot say more than that because it is impossible to form an estimate or to define them—can be made, and may be made, without any reference to Parliament, or without acquiring parliamentary approval, or without any real opportunity even for Parliament to consider them. I know that these proclamations, to be issued under this Bill, have to be laid upon the Table, but we all know what that means—it does not provide any opportunity really for us to discuss them. Under the action taken by any Minister in terms of this Bill, a bad position may very easily become much worse, instead of being improved.

I just want to repeat: I think it is a sad and inglorious day that it should be necessary at all to bring in this Bill, and it is equally sad to think that in this critical time, Parliament, which should be on its toes thinking of nothing else but of ways and means of getting out of the difficulties and troubles we are facing and getting into, should be requested to surrender tamely its responsibilities. [Interjections.] I am talking now to the responsible Members of Parliament and not to the irresponsible ones …

Order!

I say it is sad to think that Parliament should, under those circumstances, surrender its responsibilities and rights as the guardian of the people’s interests against the demands of an authoritarian executive. So, whilst we agree that legislation is necessary, the terms of this legislation, the way in which the Bill is framed, and the powers which it is proposed to give to the Minister can only be described as coming from people imbued with authoritarian ideas which should be repugnant to a House constituted as this one is.

I second.

The hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) referred to this Commonwealth Relations (Temporary Provision) Bill and he objected to its form. The hon. the Minister of External Affairs pointed out that a similar Bill had been passed by the British House of Commons. In passing, I notice that the British Bill has the same title, viz. Republic of South Africa (Temporary Provisions) Bill. Its whole object is to provide that certain legislation will remain in force. The hon. member for Constantia did not touch on the crux of the matter, namely that this British legislation affecting South Africa automatically comes to an end on 31 May. The position is not that it can remain in existence. As the result of the change in our status it automatically comes to an end, and legislation is necessary in order to allow it to continue. Therefore his whole starting-point was wrong. We must do it in order that certain arrangements may be made. In the debate in the House of Commons, Mr. Sandys, Secretary of Commonwealth Relations, referred to the legislation affected by it. He referred, e.g., to the Shipping Act of 1894, in the days when part of South Africa was still a British colony, and this is still in force. We are no longer a colony, and as a result of our changed status that Act falls away, and therefore this legislation is mutually necessary. He also referred to the Colonial Probates Act, to prove letters of administration; and also to the Maintenance Orders Act and to the Medical and Dental Act by which recognition is granted to medical men and dentists in regard to their qualification. He also referred to the Act dealing with attorneys. These are some of the Acts he mentioned and which must remain in existence until alternative arrangements can be made.

Now the hon. member for Constantia is dissatisfied that an end can be put to this by proclamation. But, Mr. Speaker, the fact is that it will come to an end automatically unless other arrangements are made. It is not the intention that it should continue for a year. That is only the maximum period. Mr. Sandys also said in the House of Commons that these arrangements need not stand for a year; that they can be terminated sooner. Then this Parliament is not in session and the Minister has no alternative but to adopt the method provided for in this Bill.

The hon. member also referred to other matters which really have nothing to do with this Bill. He referred to our trade relations with them and to preferences. Sir, that has nothing to do with this matter. That was not laid down by legislation. In that connection Mr. Sandys himself said in the House of Commons—

The hon. member also referred to defence. Here Mr. Sandys gives the reply that this does not affect our defence agreements with them. The hon. member therefore dragged in matters which have nothing at all to do with this Bill.

In regard to trade, I want to point out that they are also desirous of continuing trade relations with South Africa. I have pointed out that Mr. Sandys said that this legislation has nothing to do with that. But when Mr. Marquard, on behalf of the Opposition, said that they would like certain of these arrangements to be concluded as soon as possible, Mr. Smith got up and asked whether he wanted their trade with South Africa to be harmed. He asked—

Then the Labour member said this—

Therefore they would like to retain their trade with South Africa. That was said by the Labour member, who said on behalf of the Opposition that this period was too long and that it should be made shorter.

But, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Constantia did not doubt but that our Government would do certain things which would unnecessarily weaken our relations with Britain and that the matter would be handled badly. At the time when the withdrawal of our application for continued membership of the Commonwealth was announced, our Prime Minister had already announced that South Africa would remain a member of the sterling bloc. He also said that our relations with them would be as friendly as possible. This legislation was adopted by the British House of Commons in that same spirit when Mr. Sandys said the following—

This, Mr. Speaker, has already been announced by our Prime Minister, that it is also South Africa’s intention to preserve those friendly relations in all spheres as far as possible.

The hon. member for Bellville (Mr. Haak), who has just sat down. has succeeded in showing that Mr. Sandys of the Commonwealth Relations Office introduced his Bill in the House of Commons in a very businesslike way. He, certainly, gave that House a considerable amount of information and dealt with a large number of the legislative measures and other matters which were affected, whereas we in this House have been given practically no information. The hon. member also missed a point when he referred to the fact that the British Act is limited to one year. The essential factor about that is that if it has to continue for longer than one year, if this complicated tangle can, in other words, not be disentangled in one year, Parliament will again have to dealt with the matter. This is a very essential aspect when considering what the difference is between the British Act and the Bill which we have before us now. What the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) has indicated very clearly is that this is the first bit of evidence of the unfortunate backwash which South Africa is going to suffer from because, firstly, it has withdrawn from the Commonwealth; and secondly, because it is about to change its constitutional status from a constitutional monarchy to a Republican system of government. The fact that legislation of this nature is necessary has been known to this Government since that fateful day, 15 March this year—since that fateful Ides of March. The Government has known of the necessity for legislation to provide—I quote from the long title—“for continued operation of certain laws affecting Commonwealth countries, and for matters incidental thereto”. I ask, therefore, why timeous action could not have been taken to present a Bill, which is not a lengthy one, to this House? Why this sudden urgency in presenting a Bill for us to deal with to-day and which we have scarcely had time to read? Why this unnecessary and unseemly haste in Parliament? In the United Kingdom, the Government there was able to present a Bill to the House of Commons on 29 March 1961—that is within 14 days of South Africa’s withdrawal—while we in this House have had to wait for two months before we are presented with a Bill.

There are very significant differences between the British Bill and the Bill which we are dealing with here to-day. In the British Bill no need was found for the delegation of any legislative powers. That Bill itself makes it perfectly clear what is being dealt with. It says that legislation shall continue to be in operation “unless provision to the contrary is made by an authority having powers to alter that law”. In other words, the normal legislative authority is being maintained, and there is, in consequence, going to be a proper exercise of legislation. The prerogatives of Parliament are in no way being interfered with or fettered. On the contrary, they are fully respected and preserved. No extraordinary powers are therefore to be found in that legislation. In the legislation before this House, however, we find that extraordinary powers are to be vested in the hands of the Executive to deal with matters which no one knows what they will be.

What powers are you referring to?

Read the Bill and you will find that powers are being conferred upon the Executive to suspend and to amend legislation the nature of which we do not know. It is quite obvious that we are concerned with very complicated matters in which rights, privileges and obligations are involved. Again I want to refer to the British Act to point out that that Act makes it perfectly clear what is involved. It says “in this section, existing law means any Act of Parliament, or other enactment or instrument whatsoever, and any rule of law which is in force on 31 May, or having been passed before that day, comes into force on that day”. This is something clear and percise. As a matter of fact, Mr. Sandys gave a considerable amount of detail of what was involved when he introduced his Bill into the House of Commons.

The hon. member for Constantia has indicated that a very large range of subject matters are in fact concerned. The measure we have before us creates the impression, therefore, that what we are really dealing with to-day is a sort of panic legislation. Extraordinary powers are being vested in the hands of the Executive, including the right to suspend, or to amend, existing legislation. I think, with respect, that the hon. Minister seemed rather to indicate that these powers were to suspend or to amend the provisions of this particular Bill. That, however, is not so. The power to suspend, or amend, relates to any law in force in the Union or in South West Africa immediately prior to 31 May 1961, in which reference is made to Commonwealth countries or to any particular Commonwealth country.

Which would have lapsed barring this Bill.

Why should they lapse?

The hon. Minister said they would not lapse.

When would they have lapsed? Would they have lapsed on 31 May, and is that then the reason for this haste? The hon. Minister told us the law advisers said that it was not even necessary to have the Bill! I think the hon. member for Kempton Park should study his brief more carefully before interjecting! If those provisions have lapsed, then what is the object of this Bill? What would then be its purpose? I merely want to indicate that the hon. Minister was wrong when he seemed to indicate that those powers to suspend, or amend, were only in respect of this Bill. That power, however, is in respect of a considerable number of legislative measures the nature of which we have no information about at the present moment. This is a very serious matter, namely to vest legislative powers in the Executive without adequate safeguards being provided. The unfortunate fact is, furthermore, that this is not an isolated case, because during this very Session of Parliament we already have had to deal with a similar matter. It is now the second occasion during this Session, therefore, that Parliament is being asked to legislate blindly. This House is entitled to know what legislation is about to be altered and it would have been perfectly easy for a list to be drawn up of legislation likely to be affected by this Bill. Then the House would have known what it was doing when it conferred these arbitrary powers on the Executive. The Governor-General would not have been able to go outside the list specified in the schedule. But now we are asked to deal with the matter by granting arbitrary powers to the Executive for the amendment of laws by no greater formality than by the issue of a proclamation. There are inherent dangers in any arrangement of that nature—dangers which cannot be overlooked in the public interest, and for which proper safeguards must be provided. The normal form of delegated legislation is that it empowers the Executive to do an act, usually to frame certain regulations or other subordinate legislation. That action can then be examined and if the Executive has exceeded its powers, the Courts can then rectify the matter. But what we are doing here is the direct opposite: The Executive is being empowered here not to do something, but to undo something—to negative what is already in existence. When that is done, there are no means whereby it can be rectified should it have been done wrongly. There is no safeguard of going to a Court, because nothing which has been done wrongly can be put right. The only body which would be able to put right what was done wrongly would be Parliament itself. These powers are, therefore, inherently dangerous to vest in any authority. In all these matters, the guiding principle is that Parliament should be jealous of its prerogative and should surrender no more powers by delegation than what it can itself control. Here, however, a delegation of powers is proposed where Parliament will have no control at all. The Executive becomes the master of the situation and whatever it does is not subject to scrutiny by Parliament. This suspension or amendment of existing legislation is going to take place if in the opinion of the Governor-General certain circumstances exist. Now, what if he is wrong? What if his opinion is wrong? Surely, this is the very type of matter which should come before Parliament so that it can be examined, so that various opinions can be expressed and so that the legislation can be passed with full consideration of all the circumstances involved and not merely by the consideration of a single mind. This is undoubtedly an instance where safeguards are needed and they are needed to ensure that the prerogatives of Parliament are not simply ignored.’ The Bill does make provision for the tabling of proclamations, but tabling of documents of that nature has by now become a meaningless formality, and nobody knows that better than Minister’s offices. For this House to do its job correctly, it should ensure that all these matters come before it by the normal processes, so that they can be reviewed and examined. I say that there is something inherently dangerous in conferring arbitrary powers of this nature. In that regard I want to quote a very imminent authority on the subject, Sir Cecil Carr, who said this—

I cannot think of a better case in which safeguards must be devised, because here the Bill is asking us to confer powers with no adequate safeguards against abuse by this Government; and when I talk of abuse I use it in the same sense as the hon. member for Constantia. It is the power to do something without supervision and without adequate control, without criticism and without any assurance that all the circumstances have been taken into account. I say, therefore, that the amendment moved by my hon. friend is fully justified.

I want to say in the first instance that it is wrong to create the impression that South Africa’s withdrawal from the Commonwealth is an unfriendly act. South Africa has not withdrawn from the Commonwealth because she is bad friends with any other country. Secondly, I want to say at once that South Africa is very grateful to the Prime Minister and the Minister of External Affairs for having taken immediate steps while they were still in London to make certain arrangements of which this is a result. As a responsible Prime Minister and Minister of External Affairs they immediately made a statement in the interests of South Africa to the effect that we would remain within the sterling bloc and they had discussions with various concerns in Britain which resulted in the statement by the British Government that they were prepared to pass the legislation which they did pass. This legislation before us is simply a result of the friendly agreement or undertaking that was given at the time. The complaint is now raised that it should have been introduced at an earlier stage. But this too is a friendly and courteous gesture towards the British Government; we wanted to give them the opportunity to pass it through their Parliament first because it was of real importance in Britain that such legislation should be passed. I am not so sure that it is really necessary for us to have this legislation on our Statute Book. The hon. the Minister said quite clearly that it was only to make assurance doubly sure. It is not the intention of the Government at all to use this legislation to make any changes unless it is necessary to do so. As a matter of fact the whole Preamble of this Bill is of a positive nature; it says—

That is the positive side of it.

Go on.

There are two aspects to it. The first is the positive aspect, which says the following. This is Clause 1—

That is the positive side of it and now I come to the second portion. The second portion is not unconditional. This is a clause which places the power in the hands of the Minister to effect changes from our side. There is a specific proviso and what does it say—

It is only in pursuance of what may happen in other Commonwealth countries and not something that South Africa will do on her part.

“If in his opinion.”

Yes, of course. It is only in those cases that the Minister can do anything. I cannot think of any law that will be affected by this. It is only to make assurance doubly sure. It is not the intention of South Africa to make any changes in any relationships. It is only when another Commonwealth country makes a change that it may be necessary for South Africa to make a corresponding change.

I think the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) has done an injustice to the contributions which he usually makes in this House, because he dragged in a number of irrelevant issues. He knows as well as I do that the sugar agreement is not an agreement between England and this Government; it has nothing to do with legislation whatsoever. That is an agreement with the sugar industry. He was actually out of order, but it seems to me that the Opposition is simply availing itself of this opportunity of trying to create uncertainty and concern in South Africa, particularly in the economic field. They want to create the impression that the Government will use this legislation to the detriment of South Africa or, as the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) said “to undo what exists to-day”. We definitely do not want to change anything that exists to-day and the proviso says quite clearly that if any amendments are made in another country which make it necessary for us to make corresponding amendments, we can make those amendments. But the Government went even further. The positive object is stated in the first section of the clause in that it says that nothing will be affected by reason of the establishment of the republic or by reason of our withdrawal from the Commonwealth.

Another impression has been created, namely that friendship can only exist within the Commonwealth. Let us understand this very clearly—and other Commonwealth countries have said the same thing—friendship and co-operation and matters of common interests can be promoted equally well, if not better, outside the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth is not the alpha and the omega of friendship. I am not at all trying to belittle Commonwealth membership, but there is one thing which the country should understand very well and it is this that it is equally possible and equally easy to enjoy the greatest measure of friendship and co-operation in the economic field and other fields, outside the Commonwealth. But as usual the hon. member for Constantia came with a tale of woe which has no bearing on this situation. For example he spoke about “the magnitude of the dangers to take place in the next 12 months”. If dangers are to take place in the 12 months, what has that to do with this legislation? What dangers are threatening South Africa as a result of our withdrawal from the Commonwealth, and what dangers are wrapped up in this legislation, legislation which is specifically aimed at maintaining the status quo? The hon. member for Constantia tried to underline the fact that this Government did not wish to be on friendly terms with Commonwealth countries. He is trying to exploit the present position to make things difficult for South Africa in the economic and other fields. South Africa has received more friendship in this matter from the British Government and from the British House of Commons and the House of Lords than she has received from the Opposition. Out of friendship the British Government has introduced legislation which was passed by both Houses without a division. The British Parliament has passed legislation which deals directly with South Africa after her withdrawal from the Commonwealth, and it was passed without one dissentient vote or a division, but here we are faced with an Opposition who, when we want to follow up that friendly gesture, move an amendment and call a division. It is tragic to think that where we are merely reacting to a friendly gesture on the part of Britain and other Commonwealth countries, we are faced with an Opposition who calls for a division on the matter.

I want to refer to another point. The hon. member for Constantia dragged in something else, namely, defence. He has had one assurance after the other in respect of Simonstown, etc., but he wants to bring the country under the wrong impression. He says “Our whole defence system is based on the concept of membership of the Commonwealth”. He knows that is not true. He says “The whole defence system will go by the board”. I challenge him and any other member opposite to mention one defence agreement which is based on the condition that we are a member of the Commonwealth. Of course, there are agreements and there is co-operation between us and Britain and other Commonwealth countries, but I challenge them to prove that they are based on the condition that we are a member of the Commonwealth. Mr. Speaker, I am not in order in talking about these things because they have nothing to do with this legislation and so I shall leave it at that, but it is quite clear to me that this is a friendly gesture towards Britain and other Commonwealth countries, on the part of this Government, a gesture which flows from friendly discussions which were of the utmost importance to South Africa. It is clear that we are getting less friendship from the Opposition than we got from the British Parliament, because we have to divide on the issue, whereas they passed it unanimously. I think South Africa should take note of that, particularly the business people. Their whole defence is based on false premises, because we have the very distinct proviso that South Africa will not make any amendments from her side, but that she will only do so if another Commonwealth country amends any of her laws.

I want to deal with something else. The hon. member for Constantia came with the hair-raising story that we would wake up one morning to find ourselves strangers in the Commonwealth. At the end of this year even we will be less of a stranger in the Commonwealth than he has been a stranger in South Africa all his life.

With whom are you fighting?

I am not fighting with anybody. All I am doing is to ask the Opposition not to oppose this important matter. They are availing themselves of this opportunity of sowing unrest in South Africa in the economic spheres. [Interjections.] Their attitude this afternoon has once again made it clear to me that certain members of the Opposition would have been only too pleased if our withdrawal from the Commonwealth had meant their coming into power. But that did not happen and they are now acting the way they are in order to create economic retrogression in South Africa, because they think that may possibly be in their favour. This is an act which must surely prove to the whole world and to the Commonwealth countries that our withdrawal from the Commonwealth was not an unfriendly gesture. As always, we are prepared to co-operate with them wholeheartedly and that is clear from this legislation, and we are grateful to the British Government for the friendly spirit in which her Parliament has accepted the legislation which has been piloted through her House of Commons.

The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) devoted much of his speech to replying to the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) who according to him has tried to show that our leaving the Commonwealth is a hostile act. I must say that I have listened fairly attentively to the hon. member for Constantia and he devoted far less of his speech to the question of friendship than the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark. The objection of the hon. member for Constantia to this legislation has nothing to do with friendship or hostility; it relates mainly to the delegated powers about which I too wish to say a few words. But furthermore the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark has drawn a comparison by saying that the British legislation has been adopted without opposition and he asked why that is not the position here. The answer is simple. Neither House of the British Parliament is being asked to give approval to delegated powers similar to those embodied in this legislation. If they had been asked to do so, there would have been strong doubt as to whether the legislation would have passed so easily. In the third place, the hon. member has asked what danger accepting legislation such as this can entail for us. I maintain that it is dangerous for any parliament in any democratic country to adopt legislation which delegates the powers of Parliament in this way.

To refer to friendship again, there is probably no group of South African citizens who are more in earnest as regards retaining and strengthening our bonds of friendship, not only with Britain but with all the Commonwealth countries, than we on these benches, and in so far as this legislation merely embodies a standstill agreement which will result in the continuation of those mutually beneficial arrangements which exist to-day between us and that country, we shall obviously support it. As regards the argument which the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) has put forward by way of an interjection, namely, that this Bill is necessary in order to provide for the continuation of legislative provisions which would otherwise fall away, there is doubt as to whether that argument has any substance in the light of what the Minister has said, but in so far as that argument has any substance I have now given our reply. We are in favour of the continuation of such beneficial provisions. But as other hon. members on this side have said, and as I have also pointed out, this legislation embodies a provision of the type we cannot support. I am referring to the delegation of powers to the Government and the Minister to suspend or amend legislation as they see fit without consulting Parliament. The hon. the Minister has referred to the fact that the law advisers are of the opinion that this legislation is quite probably unnecessary. If that is so, and if it had not been introduced, this power which the Government is now asking, namely, the power to suspend existing legislation, would not have existed. The Government is now giving itself a power which it would not have had if this legislation had not been introduced. And hon. members confirm that and say that it is probably unnecessary legislation, but I then say that these provisions which are delegating these powers to the Minister are certainly unnecessary.

The hon. member for Bellville (Mr. Haak) has tried to justify the delegation by pointing out that it might happen that the British Government or the Government of any other Commonwealth country might change one or other provision while our Parliament was not sitting and that it might be necessary to act quickly, and for that reason this delegation was necessary. I would still have reservations in that respect in so far as it relates only to the time when our Parliament is not sitting, but the Bill goes further. This legislation also provides that when Parliament is sitting, the Government does not need to approach Parliament for approval. Then the Governor-General can act and all that is necessary is that a proclamation should be issued and laid upon the Table within 14 days. In other words this provision does not only provide for when it might be inconvenient or impossible to summon Parliament, but this provision delegates these powers even if Parliament is sitting. It gives the Minister the power to act on behalf of Parliament while Parliament is sitting, and this is the type of provision which no Parliament should accept. To me as a layman in this field, it is not quite clear what matters will be affected by this Bill. The hon. member for Constantia has rightly said that it would have been better if the Government could have given us a clearer indication of all that was envisaged. I accept that it is not intended primarily or at all to affect trade agreements, because there is already a procedure which can be followed in that regard. Quite probably the matters at issue are matters such as citizenship and diplomatic relations between the various countries. These are important matters and these are pre-eminently matters in respect of which action by the Executive alone might have consequences which might make it impossible even for Parliament to undo the damage which could be caused; all the more because such important matters might be affected, one dare not entrust the powers of Parliament to the hands of the Minister or the Executive. That and no considerations of good or bad friendship, constitute the reason why we cannot accept this Bill. I know that hon. members opposite—and this is apparent from their interjections and speeches—are always inclined to think that the Opposition are unreasonable when they put forward certain objections. As the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark has said, the Bill provides that these powers can only be used if the Minister considers that another Commonwealth country has acted in such a way that the existing position is changed, and he went on to ask whether we expect the Minister to be unreasonable; he would only act when it was necessary and he would only do what was best for the country. But where does this type of argument take us? It comes perhaps naturally from hon. members opposite who simply cannot believe that one of their Ministers can make a mistake, but if one can always rely on Ministers to do the best thing for South Africa, why then do we have a Parliament? Why do we not simply elect a Cabinet and let the Cabinet rule the country? No, we come together because it is necessary that Parliament should retain its authority over important matters to the greatest possible extent that can be reconciled with the demands of modern government, and foreign relations are certainly important. For that reason, because we cannot under any circumstances approve of the delegation of powers which this Bill embodies, we are pleased to support the amendment of the hon. member for Constantia.

I want to say at once that there is no question of this Bill delegating powers in the true sense of the word. Before dealing with this aspect I just want to say a few words with reference to what the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) has said. He has already become known as a Jeremiah and I am surprised that he does not always sit in sackcloth and ashes in this House. His speech has once again been typical of the present-day Opposition. I have here an article which appeared in La Vie Française of 14 April and which says the following—

Order! What does that have to do with the Bill?

I shall show presently that the speeches we have heard this afternoon were nothing but another “death dance” because of what is supposed to be going to happen in South Africa. That is why I want to quote this—

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

I am coming to that.

On a point of order, I should like to point out that practically the whole speech of the hon. member for Constantia had nothing to do with the Bill.

My submission is that the hon. member for Constantia has once again performed a “death dance” over a trivial Bill in order to show South Africa and the outside world how unfair this Government and particularly the Minister are. But this Bill has nothing to do with our foreign relations’ at all. It is merely and solely an interpretation Bill. Mr. Sandys also said the same thing in dealing with the British Act—

And I want to emphasize the words “are not worded in such a way”—

Then he says why their legislation in Britain was necessary, and for the same reasons this legislation is necessary in this country. He said—

This Bill which we are discussing to-day, only deals with the wording of our laws and it is purely and solely an interpretation Bill which provides that any reference to the Common-wealth or a Commonwealth country shall not be affected by the mere fact that we are now a republic and no longer a member of the Commonwealth. This is merely an interpretation Bill to which our laws will be subject in future.

I then turn to the argument relating to delegated powers. There is no question of any delegated power whatsoever. The members who have referred to that aspect are like Don Quixote. They are fighting windmills and non-existent shadows. The Minister is not being given any delegated powers. All the Bill provides is that if there is an Act which governed our mutual relations and which referred to South Africa as a Commonwealth country and we have a similar Act in South Africa, and the legislation of such other country no longer regards us as one of those countries, it will simply be announced by way of a proclamation that the Act concerned which governed these relations no longer applies. There is no question of any powers being delegated. It is a question of interpretation so that the courts can interpret our laws correctly in future. It is pointless expatiating at length on delegated powers this afternoon because delegated powers as such are not under discussion to-day. It is only when a provision in an Act becomes superfluous because one of the Commonwealth countries has acted in a certain way in respect of their laws that the Minister must announce by way of proclamation that the Act concerned will no longer apply in South Africa either. That is all it means. He does not require a special delegated power for that purpose. Nor is he going to act on his own; he can only act after another country has taken action. [Interjection.] Why is the hon. member then arguing about delegated powers? If it is all so simple and if the hon. member understands the position, then I cannot understand how he can be so stupid as to discuss delegated powers. The position is just as simple as I have set it out, and the hon. member always tries, when the Government takes action, to perform a “death dance”. He always tries to create the impression that this is an evil totalitarian Government. That is the basis of his opposition in this House. The hon. member and the entire Opposition are so devoid of any policy that they cannot do anything else but try to frighten the public time and time again. There is no question whatsoever of the amendment of laws. No law whatsoever is being amended. It will only be announced by means of a proclamation that an Act which is no longer applicable, is no longer applicable. [Interjection.] All the hon. members on this side are not such morons as hon. members opposite think. That is all I have to say.

One might well say of hon. members such as the hon. member who has just resumed his seat and the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) that there are none so blind as those who will not see. The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) gives a new interpretation of the Bill. He is not satisfied with the Minister’s explanation. He says this is nothing more nor less than an interpretation Bill. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark says that this is a Bill to show our goodwill as an ex-member of the Commonwealth to the United Kingdom. You see, Sir, you get these conflicting views and I have an impression from the way in which hon. members protested so loudly that they are not 100 per cent satisfied with the powers that the Minister seeks to give to the Executive in the measure before us. But before I proceed I hope you will permit me, Sir, to answer an allegation made by the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark when he commenced his speech. The hon. gentleman alleged that we on this side had alleged from time to time that the Union left the Commonwealth because of our unfriendly relationships with other members of the Commonwealth. Let me say straight away that at no time has such an allegation been made by any member on this side of the House. The reason why we left the Commonwealth is the inability of the other members of the Commonwealth to accept the race policy of this Government. Do not let us overlook that fact. Then the hon. member went on to say that issues raised by the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson), upon which we seek information from the Minister when he replies to the debate—issues about how our trade agreements are going to be affected, our defence arrangements and the acquisition of arms and ammunition on the same basis as in the past, the question of scholarships and bursaries—are side issues which have nothing whatsoever to do with the Bill. Those two hon. members have both quoted at length from the speech made by the Minister of Commonwealth Relations in the United Kingdom Government. Why do they not quote what the Minister of State in the United Kingdom Government had to say in respect of these matters? Because he said quite clearly in his speech—and I quote his words—“All these arrangements will naturally have to be reviewed”. But the point is that they are not going to be reviewed in the light of our country being a member of the Commonwealth; they are going to be reviewed in the light of the fact that our country is a foreign country as far as the United Kingdom Government is concerned. If we are to continue to enjoy any of the fruits of our many associations with the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth countries, it may be necessary for the United Kingdom Government to pass legislation to give effect to our continued enjoyment of those privileges. If they pass legislation to that effect then it is quite clear that similar legislation may well be required in this House in order to afford South African citizens the opportunity of enjoying benefits under a United Kingdom law if they should visit the United Kingdom. The hon. gentleman seems to have missed the point. If hon. members on the Government benches think that we are going to continue enjoying all these fruits, as we did in the past as a member of the Commonwealth, then I would suggest to them that they take heed of the words of the Minister of State of the United Kingdom Government and I quote his words. He said “that all these arrangements will naturally have to be reviewed”. Let me say that it is the sincere hope and desire of members on the Opposite benches—I do not know to what extent this applies to members on the Government benches—that we will continue in the future to enjoy the many privileges that our citizens and our country have enjoyed as the result of our close association in the past with the Commonwealth.

What has that got to do with the Bill?

It has everything to do with the Bill. If anything this Bill brings into stark relief the full consequence of the Government in withdrawing our application for continued membership of the Commonwealth.

Order! That is not under discussion now.

I was replying to arguments advanced by hon. members on the other side.

The hon. member has had an opportunity of doing so now and he must come back to the Bill.

Sir, there is another aspect that I would like to take up with the hon. the Minister. The Minister was at pains to point out, in introducing the Bill, that this measure is not only a reciprocal measure as far as the standstill legislation of the United Kingdom Government is concerned, but that one of the main differences between the legislation passed in the House of Commons and this measure is that we embrace a wider field; that we embrace the field of future relationships or possible agreements with all the members of the Commonwealth. Let me make it clear that it does not only stop at members of the Commonwealth, because when the standstill Bill was introduced into the House of Commons, the Minister of State was at great pains to point out that the standstill Bill and future legislation that might be passed during the standstill period of one year, would not only be dependent upon the views of the United Kingdom Government alone, but would also embrace the views of the colonial governments of the United Kingdom colonial empire. That is an important aspect as far as we are concerned, because we have extensive dealings and arrangements with quite a number of British colonies, so we are also going to be faced with the position as far as this Bill is concerned that the gap between the views of the United Kingdom Government and the independent views of the British colonies do not appear to be covered in this Bill. I would, therefore, ask the hon. the Minister in his reply to elucidate the position in respect of any arrangements or trade agreements or legislative measures that may exist where we have reciprocal arrangements with any of the British colonies. Will he tell us whether this measure will cover the possible gap that may exist in respect of any one of these particular territories? Because I emphasize that the Minister of State of the United Kingdom Government, Mr. Sandys, says quite clearly that the British Government intended to consult with the colonial governments, and there are quite a number of them with whom we have quite fair and extensive dealings ourselves as a country.

Are you against this Bill?

I should like to ask the Minister kindly to deal with that aspect when he replies.

Then we come to another point that was raised by the hon. member for Constantia which I should like to take further. The hon. member for Constantia asked the Minister whether he had any information as to whether or not any of the other Commonwealth countries intended passing legislation of this nature. Since the scope of this Bill has been widened to cover all Commonwealth countries, I take it that the Minister hopes that this will be accepted as a gesture of goodwill by other Commonwealth countries, and that they will show a similar spirit of co-operation, as that shown by the United Kingdom Government. I want to ask the Minister this specific question: Has he had any talks with the leaders of any of the other Commonwealth countries and has any indications been given to this Government that other Commonwealth countries are prepared to reciprocate in the spirit in which we are evidently doing so in this legislation before us?

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

I am dealing with it, Sir.

Order! The hon. member is discussing matters falling outside the scope of the Bill.

Sir, may I draw your attention to the fact that Clause 1 refers to “Commonwealth countries or any particular Commonwealth country”, so the Bill does not cover one Commonwealth country, it covers all Commonwealth countries. I submit that I am perfectly justified in asking the Minister, since he has stated that this is looked upon as a gesture of goodwill towards other Commonwealth countries, whether he has had any indication whatsoever that there will be reciprocity from countries like Canada, New Zealand, Australia or any other Commonwealth country?

Then I want to take this point: An impression has been created in this debate—and I think the Minister helped to create that impression—that while it is necessary to pass this legislation, no far-reaching changes are really going to be effected. But what are the changes that have been effected and will be effected? What legislative measures will be affected as far as this Bill is concerned? Let me refer to the wide range of legislative measures that this Bill hopes to cover and which the Minister seeks to amend by proclamation if the United Kingdom Government make any changes in their legislation. This was dealt with at length by Mr. Sandys. The hon. member for Bellville (Mr. Haak) has already referred to some of these pieces of legislation. There is the Maritime Shipping Act under which South African ships are treated as British ships and enjoy all the facilities that go with it; there is the Colonial Probate Act, there is the Maintenance of Orders Act, and that is where I think the hon. member for Bellville stopped. But what about the host of others, such as the Medical Act, the Dentist Act, the Solicitors Act, the Commissions Act, the Colonial Marriages Act, the Naval Prize Act, the Companies Act, and even the Finance Act, and a host of others? Every one of these Acts affects some aspect or other of the life of South African citizens in one way or another.

In Britain.

If these Acts are amended and we are dealt with as a foreign country, then we can expect that the Union Government will take similar action in respect of any counter-measures, or legislation that may be needed for the acceptance of privileges that may be given to South Africans under any amendment to British Acts. What the Minister is seeking here is this: If, in his opinion, any corresponding law which was in force in a particular Commonwealth country on the date mentioned had been amended or repealed or had ceased to operate in so far as the South African Republic is concerned, then the Government will be able to legislate merely by proclamation to meet any one of the phases of that particular legislation. I would ask hon. members whether they are prepared to see on the Statute Book of South Africa amendments made to laws passed by this House when such amendments are enacted merely by proclamation by the Governor-General, without any elected representatives of the people of our country having been afforded an opportunity of expressing any views on these matters. Because that is what is being asked for.

Nonsense!

It is no use the hon. member for Heilbron saying that this is nonsense. I have mentioned some of the United Kingdom legislation which affects the lives of South African citizens in one way or another. I have only named a few and the hon. member for Bellville only named a few of these legislative enactments, and it is possible that when this standstill agreement comes to an end after a period of one year, when legislation is introduced into the British House of Commons dealing with South Africa as a foreign country, not as a member of the Commonwealth and as a country entitled to all the privileges that go with Commonwealth membership, it will be necessary—and it seems to me that it will be necessary—that legislative enactments will have to be passed in our own country to meet any possible situation that may arise as a result of amendments made to British Acts.

Give a concrete instance.

I cannot give a concrete instance by reading the minds of the 600 members of the House of Commons, or the minds of members of the British Government. I cannot say what they intend for the future or which of these laws they are going to amend. But can hon. members on the Government benches afford to surrender their rights as elected representatives of the people and allow the Government to govern in all these spheres merely by decree, because that is what the Minister is asking for in this Bill. Sir, I support entirely the amendment that has been moved from this side of the House, and I want to quote the words of Mr. Sandys to hon. members opposite again. They seem to be under the delusion that we are going to continue to enjoy all the privileges that we have had in the past. Let me quote to them the words of Mr. Sandys. He said—

If hon. members delude themselves into believing that this situation of the past is going to continue, then let me tell them that they are living in a fool’s paradise.

It falls to my lot to wind up the debate for this side of the House. It is indeed very difficult when the subject has been covered so adequately, so effectively by such able debaters. It is my task to try to fill in the gaps that may have been left, and there are few. The hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) dealt with the “scope” of the Bill, the wide powers it gives to the Minister and the possible serious consequences that might arise from the actions he takes. Rightly, he chided the Minister for his reticence in not taking us more fully into his confidence and telling us more—giving us more detailed reasons why he seeks wide and seemingly unnecessary powers in this Bill. The Minister must have known for some time that his Government would have to adjust itself to a position outside the Commonwealth. He must have known this for well over a year. If I am not mistaken, when he was present at the previous Prime Ministers’ Conference in London, he was informed that, if South Africa became a republic, our retention in the Commonwealth would not be a “mere formality”, would not be “automatic” as we were told during the referendum …

Order! The hon. member is going outside the scope of the Bill.

My relevant point is that the Minister has had all this time to calculate what the possible constitutional consequences would be of our leaving the Commonwealth and should be in a position to give us more facts about the type of extraneous legislation he expects to affect South Africa and in what way it would affect us. He has had over a year to think over this: but he has told us little or nothing. He has told us that exclusion from the Commonwealth will not affect trade agreements because they are bilateral arrangements and that it will not affect defence arrangements. He could not, however, tell us exactly what relationships it actually does affect. Does the Minister know why he is asking these powers? He has told us that this Bill may not really be necessary at all. Yet he uses it to take vast powers that may have grievous effects and set dangerous precedents. We arrived here early to-day and, with our morning coffee, a Bill is thrown before us that we had never seen before and we are asked to consider and to debate it a few hours later on the same day. We should have been given an opportunity of examining, with minute attention, legislation like this. This Bill may have very far-reaching consequences. Its repercussions may be such that even the Minister cannot properly comprehend. I say that as Members of Parliament we have been very cavalierly treated by this Government: as legislators we have been afforded all too little chance of giving sustained or constructive thought to the probable far-reaching consequences of this Bill.

The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Plewman) has dealt with the vital differences between this legislation and the Act passed by the British House of Commons. Their Act contains no clause delegating to any Minister wide powers to act outside and beyond the authority of Parliament. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark said that “friendship with Britain” was the object of this Bill. I am glad to know it. Friendship with Britain and the Commonwealth has always been the aim of this side of the House. But it is only very recently that retention of Commonwealth membership and friendship with Britain has become the ardent wish of hon. gentlemen over there. It is only latterly that it has ceased to be a vital clause enshrined in their party constitution to have “a republic outside the Commonwealth”.

Order. The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

Sir, I am replying to an allegation that friendship is the object of this Bill: and to an allegation that this side of the House is committing an unfriendly act to Britain in opposing it …

Order! Is the profession of friendship an allegation?

Yes, Sir, in Queen’s English a “profession” of friendship is not necessarily genuine and if insincere can be correctly called an “allegation” or mere assertion of friendship …

The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

This Bill could never pass through the British House of Commons. They would never agree to give unfettered delegated power to any Minister to legislate …

Order! This House is not concerned with what happens in the House of Commons. We are busy with the legislation before this House.

Sir, if that is so, then the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) must have been out of order when he referred to House of Commons debates. Much of his speech was based on quotations from the Commons Hansard. He took us through what was said in the House of Commons. Each member who has spoken on that side of the House has referred to and quoted from the Hansards of the House of Commons and concerned himself with what happened there. Now, at this late juncture, I am told that this House is “not interested in what happens in the House of Commons”. This attitude really places us at an immense disadvantage …

Order! All those points have been adequately replied to.

That is another point. Sir, I wish they had quoted certain passages from the House of Commons debates, which they were careful not to refer to, namely, the remarks made in that House by the Prime Minister and also in the House of Lords by the Conservative Leader, Lord Hailsham, when they said that the Commonwealth was parting with South Africa sadly because of the kinship and friendship that they had, not for this Government or their followers, but for the other peoples of our country who had helped them in peace and war—all of them of all colours. They made it quite clear that any advantages we may retain by way of any trade or other agreements; any friendship that may survive the alteration of our status; any advantageous arrangement the Minister may make, will come to South Africa solely because of the friendship the Commonwealth holds and has held traditionally for all opponents of the Nationalist Government.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Vereeniging is again making himself a public inconvenience.

When are you going to start the civil war?

The Act of Union stated unequivocally that “the legislative power of the Union should reside in the Parliament of the Union”; and the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act lays down specifically that “the legislative power of the republic shall vest in this Parliament and not in the Executive. That is why we on this side of the House always oppose the granting of powers to Ministers to legislate without reference to Parliament and without any proper safeguards. That is our main objection to this form of delegating powers. The hon. member for Heilbron tells us that there is no delegation of powers in this Bill. Well, if it is not a delegation of legislative power to allow a Minister to suspend or amend Acts of Parliament, I do not know what delegated power is. There is clearly a surrender of legislative power to the Minister. The Governor-General means, of course, the Minister handling the particular portfolio concerned. It is a clear surrender by Parliament of its powers to authorize a Minister to change the laws of this land; and especially remiss of us to allow him to change them without even subsequent reference to Parliament. There is no way open to us of subsequently modifying or altering or annulling what he has done. But what is much more serious is that we allow the Minister to do all of these things while we are sitting here in Cape Town in Parliament assembled. He can make laws, can legislate from his office across the street in Marks Buildings, ignore Parliament and merely lay his laws on the Table of this House knowing that there is no corrective action we can take adequately to safeguard what is called (if you republicans will permit me to use the word) the ‘sovereignty” of Parliament. What are the limited methods of correction we have? If the Minister, sitting in his office in Cape Town, were to alter an Act of Parliament, consequential upon the passing of legislation in Great Britain or one of the other Commonwealth countries, what remedy would we have to put right any mistake he may make or ill-judged change he may agree to? We could ask him questions about it in this House. But that would not alter or amend what he had done. Mr. Speaker, we have always said that, in times of emergency or when haste is essential to safeguard the interests of our country or its peoples, we must give the executive certain administrative powers; empower Ministers to take certain legislative action which Parliament, hampered by its slow processes, could not possibly complete or perform in the necessary time. But we have always added this proviso, that delegation should never be condoned without ensuring that Parliament is adequately safeguarded against the possible misuse of conferred powers; against misuse, either intentional or unintentional, of delegated power by any Minister of the Crown. That is what we are asking for now, Surely it is most reasonable to make this demand. All we can do at the moment is to criticize or question the Minister after the event; hold a useless post-mortem after the deed has been done, in Committee of Supply on his particular Votes. We might also raise the matter by special motion in the House if the Government gave us time. We might try to call attention to Ministerial error by moving the adjournment of the House on a definite matter of urgent public importance. But nothing we can do constitutionally would undo what had been done. Indeed the Minister would probably not even take note of our objections. This is something that all people who value a continuance of parliamentary government should deplore. We do not wish to capitulate abjectly, as Government members are all too willing to do, without even adequate comment. We will not willingly surrender the right we have, as parliamentarians, to legislate; the right we have to insist that laws should pass through the usual channel of gradual, slow and adequate discussion in the two Houses of Parliament which exist for that very purpose. I am certain that no good can ever come out of this type of legislation. I am sure that if we persist in clothing the Executive with powers that are too vast, without correcting their actions in any way, we might well be at the beginning of a process which will end, as it inevitably must end, in arbitrary Executive rule. The tendency is growing every day and in every way. Since this Government came into power this process of delegating uncontrolled powers to Ministers has grown, is growing and it must end in a form of despotism that we should not tolerate.

Well, then, you start your civil war.

Ministers should be answerable to this House for the use they make of delegated powers. I remember when this Minister for External Affairs sat on this side of the House with the present Minister of Finance. I remember how strenuously they opposed the granting of any powers to Ministers to act without reference to Parliament. I remember references by the Minister of Finance to the fact that delegation of uncontrolled powers “created a polluted stream of legislation against which we should be on our guard”.

Order! The hon. member has now made his point and he must now come back to the Bill.

Uncontrolled delegated powers should not be granted in an unfettered way to this or any other Minister. I charge him with having thrown this ill-considered legislation before us without giving us adequate notice. Haste only produces bad laws. Even the Minister does not seem to know why he wants this Bill. I hope in his reply he will go into more detail and give us a better idea, before we go into the Committee Stage, of the type of legislation he plans to create with these powers. I hope he will tell us whether in fact he has been let into the inner secret of the kind of legislation other Commonwealth countries might introduce. He has been thanked by his side for all he did in London to ensure the continuance of certain relations with the Commonwealth immediately after the Prime Minister had withdrawn South Africa from that friendly and advantageous association of nations. Perhaps, as a result of his conversations and negotiations he was given some hint as to what changes in relationships might occur and has deduced that a certain type of legislation will be passed by Great Britain and other Commonwealth members. He must expect certain definite legal changes in South Africa’s status. He should know, even vaguely, what type of new foreign legislation is likely to affect us. I would like him now to give us more details when he replies to this debate.

This has so far as the Opposition is concerned been a most extraordinary debate. They obviously could not find arguments to deal with the provisions of the Bill before the House, which is the opposite number of the British Bill, so they introduced all sorts of extraneous matters and concentrated more particularly on what they called the delegation of powers. The hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) has seized upon this occasion to repeat one of his pre-referendum speeches, or to make a speech which he should have made when the happenings at the Commonwealth Conference were discussed in this House. That was the time when the speech now made by the hon. member for Constantia should have been delivered. Having regard to the manner and spirit in which I introduced this measure, had I known of the petty spirit which was going to be shown by the hon. member for Constantia, I would not have introduced this measure, because, as I told the House, according to the law advisers it is not strictly speaking necessary.

Why don’t you withdraw it if it is not necessary?

I introduced it in the first place because this matter had been discussed in London, there had been a sort of arrangement between the hon. the Prime Minister and Mr. Sandys who told him that he was going to introduce such a measure in the British House of Commons. It was suggested that we should introduce a similar measure here. Furthermore, the British High Commissioner came to see me here and asked whether we were going to introduce a measure of this kind.

Do you think this is similar to the one introduced in England?

Because of the discussions in England, I decided to proceed with this measure. And then, there was always just the chance that there might be some law or other which had not been notified to us by the Departments that have been consulted. So, to make assurance doubly sure this legislation was introduced.

I must say quite frankly that 90 per cent of the hon. member for Constantia’s speech, dealt with extraneous matters, matters flowing from our withdrawal from the Commonwealth, and which had nothing to do with the Bill before the House. Mr. Speaker, I was strongly tempted to rise on a point of order, but I thought that it might be perhaps best to allow the hon. member to continue. The hon. member surely has read the Bill. We were told that there were complaints that we had not given sufficient notice. A Bill of two clauses! Imagine, Sir, these very intelligent people on the other side not being able to master a Bill of two clauses! The second clause deals with the matter which they have seized upon, viz. the so-called delegation of powers to the Minister concerned. The hon. member for Constantia apparently does not appreciate that this Bill is the opposite number of the Bill introduced in Britain. He only has to look at the Titles of the two Bills. Our Bill is “to provide for the continued operation of certain laws affecting Commonwealth countries and for matters incidental thereto”. The British Bill introduced in the House of Commons is titled: “A Bill to make temporary provision as to the operation of the law upon the Union of South Africa becoming a republic outside the Commonwealth”. The British Bill deals with certain laws and provides that these laws will be kept in operation for a period of one year, pending which discussions will take place between the Union of South Africa and Great Britain. Such discussions have actually been going on. Certain matters have already been discussed and others are still to be discussed. I was asked whether we have had any discussions with any other Commonwealth countries. Certainly. Certain matters have been discussed. The hon. members of the Opposition quite clearly do not understand, or they refuse to understand the real meaning of this Bill.

He speaks as if he were speaking to the Mayor of Cape Town.

I am glad to see a smile on the otherwise sour face of the hon. member for Constantia. It is a pleasure to see him smile for a change. The hon. member for Constantia has never got over the 1948 defeat, and has been sulking ever since.

The hon. member for Constantia and others concentrated on the assertion that this Bill delegates powers. Mr. Chairman, the British Bill has a similar provision. It says—

The “authority” referred to is an authority outside the House of Commons.

But that is exactly the point.

I know the hon. member is very clever on these matters, but he is very stupid in this case. The authority here refers to an authority outside the British Parliament. And exactly the same provision is provided in our Bill. The hon. member can shake his head as much as he likes, but that is the meaning of “an authority” here.

The hon. member for Constantia wants to know something more about other Commonwealth countries. He says “We cannot assume that another Commonwealth country will take vindictive action”. Well, well! Has the hon. member been asleep during the past year? Has he not seen the sort of action that has already been taken against South Africa by certain Commonwealth countries? Of course we can assume it. We may find ourselves in the position that another Commonwealth country repeals a law affecting South Africa and we would be able to do nothing about it. Because it has to be borne in mind, Sir, that our laws remain in force, and we would not be able to do anything about it when Parliament is not in session. It is for the protection of South Africa against action which might be taken by a Commonwealth country, which might be detrimental to the interests of our country. That is why this provision is inserted.

The hon. member had much to say about trade agreements. I thought I had gone out of my way in introducing this Bill to state that trade agreements are not included in this Bill. I discussed the matter in London, and it was clearly said to me by the President of the Board of Trade and by a representative of the Commonwealth Relations Office, that all existing bilateral trade agreements would continue in force whether or not we are outside the Commonwealth. So the question of trade agreements does not enter the picture.

The hon. member asked about ratification. Of course there will have to be ratification. The hon. member had plenty to say the other day when the South African Trade Agreement with Southern Rhodesia was up for ratification by this House. Southern Rhodesia, although not a full member of the Commonwealth, is a British colony. Of course there will have to be ratification of trade agreements. What the point was in his argument, I do not know. I can only come to the conclusion that the hon. member and others who followed him were so short of arguments when dealing with this very simple Bill that they had to have recourse to all sort of ridiculous arguments. He also spoke about the sugar agreement. What has that got to do with this Bill? I think it was the hon. member for Vereeniging who pointed out that the sugar agreement is one in which the sugar producers are concerned, and the hon. member as a previous Minister of Economic Development should know that. Those are matters which will continue to be matters for discussion and negotiation between our respective governments.

The hon. member spoke about our defence and gave the impression that we are now all alone. I speak subject to correction, but I know of only one defence arrangement, which I think is called the Sea Routes Agreement, in which not only Britain is concerned, but also France and Portugal and Belgium. There is nothing to prevent an agreement of that type being negotiated in the future. If the British Government feels that it is in their interest, and in the common interest of South Africa and the United Kingdom to have an agreement on any of those matters, it can be negotiated.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill is the opposite number of the British Bill. I think it is necessary to have such a measure, in spite of what the law advisers say, because something may transpire afterwards. At the moment all our laws remain in force, and strictly speaking, the Bill, for that reason, is not necessary. It could not be introduced within a few days, or a few weeks for that matter. Much research had to be done by every Government Department to find out whether in fact there was not legislation which might be affected once we are out of the Commonwealth. That took time.

Mr. Speaker, I thought I introduced this Bill in a conciliatory spirit. I said in my introduction that the introduction of the Bill was an earnest of South Africa’s desire to retain friendly relations and co-operation in matters of common concern with the United Kingdom, and with other Commonwealth countries that are desirous of maintaining those relations. I cannot but express my regret of the spirit shown by the hon. member for Constantia and other hon. members on the other side. It was another attempt to create fear. We have had that ever since the Commonwealth Conference. Attempts are made to create a feeling of fear in the country, as to the terrible results which will flow from South Africa’s withdrawal from the Commonwealth. They also try to prejudice the people of South Africa against the republic which is to be established on 31st of this month. There was talk of South Africa “waking up one morning, finding itself a foreign country” and what not. I recommend to the hon. member for Constantia and to others who spoke in the same strain, the statements which were made in the British House of Lords when the opposite number of this Bill was introduced, which had already been passed by the House of Commons. There we find that for instance Lord Fraser of Lonsdale said.

And Lord Milverton, a former Governor of Nigeria, said—

I recommend that remark particularly to the hon. member for Constantia. Lord Balfour said that Britain did not want to hurt herself in trade just to spite South Africa—and she did not want to hurt the South African people. He said—

That, Sir, is what the hon. member for Constantia and others have been doing to-day, viz. “to speed the process of estrangement between South Africa and the United Kingdom”. Instead of following the line followed by Lord Balfour, he followed the line of the anti-South African socialist opposition in the House of Commons. There there was the sort of criticism that we have had from the hon. member to-day. I hope hon. members on the other side will accept the sincerity of the hon. the Prime Minister which he expressed in London and which he has expressed since his return, viz. that while we will be out of the Commonwealth it is our sincere desire to continue to co-operate and to maintain friendly relations. There are a number of matters of common concern in regard to which we can co-operate, and in respect of which we are willing to co-operate if only hon. members on the other side will make it possible for us to do so.

Question put: That all the words after “That”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion.

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—86: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; de Villiers, C. V.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Diederichs, N.; Dönges, T. E.; du Pisanie, J.; du Plessis, P. W.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Fouché, J. J. (Jr.); Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker. A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Louw, E. H.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scholtz, D. J.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Strydom, G. H. F.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Merwe, J. A.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M.C.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vosloo, A. H.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. von S. von Moltke.

Noes—52: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Bloomberg, A.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Butcher, R. R.; Connan, J. M.; Cope, J. P.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Beer, Z. J.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eglin, C. W.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, I. S.; Frielinghaus, H. O.; Gay, L. C.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Horak, J. L.; Lawrence, H. G.; le Roux, G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Lewis, J.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Shearer, O. L.; Smit, D. L.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, H. G.; Swart, R. A. F.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; van Ryneveld, C. B.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Williams, T. O.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and A. Hopewell.

Question affirmed and the amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and the Bill read a second time.

I move

Mr. Speaker, you and other hon. members of this House must forgive me if I deal with this Bill on a note which rather differs from the usual note. I am deeply conscious of the fact that for the first time in our history in South Africa I am now going to institute a full-time force consisting of members of the Citizen Force. This heralds a new era in our defence development. It so happens that this particular task has fallen on my shoulders.

In this Amendment Bill, while pointing out the hurdles in the path of duty, I say to South Africa “Come on”. In this Bill I ask a great deal of South Africa. I fully realize that. I feel almost hesitant in asking for all this. I did not create the present world circumstances, but under these circumstances I am called upon to bring South Africa’s defence within the limits of our powers, to the stage of preparedness. To that end I need this sacrifice of men; to that end I need the determination of a nation; to that end I need the unconditional cooperation of all language groups in our nation. In order to obtain that, it is my duty to give full equality of opportunities to all language groups in our country within the Defence Force.

In asking the Government to take this step I did so in the full realization of what I was asking of South Africa. I know what I am asking of the young men. I know what I am asking of their parents, and I know what I am asking of the employers. But, Mr. Speaker, I do this in the conviction that South Africa has a great deal to give to everybody if the stability of our State and our safety remain assured. Yes, if our stability and our safety remain assured, South Africa offers the whole of her population freedom and increasing welfare. I have never heard anybody expressing any doubts as to the great future ahead of South Africa provided we remain Western in our orientation and provided we are able to maintain order here.

I know that good order is not dependent only on military preparedness. No, good order in a country is dependent on infinitely more than that. Good order is the result of the sum total of State activities, not the least of which, however, is the State’s preparedness in the military sphere. It would be a fortunate state of affairs if the military preparedness of all states could rest on a peace-time basis, but one sometimes wonders whether there really can be such a thing as a peace-time defence force strength, because if there was implicit confidence in peace no defence force would be needed at all. A so-called peace-time defence forec is only necessary in a country really because there is no faith in the prospect of peace, and that strength varies between so-called peace-time strength and full strength in propertion to the degree of confidence in the world in the ability to maintain peace. To my mind there can never be such a thing as a peace-time defence force strength in our country as long as the world is in the grip of a cold war, particularly not when prominent world figures tell us that the world situation is still not hopeless! To keep the State’s military preparations on a peace-time basis in the present cold war, would be to gamble recklessly in my opinion with the safety of the State and even with the life of the nation.

We know the circumstances of the world and we know that every nation that can afford to do so is making military preparations. No state, as far as I know, relies to such an extent on its diplomacy, its good government, and has so much faith in its allies or its potential allies, that it itself makes no proper military preparations. In South Africa too we are building up a defence organization which will provide proof of our realism. Mr. Speaker, in other countries of the world we have the unrealistic people, the people who are only able to take their stand on “what might have been”. The way they argue is this: “But for this and but for that no expansion in the military sphere would have been necessary.” The fact remains that I have to take care of the safety of the State, and I cannot allow these people to make me deviate from my course. If I took any notice of them, I would end up by getting my marching orders.

General E. G. Brink, former commander of South Africa’s First Division, a man with extensive military experience therefore, said quite recently that—

This gentleman went on to say—

He also said—

He then went on to say this—

I might just mention here, Mr. Speaker, that during the last world war, the first South African soldier to fire a shot did so 18 months after the declaration of war. And I wonder whether there is anybody in this House or even in this country who would take the responsibility on his shoulders to build on such a possibility for the future, particularly under present-day world conditions. We may not even have 18 days or even 18 hours left for preparations if we are plunged into another war.

I said that I knew what I was asking of the young men of South Africa. I know that I am asking them to make great sacrifices. I know that I am asking them to make those sacrifices whereas it is quite possible that they may never be called upon during their period of service to make use of this improved and more intensive training. But, Mr. Speaker. I know that I am asking the kindred spirit of the Dirkie Uyses and the Dick Kings to make those sacrifices. I am relying on the steel-like qualities of young South Africans of the two language groups who in these days of South Africa’s need of determination and preparedness will say to one another, in the words of Beukes—

I also know, Mr. Speaker, that while we are asking a great deal of our young men, we will also be giving them a great deal during this long period of military training. First and foremost we will be giving them the ability to defend the country in which they will have to live and reside. We will also be giving them a better opportunity to defend themselves if they should be called upon to defend their country. It almost borders on reckless cruelty, in these days of military specialization, to demand that an untrained man should take an active part in war. I shudder, Mr. Speaker, to think that the time may come perhaps when untrained men will have to defend South Africa under present-day conditions. We shall be giving these young men even more than that. We shall be giving them that discipline that will make them better employees; we shall also be giving them that discipline which in the future will make better employers of them. I know that the young men who are trained in our military gymnasiums are much sought after. Only last week a director of a large building society told me that their staff manager had been given instructions to employ all gymnasium lads, whether they need them at this stage or not. Since we are now going to train greater numbers of young men, I really believe that we are doing an injustice to those young men whose names are not drawn in the ballot. If in the future the employer has greater opportunities—four opportunities every year—to obtain employees from the ranks of that well-trained section of our population, I think the young men who have not received that training will have fewer and fewer opportunities of obtaining employment.

Mr. Speaker, what we give these young men, we naturally also give to the parents. I know that it is hard for the parents and particularly for the mothers perhaps to accept that their sons will have to go to a military camp or perhaps to a military training institution for nine months of the year. But it is and remains the privilege of mothers to give their fatherland the men to defend that fatherland. It is the mothers of South Africa who gave our country a Christiaan de Wet and a Dan Pienaar. It was mothers who gave England a Nelson and a Montgomery. It is men of that kind who in their sphere of service make nations great. It is men of that kind who never fade away in the history of a nation, who with the passing of the years always stand out more strongly. I know that we are also asking sacrifices of the employers. But it must be remembered that in fact it is the employers in any country who derive the greatest benefit from the maintenance of law and order in that country, and particularly if peace can be maintained. It will be the employers of South Africa therefore who will benefit most, directly and indirectly, if we can maintain peace in this country.

Mr. Speaker, it is sometimes alleged in the Press and elsewhere that the Government is suffering from a fear complex, and that that is why it is making all these military preparations. Nothing can be further from the truth. At this stage the Government sees no direct military threat, but we are living in times in which no government that is worth its salt can dare to allow its country not to be fully equipped within the limits of its capacity. Even the President of America has pointed out unambiguously that the communist activities in Cuba which is 90 miles from the American coast, represent a threat to them; and it is for that very reason that America has to be prepared in every sphere. He went on to say that the Western world was being swallowed up bit by bit and could be swallowed up without a single shot being fired. In South Africa too we are aware of the fact, and we believe, that the communists are making their influence felt too close to our borders. We too are aware of the fact that the Western world is being swallowed up bit by bit, with the aid of a cold war in this ideological struggle. The great America realizes that she must prepare herself at an accelerated tempo in the military sphere; we notice that she is even expanding her army for conventional warfare, and in these circumstances we must also realize that the time is overdue for us to expand our army. While the great America has to prepare herself in the face of such dangers, there are still people in South Africa, including politicians, who contend that it is unnecessary for us to make military preparations, people who refuse to realize that in South Africa too we must be ready, within the limits of our capacity, to defend our fatherland against anybody who might threaten our freedom. The question is sometimes asked: Who is threatening us? My reply is that the state of the world is such that almost every independent state in the world is threatened, and we are also threatened. In the struggle between the free world and Communism, South Africa can never be an unprepared spectator. In the search of the over-populated parts of the world for living-space South Africa can never be an unprepared target. In these days when there is talk in an unstabilized Africa of an Africa army and when no secret is made of the fact that the White man is unwelcome in Africa, we dare not allow South Africa to be caught unprepared in the military sphere. We have living-space here; we have wealth here; we have expansion possibilities here that we shall not be able to utilize fully for centuries to come. We are looking for people, we are not looking for space. It would be folly on our part therefore to build up an army which is designed for an aggressive war. We are building up an army purely and simply for defence purposes. We are building up a force for the maintenance of our freedom in a defensive capacity, a force to maintain peace, however and wherever it may be threatened. We want to build up a defence force that will be able to stand firmly in the cold war that is also being waged against us, that will be able to stand firmly in the face of the so-called peaceful swallowing-up process to which the President of America also referred.

I want to assure hon. members of this House that the expansion of our Defence Force which is contemplated in this Bill is not our sole attempt to be better prepared in the military sphere. No, after making a thorough military appraisal we have become convinced that amongst other things we need a full-time force. In order to strengthen ourselves in the military sphere but particularly so as to be ready to act immediately against aggression, a full-time force is being built up. This fulltime force, although it is not being created specifically for this purpose, will naturally also strengthen our internal security to a greater extent than is the case at present. For financial reasons, amongst others, this expansion must be brought about by means of a longer initial training period (nine months) for the Citizen Force, and not by means of an addition to the Permanent Force.

The intention is to call up groups for training every, three months. After three months’ basic training at depots, they will serve for another six months under Permanent Force officers and non-commissioned officers in strategically placed units. Thereafter they will return to civilian life and will be allotted to Citizen Force units. This will produce fully trained part-time Citizen Force soldiers and in that way increase the Force’s preparedness for battle in due course to a point where it will need no further training after mobilization in order to be ready for active military service. This also means that after the completion of their service in the Citizen Force, these men will be better reservists than we have ever been able to achieve through peace-time training.

It is a well-known fact that the mere donning of a uniform does not make a soldier out of a citizen. But after three months’ training, although not fully equipped for conventional warfare, he will be fit to be used for internal security duties. But the task of the Defence Force embraces much more than that. Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that if we had to prepare our Defence Force for internal circumstances only, this longer training would really not be necessary. Anybody who alleges therefore that we are giving our people longer training because we want to maintain internal peace, is entirely wrong. We do not need it for that purpose. The man who has had three months’ training is quite good enough for that purpose. But we have to look at much more than that. In order to allow the recruit to develop to his full worth, he should be attached to a unit for another three month’s training, after having had his first three months’ basic training. That will be followed by more specialized training, as I have said, for another three months to round off his training for all combatant as well as internal security duties.

As I have mentioned already, the idea is to allot the ballotees every three months. The reason for that is that if all the ballotees were brought in on the same date and had to be discharged nine months later, then for six months of every year there would be no properly trained citizens under arms. In view of the fact that the threat exists throughout the year and that a trained full-time force would therefore have to be available throughout the year, the period of nine months would have to be extended so as also to include the basic and early training in units of the next groups. Full-time training would then last 18 months instead of nine months. It would mean that for six months of every year twice as many men would be under arms than will be the case at present, and it would not provide a greater number of trained combatants, while the expenditure would be infinitely higher.

Even if the intake were limited to twice a year, full-time training would have to be extended to at least 12 months in order to provide the necessary overlapping, and this would again mean that more men would be in camp at the same time than is going to be the case at present.

Mr. Speaker, under the proposed scheme the Permanent Force would also have to be expanded because the whole military organization is being expanded. Since more ballotees would have to be coped with at once if the intake were limited to once or twice a year, the Permanent Force organization would have to be further expanded, and in addition to that more housing would have to be provided and more training equipment would have to be used, which would make the whole organization much more expensive for the State.

This quarterly intake may cause dislocation, particularly in the case of would-be university students, but provision will be made for that, firstly by letting the training period commence one year earlier. This amending legislation makes provision for that. This will mean that the majority of would-be students who are balloted will be able to come in for military training immediately after leaving school. Furthermore, steps will be taken to see that would-be students are allotted in the first two quarters of the four quarterly intakes so that they will not be kept away from their studies for more than one calendar year. Where students want to go to university before they have reached the training age, they can have their training deferred until they have completed their studies. They can even have their military training deferred after they have reached the training age, if they first want to complete their studies. If they complete their nine months’ continuous training before they go to university, they will be allotted thereafter to Citizen Force units which will make it possible for them to receive their further training for two continuous periods of three weeks during the long vacations. I can give the assurance that every possible step will be taken to make it as convenient as possible for would-be students and students. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the longer period of training may also cause inconvenience to apprentices and their employers. In this connection we negotiated with the Apprenticeship Board, and we received their full support. The earlier training age will also facilitate matters. In addition to that the Apprenticeship Board has agreed to reduce the period of apprenticeship by four months where an apprenticeship is interrupted. The apprentice will therefore only lose five months, but we also undertake to defer the training of apprentices until they have completed their apprenticeship in those cases where they commence their apprenticeship before their military training period and wish to complete their apprenticeship first. The same opportunity will be afforded to other young men who are studying. This will, of course, make the allotment of ballotees all the more intricate, but South Africa must be defended. In many other countries of the world the period of military service extends over a much longer period than our proposed training period, and the defence of South Africa means as much to us as the defence of other countries means to their citizens.

Mr. Speaker, the duty to defend the country rests on every able-bodied man without regard to persons. But cases do occur where consideration must be given to the question of exempting a citizen from the obligation to undergo training in the interest of the country or to the question of deferring that training. In the past this was considered by a board appointed by me, under the chairmanship of a magistrate, but it is now proposed, in view to our increased requirements and the resultant implications in respect of the labour market, to entrust this duty to the Minister of Labour.

I want to give the assurance that this question of the Exemption Board was very thoroughly investigated and considered before we decided that the Board should be placed under the control of the Minister of Labour. It is the Government’s intention to allot at least 10,232 ballotees every year in the future as against approximately 4,300 this year and just below 4,000 last year. This in itself will bring about a greater dislocation in the labour market, but in addition to that these greater numbers will now be brought in for nine months’ continuous training, which will bring about a complete change in the situation as it existed in the past. I am strongly convinced that the Department of Defence does not possess and cannot build up the organization to make a proper study of the State’s manpower position, and since we are now going to take a considerably greater percentage of our manpower out of the labour market for such a long period, it must be done in a scientific way. The Department of Labour, with its connections, is in a much better position to do that than the Department of Defence. Our Department will notify them every year how many young men we want for the army, and then the Exemptions Boards, which fall under the Minister of Labour and on which Defence will be represented, will have to make the allotments. I know that there are hon. members who feel so strongly about our defence needs that they are of the opinion that the Exemptions Boards should also fall under the Minister of Defence but. Mr. Speaker, for the reasons that I have indicated, I am convinced that what is contemplated in this legislation is a much better arrangement.

Let me now deal briefly with the clauses.

Clause 1: The present Section 21 covers both service and training authorization and also provides where the training is to take place. In order to set out clearly the liability for service and training, it is proposed that Section 21 should provide for service and training only. The places where training is to take place can be provided for in Section 16 (2), and sub-section (4) of Section 21 will not be incorporated therefore in the revised section.

The provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 21 are being incorporated in the proposed Section 22 (3), just as in the case of the existing sub-section 22 (4), which contains the same provisions as a result of the amendment brought about through Section 2 of Act No. 12 of 1961. It excludes repetitious reference to the training liability of experienced volunteers for the Citizen Force.

Sub-section (3) of Section 21 now becomes an independent sub-section, namely, Section 24bis (Clause 4) because it is an important provision in the Act and is applicable to the whole of the Citizen Force; that is to say to those who serve in terms of Sections 19, 21, 23 and 24.

Clause 2: The maximum period of compulsory continuous training for the Citizen Force under Section 22 is nine months over a period of four years, subject to a limitation of three months in any training year. In practice we used five of the nine months after 1954, and, more recently, when greater emphasis was placed on internal security and we had no direct links in respect of foreign action, the period was reduced to four months. The use of only five and four months out of the possible nine months was based on the understanding that the South African Defence Force would be further trained after mobilization before taking part in any struggle. Under the present circumstances this assumption is unacceptable, and citizens must be brought to full readiness for battle. Hence the longer period of nine months in the first year of training. However, the citizen must fit into his unit (part-time Citizen Force) and trained in his unit. Provision is, therefore, being made for further short periods of training in units in the next three years. In view of the extended first period of nine months and the quarterly allotment for training, it may happen that the first period of nine months may run into the next year. It will then not be possible to commence the first period of three weeks’ training in the second training year, because no member is called up twice in the same training year. In the future, therefore, there will only be two further periods of three weeks’ training in the remaining three years. That means that there will only be a total of three compulsory training periods over four years. This principle is contained in the new Section 22 (2).

In addition to this, the existing non-continuous training liability is also being changed Whereas in Section 22 (2) it was limited to 26 days over the four years, it is now being limited in sub-clause 2 (4) to only six days in each of the four years; that is to say, 24 days over the four years.

Paragraph (c) of sub-clause (2) provides for an exemption board, instead of the prescribed officer, as provided hitherto in Section 21 (1), to grant a deferment of training. The position is that in the past we had an exemption board which could grant exemption from the ballot but not exemption from or a deferment of training. The training will still have to be completed within seven years. The wording had to be changed, however, because the commencing date of service will no longer be 1 January, but will depend on the quarterly intake.

It has come to my notice that the word “deferment” mentioned with reference to training here and in Clause 3 may give rise to misunderstanding because, in Section 1, in the definition, it only relates to a deferment of the ballot. For the sake of clarity, I propose to move an amendment in the Committee Stage therefore to extend the definition, so that it will also place deferment of training and service in the correct light.

Clause 3: Section 23 deals with the enrolment of gymnasium pupils. Here a fairly big change is being brought about. Sub-section (2) provides that those persons, after completion of their training, are exempt from further training liability. Provision is now being made that they may also be allotted to units, if it is considered necessary, and thereafter they are treated in the same way as other Citizen Force recruits as far as training and deferment of training are concerned. If such a member is not allotted, he is exempted from further training liability. While there was a considerable difference between the periods of gymnasium and Citizen Force training, one could justify unconditional exemption from training liability after completion of the year’s training. In the future, however, there will be very little difference in practice between the training liability that is proposed in Clauses 2 and 3. The gymnasium pupils are now trained for 11 months or for such shorter period as may be determined. In the past this was considered as an achievement in comparison with the two or three months’ training received by the ordinary Citizen Force member. They had this advantage, therefore, that, after a year’s training, they could be allotted as Citizen Force members. The ordinary Citizen Force member will now also receive training for ten and a half months—continuous training included—and it would, therefore, be altogether unreasonable to give gymnasium pupils, who are already getting certain privileges, complete exemption from further service while the ordinary Citizen Force member, who also has to receive ten and a half months’ training, is not exempted.

Clause 4: As I have already said, this new Section 24bis is the same as the existing Section 21 (3), which now falls away.

Clause 5: Of the number of citizens who are drawn in terms of Section 67 and the reserve percentage who are drawn in terms of Section 70 (e), there often remain, after the shortages have been supplemented through allotment, considerable numbers of balloted citizens who at present cannot be compelled to serve in the commandos and who may consequently escape training altogether. The intention is that it should also be possible to allot some of them to commandos, just as in the case of citizens whose names have not been drawn in the ballot. For some reason or other the procedure in the past was that only those people whose names were not drawn in the ballot could be allotted to the commandos, while large numbers of citizens whose names were drawn in the ballot were never allotted for service and went scot-free therefore.

They never received training.

They receive training through the commandos. Let me proceed to deal with the clauses.

Clause 6: So as to allow a citizen to receive his compulsory training as soon as possible after leaving school, thus limiting the disruption in his civilian life to a minimum, it is proposed to dispose of the registration, balloting and other processes within a year instead of two years, and this requires a change in the ages mentioned in sub-section (1).

Paragraph (a) brings into the 1961 ballot those who register this year and next year and those whose ballot has been deferred.

I fully realize that the new scheme will tend to disrupt the careers of young men to a certain extent. I have already dealt with that. This applies particularly to academic students and apprentices. In this respect, however, as I have already indicated, discretion will be used.

Paragraph (b): The processes leading to the ballot can, it is true, take place within a few years, except that the preliminary ballot list, for administrative reasons, cannot be drawn up before the last day of March and posted up at the prescribed places. Sub-section (2) is, therefore, being amended so as to make available an additional two weeks for this purpose.

Clause 7 provides that exemption boards will fall under the Department of Labour. The composition of the exemption boards has been changed in consultation with the Department of Labour. The proposed subsection (4) has been inserted so as to add the provision in the first portion of sub-section (6) of Section 69 to the powers relating to exemption boards in Clause 7, because that is the more appropriate place for it.

Clause 8 only contains consequential amendments. The Exemption Board mentioned in the proposed Section 98 to consider exemption in terms of Section 97 (2) must also be covered here.

Clause 9: This amendment is necessary in order to fit in with the principle in Section 68, read together with the proposed Sections 22 and 23 (Clauses 2 and 3), namely that all exemptions and deferments are placed under the control of the Minister of Labour.

Clause 10: In a state of emergency it is imperative that essential services should continue and it would be better, therefore, for the Department of Labour to grant exemptions. Persons who have sound reasons for not wishing to perform military duty will then be satisfied that it is not the Department of Defence but the civilian authority that decides whether or not they can be given exemption in terms of Section 97 (2).

Clause 11: This section has been inserted to cover serving members such as gymnasium pupils and other members of the Citizen Force who have already started their training. They will not fall under the new set-up and will, therefore, only be liable to complete the compulsory training prescribed in the existing Act. Clause 12 is intended to authorize the administrative change-over.

Clause 13 really has nothing to do with the preceding clauses. Because of the fact that Chapter VI of the regulations for the Permanent Force was only promulgated in September 1960 and because of the clear and unambiguous wording of Section 87 (3) of the Defence Act, 1957 (Act No. 44 of 1957), which limits to 12 months the period in which certain regulations can be made applicable with retrospective effect, it was not possible to make the provisions of Chapter VI of the regulations for the Permanent Force applicable before 30 September 1959; 1 January 1960 was, therefore, fixed as the preliminary date of application.

However, in view of the fact that these leave privileges were made applicable as from 1 January 1959 to the South African Police, the Prison Service and the Public Service (excluding nurses) and should also have been applicable, for the sake of uniformity, to the Permanent Force with effect from the same date, this clause is necessary so as to make the application of Chapter VI of the regulations for the Permanent Force valid as from the same date in respect of members of the Permanent Force, excluding members of the South African Military Nursing Service, and as from 1 April 1959 in the case of the latter.

The hon. the Minister has given a very exhaustive review not only of the objects of the Bill and its background but the various reasons which have necessitated it, and I do not propose to take up the time of the House by recapitulating what he has said, but certain features of it will need to be dealt with as one proceeds to deal with the Bill itself. I only want to say at this stage with regard to the first section of the Minister’s speech, his introductory remarks, that as far as his sentiments with regard to the spirit of South Africa in connection with its defence are concerned and the methods which he proposes to adopt and the realization of responsibility not only on the part of the population but of the Government towards defence, these sentiments can be received by this side of the House with appreciation and I can assure the Minister with all the greater appreciation because it is so long overdue. So much of the necessity for this Bill flows directly from the lack of appreciation in past years of the sentiments now expressed by the Minister. This is the second important Bill amending the Defence Act to be introduced this Session. I think one could sum it up by saying that it is a most drastic and far-reaching change in the Union’s defence organization ever to have been introduced in peace-time. It is a matter of regret in a sense that a Bill with such far-reaching implications, which affect almost every facet of life in the country, should not have been referred to a Select Committee for examination before it came to this House. However, that has not been done.

Summing up the three main features of the Bill, I think we can say that they are contained in Clauses 1. 2 and 6, which between them reduce the calling-up age by one year. In other words, you now register at 17 and you are balloted at 18 instead of 19 years of age. Clause 2 lays down the new compulsory system of four years’ training between the ages of 18 and 25 and provides for nine months’ compulsory training in the first year, which the Minister explained means three months’ basic training at a depot, three months’ unit training and three months’ training for combat tasks, and then they go back for the remainder of the four years’ service in regiments of the Citizen Force including two continuous annual training periods of three weeks in between. I think that briefly sums up the new training system from the time angle.

The third feature which emerges is in Clause 7, which varies the present system of exemption boards and in lieu thereof transfers the authority to a large measure to a new type of board constituted and controlled by the Minister of Labour, instead of as hitherto by the Minister of Defence. The Minister also stated that under the new scheme the number of men who would be called up would be changed from about 7,000 to approximately 10,000 a year as the scheme gets into full swing. In effect, the Bill introduces a system of compulsory, continuous national service and in effect amounts to national conscription as far as defence is concerned. With the Union’s very limited manpower—and the Minister made this clear in dealing with the changes in the exemption boards—and largely due to the Government’s lack of an immigration policy, employers of labour have to depend for recruitment of their staffs from the boys leaving school every year. We have arrived at the stage where we have to try to squeeze a quart out of a pint bottle. The Minister has explained that some fair apportionment has to be made between the various facets of our life, defence, commerce, industry and other sections of our national life. It is, therefore, inevitable that this new system of training will have very severe repercussions in many directions, including not only industry and commerce but also on the lives of the trainees themselves when they are called up. The Minister has referred to some of the problems in the Other Place and also here today, and he said that internal security still forms the first task of our Defence Force and that the large-scale training of the Citizen Force would be carried out in a nine months’ cycle so as to ensure that combat-trained troops, as the Minister put it, were constantly under arms at strategically placed camps throughout the Union. Also that this system would provide fully trained part-time soldiers who would be ready for immediate mobilization to support the Permanent Force in maintaining internal security and to provide field forces to protect our borders. I think that is a fair representation of the general picture as described by the hon. Minister. The Minister has also stated that the threat remains throughout the year, and the pertinent question is being widely asked throughout the country as to just what that threat is—whom we are really preparing to fight? I would like the Minister in his reply to say more about that. I would like to say that we on this side are firm believers in having a properly equipped and well-trained and experienced defence organization which will be led by experienced officers because that is undoubtedly the best way to avoid trouble. But when in time of peace the military forces are built up to war strength, as the Minister has stated, and are strategically placed throughout the Union as is now being envisaged, there comes a time when the very extent of the preparations may well be a cause for alarm that such drastic steps have become necessary in peace-time. The Minister has dealt at some length with the external pressures which are building up and the necessity for us to see that our own house is in order so that we will not be caught by surprise in the general world unrest. There the Minister is on sound ground and we agree with that point of view.

May I ask a question? I want to ask the hon. member whether he does not admit that all other Western countries are reorganizing their armies on the same basis that the Minister is proposing now?

If the hon. member would just be patient, I will deal with that point. At this stage I would like to say that with regard to any comparison between the potential strength we can muster and that of some of the nations the hon. member referred to, there is such a great difference that it becomes difficult to make comparisons.

Getting back to the point with which I was dealing, the cause for national alarm, I want to ask the Minister in his reply to give the country a more reassuring statement on the Government’s defence policy than what has preceded the introduction of this Bill, not only here but also in the Other Place. Whatever good reasons exist, and they undoubtedly do exist, in regard to the necessity for a Bill like this, two main features emerge from a study of this Bill. It is, firstly, that by the measures now described in this Bill the Government is setting out to restore the efficiency of South Africa’s Defence Forces which they themselves over the past ten years have so systematically broken down and destroyed; and the second reason is that the machinery to re-establish an effective citizen force is now again being built up whereas it appears to have been the previous Minister’s object to destroy it. Those two features emerge very clearly from the Bill. The other point which emerges is that much of the changes made in the other provisions of the Bill flow from the failure of the Government’s internal colour policy … [Interjections.] Whilst we accept the axiom that law and order must be maintained, because that is the first principle in every civilized state, force by itself cannot supply the final answer to the problem we are up against. I am dealing now with internal security. Force must be accompanied by the widest possible positive action to remove the causes of frustration upon which the unrest breeds. There can be no question of that. At the same time it is impossible to ignore the general unsettled condition of world affairs which the Minister referred to, including the growing pressure inside Africa which we would be foolish not to take note of, and the danger-signals which they constitute for the security of our country.

The Minister has dealt at length with this Act, but the dangers which he has rightly pointed out are made all the greater by the isolation into which the policies of the Prime Minister have driven this country. So that when we deal with defence we are dealing with the situation more or less entirely on our own, because despite references made to pacts with other nations, they are very nebulous at the moment and we are now standing more or less alone, and we must face that fact. There are features in the Bill which we shall require further information about and which other speakers will deal with, and it may be that in some cases we will introduce amendments in the Committee Stage.

Now turning to the Bill itself, Clauses 1, 2 and 6 which introduce the age reduction and the four years’ service period and the compulsory period of training, this training system means that the average young South African under this scheme will go almost direct from school into his four years’ military training and will serve his nine months’ continuous service during the first year. Speaking in the Other Place, the Minister stated that at the end of his nine months’ continuous training the men concerned would be absolutely prepared—I am quoting from Hansard—for combat, as well as for internal security tasks, and that combat trained troops would be readily available at strategically placed points throughout the Union. I want to sound a word of very serious warning in regard to this sentiment. Outside of actual battle experience there is probably no type of military duty which demands a greater measure of discipline, self-control, experience and mature judgment than is called for in dealing with what you might call civilian disorder or riot control. What the Minister will have at the end of his nine months’ training, with the best will in the world and accepting the fact that the material he will have to deal with is the equal of anything in the world, will be regiments of average young South African men with an average age of between 18 and 20, with some degree of military training and discipline but by no means the mature combat-trained troops the Minister has referred to. The country is already paying very dearly for what to some extent must be regarded as the bitter price of immature judgment and lack of experience. It is one of the first responsibilities of the Minister and the Government to ensure that the young South Africans who are now to be called up under this system will not be exposed to similar risks. We must not be too optimistic about these battle-trained troops we are going to produce. They can eventually become that with experience, but do not expect too much of young chaps who have not yet had the opportunity of becoming mature. The Minister referred to the desirability of increasing the size of the Permanent Force and then went on to give perfectly valid reasons why at the moment that is difficult due to questions of finance, etc. I want to say this, that actually it is highly probable that a largely expanded Permanent Force is the only really practical answer to the problems we are now facing, particularly with regard to external security. The Minister, when introducing the Bill, referred to his difficulties in regard to manpower and the greater cost, etc.—I think it is necessary to draw attention again to the fact that it is long past time when Parliament, the Government and the country as a whole began to realize that this particular measure and the cost of it, in both money and men, is the price we have to pay for our dangerous isolation to which the Government has brought the country. I think we have to face that position and the country must realize that they are the people who will have to pay for it, and it is a pretty expensive bill. The Minister has dealt at considerable length with the question of the new type of exemption boards referred to in Clause 6, the exemption boards which deal not only with the inflow of personnel into the Defence Force but also the other boards which deal with the exemption of people during wartime. One can appreciate that with the development of the country and the close interlocking between the technical side of industry and the technical side of the Defence Force, which has changed out of all recognition from the days of the PBIs—the soldier is to-day largely a technician in some form or other. One can appreciate that there must be careful control to see that both defence and the basic supplies on which it has to depend, the industries of the country, and the national life of the country as a whole, all have to be protected. Therefore there is some ground for support of the Minister’s proposal to hand over the control of this board to the Department of Labour. At the same time there are features about it which we on this side of the House are not too happy about. We feel that to a large extent it is placing very important powers into the hands of a Minister who is not responsible for the defence of the country, and in any conflict of opinion, which with the best will in the world, human nature being what it is, may arise, this may impose difficulties in the way of defence at a critical time. It may be that after a discussion and after some further explanations by the Minister we may find it necessary to move an amendment on this point in the Committee Stage. There are many ramifications that require examination and there are many possibilities where difficulties may occur. Even the last section of that clause which rules out any appeal against the final decision of the board and the Minister of Labour, appears to place such vast powers in a Department which is not responsible for defence that we doubt whether it is wise to go to the extent that the Bill goes. That there must be close collaboration with Labour is true, because Labour can play an active part in guiding Defence in regard to manpower requirements but we feel that there is room for improvement in the proposed changes.

I want to turn to another aspect of the result of these amendments, because through this Bill practically every phase of the life of the country will be affected. You can take it that as the result of the new training scheme we will have to realize that even the number of permanent instructors must be increased with consequent wide effect on the Permanent Force. The amount of equipment and accommodation, transport, stores, and Q services and medical services, which will have to be built up to maintain what will now be practically a whole-time army in the field. Then there is the provision of welfare and recreation services for these young men, because there is nothing more important than this if you are going to congregate 10,000 young men into camps over the country. That side of their lives will have to be very carefully looked after. Then there is the question of the pay organization. We know that even with a sound Government like the United Party Government in the last war they ran into difficulties in that direction. These are features which have to be considered. Therefore I want to raise this point. The present system of pay and allowances as affecting the Citizen Force was never designed to meet the position which will now devolve upon it when there will be what is practically a whole-time army in the field. It was to a large extent inadequate even under the existing system when in many cases the pay had to be augmented by the employers of the men concerned. Many young men now go direct from school to work in order to help to maintain their family and parents. In other cases—the Minister has dealt with the educational factor of the people who are going more or less whole-time to higher education institutions like the universities, but there are many other cases of young men who, because of the financial position of their family, have to help their families by working and therefore have to get their higher education by means of extramural attendance at universities or technical colleges, they will be adversely affected as the result of this full-time call-up. Under the new training scheme where you will have 10,000 young men going direct into the service from school, it can impose real hardships on their parents, and also on the man who is more advanced in years and who already has his own home and family. What does the Minister propose to do in regard to this new situation which will be created by the Bill? Both the precedent and the principle of making special allowances to deal with situations such as this have already been accepted and provided for in the Defence Act. Section 145 of the Act which is made specially applicable to the A.C.F. in the case of death or disablement while on military service also provides for medical services and compensation. The provisions of the War Pensions Act covering the Permanent Force have also been made applicable to the A.C.F. This is another case where if we want the country to be defended we must be prepared to pay for it, and it will be necessary to see that these young men and their families are not penalized as a result of their being called up. It would appear that some suitable adjustment will have to be made of the scale of C.F. pay and allowances.

I would like the hon. the Minister when he replies to give us some idea of what it is considered it is possible to do in that respect, and how it is intended to deal with that pay position which is undoubtedly going to arise as a result of this Bill. If defence is necessary—and we submit it is—then it must be paid for and the cost spread over the nation in its full effect and not carried just by the group of people who are called up for service. Other points which arise from the new training scheme will be dealt with by other speakers, but I want to refer to Clauses 7 and 8 which replace Sections 68 and 69 of the Act. I have dealt in part with that, but there again I want the Minister to give very careful thought, before he replies, to the implications of the suggestions made in the Bill with regard to the change-over to the new system of exemption boards, which virtually hands over to these exemption boards the control of the inflow of trainees who are called up, particularly in view of the huge increase in the number of applications for exemption. I would like the Minister to give that careful thought again before he replies, to see whether he is still quite satisfied after this debate, that he is not handing over too much power to the Minister of Labour. As far as the old boards are concerned, it was considered so important to give regard to the local needs and requirements of an area that the Act laid down that the chairman of the board had to be either a magistrate or a retired magistrate with five years’ continuous experience in that capacity. Sir, you see the importance that is attached to that aspect of exemptions. Under the new boards that proviso regarding the chairman is abolished altogether. As far as the new boards are concerned, the discretionary power to appoint a chairman is handed over entirely to the Minister of Labour, who has full authority with regard to the appointment, the rejection or acceptance of any member of the board. The functions of the exemption board have always been important both to defence and to the people and the public interests concerned in particular areas, and under the new conscription scheme they are going to be still more important. The tremendous increase in the number of exemptions, makes it quite clear how important the work of this board is.

Those are some of the more important features of this Bill. The hon. the Minister has dealt with other amendments which to a large extent are consequential on these three main factors. He has also referred to the final clause in the Bill, the little orphan in the storm, and I can assure him that as far as we on this side are concerned, no difficulties will be placed in the way of that particular clause going through, because it seems to us that, as usually happens, defence came last in the inquiry concerned and that unless we can help to remedy the position, they are going to be penalized in the matter of improvements in conditions of service approved by that particular inquiry, and we certainly do not want that to happen. I want to say that in approaching this Bill as a responsible Opposition we have always stood by the principle that the defence of the country is a national concern and should be kept out of the ordinary run of politics. We as a responsible Opposition are not opposing this Bill and we shall not oppose its second reading. As I have said, there are certain questions on which we will require answers and we will possibly ask for certain improvements by way of amendments in the Committee Stage. But the Bill, drastic as its effect is going to be on the lives of people in this country, having regard to the circumstances in which we are living to-day, is one which we intend to support. But I want to conclude by saying that whilst we do not oppose the Bill, the responsibility for giving practical effect to the very wide provisions for the betterment of defence enshrined in this Bill and the responsibility to see that they are not abused, rests squarely on the shoulders of the Government. No matter how much the proposals set out in this Bill may assist in building up an efficient and well-trained Defence Force, it would be utterly unreal for us or anybody in this House to delude ourselves that in the world position that exists to-day we can successfully defend South Africa on our own, against any form of major external aggression. It is utterly unreal, so let us disabuse our minds of that, and the country must not fall into that trap. Sir, we have heard it said across the floor of the House by members who have thumped on their chests stating “let them all come; let the world come: we are ready”. Let us forget that idea. That idea verges as close to lunacy as it is possible to get in this House. No isolated nation can do it. There is no nation, however big, living in isolation that can defend itself. The only security lies in collective security. In supporting this Bill we support it also with this proviso that the defence arrangements which are now required in this country form part of the price that we have to pay for the isolation brought about by the follies of the Government. No matter what the Bill can do to restore that defence position, the only real hope for national security is the quickest possible adjustment of the Government’s internal policy in order to help to remove the disabilities under which we are suffering vis-à-vis the outside world; help to remove the causes of world condemnation and assist South Africa to return to the only practical hope of security which is offered by our readmittance as partners in the combined Western defence scheme, to which we can not only make a very valuable contribution but from which we can also obtain a reasonable hope of security. Any course other than that, any course other than a combination of those two things—the tightening up of the defence position as this Bill envisages, coupled with those other practical steps to remove the internal causes of friction and to restore South Africa to her rightful place amongst the nations of the world—could merely be regarded as deliberate race suicide on the part of South Africa.

The hon. the Minister spent a great deal of time explaining the provisions of this Bill to us and we are grateful to him for it. He appealed to members not to drag politics into this matter. The hon. member who has just sat down agreed wholeheartedly and said that he and his party did not oppose this Bill. That is very wise of them, but the sting came towards the end of his speech when he said that it was the fault of the Government that the Defence Act had now to be amended so drastically.

That is true, isn’t it?

No, that is not true. We only spend a small sum on defence. Some countries spend up to 40 per cent of their revenue on defence. We only spend a small amount but we feel that we on the southern tip of Africa should be prepared for all contingencies. We do not want to be aggressive towards any country; the Opposition knows that and neither is that the intention of the Minister, but we should like to be prepared in these uncertain times of a cold war. We have to train our men and be prepared for anything that might happen. We see what is happening along our borders; we see what is happening in Angola. Even the troops of UNO who sent ammunition and food to Angola are used against the inhabitants. We must be prepared to defend ourselves. It is not the Minister’s or anybody else’s intention to be aggressive towards anybody. That is not the intention of this legislation either. The object of this legislation is simply to prepare the small White population for anything that might happen. We have many friends; it is not a question that we are isolated now that we are out of the Commonwealth. Ships belonging to the Western powers touch at our ports time and again and they are on very friendly terms with us. They know that South Africa is one of those points that they cannot sacrifice in any circumstances, because if the route through the Red Sea is closed, the route via South Africa has to remain open. We trust, however, that that position will never arise. In any case I welcome the attitude which the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) has adopted and that he supports this Bill. There are certain things that we have to do in present-day circumstances; we have to have a strong Defence Force; we have to have better equipment and we must be prepared for all contingencies. As someone who has been through a number of wars, I make an appeal to the Opposition and to the nation, not to drag our political differences into the Defence Force. We dare not do that. When it comes to defence matters we should speak the same language. What struck me was the fact that during the recent disturbances in Natal, English-speaking persons approached me and said: “We support the Government in times of difficulty” and I am convinced that they will do so. [Interjections.] The hon. member over there (Mr. Lawrence) will also stand by us. I do not know whether he can still handle a gun but I think he will still be able to do something. If they station him at Woodstock I am sure he will be able to defend the whole of Woodstock.

Before I sit down I want to make this appeal to hon. members: It is unnecessary to waste any time on this Bill because all of us agree that it is necessary. I wish to thank the Opposition for supporting this measure. They will not regret it. The Minister will not abuse the powers which he has under this Bill. He will only use them in exceptional cases where he has no alternative, but then we are at least prepared. With these few words, Sir, I want to thank the Opposition once again and I hope that no further time will be wasted on this Bill.

I wish to say to the hon. member who has just sat down that I agree with him 100 per cent when he says that politics should be kept out of the Defence Force. I am also pleased to be able to say that it seems as though it is being kept out of the Defence Force. It is only a pity that hon. members did not say that sooner.

I have also said that.

I personally welcome the extensive training which this Bill envisages. A few months ago I said in this House that the time was long overdue that the training period, particularly in the case of our Citizen Force, should be extended and that we should increase the number of recruits, and for that reason we welcome the changes which the Minister contemplates in this Bill.

The Minister quite rightly said that if we were involved in a war in this country again, we shall not have 18 months or 18 days or even 18 hours. It will descend upon us much quicker. We see what is happening practically every day wherever there is trouble. By the time the Government realizes what is happening, the trouble will already be upon us, and the Minister is quite right when he says that we will not have those 18 months within which to prepare ourselves. That is why it is essential that we prepare ourselves at this stage already. We should perhaps have done that sooner.

I personally am sorry that it is not possible for the Department of Defence to put every young man in this country who is physically fit through this type of training. It is the duty of every young man in this country but we appreciate that the money is not there and that the equipment is not there, and we are pleased that the Minister has seen his way clear to increase the number to the extent that he has done.

Other members on this side of the House will deal with the compulsory training at a later stage. We now have a period of nine months. From the nature of things the strength of an army is not determined to-day only by the number of men in it; its strength is mainly determined by the quality of those men and the training they have received. A modern army may to-day be described as a corps of technicians. The equipment is becoming more and more complicated. I am afraid that the old idea that the man who is unsuited for anything usually makes a good soldier is no longer of any force to-day.

Although this period of nine months will not give the men 100 per cent training, it will go a long way towards giving them that basic training that every soldier has to have. They will also receive training in the handling of the equipment that they will eventually have to use in their units, in their regiments. This continuous training period of nine months will fortunately provide the Citizen Force with recruits or men who have not only been partially trained but men who can be put to good use. The balance of this period of compulsory training that he has to serve with his unit is the broken period of training. The continuous period of training can now be devoted to special training and this is a great improvement on the old method.

The Minister has quite rightly said that this extended training scheme will mean that we shall have a much greater Permanent Force. I make bold to say that the Minister will not find that so easy for this reason: In the past the Permanent Force has been comparatively small and there has been a scarcity of experienced officers. I am seriously suggesting that the Minister will overcome that difficulty if he keeps the men longer in the Permanent Force. At the moment men in the Permanent Force—I am referring to officers as well as other ranks—have to retire at a comparatively early age. We find that senior officers have to retire at the age of 55 years. Junior officers have to retire at an even earlier age and under officers and ordinary soldiers are comparatively young when they retire. I suggest to the Minister that he should extend the retiring age and that he should make more use of the men that have had training and experience. I am not suggesting that those who have already planned their future should be kept in service beyond their retiring age, let them exercise their right to retire if they wish to do so, but give them a choice of remaining on for another two or three or more years. That will greatly assist the Minister to wipe out the shortage which he is experiencing to-day.

I also want to take up the cudgels on behalf of the officers and non-commissioned officers of the Citizen Force units. The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) has asked that the scale of pay and conditions of service in regard to recruits be revised but we have officers and non-commissioned officers in the Citizen Force who are no longer under any obligation to do service. They are doing it voluntarily. In many cases they attend the camps of their various units during their annual leave which they could otherwise have spent with their families. They sacrifice two or three nights every week to instruct their units and to train the men and in addition to that they themselves have to attend refresher courses. These men are sacrificing a great deal in the interests of our country and I want to plead with the Minister to see to it that these men are better paid. As the hon. the Minister has already said, in times of trouble they are the men who get sent into the field first and I really think the time has arrived that their scale of pay be revised.

Then there is another matter that I wish to raise at this stage and that is that these recruits should be trained by Permanent Force officers and non-commissioned officers and I take it that that they will receive that training in both languages. The Permanent Force is 100 per cent bilingual and the men are quite capable of using both languages. I trust the Minister will not separate our English- and Afrikaans-speaking boys during their training. I hope they will be kept together. Once they have received their nine months’ training they will be sufficiently bilingual to join their units where both official languages ought to be used.

Surely the hon. member does not expect us to give them schooling!

No, I do not say that we should give them schooling, but I have already pointed out that the training they will receive will be in both English and Afrikaans by Permanent Force men. After their training, when they return to their units, they will be quite proficient in both official languages. We must remember that bullets do not distinguish between the English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking soldier. They will serve together in a war. Here we have a golden opportunity of training our Afrikaans- and English-speaking boys together, of keeping them together, and of making their units 100 per cent bilingual. If we have to apply the principle of bilingualism 100 per cent in the Defence Force we will find that we will have to have an Afrikaans-speaking squadron in the Air Force and an English-speaking squadron.

What are you going to do in Natal?

We will soon enough break Natal in! We will have to have a ship on which only English is spoken and a ship on which only Afrikaans is spoken. That is completely impracticable. Furthermore if we should get involved in a war we will be on the side of the West, won’t we, and which language will we be using? Surely it will be English. We do not want our men to suffer because they are unlingual. We had that position in the Special Service Battalion before the war when we had boys from the platteland who could only speak one language. In most instances they were boys with a low standard of education and there was no language difficulty. They made good use of the training which they received in the battalion and there was no difficulty. I want to plead with the Minister to see to it that once these recruits have received their training and they return to their units or regiments both official languages should be used in those units.

As the Minister has rightly said there will of course be a great deal of opposition to the long period of training that these young men have to undergo. We know that there is a shortage of manpower throughout the country. But, as the Minister has also very rightly said, that is the price we have to pay for the protection of our country, and the price we have to pay if we wish to be prepared to defend our country when the need to do so arises. Parents, employers and industry have to pay that price. We shall have to face up to the disruption that that will cause in our economy but I am convinced that in the long run the advantages attached to this training will far outweigh the disadvantages. The military value of this training is obvious, but it also has a social value. These men will be disciplined and trained in the maintenance of law and order. We know of what value the Special Service Battalion and the Pioneer Battalion were to this country before the previous war. Just as the employers are competing to draw employees from the gymnasiums to-day, as the Minister has told us, they competed before the last war to get employees from these battalions—both the Special Service Battalion and the Pioneer Battalion—and the end result was that those boys regained their self-respect, they were trained and I do not think that we would have found one of them amongst the ducktails had there been ducktails in those days. That training made men out of them.

Before I leave this subject I just want to say this to the Minister: Some of our best soldiers during the last war came from the Special Service Battalion. When they went into service they had a great advantage over those who came from outside, and very few of them did not eventually attain some high rank or other.

When business was suspended I was saying that we on this side of the House welcomed this legislation and like hon. members opposite we realize that this training is very essential in these difficult times in which we are living. I also want to tell the hon. the Minister that because of this nine-month period of training he will now be able to get recruits for his Permanent Force. He has a golden opportunity of strengthening his Permanent Force with very good material.

I think so too.

I must say, however, that I am sorry that we have to do this at this particular stage and that we have not done so previously. I do not want to enlarge on this but I want to tell the House why I am sorry that this is happening at this stage. We have already seen what the reaction has been in certain countries of the world. They are already saying that South Africa is now arming herself and strengthening her defence force in order to oppress the non-Whites, and I will be pleased to learn from the hon. the Minister this afternoon that his object with this training is not in the first instance to ensure internal security.

You do not need nine months’ training for that.

There I do not agree with the hon. the Minister, because you require more experience to combat internal disturbances. In the first instance that is the duty of the police and I shall be pleased to hear from the Minister that he will not be too quick to call on the Defence Force to assist the police. The police have been trained for that work and we should leave it to them. You see, Sir, the Defence Force is trained not to act internally but to fight the enemy beyond our borders, and the Minister has already told us that he is going to equip the Force mainly with automatic weapons. That is the last weapon you should use to control the position internally, because when there is trouble in our country we do not want to shoot our own people. It is necessary sometimes to shoot but if we have to shoot it should rather be done with ordinary rifles. You may find an irresponsible person losing his head, placing his finger on the trigger of an automatic weapon and killing or injuring more people, innocent people perhaps, than necessary. I am pleased therefore that it is not the intention of the Minister to call out the Defence Force too soon. You know. Mr. Speaker, rightly or wrongly some of our young people also think to-day that the Defence Force is being strengthened with the object of shooting certain sections of the population. I will appreciate it and I think the country will appreciate it if the Minister will emphasize it on every possible occasion that that is not the intention and that the training that our men have to undergo to-day is with a view to defending our country.

I wish to refer to the preamble of the principal Act, Act No. 44 of 1957. There it says quite clearly that it is an Act “to make provision for the defence of the Union”. We should let that idea become fixed in the minds of our people and in the mind of the world outside, the idea that it is not for the maintenance of internal security and that we have our police for that purpose.

The hon. the Minister knows as well as we on this side of the House know that you cannot forever govern a nation with a strong defence force. The day will come when you can no longer do so and in this respect I associate myself with the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) and I want to recommend very strongly that the Government should ascertain what the causes are for the unrest that we have been experiencing internally so that those causes may be removed, and that the Government should not try to govern the people with force and violence.

Except for his last few sentences I wish to congratulate the hon. member for North East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) on the sensible speech he has just made. My congratulating him has a peculiar significance because the hon. member and I were school mates and for the information of hon. members I want to tell them that he was a good student; he learnt easily; and when I compare the speech which he has just made (except for the last few sentences) with the speech that he made when he first took part in a debate on Defence in this House, I find that he has not lost that ability to learn.

As far as I myself am concerned, this measure which the hon. the Minister has explained to us this afternoon crowns the various measures and steps which he and his Department have taken in the past for the protection of our country. It is not necessary for me to enumerate all those steps, but I want to mention one which is particularly appreciated as far as internal security is concerned and that is the closer co-operation that the hon. the Minister and his colleague the Minister of Justice have brought about between the Police Force and the Defence Force. I shall be failing in my duty if I did not, on behalf of the constituency which I represent, heartily congratulate the hon. the Minister on the steps which he and his Department have taken and if I did not tell him how much we appreciated this particular measure.

The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) spoke in a very subdued way and he told us that his party had always been in favour of it that politics should be kept out of politics, but immediately after saying that the hon. member told us that this measure was a direct result of the policy of this Government.

You cannot get away from facts.

The hon. member started his speech by saying “this measure is long overdue” but a few minutes later he said that the country should realize that this was the first account to be rendered as a result of the fact that South Africa was leaving the Commonwealth. Those two ideas clash with one another. Does he want to tell me that if we had remained within the Commonwealth it would not have been necessary for us to do anything in this country and that in that case we would have been able to depend on Ghana and Nigeria and Malaya and Pakistan and India or even on Mr. Diefenbaker for the safety of our own people? That does not make sense to me, and seeing that he was the main speaker on that side I do not think that was a very sensible thing to have said. We are living in dangerous times, Sir, and South Africa is not the only country that is going through a dangerous period, nor is Africa the only country that is going through a dangerous period. The world is going through a dangerous period and that is why we are prepared to support the hon. the Minister in this measure. When the hon. the Minister spoke this afternoon and told us how every boy, how every young man should do his share, how that was his privilege, how it was the privilege of every mother to bear the children who have to defend their country, he really stirred my feelings, because I myself have four sons and I think the eldest will just be old enough to fall under this new legislation when it comes to the drawing of lots, and the second one will follow soon afterwards. Realizing what is at stake I, as a father, feel—and I think every citizen in South Africa feels the same way—that that has to be; it cannot be different. That is why we wholeheartedly support the hon. the Minister.

I want to refer briefly more specifically to Clause 5 of this Bill which says that those recruits whose names have been drawn in a ballot and who subsequently cannot be assigned to the Citizen Force, can be assigned to the Commandos. Previously the position was that those whose names have not been drawn in the ballot could be assigned to the Commandos and now those whose names have been drawn and cannot be assigned to the Citizen Force can be assigned to the Commandos. They can be added to the Commandos. That gives me the impression that it is the desire of the hon. the Minister to strengthen the Commandos as well. I think the total numerical strength of the Commandos is approximately 80,000, or that ought to be its strength. I do not know what the exact figure is at the moment. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he feels that enough is being done by assigning those ballotees to the Commandos? Does he think that the Commandos are used to the fullest extent in that way? I am asking that question because of my personal experience of the Commando in my constituency, which is a semi-urban area. When I think of the facilities at the disposal of the Commando and I think of the training they receive, I ask myself the question whether we are making the best use of the almost 80,000 men that we have at our disposal in the Commandos throughout the country. In the first instance, as far as the facilities are concerned, we find that the Commandos have to do the best they can with the funds they themselves collect to construct rifle ranges. A rifle range is an expensive item. They have to construct their own targets. These are usually far out in the veld; they have to lay on their own water, and from the nature of things they have to have some kind of building in which to store the targets and other equipment. I am speaking subject to correction, but I do not think the Department contributes anything towards the erection of those ranges. I am informed, however, that the Department does make a maximum amount of R180 available annually for the maintenance of those ranges. That is appreciated and I think that amount is fairly adequate once the range has been constructed. But I want to ask the Minister at this stage to remember that to leave a Commando to fend for itself, to construct their rifle ranges at their own initiative in an urban areas, is something which the Commandos find very difficult. When I think of the training they receive. I am reminded of what the hon. the Minister said this afternoon when he said that he shuddered to think that untrained men should be sent to the front. Here we have approximately 80,000 men whom we could possibly use at some stage or other, and it may become necessary to use them, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is convinced that those men, who give their services voluntarily, receive the proper training? I am not even referring to the rank or file, but more particularly to the officers. I think there are 14 officers, including the medical officer in the Commando in my constituency. The Department provides short courses for officers and officers from the Commandos may attend those courses—they last for three weeks—and they receive a certain amount of training there. But under what circumstances? In the first place—and I want hon. members to remember that these men render these services on a voluntary basis—in most cases in the urban areas they are men who are in employment, they have employers. It often happens that while the officer is available and enthusiastic and while the course is there for him to undergo, he simply cannot afford to attend that course, or it may be that his employer refuses to release him. Or the employer allows him to attend the course but if he does he receives only R1.60 per day (if he has dependants slightly more but as an employee he has to sacrifice his usual income. In other words he is expected to undergo training voluntarily during his own time and at his own expense in order to protect our country and I do not think that is fair and reasonable. True, I believe they receive a uniform allowance of R80 but if the hon. the Minister compares the position of such an officer with that of an officer in the Permanent Force or in the Citizen Force, he will find that the remuneration which the Commando officer receives is absolutely negligible. I want to raise another point: To train a Commando properly, to carry out all the instructions and to make all the returns etc. require a tremendous amount of administrative work. I speak from experience because it so happens that that work is being done in my office, and that gets done free of charge, and if the Minister wishes the Commando system to work smoothly I think he should make some concession in the form of an allowance for administrative work. Cannot the hon. the Minister consider making some allowance available that will enable the Commandant or the Adjutant to have that work done outside, whether it be typing or any other administrative work.

The hon. the Minister said this morning that the employers were really the people to whom he wished to appeal to make those sacrifices, because the employers were the people who would be involved if trouble arose and if it became necessary to defend ourselves; the interests of the employers would be the first that would have to be defended in case of trouble. You have the position that an officer in a Commando is willing to attend a course in his own time and at his own expense, apart from the allowance which he receives, but his employers is not prepared to let him go. I do not know what to suggest. I do not want to go so far as to say that the employer should be forced to do so, but pursuant to the appeal which the hon. the Minister has made to the employers. I want to ask the Minister to consider whether some system cannot be evolved whereby one or two officers in a Commando can receive proper training in a specific year at State expense and in his employer’s time. I want to assure the hon. the Minister that these people are very enthusiastic and I think the Minister and his Department should encourage the Commandos and keep that spirit of enthusiasm alive. If we do that the Commandos will develop into a very strong fighting: force that may perhaps be used where we cannot use the ordinary Citizen Force.

We live in wondrous times. Yesterday one of the Ministers told us of a State-aided immigration scheme; to-day we find hon. members on the other side displaying a remarkable enthusiasm for our new defence scheme. It is all to the good. In reply to the hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. Pelser) I should like to say in passing that I congratulate him on having four sons who will probably benefit by this training, but I should like to remind him that there are many men who had sons who do not have them to-day, who also entered for training in time of war. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Klerksdorp took the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) to task because he spoke of the reason why we have to have this Bill. I think we should never forget that sometimes we have in a country one kind of foreign policy and another kind of defence policy, but we should never forget that if we have a powerful foreign policy, that policy will beget obligations, and one needs what the hon. Minister calls a realistic defence policy to carry out the foreign policy. Now this country for years has had a policy which has been not powerful but aggressive, challenging, defiant and it has been such that we have lost our membership of the Commonwealth, we have lost our prestige in the United Nations …

Order! The hon. member is wandering very far afield now.

Mr. Speaker, may I say that my next point is that when you have a foreign policy that has brought that disaster upon us, it is necessary to have a fresh appreciation by our military strategists, and because we have had a fresh appreciation by our military strategists who advise the Minister, we have this Bill. That is the reason why we have the Bill. To-day our position in the world is the position of an isolated nation and we have to gird up our loins and be prepared to defend ourselves. I think that instead of criticizing the attitude of my hon. friend on my left, he should have been congratulated for having seen the cause of this, and having seen the cause he is prepared to assist in finding the remedy—although I find a good deal that will improve the remedy.

Mr. Speaker, the situation is very serious indeed. Before it was so serious, we had a Consolidated Defence Act, which I regarded at the time as quite a good piece of work. But then the Minister of the day referred that Bill to a Select Committee before the second reading in order that all parties could cooperate under the chairmanship of the Minister of Defence of those days himself so that we could draft together a Bill which would be satisfactory to us and to the whole nation. That was done, and I regret very much indeed that the present hon. Minister did not see fit to do that. He could have drafted this Bill with that intention; it is not a complicated Bill; it contains certain principles, but it certainly is not an ordinary amending Bill. When we hear in this House that there is an amending Bill we think of an odd clause or two that have to be amended in the light of experience. It is not that. This is a completely new conception in South African defence; it contains a new principle—South Africa is starting on a new way of living in defence. We are now going to conscribe all the young men in this country whom the Minister is ready to call upon—and I will have a word to say about the manner of conscribing them, the form of conscription we are going to have.

In carrying out the provisions of this Bill, there is an opportunity for the Government to take one step in the direction of the national unity we have heard so much about and seen so little of during the régime of this Government.

Order! The hon. member is continually drifting away from the Bill.

Sir, I am not saying exactly what the hon. members on the other side would like, but I am speaking to this Bill because it is a new Bill containing a new principle. The principle of this Bill is National Service, something that South Africa has never known before. Field-Marshal Montgomery advised the British Government some years ago that one-year national service was not sufficient; it should be two. One year is a very great step forward for South Africa. Many of us regret that it should be necessary, but this comes to one year of national service. When you take nine months out of a year of a young man’s life and then the following year and the year after another three weeks per year you are taking from him one year of his life.

May I ask the hon. member a question? Is he satisfied that in the United Kingdom they have a system of national service but not in South Africa?

Mr. Speaker, I want to state this principle, that in considering defence we are not bound by ordinary party rules. There may be men on the other side who have different views from the Minister; there may be members on this side who have divergent views even amongst ourselves; that is inevitable in discussing national service. Now I want to give my view on this. My view is that if we are to have national service—that seems to be the feeling of the House—we want national service for all, for every young man in the country. We don’t want to hear about exemption boards, special conditions, sending them to Commandos instead of the 12 months’ service. I want national service for everyone, Duke’s son, cook’s son, everyone. Mr. Speaker, it has been pointed out on more than one occasion that our Defence Force as at present organized is not able to cater for national service for everybody. If we cannot give them national service in the Defence Forces of the country, we must give them national service in some other branch of the Government service but every man must be called up. That is the first point I make. If we are to have a system of compulsory training, it must be compulsory for everybody, and if we are to have exemption boards, I have no confidence in any Department of Government controlling exemption boards alone. Much as I respect the Department of Labour, much as I respect the Department of Defence, if you have national service, you are bound to have national dissatisfaction if you have an exemption board, similar to the board defined in the Act, and this Bill.

I am going to tell you what to do. I assume that our military experts have been overseas and have studied national service in other countries. In every district of South Africa there should be an exemption board, and there should be a central board of appeal similar to the board the Minister has defined. The district should be told how many men will be required from that district for the forces and a representative board of the community, consisting of industrialists, agriculturists, commercial people, employers, university men, whatever you wish, should sit together to decide on exemptions. I would go further. I would say that this Government which finances university education in South Africa, should say that these men who have done their year of national service must have priority in the universities, priority in admission to the universities, that we shall not say to a young man: “You have brains; you can go to the university”, but to the other lad: “You also have brains, but not quite so much; you can go and work in the defence forces for 12 months.” That is my next point about national service. Everybody, and priority for the man who has served, just as I would give priority to these wonderful young fellows who serve in a gymnasium.

All must get priority to go to the university?

I will explain to the hon. the Minister. You will have conscription for all and, when they have served their year and then make their usual applications for admission to a university, the man who has served should get priority over a man who has not served.

[Inaudible.]

I see the hon. member’s point. If my first point was not accepted in the spirit in which I made it and you still maintain the ballot system, then my second point of priority comes in. Perhaps I did not make that clear. My next point is that we must not say that a man cannot serve because of his vocation although I concede the case of ill-health. I understand that his training can be postponed in that event, but to postpone it for seven years, or up to seven years, is I think a great mistake, because a man of 18 years will in all probability seven years later be married and have children. A system of family allowances would then have to be introduced, and that I think is not the intention. In the case of a young fellow of 18 years, there will only be an occasional case of a family allowance having to be paid, when he supports his mother for instance. There will be such cases. We know that. But if you are going to postpone his training until he is 24 or 25 years of age, you are going to create a very complicated system similar to being on a war footing, and I do not think that that is the intention of the hon. Minister.

My next point is that if we carry out our conscription service under this Bill and allow exemptions as outlined in the Bill, you are going to have very great dissatisfaction in the country. You are going to have favoured young men not going for service and less privileged one who do go. The point I want to make is that if there is to be any privilege, then it must go to the man who has served.

Another point is the question of the organization of regiments, mentioned also by the hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst). I have had some little experience of the Defence Force and the experience I have had was very pleasant. I would, however, not go as as far as the hon. member for North-East Rand although I go in the same direction. My attitude to the organization of regiments, or flights in the air force, or ships in the navy, is that you should arrange a system of options. If men of a district say that they want a purely Afrikaans-speaking regiment, I would not tell them that they must also have English-speaking fellows; and if they say that they want an English-speaking regiment without any Afrikaans, then I would let them have that; but if they say that they want their regiment to be organized on the lines of the regiments at Voortrekkerhoogte, I would say that they should have that too. That is also our attitude towards education in the United Party. In education we say that parents must decide on the organization of their schools—if they want an English-language school, they should have one, and if they want an Afrikaans-language school, they should have one, but if they say they want a school with parallel classes, we do not want the Transvaal Nationalist Party to tell us what to do.

What has that to do with the Bill?

Everything, because it is a similar organization. Some members, Sir, will never learn! There is a further point I would submit to the consideration of the hon. Minister, one which I have made in this House before. That is that we do not seem to make advantageous use of our Coloured people in South Africa, especially of the Cape Coloured people. For many years I have brought up this matter under the Defence Vote, but now we have a new Minister who, I see, seems to have created a new atmosphere. We are very anxious to assist him and I therefore want to make this suggestion to him. South Africa’s Navy is a navy made up of little ships. We do not have cruisers; we do not have battleships. Our ships are little ships—frigates, destroyers. Beyond that we do not go. That being the case, we should look at the other naval powers of the world to see from what source they draw men to man their little ships. You will find that they go for the fisher folk; they recruit from fishermen. I say that in our South African Navy we should recruit from the Cape Coloured fishermen. They are first-class seamen. I know that because I have consulted some of the shipping companies. One South African shipping company employing Coloured crews under White officers, has told me that never in the history of that particular company has there been a complaint about the behaviour of the Coloured crew members in a foreign port. Their behaviour was exemplary, because there was a great demand for those posts. I want to suggest to the hon. Minister, therefore, that he should not use Coloured seamen merely as servants on board ship, but that he should train them as able seamen for our navy. That is a great career and we have not the White young men available. What is the use of going to the Western Transvaal, or to the North-Eastern Transvaal, to recruit men for the navy? They will be trained, and they will be good seamen, but a man who has had the good fortune in life to have been born and bred in the Transvaal will long only to go back there! He has not got the sea in his bones! But the Coloured fishermen have. The sons of these men are the young men whom we should recruit for our navy.

Is that the policy of your party to have Coloured seamen trained?

I thought I made the matter perfectly clear at the beginning, namely that when we discuss defence matters, our views transcend the ordinary party limits. We have not laid down that policy, although we like the idea. My friends behind me like that idea and think it should be investigated. I know that hon. member is turning the matter over in his mind to see how he can use it in some local election! I do not want to bring the debate down to such depths. I want to appeal to the hon. Minister to have this matter investigated because I think it is worth being investigated. And if the hon. Minister cannot go as far as training them as able seamen for our Naval Permanent Force, then he should introduce a system, similar to the one in force in the British navy many years ago, where there was a naval reserve. The men of this reserve were called up every year for one month’s training. They liked it because they were called up usually when fishing was slack and the fishing boats not at sea. They were called up in such times, and they were paid for the period they underwent training. I should like the hon. Minister to explore these possibilities. Lastly, I should like to say one parting word to the hon. Minister: If it is to be conscription, let it be conscription for everybody.

I am glad that the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) did not persist in the attitude with which he commenced his speech, because we are really thankful for the attitude which the two previous Opposition speakers adopted. I want to thank them both most sincerely. We are dealing here with a very important matter for South Africa. I want to say a few words about the remarks by the hon. member for Kensington and then I want to turn to what the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) has said. In the first place he has described the Minister’s policy as one of conscription and he has advocated national service. But, Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is unthinkable that a small nation like South Africa which must provide leadership to a large population of 15,000,000, can expect every young man who becomes available each year, to be trained for national service. We do not have the manpower, nor do we have the financial means to do so.

I am also very sorry that the hon. member for Kensington has started in advance to sow suspicion and prejudice against the board which is to be appointed under the Department of Labour with the very object of determining when we recruit the 10,000 men as the Minister has in mind how many young men we can train and from which industries we can keep them back; and in which respect we should help industry.

Then the hon. member for Simonstown has said that this legislation now places us on a war footing. I am very sorry that he has used the expression “war footing” because it is not true. We are not on a war footing. When we compare this proposed extended period of military training with the position in other countries, then it is apparent that the nine months which we now propose is still far shorter than the period in most other countries. I want to give the House one or two figures. The various countries realize today that they must be able to mobilize their forces as rapidly as possible in the case of an eventual war. The nature of warfare has changed completely during this atomic age and mobilization which takes four or six months, can no longer be relied upon because by that time the war might be over already. Future wars will impose heavy demands on the men of the Defence Force. They will fight with highly technical weapons. In addition they will use weapons in time of war which are beyond one’s comprehension when one considers what the effect may be on the mind and body of the human being. For that reason they must be given the very best possible training, and that is why these countries are also making arrangements for providing suitable training for their defence forces. I want to quote the example of the United Kingdom which decided in 1957 to abolish its system of national service and has abolished it completely, in order to place its forces on the basis of a permanent basis, that is to say a force of 375,000 men. This was done because the United Kingdom decided that it must be able to call up its forces immediately in case of attack. That is why they have abolished the old system of national service and have changed over to a full-time army of 375,000 men, an army which is on the same basis as our Permanent Force. That is also the position in America which to-day has an army of 2,500,000 full-time soldiers. In its defence force it has 2,500,000 men who are permanently in service. Here and there there are smaller groups which are being trained on a part-time basis, but as far as its army is concerned, America has 2,500,000 soldiers who are permanently available to defend their country. I now want to ask hon. member this question: Do they want to tell me that the United Kingdom is on a war footing because they have a full-time army of 375,000 men? Do they want to say to-day that America is on a war footing because they have 2,500,000 fulltime soldiers? Mr. Speaker, one is sorry that the idea is being spread that we are on a war footing. I want to express my regret at the fact that hon. members are taking part in this type of campaign.

Then the hon. member has said, and I think the hon. member for Kensington repeated it, that we are being obliged to extend our period of compulsory service and that the fact that we are having to do so, is due to the isolation which is the result of our leaving the Commonwealth and is due to maladministration. These are the two reasons which he has put forward. I cannot see how the cry of isolation can be raised in respect of our defence. To me this remains a hollow cry. Allow me to explain the position in this way. In an eventual world war South Africa will not be isolated because we stand by the West and we shall make our contribution. In other words, we shall not be isolated.

And they need the contribution we can make.

The hon. member is correct; the West will be grateful for the contribution which South Africa can make in such an eventual war. Mr. Speaker, it is precisely my contention that the measure before the House to-night will enable South Africa to make a greater contribution to the war effort of the West, a contribution which we will be able to make available to the West more rapidly and more effectively.

If a local conflict should arise, if someone should attack us along our borders, and this should develop into a war, then I am not certain whether, even if we had been a member of the Commonwealth, the United Kingdom would have helped us or whether any Commonwealth country would have helped us. I do not think that the United Kingdom would venture lightly into such a local conflict unless her interests were involved. If there is an internal struggle, if violence breaks out in our country and our domestic security must be safeguarded, then that is our own domestic affair, and we should not like to call in any Commonwealth country to assist us in maintaining domestic order and security. In other words, the question of isolation has nothing to do with our defence at all. I do not think that hon. members should continue along those lines, because we are discussing a very serious and important matter.

I do not altogether agree with you.

The hon. member for Simonstown says that we are ten years too late. My contention is that during the past ten years the eventualities for which we must provide in respect of our defence have changed completely. Ten years ago the previous Minister of Defence thought of training a task force consisting of one armoured division which he wanted to make available for the defence of the gateway to Africa. He thought of establishing an African defence organization. He wanted a defence organization consisting of the metropolitan countries with interests in Africa in order to assist in the defence of Africa.

May I ask a question?

The hon. member is going to speak soon and he can then put his case. At that time the hon. the Minister had that in mind. In the meantime the whole position has changed. The metropolitan countries are granting independence to one country after another, and the countries which have gained their freedom do not want to take sides with the East or the West. In other words, an African defence organization has become unpractical. At the beginning of the 1950’s war between the East and the West appeared to be imminent; but as the years have passed, war between the East and the West has become less and less likely. That is why the position with which we are faced has changed completely. There is another aspect which we must also take into account. A large number of African countries have become independent since 1957, and since that time the position has changed completely. To-day we have unrest throughout most of Africa, and we find that both Russia and China are paying greater attention to Africa. In other words, we are faced with a completely new position, for which we must now try to provide. I therefore say that we are not ten years too late. It is a question that we could not foresee ten years ago with certainty how the position would develop in Africa. We are now making provision for a completely different situation.

Hon. members now say that this is the price which the people of South Africa will pay for our isolation and our maladministration. Allow me to point out that in this year we have budgeted for a considerably increased expenditure on the expansion of our Defence Force. But even this only represents 9 per cent of our budget. I do not know what it will be when the Minister’s plans have been put into full effect, but allow me to tell the House that it is still far less than most other countries in the world are spending on defence, and I repeat that hon. members will surely not consider those countries to be on a war footing. The United States spends 56 per cent of its Federal budget—not the budgets of the various States—on defence, that is to say $43,000,000,000 out of a budget of $77,000,000,000. The United Kingdom is spending £1,608,000,000 this year out of a budget of £5,980,000,000. This represents 27 per cent. France spends 28.5 per cent. Switzerland which has never taken part in a world war spends 50 per cent of her federal budget on defence. Holland spends 18 per cent of her State budget on defence. Hon. members opposite say that we are on a war footing and that we are now paying for our isolation. In our case the expenditure is still only 9 per cent. I now want to put this question to them. Are we responsible for the fact that those countries are paying so much for defence? Is South Africa responsible for the fact that Africa is in such a state of unrest, or are we only responsible for our own country? Is it our policy which is making it necessary for those countries to spend so much on their defence?

I am glad that you have now woken up.

The hon. member has asked: Against whom do we want to fight? I am sorry that he is still trying in such a subtle way to create the same impression as certain newspapers are spreading in the country. Previously the Opposition spoke about a “police state”. We now see that the newspapers are starting to talk about a “garrison state”. This is a new word which they have thought up. I am sorry that this idea is being spread abroad. I want to issue a serious warning against it. It is a pity that certain of our newspapers are describing our defence plan as now announced as a plan to recruit the White man against the Black man or against the non-White in South Africa. There can surely be nothing more dangerous nor more calculated to subvert the existing order and the position of the White population in South Africa than this type of propaganda. It can only have the effect of making the non-Whites combine against the White man. For that reason I am so sorry that the hon. member has asked in such a subtle way against whom we want to fight. I hope that every responsible member of this House will realize what the consequences of such propaganda can be, and that they will refrain from such propaganda.

We know that our Defence Act does not provide for aggression at all, and even if it were to be used locally, then we would use it as General Smuts used it when he shot the strikers in 1922 while quelling local disturbances and uprisings. That is all we are doing, namely to use it to preserve law and order. How can it now be argued that this legislation is aimed at the non-White population? I say that the object of this legislation is not to do that; the object is to defend South Africa. But if it were to be used for internal security, it would not be used against the non-Whites but against the Whites as well, as it was used last year in order to maintain order. I say that it is a pity that people are now trying to create the impression that we intend using it against the non-Whites.

Mr. Speaker, I say that we realize to-day that there are elements inside and outside this country which are making propaganda and disturbing law and order. We have already used this legislation against these people who are deliberately spreading the communist doctrine in South Africa. The Minister says that is not the main object of the legislation, but it can be used for that purpose, and it is only being done in order to restore peace and order.

South Africa at the moment is placing greater emphasis on internal defence. In my opinion that is of the utmost importance. South Africa will not be able to make any contribution to the defence effort of the West if South Africa allows subversive elements to disrupt the organized order and to subvert the strength of the Defence Force and our people. If South Africa wishes to make her contribution to the West, she will have to maintain order on her home front and she will have to keep open her lines of communication between her forces and the homeland. She will have to try to keep them open; otherwise we shall not be able to make any contribution in such a struggle. It may be that in case of an eventual war we may still be able to make our greatest contribution in this direction because it is foreseeable that agitation amongst the peoples of Africa will be amongst the main tactics used by the communists in an eventual war. I therefore say that if South Africa can put a well-trained force in the field which will not only be able to protect her own local security, but which will also be able to counter such subversive activities in African countries, it can be of inestimable value to the defence effort of the West. The communist countries have developed the technique of disruption and of subversion to a fine art. They have already achieved great success in that regard, as hon. members know, and I do not need to mention the countries. They have achieved great success in the East and in Europe and, Mr. Speaker, they have also achieved great success in the Middle East. This is also the technique which was used during the last world war. We know what part the partisans played during that struggle, even on the side of the allies. I say this is a fine art which the communists have developed and which they will use during an eventual war. The cold war to-day is being waged to-day by the communists in accordance with a fixed pattern. In Africa their tactics are very simple. Russia and China simply support every nationalist movement amongst the non-Whites in Africa. Once independence has been achieved, they consolidate their position by providing all sorts of assistance to these non-White states. It is for that reason that South Africa must prepare herself in her effort to make a contribution to the West.

Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by saying that ten years ago we could not foresee the full outline and scope of the development in Africa. To-day there is unrest in most of Africa. I repeat what I have just said: It is surely not due to the policy of this Government nor the maladministration of the Minister of Defence. We are dealing with an Africa which is being subjected to increased influences from Russia and China and for that reason we must provide for our own security. Mr. Speaker, there is all sorts of unrest along our borders. There is unrest in the Federation. There is unrest in Angola. There is unrest in the Belgian Congo. That is near our borders. For that reason we thank the hon. the Minister for introducing these provisions into the legislation in order to meet the situation with which we are faced.

There is an old maxim, Mr. Speaker, which I think is relevant to this Bill, namely, Qui desiderat pacem, preparet bellum: which means that if you wish for peace, then prepare for war. This Bill which the hon. Minister has introduced to provide for the expansion of our Defence Force and for certain other matters, gives expression to that maxim. The hon. Minister may be surprised to learn that we in this corner of the House intend to support him in this measure! The hon. Minister told us this afternoon, and told us quite objectively, that this Bill provides for virtual full-time military service for our Citizen Force, and then he added these very significant words, namely, that we must build up a defence organization which reflects realism. I am entirely at one with him on that.

I want now to say a few words about the provisions of the Bill, and then I would like to develop the theme he has introduced, viz. that we should prepare for the emergency which a dangerous world poses for South Africa, as well as for the rest of the freedom-loving countries of the West and of the East. I would like to say something about Clause 7 of the Bill, which provides for exemptions being vested in boards appointed by the Minister of Labour. I support this provision, because I think it is a reasonable one. I want to remind the hon. Minister, however, that during World War II the question of exempting key men from service was vested in defence liaison committees under the Adjutant-General. And let me say that there were many young men in the country who wished to go on active service, but who were prevented from doing so because they were key men. The discretion as to whether they should or should not undergo military service vested in certain defence liaison committees consisting of representatives of the public—representatives of trade unions, representatives of employers, industrialists and others. I want to suggest to the hon. Minister to-night that in setting up the committees proposed under Clause 7 of the Bill after consultation with his colleague, the Minister of Labour, he should incorporate this sort of idea, namely, to have committees representative of the various aspects of civilian life. I have the greatest respect for our Public Service. But I do believe that there is a tendency to be hidebound by certain red-tape conventions and regulations, and to introduce an element of non-civil service representation on these committees will have a very salutory effect. What these committees, to be set up under Clause 7, have to decide is whether certain young men, who may be called up for continuous service, should be exempted for one reason or another. I want to say that in this respect the present hon. Minister is fortunate in having a much larger White manpower potential to draw upon. During the last war, volunteers—because of the political background which I do not want to go into now—were confined to a certain section of the White population.

That is not correct.

It is correct. Now, however, the hon. Minister is in the happy position of having the whole of South Africa’s young manhood to draw upon, and for this reason a much greater responsibility is vested, I think, in these exemption committees. I suggest, therefore, that these boards should be scrupulously careful in exercising their discretion whether to grant exemption to key personnel or to potential key personnel. I say “potential key men” because, obviously, a youngster leaving school is not yet a key man. I am offering these suggestions to the hon. Minister with all goodwill. There may, for instance, be an application from a young student who is brilliant in physics, for example, and who could make a great contribution in that sphere to the country. It would be a great tragedy, Sir, if someone in that position were to be debarred from immediately establishing his professional status because of a call-up. It is a difficult matter and a very difficult discretion. But I support the Minister in giving this discretion to the Minister of Labour. All I ask is that the Minister should draw the attention of his colleague to the need to deal with these matters not on a centralized basis but on a decentralized basis. I feel that it is quite unrealistic to deal with applications for deferment or exemption from Cape Town by a board sitting in Pretoria which knows nothing about local conditions. You cannot deal with these matters on paper. You really ought to have a sub-committee in all the major urban areas where the applicant can appear, or his parents or employer can appear before the board.

But the Bill does provide for more than one board.

Yes, and I am urging that the Minister should have more than one. I support this provision. I am not asking him to leave the matter in the hands of the Defence Department. I think he is wise to put it into the hands of the Department of Labour, but what I suggest is that he should urge the Minister of Labour to take local advice.

You don’t decentralize in the sense that the board in Cape Town will deal with cases in Johannesburg.

I am glad to hear that. I think these matters should be dealt with on a local basis. I do not wish to deal with the other provisions of the Bill because I have already said that we on this side of the House endorse what was said by the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay), that this is a realistic approach to the conditions obtaining in the world at present. But I want to echo the question which the hon. member for Simonstown put to the hon. the Minister. He asked what we were preparing for; is it national defence against external threats, or against internal disorder, or a combination of both simultaneously? I believe from what the Minister has said that what he has in view is an attempt to streamline and reorganize and expand our Defence Force in order to be able to deal with external aggession on a limited scale, limited to our resources, and also to deal with possible internal disorder. If that is the Minister’s view, I think it is a realistic view because admittedly our military effort in a global war with nuclear weapons is minimal. We made a magnificent contribution in the Second World War when we were still using conventional weapons, but even in those days our contribution was only relative to the contribution made by other members of the Allied Nations, although it was a very gallant contribution. In saying that our contribution is only minimal, I am in no way seeking to detract from the valour of our soldiers and the potential valour of the young men who will now go into our Force. Two world wars have shown that South Africans of both language groups have been able to render magnificent service and that they are ready to defend their country in case of need. Obviously the purpose of the Bill is not to take precautions and to reorganize our Defence Force in order to meet a major act of aggression in a global war. We should of course be prepared to maintain the territorial integrity of our country, and in that respect I think we can play an important part. Here I would like to deal with some matters which perhaps would have been more appropriate to a discussion of the Minister’s Vote, but on the other hand it may save a good deal of time on the Minister’s Vote if I deal with them now because they are relevant to the Bill.

I want to ask the Minister who is taking these steps to expand our Defence Force certain questions. We were told this afternoon in solemn terms about the potential dangers to the country, I want to ask him certain questions. The first question is this: Now that we are about to leave the Commonwealth, will we still be privileged to the same exchange of vital military and naval information as we had while we were in the Commonwealth? We have of course the Simonstown Agreement.

That is relevant under my Vote.

I think it is relevant to this Bill and I would be glad if the Minister would answer when he replies to the debate. It is relevant to his plea that we should support him in the steps he is taking to expand the Defence Force. We have the Simonstown Agreement and there is no question that that agreement will remain in force.

It must.

I have no doubt that both the Minister and the United Kingdom want it to remain in force. The second question I want to ask is whether the Minister contemplates any further defence arrangements, either with the U.K. or the U.S.A., in regard to the defence of Southern Africa. In this respect I want to ask him to tell the House and the country what the position will be in regard to relationships, e.g. between the Commander-in-Chief, South Atlantic, i.e. the Admiral of the British Navy …

Order! How is that relevant to the Bill?

With respect, it is completely relevant, because the Minister is seeking power to recruit men to the Permanent Force who may be placed in the Navy, and the Minister said this afternoon that we were now entering into a new period of our history and that we were embarking on semi-conscription. He said it was a matter about which he had grave hesitations, but he appealed to South African mothers and to employers to make these grave sacrifices demanded by the Bill. What are these sacrifices for? They are in order to provide personnel for our military and Naval Forces. I am asking the Minister for what purpose he will use this potential manpower? It seems to me, with respect, that it is entirely relevant to ask the Minister what the relationship should be between the Commander-in-Chief of the British Fleet in the South Atlantic and other Naval Forces.

That is not relevant.

Then I would ask how South Africa stands in relation to the U.S.A.

That is not relevant either.

Then I will not pursue the matter, but I have put the questions and I would be grateful if the Minister would reply to me.

I want to view this Bill for a moment from the point of view that it is designed to take reasonable and proper precautions, in the light of circumstances in the world to-day, against possible aggression from outside our borders. I would say to the Minister that if the purpose of the Bill is to be realistic, as is suggested, then obviously the wisest and most effective means of meeting this situation would be an all-out manpower effort on the part of South Africa. That, I would say, is a categorical imperative; and that imperative compels me to draw the attention of the Minister to the provisions of Section 2 (1) (b) of the Defence Act, which is being amended by this Bill. I want to quote that to the Minister. It says this

The Act then goes on to say this. That section has two provisions. The first reads as follows—

So the Governor-General may extend any provision of the original Act, which of course means any provision of this amending Act, inter alia to non-Whites. The second proviso reads as follows—

So the first proviso to Section 2 of Act 44 of 1957 provides that the Governor-General, who naturally acts on the advice of the Cabinet, i.e. on the advice of the Minister of Defence in this case, can apply any provision of this Act relating to compulsory training to non-Whites. The second proviso provides that any non-White who voluntarily is prepared to render certain service, in accordance with the regulations laid down by the Defence Department, may be permitted to do so. Now those are two very important provisos indeed, and I want to ask the Minister to bear with me for a moment to consider them in the light of circumstances in South Africa at present.

No provision is made in this Bill for the military training of non-Whites. I want to ask the Minister whether, if this Bill is to strengthen national defence, this is not a grave defect. I put that question to him seriously. I want to raise the whole question of whether we in South Africa, in the dangerous world in which we live, with the threat of militant Communism, have not reached the stage where we should begin to consider asking not only the White population to whom the Minister has made an eloquent appeal tonight, but also the non-White population, to be prepared to make sacrifices and to make a contribution to the defence of our common fatherland. Sir, South Africa is one country. In this country there are not only Whites who owe allegiance to this fatherland. I owe allegiance to it and I shall continue to owe allegiance when we become a republic. But there are non-Whites, Africans, Coloureds and Asians who owe allegiance to the country. I want to ask the Minister whether we should not seriously consider how we can harness that great potential manpower towards the defence of our country, should we really be in danger of aggression from without. And if we come to the stage where we can harness that potential manpower on the basis of allegiance to a common fatherland, then in my opinion the need for dealing with internal security will disappear; because if you have all sections of the country prepared to defend it against external aggression, who will there be amongst our population to subvert the State from within? Let me remind the Minister that the Whites of South Africa comprise roughly 20 per cent of the population. I noted with interest an interjection from an hon. member opposite, who said that other countries in the world are arming to the teeth at present. When he said that I could not help remembering that if other countries are arming to the teeth they are in the happy position of being able to call upon every member of their populations. I am not blaming the Minister personally because he is the victim of circumstances. But I blame the Government. This Government is seeking to defend South Africa by drawing upon the resources contained in 20 per cent of the population. Surely no nation in the world is capable of defending itself through a section representing only 20 per cent of the population and I would ask the House to remember this, that this 20 per cent on which the Minister is now relying for his 10,000 recruits per annum, for defence against a major attack, comprises all our Whites of all ages. It includes men and women. Women are not subject to the provisions of the Act. It also includes skilled artisans, scientists, industrialists, technicians, our administrators and other keymen. In other words, this means that for our defence in the field against external aggression the actual number of Whites able to be armed is only a small proportion of the 20 per cent of Whites in the country, and this where we are in a position of extreme vulnerability. I would say to the Minister that if national defence against an external aggressor is the objective of this Bill, can we afford to exclude the 12,000,000 of our inhabitants on a colour basis from sharing in the defence of our fatherland? I am asking the Minister to consider this. I know I cannot move amendments to the Bill, but I ask him to consider this vital question. I hope he will give serious attention to it. I ask the Minister on what grounds are these non-Whites being excluded from rendering a contribution to the defence of our common fatherland? After all, we have precedents in this country for our non-Whites serving in the armed forces with White men to defend the country. There were non-Whites in the days of the Anglo-Boer War who stood at the side of the Afrikaners and fought against the British.

Where do you get that from?

If they did not actually fight, they certainly risked their lives for White men and they died for White men. In two world wars our Coloureds and Africans and Asians distinguished themselves. The roll of honour of the last war shows that of those who were killed on active service there were 943 Coloureds, 614 of the Indian and Malay Corps, and 1,707 Africans, making a total of 3,264. In World War I the Bantu Labour Corps did invaluable work in France, and the Cape Corps was armed and fought with great brilliance and bravery in Mesopotamia. I think there is at least one member of this House who served in the Cape Corps. In World War II we had our non-Whites also. They were not armed, but I know of my own experience and from what I have been told that the courage of our Cape Coloured transport drivers in the advance on Keren in Abyssinia was one of the vital factors in enabling a victory to be won there. They showed great bravery in North Africa and Italy, and so did many Africans. Their bravery and ability to fight are not in question. As transport drivers and ambulance men, and in other capacities, they showed their courage. So I would say to the Minister that if the objective of the present reorganization is defence against external aggression, why exclude the non-Whites? I want to come in a moment to some suggestions in this regard, because I know the question will at once be put to me whether I want to arm all the non-Whites. I will deal with that in a moment. But now I am raising the general question that in the year 1961, when the Minister of Defence comes to the House to ask for additional powers and says he will ask for sacrifices from mothers and employers to defend this country, it is completely unrealistic to ask for these sacrifices from 20 per cent of the population and not to give an opportunity to the whole population to show their patriotism to South Africa.

I have dealt with the first objective of the Bill, viz. defence against external aggression. I come now to deal with the second objective, namely preparation against internal disorder.

During the last war, how many of our Natives and Coloureds were armed and fought?

I am not able to answer that in specific terms. They were not officially armed, but when they were in danger sometimes I hope they had the opportunity to defend themselves. The official policy was not to arm them. But I am not dealing now with 1940. What I would like to say is that there was a danger at one stage of South Africa being overrun by the Japanese. I remember those days very vividly indeed when we dealt with the order of battle and the possible scale of an attack on South Africa. I am perfectly convinced in my own mind that had the Japanese been able to seize Madagascar, Gen. Smuts would have had no hesitation whatever in calling upon the Bantu and the Coloureds to arm themselves to assist the Whites in defending South Africa, and I would have backed him in that and they would have fought for us. I know that from my own experience, from what was discussed at the time. If that had happened, the Bantu and the Coloureds would have fought with us to defend their common fatherland against aggression from the East.

I come now to deal with the second objective of the Bill, viz. our defence against internal disorder. Here let me urge the Minister as earnestly as I can not to let himself and the great organization under him be lured into becoming merely an auxiliary of our Police Force. I was glad to hear what the hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) said to-night, that there were now no politics in the Defence Force. I think that also. I am grateful to this Minister for eliminating party politics from the Defence Force. We can now deal with our defence on the basis of merit and not of politics. I hope he will not allow the Defence Force to be used merely as an auxiliary of the Police Force. Of course in times of serious emergency the Defence Force and the A.C.F. may have to come to the assistance of the police to maintain law and order, and if that is so I put this question to the Minister. If it is necessary for the Defence Force to be used to assist in maintaining internal order, then why exclude the non-Whites from playing their part? Is it because the Minister or the Government views the threat of civil disorder as an internal strife between Whites and non-Whites? If so, I think the Minister should let us know where we stand. I would say to the Minister in all sincerity that the omission of non-Whites from any sort of military training serves to accentuate the colour clash and in this sense it is also an affront to all patriotic non-Whites. It is tantamount to saying, by deliberately excluding them, that the loyalty to the republic of all non-Whites is doubted; or alternatively, it is tantamount to saving that we, the Whites, regard the non-Whites as potential enemies of ours: or, thirdly, it is tantamount to the irresistible inference that the White man in South Africa is the enemy of the rest of the people of South Africa. I want to say this to hon. members opposite and particularly to the Minister in all seriousness. What hope of survival has the White man of South Africa if he has so little confidence in the loyalty and the trustworthiness of his non-White fellow-citizens? Therefore I want to make one or two suggestions.

I am not asking the Minister to tear up his Bill to-night and overnight to provide for the compulsory calling up of all non-Whites, but I want to give him my expression of faith. I believe that if we are to survive as White people, we can do so only with the co-operation of the non-Whites: and if there are to be dangers from abroad in the sense of aggression and we want to resist that aggression effectively, then we must have the non-Whites with us. I am not going to dilate now on the question whether the non-Whites will go with us or not. I am perfectly certain that they will go with us if they feel this is our common fatherland. That, nowever, is not a matter for the Minister of Defence but for the Prime Minister. The crucial question is whether the non-Whites regard this as their common fatherland with the Whites. We have to get them to do that. But that is the function of the Prime Minister; and I believe that unless we can get the non-Whites to cooperate with the Whites in regarding South Africa as their common fatherland which they will defend to the last ditch, we can play about with amendments to the Defence Act … [Time limit.]

I do not think that it is only this House which is delighted to see the spirit which has been revealed this afternoon in the discussion of this defence Bill, but that the whole country is delighted to see that the House is discussing this Bill objectively and that the defence of our country being kept out of the political arena. In this regard I should like to refer particularly to the speeches by the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) and North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst). I believe that these two speeches are of the utmost importance to the country and I want to thank hon. members for their speeches. As regards the remarks by the hon. member for Salt River, particularly those in which he has set out his party’s policy in respect of the training and inclusion in our Defence Force of the Coloureds and the Bantu, I hope that towards the end of my speech I shall have the opportunity to come back to that point and to reply to him. But there have been one or two other disappointing aspects about the attitude of certain hon. members opposite with which I want to deal for a few moments before discussing the points made by the hon. member for Salt River. The first disappointment is the attitude adopted by the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay). We have known the hon. member over the years as someone who takes a great interest in the defence of South Africa and as someone we have known only as an expert in the field of defence. He has made an important speech, but it is just such a great pity that he has made one or two remarks which we cannot allow to pass unchallenged. The one remark to which I want to refer is the hon. member’s question, after praising this legislation: “But whom are we preparing to fight?” He then said with respect to this legislation: “We will be the cause of national alarm.” Now that we want to improve our Defence Force, now that we want to make provision for the improved training of our citizens, we shall be the cause of national alarm. It is this same hon. member who over the years has asked us how strong the Defence Force is: How we shall defend ourselves with the forces presently at our disposal if we should be faced with difficulties. Now that these forces are to be strengthened, now that an effective attempt is being made and now that steps are being taken to improve the training of our Defence Force, the hon. member has immediately started sowing suspicion by asking: “Whom are we preparing to fight?” Nor was this question only asked by that hon. member. Various other speakers have asked the same question. I could not help coming to the conclusion that that argument is being used in order to sow suspicion and to create the impression that this Minister is building up our Defence Force to deal with internal disturbances.

For what else?

Do we need any better proof than that which the hon. member has now given us: “For what else?” That is after all merely sowing suspicion. South Africa is faced with difficulties; we expect disturbances on 31 May and now we have to build up a Defence Force to oppress these local disturbances! To put it like that, we are building up our Defence Force in order to oppress the Coloureds and the Bantu! That is the stigma which is being attached to this legislation. The hon. member is shaking his head in vain. He has just made the attitude of the Opposition as clear as it can be made by making that interjection: “For what else?” That is the whole attitude of the Opposition. I hold it against them that they are trifling with South Africa’s defence by trying to attach this stigma to this legislation and by refusing to allow South Africa to plan for its defence, as any country has the right to do. As the hon. the Minister has said, it is foolish to send a soldier to war unless he has had the necessary training. When we want to improve our Defence Force, then suspicion is sown and the impression is created that we are trying to arm ourselves against the Coloureds and the Bantu.

Hon. members have repeatedly flung the question across the floor of the House: Are these steps being taken with a view to our internal security? Then they add the remark that it is the “maladministration of the Government” and the colour policy of the Government which have placed us in the position where we are being obliged to adopt this legislation and to strengthen and improve the training of our Defence Force. It is the Government’s fault; otherwise it would not have been necessary! I now want to put one or two questions to hon. members opposite. Is it so peaceful elsewhere in the world where there is no National Party Government or a Dr. Verwoerd in power? Is there a National Party Government in power in Laos? Is there one in Cuba? Is there one in the Congo? Is there one in Kenya and the Federation of Rhodesia? I do not want to mention all the areas where there are disturbances and unrest. It is precisely here in South Africa where the position is the most peaceful of all, here where we have a Dr. Verwoerd, here where we have a National Party Government. But the attitude of the Opposition is that it does not matter what happens in Angola; it does not matter what happens in the Congo: there can be disturbances and threats in the Federation, but we in South Africa should sit idly by; we should not do anything because then we shall be oppressing the Coloured races. The National Party Government must not do anything which may be detrimental to those people. The hon. member for Simonstown has used the same arguments. I think the people of South Africa will hold it against this Government and the Minister if they do not take steps to ensure that the country is prepared if what is happening elsewhere in Africa and in the world should happen here. Together with our satisfaction at the fact that this Bill is receiving general support, I do want to make an appeal to the United Party to show a little love for South Africa. [Laughter.] Hon. members are laughing, Mr. Speaker, as though South Africa can be laughed about, but I make an appeal to them to show their loyalty to South Africa.

Who did so in the past?

The hon. member should not provoke me. He must not ask questions; otherwise I shall tell him about our “gallant allies” for whom we fought and who are now South Africa’s most deadly enemies. I think we should rather not delve too deeply into the past; otherwise we shall find many people who sat here and made a noise while they should have been at the front. I now leave the hon. member for Simonstown at that.

He has said a great deal with which we can agree and to show that we can agree with him on these few points, I just want to refer to one or two of them before I come to the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence). Where the hon. member says that the remuneration which the members of the Citizen Force received when they only underwent a short period of training will not be adequate now that they will have to make a living for practically a year, I agree with him. I appreciate the fact that he has asked that these people should be given improved remuneration. Previously it was the equivalent of a sort of holiday for these people, and they still received their salary or their wages, which will not be the position to-day when these men have to serve for nine months continuously. There are other points in respect of which we support him, but I must hasten. Before coming to the hon. member for Salt River I just want to say that we also agree with him that the passing of this Bill, the introduction of a new system of training for our Defence Forces, will cause disruption. We must realize that. We are a small country; we shall have to allocate a large proportion of our young people, of our labour force, so that they can undergo continuous training for such a long period. It must cause disruption. Sacrifices will have to be made. But we owe it to South Africa. I think that there are few members in this House who have not received representations at one time or another from ballotees who have said “Look, I am my father’s only son. There is a big farm which must be looked after. I simply do not see my way clear to doing three months’ military service. Please try to obtain exemption for me.” Or we have the case where someone say: “I have a big business and I have built my hopes on my only son. This is the son I now need.” My standpoint is, and I believe that it will be the standpoint of this House and the country, of every father and every mother, that the more a man possesses, the more he has to defend and the more essential it is that he should give his sons to South Africa so that they can be trained for South Africa’s defence.

I now come to the hon. member for Salt River. The hon. member for Salt River has raised a very important point to-night when he referred to inclusion of the Coloureds and the Bantu in our Defence Force. But the hon. member for Salt River made a mistake by simply accepting that the Coloureds and the Bantu will be eliminated and by simply accepting that the National Party Government envisages a defence system which will not make use of the Coloureds and the Bantu. We have already stated repeatedly—the previous Minister said so, but I cannot remember whether this Minister has already said so—that when difficulties arise in the future, South Africa will make use of the Coloureds, as in the past, and will also make use of the Bantu for specific services. The hon. member for Salt River has rightly praised the achievements of the Coloureds and the Bantu in the past. We do not want to detract from them. He is quite correct. But in the same way use will be made of the Coloureds and the Bantu in the future. I now want to go a little further to-night. I want to submit this for the hon. the Minister’s consideration: Hitherto the Coloureds and the Bantu have not received any military training. Recently, like many other members of the House, I had the privilege of attending the performance of the Coons here at Green Point. They are musicians; not military men. But there were one or two numbers which did incline towards the military and it struck me to see how the Coloureds are also trying to act in a militarily correct way. [Interjections.] Yes, I know about the Zulus. I shall speak about them later. I agree entirely with the hon. member for Salt River that the Coloured will seek his salvation with the White man in South Africa. We agree that the White man cannot defend South Africa alone on behalf of the whole population and that all groups will have to play their part and will have to help defend our country. I now want to ask the hon. the Minister to start in the first instance on a small scale in consultation with the Department of Coloured Affairs or in consultation with the Minister of Coloured Affairs who will be appointed after the establishment of the republic. One does not walk before one can crawl; I ask the Minister to start with something like a cadet corps for example in our Coloured schools. I think the Coloureds will welcome it and later some further steps can perhaps be taken. Hon. members must not ask me what steps, as they always ask the hon. the Prime Minister what a state within a state will look like. But they must not ask me what the next step will be. But we must start with the Coloured child as we start with the White child. Let us start a cadet corps in the Coloured schools.

What about a “Junior Cape Corps”?

The hon. member is once again running ahead of me. I want to tell him that if we start with a cadet Corps, we can perhaps go further by providing something similar to the training received by the Citizen Force. I also want to express myself unequivocally in respect of the Bantu. The hon. member has asked: What about the Zulus? We know what the military capabilities of the Bantu are. I want to put it in this way. As far as I am concerned I feel that at this stage we should give the Bantu something in his own areas where he must develop. He must be given something to which he can be loyal before we can give him military training. I am convinced that when the Bantu have accepted those areas which they are developing themselves, they will also be loyal to those areas and they will realize that it is not the task of the White man to defend them; then they will work towards that goal and then the time will be ripe for us to take the necessary steps and to give them the necessary training. Then they will be prepared to defend those areas of theirs, which will also form part of South Africa. I know the question will immediately be asked: Will you arm them? Do not let us look so far into the future. When they have shown their loyalty to South Africa and towards those areas of theirs, then I as a military man am not so foolish as to say: Look, I am going to train that man but when he must defend his country he will have to do so with a catapult. And the hon. member can infer from that what my attitude is. I also say that it will be foolish for any government to go as far as that to-day until it is absolutely certain of the loyalty of the Bantu towards South Africa itself.

I want to conclude by making an appeal to this House. Do not see an attempt in this legislation to incite the races against one another. Do not see in this legislation what the hon. member for Simonstown saw in it when he asked: “Whom are we preparing to fight?” This has been and this is our slogan: Defence not defiance. The best method of defence is to have a strong Defence Force. When I look at the hon. member for Rustenberg (Mr. Bootha) then I always think that, apart from how adept I may be myself, I respect him because it seems to me he is well prepared for any difficulties which he may encounter. The same applies to a country, Mr. Speaker. A country which is well prepared and armed is not lightly attacked.

One hon. member has said that we can speak freely to-night about defence matters and I do not really want to find fault with my colleague, the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt), but I just want to make one remark about something which the hon. member has said. If I differ with my party on this point, it is just unfortunate. I think we should now stop telling the West in advance that we are preparing ourselves for difficulties which may arise because we stand on the side of the West. Mr. Speaker, I want to stand on the side of the West. The West’s way of life is my way of life. The West’s interests are my interests and I should therefore like to stand on the side of the Western nations when difficulties arise. But I also think that it is necessary that the West should make it possible for us to stand on their side. I therefore want to say that we should not be so ready to say that we stand on the side of the West. You know. Sir, when we stand on the side of the West it must be accented that we are against the East, not so, and that we are against the Russians. I think of other countries; I am thinking of England and France for example which had experience of this at the time of the Suez Canal incident. I therefore say that we shall stand on the side of the West provided it is in the interests of South Africa to do so. We trust that the West will make it possible for us to do so. This legislation is going to call for sacrifices by South Africa but South Africa is firmly determined to defend herself both internally and externally as far as it is in her power to do so and she is preparing herself with that object in mind.

Various members have spoken on both sides of the House since the last United Party speaker and I want to come back to the debate where the first one started. At the beginning of his speech the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) said more or less that the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) did not know what he was talking about. I would like to let that hon. member know something about the hon. member for Kensington of which he is perhaps not aware. The hon. member for Kensington. Sir, was left for dead on the field in the service of his country. He was carried off and his life was saved miraculously by a relative of mine. In addition a son of his is sleeping somewhere on the battlefields of this world, Sir, and to be told that he does not know what he is talking about is something to be deplored. He went on to draw an analogy between our Defence Force as it is envisaged by this Bill and the position of the United States of America. I want to ask the hon. member whether or not it is correct that the United States of America is policing the whole world in the interests of the West or is she on a war footing purely and simply because of possible internal disturbances? I leave that question with him to answer when he chooses to do so. I want to say something else to the hon. member: If he tries to tell me that this new organization of our Defence Force is for the purpose of being ready to assist the West against the East, I suggest that he must think again.

The hon. member for Salt River asked questions about the Simonstown Agreement. I want to quote from the Argus of Tuesday, 25 April 1961—

What has that to do with the Bill?

You will not understand. I shall tell the hon. member outside in words of one syllable. The article goes on—

That, Sir, is the position in brief.

The hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) devoted a large portion of his speech on the hon. member for North East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst).

No.

He said that the speech of the hon. member for North East Rand was filling the country with alarm unnecessarily.

I did not.

I want to ask the hon. member whether he thinks the country will not be alarmed when conscription comes in. Does he think that the country is not already alarmed because of the state of emergency?

You do not understand Afrikaans.

I understand Afrikaans better than you understand English. You understand nothing. There will be a state of emergency because of the Bill that will be passed in the next few days. I would also ask him whether he thinks that this Bill which will be passed within the next few days was brought before this House because of threatening dangers from the Eastern hemisphere or whether it was submitted to this House because of possible dangers within this country? He thanked the Minister for taking the steps which he is taking in this Bill. So do I, I am not against that but I just want to answer the clap-trap that comes from that corner of the House. He says that my colleague is alarming the country. Then he went on to say that the Minister was quite right in introducing this Bill. He is right, but he says he is right because of what is happening in Africa. What has happened in Africa to the north of us Mr. Speaker? The position to the north of us is that the Black man is trying to get rid of the White man. He claimed that the words of my colleague were alarming the country and that this Bill which is before us to-night had nothing to do with internal security. He said that we must rush to the defence of our country. Obviously when the time comes we will do so, but isn’t it a great pity that that did not happen in 1939-45.

This Bill is obviously needed in present circumstances. How our position has changed since 1939-45, we now have a National Party Minister of Defence pleading for cooperation in the country. I think back to the time when the Japanese were at our doors, when there were bodies of our own boys on our eastern beaches …

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

I want to know where the cooperation was at that time. I can say that the picture has changed, Sir, and you will agree with me. This country of ours is in deadly danger to-day, possibly in more deadly danger than it was then. But it is only in this deadly danger because of the policies of this Government; its Native policy and the granite wall of the hon. the Prime Minister, who on his own withdrew us from the Commonwealth. We are friendless; the target for to-night for the whole world. And those gentlemen who are responsible for the defence of this country have a job on their hands which I do not envy them. I and the members on this side of the House will give him every assistance that we can, but we must be allowed to say what we think of some of the people who have brought us into this position. We will have to defend our hearths and homes. Men do that. The best way to do that will be to get rid of this Prime Minister and of this party root and branch and to follow the United Party whose policy will bring us back to where we were under General Smuts, to where we were in the Commonwealth, high in the world’s regard, with all the protection that that gives us and what is more important to follow a policy of leadership with justice which will enable us to strive to live together instead of striving to die together as under this Government.

Order! What has that to do with the Bill? The hon. member must return to the Bill.

Sir, with all due deference we are dealing with the defence of the country. I want to deal with two matters concerning the defence of the country. The first one is the affect of the Bantustan policy on our defence policy and secondly I want to deal with the question of the morale in the forces and how that question of morale will be and has been affected by the treatment of the English-speaking people in this country, by this present Minister’s predecessor Mr. Speaker, this side of the House has continually pointed out the dangers of creating independent states within the Union of South Africa. We are now a nation in arms; there is no question about that. We are a nation on a war footing, a nation facing the fact that this position has arisen that the Natives have to be kept down by force of arms. If this statement of mine is incorrect, Sir, then why are we on a war footing, why is the whole of the life of our country going to be dislocated. Of course, Sir, that is the position. The Minister is quite right, we must be prepared for uprisings. All of us realize that and when trouble comes we must fall in behind the Minister but surely we can say what we think about the whole position. I want to know why this Minister is following a policy which makes the task of our Defence Force impossible. I just want to give one instance. Does he think that if the Transkei, as promised, becomes independent our enemies will miss the chance of offering them help? Does he think that arms will not be supplied to them? Does he think that the mere fact that we are giving them independence will immediately make them friendly and that they will cast off any regard that they have had for the rest of the Blacks in South Africa? If he does not think so, Sir, how can he be party to the creation of hundreds of miles of hostile frontiers.

Order! I do not see how the hon. member can raise that.

But Mr. Speaker, with all due deference, two years ago the hon the Minister sent officers to Algeria to study the Algerian campaign. It appeared in the newspapers that they had been sent up to study the Algerian campaign. They went up there to see what methods were being used.

Order! The hon. member must come back from Algeria.

With respect, Sir, this Bill provides for armoured units to be stationed all over the country. Those armoured units are stationed all over the country to be trained in warfare of a certain type. If we deliberately create several hundred miles of hostile frontier, these people have got to be trained with an eye to protecting our interests against any assault. That comes under the Bill.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

Sir, this is a question of training these people. This is a most important matter.