I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

I ask leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz. the Proclamation (No. 762) of the Minister of Justice, dated 19 May 1961, in terms of Section 9 of the Suppression of Communism Act, 1950, as published in Government Gazette Extraordinary (No. 6693) of that date, prohibiting the assembly of any gathering in any place within the area comprising the Union of South Africa and the territory of South West Africa during the period commencing on 19 May 1961 and ending on 26 June 1961, subject to certain exceptions.

In terms of Standing Order No. 33 the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has furnished me with a copy of his proposed motion and I have therefore had an opportunity of considering it.

In consequence of rumours of threats of strikes and violence at the end of the present month it may very well be that the action of the responsible Minister in prohibiting the assembly of any gathering is intended merely as a precautionary measure. Since the publication of the proclamation referred to by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, nothing has actually happened which in my opinion would justify a discussion of the matter in terms of Standing Order No. 33 at this stage. Moreover, the question of the banning of meetings was very fully discussed during the debate on the motion for the second reading of the General Law Amendment Bill which was passed by Parliament only last week.

In view of all these circumstances I regret I cannot allow the motion to be moved.

I am not allowed, Sir, to address you on your ruling?

I am sorry, I have given my ruling.

I move—

On leading off for the Opposition I wish to say that the measure that is about to be read a third time is one that grants to His Excellency the Governor-General, which we know means the Minister in practice, extraordinary powers to suspend, amend or alter the provisions of existing laws, all of which affect, in one way or another, South Africa’s relationship with the Commonwealth countries. Sir, whilst by the Rules I am confined to discussing the contents of the Bill, it is obvious that the importance of its contents can hardly be over-stressed in the circumstances that I have outlined. It is not the contents of the Bill or the actual wording of the language used in it that exercises the mind of this side of the House; it is the incalculable implications and powers that it gives the Minister that causes us a certain amount of uneasiness. We naturally accept that this Bill is necessary, but time alone will show how the powers entrusted to the Minister, or to the Government, will be used; and what the effect of the use of these powers will be on the economic and the other relations of South Africa with, what up to 31st of this month, will have been our colleagues in the Commonwealth.

Sir, in commenting on the provisions of Clause 1, I want to make it clear that the only significant question with which the country is concerned, is how and with what ultimate result the powers are to be exercised. In view of this I am forced to raise with the Minister certain questions, the answer to which will determine what our attitude to the Bill will be at this stage when it comes to a division. I would remind the House how the conciliatory actions of the Minister last Friday, towards views expressed by this side, suddenly changed the atmosphere in the House; with the result that the debate ended on quite a different note to that on which it had started. It might have led to a very acrimonious debate had the Minister not been prepared to be reasonable. If the Minister will extend to us the consideration to which reasonable requests are entitled, we will react accordingly, and things would become much easier all round. However, I will deal with that when I come to Clause 2, particularly the new sub-section which I see appears in the Bill that was put on our desks this morning. We, on this side of the House, are prepared to agree that certain legislation is called for; we accept the Minister’s statement that the Government desires to retain friendly relations and friendly contact and to continue to work amicably with the other members of the Commonwealth. Further we accept that the contents of this Bill, with this important sub-section added to it, represent an attempt to maintain the present contacts between ourselves and such members of the Commonwealth as desire to continue friendly relations with our country. But it is possible, though I hope unlikely, that certain units of the Commonwealth may embark on some action which will require the Government to take immediate steps and therefore, should Parliament not be sitting, the Minister needs the powers that Clause 1 gives him to enable him to react immediately to a situation which might arise when Parliament is not sitting; we admit that and therefore we are prepared as far as possible to give him those powers. But what we are deeply concerned about is this and I will put it shortly in the form of questions without in any way attempting to deal with the merits of the case. I am aware of the limitations of a third reading debate, and therefore I will put it shortly. Are our airway agreements likely to come under consideration during the recess unless something is started by some other country? That is a matter which concerns us.

Which airway agreements are you talking about? That has nothing to do with the Commonwealth.

If the hon. the Minister wants to make a speech we will have the greatest pleasure in listening to him I am sure.

I am just trying to correct you.

Thank you, but I am capable of making my own speeches. Will our relationships vis-à-vis the Protectorates likewise be reviewed? Does the Government contemplate any change in connection with our Commonwealth relationships? Those are three or four things on which we would like some indication from the Minister, even across the floor of the House. That would make it very much easier for us to make up our minds as to the line we should take when it comes to a division. You see, Sir, this Bill gives the Government the power, by proclamation, to act in connection with such matters, and therefore we must have some broad outline as to what is in the Minister’s mind to enable us on this side of the House to decide what our attitude is to be when it comes to voting at the end of the debate. In short; whether our duties lie in accepting or opposing this final stage of the Bill. It is obvious that if we are to be left in the dark as to what the Minister’s intentions are, I think you will agree, Sir, that the powers that he is asking the House to give him are unusual. We cannot blindly give our unqualified consent. Sir, we are not asking for details but just for a broad outline of policy which this Bill gives the Minister the power to apply without reference to Parliament. Our attitude—and I say this perfectly frankly—will depend largely on such information as the Minister is prepared to give us when he replies to the debate. In these difficult times we are most anxious as a party not to deny the Government such powers as are in the interests of the State, to meet unforeseen circumstances which may well arise, in the very near future, by opposing or criticizing just for the sake of doing so; provided always that it must be accepted by this House and by the country as a whole that we are the watchdogs of Parliament; we are the watch-dogs of the people who sent us here to represent them. We are here to safeguard the sanctity of Parliament and not to allow its rights to be whittled away in any way at all. If the Minister wants us to co-operate he must be prepared to enlighten us to a certain extent as to how he is likely to use such powers as we are prepared to give him; as far as he can do so at the present moment. Sir, there is another very important matter on which we should like to have some information before we decide how to react to the third reading, and that is the question of our diplomatic relations abroad, because this is of the utmost importance to people who have to do with shipping and trade. The Minister obviously cannot go into detail and we do not ask him to do so, but let me just indicate what I mean: As you know, Sir, where we have no diplomatic representation, we have had the British consular service placed at our disposal. That has been of the utmost importance to our trade and to our shipping. Obviously as the Bill now stands it will seriously affect that position. We would like to know how the powers that we are asked to give the Government will be used and to what end before other arrangements are made, should the need arise. There are several other very important features on which we would like to have information, but I realize that I can only discuss the merits of the Bill as it now appears before us, so I will not dilate on the matter any further, except, with your permission. Sir, to ask if the Minister is prepared to give us any idea whether or not without first giving the House a chance to discuss the matter he will deal with the Government loans domiciled in London under the powers given to him by this Bill, because in line 15 the Bill says “in his opinion”, which is a very elastic provision. Clearly the standing of such loans is a very important matter to all our financial houses because the deposit receiving institutions have to place 40 per cent of their funds in trust or approved stocks, and should England, by unilateral action, decide that our Government loans domiciled in London are not trustee funds, or are not to be regarded as approved stocks, it would be important to their investment portfolios because they have to hold a certain amount of money in sterling in London to meet commitments there—not only the deposit receiving institutions, but also insurance companies which have to pay out life insurance policies in sterling. In such a case the Minister would have to act directly and immediately to safeguard South Africa’s interests.

It is that aspect that we are concerned about. What exercises our minds is whether the Government will initiate any action in this connection without first giving Parliament a chance to discuss the matter. You see, Sir, it is one thing to hand a man a gun to defend himself and it is quite another to hand him a gun which he may use to start an attack. I mention this in passing because the financial houses are watching this matter most anxiously to see what the effect of our leaving the Commonwealth will be on the money market.

Now I come to sub-section (2) of Clause 2, and I wish to say that the inclusion of subsection (2) has in the view of this side of the House remedied a very serious defect in the Bill as originally presented to this House. We on this side appreciate the Minister’s acceptance of a recommendation put forward by the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) for now Parliament retains control, as it should It was the absence of this provision that led to many objections on this side of the House. The inclusion of that sub-section will now ensure that any action taken by the Government under the terms of Clause 1—I am dealing with Clause 2 now—and any changes or amendments brought about by proclamation in any existing legislation, will be of a temporary nature only, and will cease to have the force of law unless the change, or the amendment has, within 30 days of the commencement of the next ordinary session of Parliament, been approved by resolution of both Houses. In short, it makes action by the Government subject to confirmation by Parliament, which we regard as being of the utmost importance; and we are extremely glad that the Minister acquiesced in the views expressed by hon. members on this side in the earlier stages. Sir, sub-section (2) is not quite complete however. The Minister undertook to give consideration to a suggestion made by the hon. members for Constantia, Wynberg and Kensington that there should be added at the end of sub-section (2) the words “ or by Act of Parliament”. The Minister promised to give the matter further consideration when it come, before Another Place, and we are fully prepared to accept his word for it. We know that he will do that; but in the circumstances as sub-section (2) is not wholly complete in its present form I am sure you, Sir, will permit me to point out that this clause, as it now reads, has obvious defects also. Changes in existing laws have a lasting effect, and should not be hidden in the records or in the archives of the Other Place and of this House. What I mean is that they should not simply appear in the Hansards of the Senate and of this House; and that is exactly what will happen if the approval of Parliament is confined to resolutions passed separately by the Senate and by the House of Assembly. The courts, the public, and lawyers are entitled to have changes, or alterations, in laws presented to them in the ordinary conventional form; and that is by Act of Parliament. The defect therefore is a serious one, and I urge the Minister to rectify it in the Other Place. If a lawyer, or the ordinary member of the public, wants to find out what the law is, the law should be readily available to him. The Minister may during the recess, entirely at his discretion, remove a whole clause out of an Act or change a law, in which case, when it comes before the House it will merely be reflected in our records and in the records of the Senate, instead of being on the Statute Book so that any member of the public, or any lawyer, can pick up the Statute Book, look up the reference, and find out exactly what the position is. You cannot expect them to page through dozens and dozens of volumes of Hansard to find out what the law as amended by resolution is. Sir, I do not want to hold up the House with any unnecessary discussion. I merely wish to say that subject to the Minister’s giving us acceptable replies to the points I have raised—and I feel sure he will—we on this side are prepared to give our consent to the third reading of this Bill. I would remind the Minister of the sudden change that he saw in the climate last Friday when by adopting a reasonable attitude and by treating us with the courtesy to which a responsible Opposition is entitled, when it seeks information to which it is entitled, and by giving us some reassurance to allay our misgivings, we in turn showed our willingness to co-operate in the interests of the country—and I emphasize “in the interests of the country”.

In conclusion I would just like to say that to me this is an extremely sad day. I never thought that I should live to see the day when it is necessary for a Bill of this nature to be passed here; a Bill which gives us powers to defend ourselves against hostile acts on the part of people who have been our sister dominions and who for 50 years have been our friends, our colleagues and members of the club.

Like Ghana!

I am talking about dominions and nations who have been our friends for 50 years. Ghana has not been a member of the Commonwealth for 50 years. I am talking about the older members of the Commonwealth who were our friends 150 years ago in the old Cape Colony days. It is sad for me to think that at this stage we have to pass measures to defend ourselves against possible hostility on the part of people who have been our friends and our allies in two world wars.

Like the hon. gentleman who has just sat down, we are not without misgivings about the Bill, even in its amended form. We expressed our reasons for opposing this measure at the second reading; the debate which has been referred to took place and the Minister did move an amendment which went a long way towards meeting the objections that the Opposition had. Because that amendment was moved and has been included in the Bill, we do not find it necessary to vote against the third reading now. However, I would to express the misgivings that we do still have about the Bill in its present form and to express the hope that the Government will be extremely circumspect in exercising the powers which this measure still gives. While provision has now been made for a parliamentary safeguard over the exercise of power by the Executive to alter the law, we would much have preferred that as far as it could possibly be done the law should in fact not be altered by the Executive at all but by Parliament in the first place. However, at least when Parliament is not in session there is grave difficulty in that regard, and it would probably have been necessary in some form or other to concede this power to the Executive subject to some safeguard, and that safeguard has now been provided for in the Bill. I should like to express the hope that the Executive in using these powers will strive under all circumstances to avoid using the power subject only to subsequent ratification by Parliament, if it is at all possible to have the necessary changes in the law made by Parliament. I do not wish to become involved in examples of the kind of action that may be required under this Bill; I do not know that I can do so with any accuracy, but I think it must be plain that some of the steps that may be judged advisable will not be so urgent as to demand immediate action, and where that is so I hope that the responsible Minister will try to see that the matter is dealt with by Parliament rather than purely by Executive action. Sir, there was one other objection that we had to the Bill at an earlier stage and that we still have, and that is the inclusion of the phrase “in his opinion” in Clause 1, on an issue which we believe could have been regarded as an issue of fact but where the judgment of the responsible Minister is in fact the test as to whether action can be taken or not. We still believe that this is a fault in the measure; we would rather have seen the issue left as one of fact, but as I have said we are not going to obstruct the passage of the Bill at the third reading for that reason. Again I would wish on behalf of those of us who sit in these benches to express the hope that this power will be used with the utmost circumspection and with the deepest consciousness that the responsible Minister will in effect be acting for Parliament in order to secure expedition in what he does. Like the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) we would prefer instead of a resolution of the Assembly to confirm action taken, an Act of Parliament. The hon. the Minister has indicated that he is going to consider that and in Another Place he may be able to bring about the necessary alteration in this measure. We hope he will, and we hope that everything possible will be done to safeguard the position and the privileges of Parliament, more particularly at this time in our country’s history when in one direction or another parliamentary and political action generally is being fettered in so many ways. Sir, this measure is necessary. Something of this sort probably did have to be passed, and since we have been met in our major objection to the Bill we are prepared to allow the third reading to go through without opposition.

Mr. Speaker, you will no doubt appreciate that when I now venture into a third reading debate, I do so with some instruction in regard to what it is not permissible to say under the relevant Standing Order. But the contents of this Bill has certain peculiar features, and if the need should arise, I hope it will afford you, Sir, an opportunity to give suitable instruction in regard to the positive side of the Standing Order, that is, in regard to what it is permissible to raise and what can be discussed at a third reading. The hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) has indicated that the purpose of this Bill is to grant powers to the Government to legislate by proclamation in respect of certain as yet completely unidentified and completely undisclosed laws on our Statute Book. The only specific reference of course, is that the power to make changes in the laws must flow from the fact that South Africa is leaving the Commonwealth and must be in regard to some corresponding law which may at some time be changed in one or other Commonwealth country. The Bill therefore deals with some future action by the Executive, but it is not some foreseeable administrative action as happens in the case of the majority of Bills which are presented to this House. It deals with future legislative action about which the House can have no advance information. The House has no idea as to what is likely to come forward as a result of the powers granted in terms of the Bill. What the House is to have is ex post facto information, and if by the time it gets that information it so happens that damage has already been done, it may be too late to remedy matters. In the circumstances therefore, Sir, I feel sure you will permit me, as you have permitted the hon. member for Green Point, to raise certain questions with the hon. the Minister. The question that I particularly wish to raise with the Minister is whether the Government proposes to differentiate in any way in regard to the information which is to be placed before this House in respect of what is done in terms of Clause 1, namely, whether it will differentiate in those cases where Parliament is not in session as against those cases where Parliament is in session. What is involved is, of course, the suspension or amendment of one or other law which is already on our Statute Book. I believe, as I hope the Minister will agree, that it would be highly undesirable, perhaps even preposterous, when changes in laws are in contemplation at a time when Parliament is in session, that Parliament should have no immediate information and that it should be regarded as not being in session. I trust therefore that the hon. the Minister will give the House some assurance that the procedure which will be followed when Parliament is in session will differ from that which will be followed when Parliament is not in session. The terms of the clause are not exhaustive; they are not pre-emptory; they are merely directive and I think it would be undesirable, almost preposterous, if changes should be made in existing Statutes when Parliament is actually in session in a way which does not differ at all from the method to be followed when Parliament is not in session. That is largely a matter in the hands of the Minister dealing with the matter at the time. So far as Clause 2 is concerned, I again feel sure that you, Sir, will allow me to comment on any defect in the contents of the Bill, particularly a defect which should be put right before this Bill becomes law. The hon. member for Green Point has pointed out that sub-clause (2) of Clause 2 contemplates changes in existing laws being given parliamentary sanction by way of a resolution instead of the conventional method of a statutory enactment. The hon. the Minister has promised to look into this matter in the Other Place. None the less in its present form this sub-clause is clearly defective and I raise the matter now to assist the hon. the Minister in giving consideration to the suggestion that was made during the second reading debate and which has been repeated by the hon. member for Green Point. Section 59 of the South Africa Act, which has been taken over into the Republican Constitution Act, provides that Parliament shall have full powers to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Union. The words I want to underline are “shall make laws”, for whether this House or the Other Place passes resolutions that does not constitute making laws. For the purpose of making laws Parliament consists of three parts, not two. To make laws Parliament must consist of the sovereign, the Senate and the House of Assembly. Not only is the procedure prescribed for making laws different from the procedure prescribed for passing resolutions …

Order! I cannot allow the hon. member to go into that.

Surely this is a defect in the contents of the legislation.

That has already been pointed out in the second reading debate, and I have allowed the hon. members for Green Point and Maitland (Dr. de Beer) to draw the Minister’s attention to it.

I am going a little further to point out to the Minister precisely what justification there is for the pleas that they have made.

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

But, Sir, I am dealing with a defect in the contents of the Bill. I think you will permit me to deal with that.

The hon. member has dealt with it now.

No, I have not dealt with it, I have not completed what I was about to say.

Order! The hon. member must obey my ruling and come back to the contents of the Bill.

Sir, I commenced by saying that I hoped that you would, if need be, give an indication as to the ruling …

Order! I call upon the hon. member now to abide by my ruling.

Sir, I am trying to obey your ruling; I am trying to find out what it is.

The hon. member must confine himself to the contents of the Bill, and a defect is not part of the contents of the Bill.

Surely, Sir, a defect does fall under the contents of a Bill?

It should have been raised at the second reading.

Sir, I am merely emphasizing again that the defect is an important one, and for the reasons which I have already given, I hope that the hon. the Minister will realize the seriousness of the import of the defect. That is all I am trying to indicate at present. Because when the House passes a resolution, it has certain consequences, but when Parliament passes an Act, it has entirely different consequences. In the one case, of course, there is extreme care taken for accuracy, and there is wide publicity; in the other less care is taken in regard to accuracy and very limited publicity is given. Those are the reasons which actuate me to ask the hon. the Minister to give consideration to the matter when it comes before the Other Place.

I want to refer to one part of the contents of the Bill, and that is the portion covered by Clause 4, which reads “this Act shall be called the Commonwealth Relations (Temporary Provision) Act, 1961”. That clause as it is before us to-day defines the Title of the Bill, and we find the Title on the first page is also “Commonwealth Relations (Temporary Provision) Bill”. Now I want to draw the hon. Minister’s attention to the fact that, as shown by the “contents” as just now read by me, as shown by Clause 4 in the Bill now before us, it gives a completely misleading idea of the duration of the powers granted by the Bill. I am not going to refer to the powers it confers, because they have been adequately covered by the speakers prior to myself, except to say that they are very far-reaching and very wide powers concerning the rights and prerogatives of Parliament and the future of many people in the country. Now the contents of the Bill before us lay down that these powers granted now, if you take the definition of Clause 4, are of a temporary nature, but actually there is nothing temporary at all about this Bill. Once the Bill is approved by Parliament, it is as permanent as Table Mountain. There is nothing temporary whatsoever about it. We have been having so many cases of legislative Bills the Titles of which gave a completely wrong impression of the authority of and the duration of the Bills concerned. I am not going to enlarge on that, but am only referring to it in passing. But this Bill is one of a growing pattern as far as the Title is concerned. To show what I mean, I refer, for instance, to the Extension of University Education Bill which in fact did not extend but restricted university education. Now Clause 4 of the Bill reads: “This Act shall be called the Commonwealth Relations (Temporary Provision) Act.” Once the Bill is passed as an Act, it becomes a permanent piece of legislation for this country for as long as Parliament itself lasts.

What about Clause 2?

I want to ask whether the hon. the Minister, who has met us to a very large extent in our criticism of other portions of the Bill and has by his amendment gone quite a way to meet criticism and objections which had been raised, would not in the Other Place also give consideration to dealing with that particular misleading aspect of Clause 4 by the deletion by a suitable amendment of the words “temporary provision”. Clause 4, as it would then remain in the contents of the Bill, so amended, would read “this Act shall be called the Commonwealth Relations Act, 1961”; and then there would be a consequential amendment in the Title. I believe that would more correctly describe what the Bill purports to be and would place on the Statute Book legislation which is correctly described by the Title and not by a misnomer as a temporary measure whilst it is in fact by no means temporary in any way.

The hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) rather spoiled a reasonable statement by his concluding remarks. After all, Sir, Parliament has decided to establish a republic and the referendum so decided, and I do not think any good purpose can be served by again raking up that issue.

You cannot stop me from feeling sad.

In other respects, the hon. member’s speech was unexceptionable. He wanted to have certain information. Most of the points raised by the hon. member were dealt with during a fairly long discussion that took place on Thursday, and again on Friday, last week. I then gave the assurance to the House that it was not the Government’s intention to make use of these powers unless it was absolutely necessary, and I give that assurance again. Secondly, I pointed out that some of the matters raised by the hon. member have already been the subject of discussion between the Government and the United Kingdom. The hon. member spoke about the status of loans. That has already been the subject of discussions. I do not think that we are going to have any difficulty in that regard. The hon. member has raised the question of consular representation. I have already been informed by the British High Commissioner that the existing position will continue for a year. I will go further and say that, as a result of discussions, I have no doubt whatsoever that when that year is passed, for which provision has temporarily been made, there will be no difficulty. I have already asked whether the British consular service would be prepared to continue to act for us in those countries where we have no representation. It is the usual thing. We could ask France, we could ask Switzerland for instance. It is continually being done, and I do not anticipate any difficulties in that regard. In any case, as far as the 12 months period is concerned, I have already received that assurance. The hon. member should realize that, in regard to these matters, that is our relations with the United Kingdom, we are acting by means of consultation. So far the consultations have been on a friendly basis, and I do not anticipate any serious difficulty.

As far as other countries of the Commonwealth are concerned, there again I have to repeat what I said last week that any law affecting South Africa in those countries will immediately lapse after 31 May, but South African laws, which affect them, will continue in force. That is the difference. Therefore, for the protection of our country, where action has been taken, or is threatened to be taken, which would very seriously harm South Africa, it is necessary to have a proviso of this kind to enable the Government to act. Again I can assure the House that I cannot conceive of circumstances in which the Government would act without very good reason, and, as far as I am concerned, I can certainly assure the House that, as long as I am here, no such action would be taken, except on very good grounds. But it is necessary to have that proviso in case of eventualities.

The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Plewman) has asked whether the Government will differentiate between information given when Parliament is in session and when not in session. I see no reason why there should be any differentiation. The whole purpose is to give such information as Parliament may require, and I see no reason why that should not be done.

As regards the point raised by the hon. member for Green Point as to whether we would be prepared to accept the addition of the words at the end of sub-section (2) “or by Act of Parliament”, the position is that Parliament does not provide in an Act that it can pass legislation. That is its function. It is the function of Parliament to pass legislation, and one cannot say in an Act that Parliament will pass legislation. Then you would be usurping the functions of Parliament. It is for Parliament to decide whether or not to pass legislation, and the passing of such legislation would depend upon the nature of the action which is to be taken. In certain cases no legislation would be necessary. The action would be taken and that would be the end of it. In other cases a continuing situation might arise, and in that case certainly the necessary legislation would be passed. When this matter was discussed last week, I said that as, and when, such action is taken, it will eventually be changed into legislation. I want to set the doubts of hon. members at rest that there is no intention here of filching the rights of Parliament. It is simply a matter of taking action when it is necessary. The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) asked why the word “temporary” is included in the title of the Bill, and in Clause 4, which defines the title. I said in the House last week that this Bill is, in fact, the opposite number of the British Act. The short title of the British Act reads: “A Bill to make temporary provision as to the operation of the law upon the Union of South Africa after becoming a republic outside the Commonwealth.”

Is not the British Act limited to 12 months, unless re-enacted?

Yes, the British Act is limited to a period of 12 months because of the difference between our relations with Great Britain and our relations with other countries. In the case of the other Commonwealth countries, we do not yet know what the position is going to be. We do not even know if there are any Acts which will affect South Africa. We have made inquiries, but so far we have not found any. In fact it is not unlikely that this proviso may not be found necessary at all. Our legislation which is applicable to Commonwealth countries is not being affected by South Africa’s withdrawal from the Commonwealth. It therefore remains in force until such time as Parliament either recalls it or modifies it. So there is that difference. In our case it is not necessary to have a maximum 12 months period, and that is why it is not mentioned in this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have given such information as I have at my disposal. It must be remembered that I cannot foresee; I cannot tell Parliament that this or that is going to happen in connection with this or that Commonwealth country; we have to act as and when these things happen and, for that reason also, I cannot give the type of information which evidently is expected of me. I hope hon. members will be satisfied.

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister? If this is temporary, under what conditions will it fall away? When will it disappear from the Statute Book?

The Act will probably die a natural death. There might be no necessity to apply the Act. It is to make provision for certain things which may happen.

May I put a question? You will not initiate anything? It will always be somebody else starting something against you, and then you will act?

That is the idea. I made that clear last week. If certain action is taken against South Africa which will very seriously affect our interests, then the Act will come into operation. If it does not happen, nothing will be done.

I move—

When diamonds were discovered in Kimberley, the De Beers Company laid out the town of Kimberley on the farm Bultfontein, and the town was then surveyed by the company’s surveyors, but it was never registered as such in the office of the Surveyor-General or the Registrar of Deeds. The erven were never sold to the inhabitants but in most cases were leased for 21 years, with the option of perpetual extension or merely on a monthly basis. Although the contracts of lease were never registered in the Deeds Office, the plotholders gradually came to regard their contracts as being just as safe as deeds of transfer. Since 1938 De Beers also invited every lessee to capitalize his contract by paying a certain amount after which he would obtain a new contract which could be extended in perpetuity at a rental of only 1s. per annum. Shortly thereafter De Beers donated the whole farm Bultfontein, in so far as the town was concerned, to the City Council of Kimberley, and one of the conditions of the deed of gift was that the City Council had to undertake to give transfer to every lessee who capitalized his rental on application being made by him. Only one person made use of that. This particular part of Kimberley with which we are now dealing comprises approximately 2,300 erven. The land value for purposes of taxation is put at R1,500,000, and the value of the buildings erected on it is already R8,000,000. Any transaction in these erven is registered by the City Council in its offices against payment of a small fee. In view of the fact that the contract of lease is an under-hand document, it is not necessary to utilize the services of a conveyancer or notary, nor is it necessary to pay transfer duties or stamp duties on the cession of a lease. In 1956 we passed the General Law Amendment Bill and the effect of that legislation was that the erven concerned could in future not be disposed of and that no loans could be raised on them. In order to give the owners of the erven the opportunity to have their erven surveyed and registered, this Act was therefore postponed for two years, and we are now busy remedying this matter before that period of two years expires in 1962. The costs of surveying these erven was estimated at R80,000, and we have decided that it will be possible for us to bear those costs ourselves. In order to get past this impassé in Kimberley, I appointed a committee of investigation, of which Mr. Birch, an ex-Chief Registrar of Deeds and the Under-Secretary of the Cape Provincial Administration, as well as the Surveyor-General and an official of the Department of Lands were members, in order to investigate the position. As the result of this, it was decided that we would bear the costs of the surveys. Therefore no surveying costs need be recovered from any person who will now obtain title in terms of this legislation. The Committee did not recommend that the owners of erven should be compelled to take transfer of their erven, but we want to encourage it, and we do so in the first place by saying that the costs of survey will be borne by us and in the second place by saying that when their erven are registered no transfer duties or stamp duties will be charged. In other words, these people will be changed from lessees to the owners of that land with all the advantages owners have as compared with lessees, and it will cost them nothing. It is estimated, however, that in future the State will derive appreciable revenue from it because if the man who now becomes the owner (whereas at first he was the lessee) sells the property again, the purchaser will of course have to pay transfer duties and stamp duties, and it is expected that the State will derive approximately R60,000 per annum from that.

We want to finalize this matter as soon as possible. An extension of time until 1962 was granted, and therefore it is necessary that we should pass this Bill. It is very simple. We give these people ownership whereas hitherto they were lessees, and they obtain all the benefits of ownership. We remove the disadvantages of being lessees, where they could not raise mortgage loans on the property, and even in terms of the 1956 Act could no longer sell the property. And it costs them nothing.

It is peculiar that in a country which has a deeds registration system which is regarded as almost a model for the world, should have an exception, and Kimberley is one of the few remaining cases where land is held under unregistered title. Therefore the official Opposition welcomes this Bill. It is one of the steps necessary to complete our system of land registration so that through the official records of the Deeds Offices the ownership and whether there is a mortgage on land can be traced. It is very interesting that there was almost an exactly parallel situation on the Witwatersrand where in respect of the private leasehold townships there was similarly an under-hand agreement between the parties and it was necessary in due course to pass somewhat similar legislation, and it is interesting that Transvaal was ahead of the Cape Province in this regard by almost 60 years, because it was the Milner régime in 1902 which passed legislation providing for the registration of those leaseholds in the office of the Rand Mining Titles Registrar of Johannesburg, and then in the year 1908, the first Transvaal Botha Government passed legislation providing for the conversion of freehold and set a very good example which is being followed by the present Government that those persons who were receiving official title would not have to pay transfer duty. But unfortunately they did provide for a registration fee of 10s., and I am glad that the hon. the Minister has been able to dispense with that. With this piece of legislation we now have an almost complete system of registration in South Africa. One can only hope that the very good example of the Minister here is going to be followed by ensuring that where there are unregistered rights arising out of various proclamations and in other ways (I won’t go into detail, because the matter has already been dealt with in this House on a number of occasions), the hon. the Minister will very seriously consider carrying into effect the recommendations which have been made from time to time that where in terms of legislation, town-planning systems, etc., we do reach the position that the title does not correctly reflect the rights of the persons concerned, steps will be taken to have a reference put into those titles when they come into the Deeds Offices for registration. That I think is the only thing that requires to be done to preserve what has always been the object of our law, namely that there should be complete certainty in regard to the ownership of land and complete security for persons who have mortgages or registered rights over land. We welcome this Bill and will support it.

I might just say with regard to the point raised by the hon. member, that this is a matter about which the Registrars are concerned. You get the position that a man wants to purchase property and he looks at the title deed. There is nothing registered against that property in the title deed and subsequently to that, after purchasing it, thinking that there is nothing registered against it, he finds that somebody else has certain rights on that property. That we want to do away with. We want to have clean title deeds as far as possible. We are very concerned about that and for very many years certain other State Departments, for instance the Department of Water Affairs, has been claiming rights against properties which were not registered in the title deeds. Some years ago, I came to an arrangement with them to put an end to that. But my friend here on my left, the hon. the Minister of Transport, also knows that it has been an old practice and now we want to clean that up as far as possible so that any “besware” against a title deed will be registered on the title deed and so that the man purchasing a property or giving a bond on a property will know exactly what the real value of that title deed is.

Mr. Speaker, when the debate was last adjourned, I was dealing with the difficulties of our defence training scheme caused by the self-creation of hostile borders within our own country. I will leave that matter now. The Minister, in introducing his Bill, said that the new organization was intended not against internal dangers but against external dangers, and he has since denied several times that the Defence Force will be used for police duties. I think it must be regarded as a little bit strange that at the time he was using those words last week, he must have been in the process of finalizing his organization and orders for the call up over the week-end, and I presume he will not maintain that this call up is for defence against external aggression, instead of against internal troubles. I must agree, and I know, that this step—this very drastic step—of the Minister would not have been taken in the absence of very good reasons and I hope he will now agree that there is only one reason for this state of affairs having come about, and that is the policy of his own Government.

Order! I cannot allow the hon. member to discuss the present state of affairs. He must come back to the Bill.

The hon. Minister will have to deal with the training of our citizens for the suppression of internal disorder and also for the meeting of external aggression and it would seem to me that as time goes on more and more men will be needed for this purpose. I wonder whether the Minister has considered the position prevailing in Israel. I have been there on more than one occasion. There everybody is subject to military service. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore), you will remember, Mr. Speaker, earlier in the debate pleaded for complete conscription. In Israel all, including the women, are trained in all arms, except in heavy weapons. Women are even being trained as paratroopers. I was wondering whether the hon. Minister had this general training also in mind for our country.

I now want to deal with a quite different matter, namely the question of the resuscitation of the Cape Corps. This matter has already been referred to by the hon. member for Kensington who suggested to the hon. Minister that consideration might be given to the training of Coloured men for our Navy where a considerable shortage of manpower is being experienced. The hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) then went further and pleaded for a revival of the Cape Corps. He said he had in mind also the question of cadet corps in Coloured schools. Now, I understand from the Press that the hon. Minister has had interviews with the B.C.E.S.L. and the Coloured Legion of the B.C.E.S.L. in regard to the resuscitation of the Cape Corps as part of this new scheme of training, and I must say that I am very pleased indeed with this news, particularly as I understand he is considering the establishment of two units of the Cape Corps, one stationed in Cape Town and another in Pretoria, under army discipline, training as part of the permanent defence force. Mr. Speaker, the Cape Corps has a proud record of service to this country, and in this connection I would like to quote from a souvenir programme issued on the occasion of the Cape Corps Flag Ceremony on 29 February 1948. In that programme appear these words—

Order! I think the hon member is going very far now.

With all due deference, Mr Speaker, this hon. Minister is endeavouring to organize our defences on a basis which will allow us to live safely and peacefully in this country. Requests were already made in this debate to the Minister to consider the establishment of units of the Cape Corps, and the Bill itself provides that any citizen of the country allowed for training can be sent to various units and I presume, Sir, that members of the Coloured community desirous of serving, should be allowed to do so and be directed if necessary. I am only trying to speak for the Coloured community. They served their country, and I think they would want to serve again. This is an opportunity to give them that chance. I want to prove to this House that if the hon. Minister does this, he will be doing a very great service to the country.

Order! I have allowed the hon. member to bring up that particular matter but I cannot allow him to discuss it further.

On a point of order, Sir. Section 2 of the Defence Act of 1957 has two provisos. Section 2 (1) provides that no female, nor non-Europeans, are subject to compulsory military service, but the first proviso to that section states that the Governor-General, acting on the advice of the Minister of Defence, may by proclamation in the Gazette apply the provisions of the Act to non-Whites. That is the compulsory provision. The second proviso states that the Governor-General by proclamation may enable non-Whites to serve in the defence forces, on terms and conditions laid down by the Department of Defence, on a volunteer basis. My submission to you, Sir, is that we are now dealing with an amendment of the Defence Act and that it is perfectly competent for this House to advocate to the hon. Minister to invoke those powers in relation to the Coloured community.

May I on a further point of order draw your attention to Clause 3 of the Bill under discussion which provides for application by persons to become members of the Citizen Force. The relevant provision reads—

I submit, Sir, that the hon. member is putting forward a case on behalf of certain citizens of the country, and that he is, with all due deference, in order.

I have allowed the hon. member to put his case, but I do not want him to go into too much detail.

I would only still like to quote from a speech made by Field-Marshal the Right Honourable J. C. Smuts on the occasion of the ceremony referred to. He said—

There is in this souvenir programme also a photograph of a Coloured contingent in the victory march of 1946, and nearly every one of those men had won a decoration in the field. I refer to this to give you an indication, Mr. Speaker, that these men could be as good fighting citizens of this country as anybody else. The question of being non-combatant troops, as they were during the last war, requires re-investigation. I suggest that driving a truck under an aerial attack and hanging on to the wheel of that truck until all your comrades have got out before getting out yourself is not so pleasant, and, if that is under non-combatant conditions, I suggest it is probably better to be a combatant. Prior to the last war, they were used as combatant troops, but during the last war they were used as non-combatant troops. I would like to point out, however, that in a modern war there are no non-combatant troops in uniform except, under certain circumstances, Red Cross workers perhaps. This fact, I think, is generally recognized. I mentioned the photograph of the contingent of the Cape Corps taking part in the victory parade in 1946. When it came to selecting a coronation contingent, however, this Minister’s predecessor refused to allow any Coloured man to take part in that contingent. From this point I would like to go on to tell the Minister that, although he has done something to bring back the morale of the forces, he still has a tremendously long way to go. Morale has to be brought back because lack of morale breeds inefficiency, and inefficiency breeds casualties, and if we are in a position of not knowing where and when our troubles are going to break out, the Minister will have to pay far more attention to putting right things done by his predecessor.

In conclusion, I would like to say that I am pleased that the Minister has gone so far as to consider, as I understand, the revival of the Cape Corps, but I would like him to tell the House whether the two units that he is forming on a permanent force basis, are to be armed now, or in the future, and, if so, in what way, and also whether I am correct in assuming that, if they are armed, it will only be for use against external aggression.

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat tried to link up the calling up of Active Citizen Force units with the policy of the Government. I shall not discuss that now, because possibly I will revert to part of it later. I shall then point out that hon. members opposite strongly supported this Bill. Some of them said that the Bill should have been placed on the Statute Book long ago, but then the same hon. members later say that this Bill comes as the result of the weak policy of the Government. They still have these yes and no stories. I shall come back to that. [Interjections] The hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst), who has just made an interjection, did not make himself guilty of that. For the first time he made a real speech here based on militarism, supported by his own military background. He made a good speech because he saw the matter in the correct perspective.

Mr. Speaker, in this Bill we find that the hon. the Minister is arranging the Permanent Force in such a way that he will have a second Permanent Force. The whole principle of defence is affected. When one regards the Bill superficially one feels that much is being asked for, and that almost too much is being asked of the youth and the public of South Africa. But I do not think too much is being asked. I do not think enough is being asked; I think more can be asked. The hon. member over there has just told us that if one goes to Israel one finds that girls of 18 receive military training, and the youths, without exception, have to undergo two years’ military training. They are a small nation, just like us, with great problems. That is a nation which is prepared to make these sacrifices in this very important sphere of national service, viz., to prepare themselves militarily in order to act jointly and under discipline. Therefore, we want to thank the Government and the hon. the Minister very heartily for having introduced this Bill, and we want to give them all support. We know that South Africa will support them. We do not ask for much, because we must be prepared to give much. Because South Africa has much to give us as a White population and to all the population groups in this southern point of Africa.

I said a moment ago that there were some hon. members, like the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) and the hon. member who has just spoken, who want to use this Bill as an excuse for saying that it was not necessary to introduce it, and that it was being introduced only because the Government’s policy is so bad that it now has to make extra provision for defence and has to take extra measures. That hon. member shakes his head to intimate that this is quite true.

Yes.

In other words, those hon. members say that it is because we have internal trouble that the Bill is being introduced, and that we have internal trouble as a result of the Government’s policy. Therefore, they say, this Bill is now being introduced as a precautionary measure on order to try to prevent internal trouble. Mr. Speaker, are they Rip van Winkels? Are they living in a strange atmosphere? Did they not hear this morning what the news was over the radio, viz. that in America they had to proclaim martial law in one of the southern states? That is what happens in America, which has such a wonderful policy for the maintenance of peace, a policy of conciliation and of integration. Martial law has to be proclaimed even in America as the result of the growing consciousness amongst the non-Whites and the non-White problem. Have hon. members not seen what Welensky said in Salisbury? I want to bring it to their notice. He said—

Then he continued to say this—

Order! No, I think the hon. member is taking this subject much too far.

Mr. Speaker, with all respect, I just want to create the right perspective to show how necessary it is to be prepared in South Africa.

If I allow the hon. member to do that, then any speaker will be able to go just as far as he likes.

I wanted to show how danger could come from the north and that it is necessary for us to be prepared.

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

Very well, Sir. Then I want to say that this Bill makes provision for us in South Africa to be prepared for whatever might happen in this country and also from what can come across our borders from the north. We must be prepared for that also. I just wanted to mention this warning issued by Welensky to point out what he says is happening now close to our borders, and how it is coming nearer to him and also to South Africa. But I leave the matter there.

In this debate the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence), followed by various other hon. members, voiced the complaint that in regard to our defence we are not treating our non-Whites fairly. More was hidden behind the complaint of the hon. member than that. That speech was made for foreign consumption, to give the outside world the impression that in South Africa we are arming the Whites only in order to justify suppression in the country. Now I want to state this very clearly. The first line of defence in South Africa is the Police Force. The first line to maintain law and order is the Police Force. Now this must be placed on record so that the rest of the world will know; our Police Force is constituted in such a way that the non-Whites play their full role in it and also have the same weapons in order to take the same action in their own ethnic groups, amongst their own population groups, that the Whites take in the White area. There I do not think it is just and fair towards South Africa in this debate to create the impression in the minds of people abroad that we are arming the Whites only in order to suppress the non-Whites and not to deal with them fairly.

I want to ask the hon. member whether he is now suggesting that the Bantu should be trained and armed to defend their own territories?

I will come to that question in a moment. I now come to my next point, and I want to link it up with the reply to the question which has just been asked by the hon. member. I want to point out that one can arm the non-Whites in any country only if they are constitutionally mature. And the non-Whites, not only of South Africa but of the whole of Africa, are not by far mature in that respect. Therefore I am absolutely opposed to the non-Whites being armed, even in their own territory. As authority for this I want to quote no less a person than General J. C. Smuts. He issued a warning not only to South Africa but to the whole world. What did he say?

When?

This is General Smuts’s “War-time Speeches, 1917-18”.

Oh!

Hon. members may say “Oh!”, General Smuts said this—

He was still in power years later.

I will come to that—

Then he continues to say—

Then he issues a serious warning against that …

Where?

I will tell you where—

Here he issues a warning that the Natives should not be armed because that will create a danger. What he said the Germans wanted to do is now being done in Africa as the result of communist agitation. It is happening under communist leadership and with communist weapons. General Smuts went further—

Then he continues—

Now hon. members opposite want to arm the Black man in South Africa.

Who?

The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) suggested it.

No.

Oh yes, he did. The hon. member for Salt River suggested it. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) also suggested it.

No, he referred to the Coloureds.

I want to go further and say this: The phenomenon we have in Africa to-day, that irresponsible Black nationalism which is rampant in the Congo and in other territories is the direct result of the arming of the Black man in order to be the arbiter between Whites and Whites, to take action together with the Whites against other people, as happened right throughout the world during the last war.

Where?

During the last war the Western nations and others armed Black soldiers to fight with White people against other Whites.

Order! The hon. member is now going much too far. What he is saying there has nothing to do with this Bill.

Sir, with respect, there has been a plea here, particularly by the hon. member for Salt River, that we should also arm the Black man in South Africa and give him military training. And in his plea he wants to create the impression that this Bill, which does not provide for that, does not do so because we do not want to give the Black man his fair rights and position. He did that for foreign consumption.

Were you here when I made my speech?

Yes, I was here. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we must put these matters right for the sake of the record. We have to put it right that we cannot deviate from this age-old principle, from this tradition, as the Free State Republic said to the Black man: If you want to go and fight, then we will first shoot you before you can fight against the Colony.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. member is replying here to a speech which was never made here.

The hon. member ought to know that that is not a point of order.

In view of the fact that the hon. member for Benoni has just pleaded that we should reinstate the Coloured Corps and arm them …

He did not say that.

Of course he said so. Seeing that the hon. member for Benoni pleaded that we should reinstate the Cape Corps and arm it, I want to put it very clearly …

He did not say that.

Then what did he mean by his last question to me?

Yes, he asked whether you were going to do it.

We in South Africa who share in Western civilization cannot allow people who have not yet reached maturity in the constitutional sphere to be armed on an equal footing with the Whites, because then we would be sowing the germ of death for South Africa and the White man.

Mr. Speaker, I want to come to another aspect of this Bill, namely where the hon. the Minister said that those persons who, after having been balloted, could not be taken up in A.C.F. units—those who could not be taken up in A.C.F. units or in the Permanent Force—would go to the commandos to receive training there. Now I want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider this very important aspect, viz. that in future the officers in the commandos—and I begin with the highest rank, viz. the Commandant himself—should be people who have received military training. My request is that we should get away from this idea that they should be elected by the members of the commando.

Hear, hear!

They should not be elected by the members of the commando, but should be appointed by the hon. the Minister on the basis of the military training they receive.

Now you are correct.

I do this particularly for this very important reason. I would like the commandos to have exactly the same military discipline as the Permanent Force. Unfortunately one finds this tendency right throughout the world that when democracy is applied in military matters it leads to a breakdown in discipline to some extent. But if an officer is appointed, he can maintain discipline. I do this because to my mind the commando is now an integral part of the whole Defence Force, and in asking that I immediately come to the next point. I want to ask that where our commandos now have to be treated on the same basis as the rest of the defence organization, some concession should be made to them because we find that these people, just to mention one thing, have to use the telephone extensively. The commandant, as well as the adjutant, will again have to incur extra costs, and they have tremendous telephone accounts. I want to ask that we should give the commandant and the senior officers free telephone calls for the purpose of commando activities. We find that they already incur tremendous costs in building and maintaining rifle ranges. I think some concession should be made.

I come to the next aspect, namely clerical work. We find that even the ballotees who now have to join the commandos and the mobile watches result in the commandant having much administrative and clerical work to do. I want to ask whether a special allowance cannot be made for this clerical work because they make a worthwhile contribution to the defence of the country. I want to mention the example of a unit in Kimberley which received only two ballotees and that makes for more administrative work. I now come to the mobile watches which are really part of the commandos. I think there is some dissatisfaction amongst the members of these mobile watches, because they are now part of the commandos and the members who are called up receive training at the commandant’s headquarters and their remuneration is only £1 4s. a week. These men are mainly workers, often railway workers, who are not too well off. I want to ask that they be given more remuneration, because they are compelled to render service in any part of the Union. I want to ask also that their allowances should bear in mind whether they are married or not. Further, I want to ask that an arrangement should be made with the employers of these people, and here I think particularly of the South African Railways. The Railways has cancelled the leave of all the members of the commando for training purposes, so that they no longer receive paid leave, as was the case formerly. I feel that where they render these essential services to South Africa, they should still receive their wages as they did in the past. For example, they receive no compensation for attending training parades once or twice a month. I want to ask that in this connection something should be done.

I want to mention another aspect, namely the travelling expenses of these people. To-day the members of these mobile watches are given a rail ticket, but if a man lives in Volksrust and has to go to Potchefstroom it takes a day and a half by train, whereas if he is allowed to use a motor-car three or four people can go with him and they can get back sooner. But if they use a motor-car to-day they get only 50 per cent of the price of the rail ticket. I want to ask that such a person, who in any case must be given a rail ticket, should receive the full value of the ticket. Another matter to which I would like to draw the Minister’s attention is the uniform allowances for N.C.O.s in the commandos. I feel that some concession should be made to them.

I want to point to another aspect of our defence, viz. our cadets. Certain hon. members mentioned the possibility of instituting cadet corps in Coloured schools. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) pleaded for that earnestly. [Interjections.] Clause 2 makes provision for non-Whites. I ask that the cadet officers in a school should receive recognition for having become officers. Just like their other qualifications, that training should also count as a qualification, so that the young people at school can receive military training by people who have already received military training. I have here a list of 30 applicants for a senior post in a school. All the extra-mural activities are mentioned, but not a word is said about their military experience and to what extent they can make the scholars militarily conscious. Therefore I want to express the thought that in this connection we should start with our youth by granting recognition to cadet officers for their qualifications.

I want to conclude by saying this to the Minister. In the beginning of his speech he said that he was asking much of South Africa and of our youth. I want to tell him that in these times when we see what is happening around us he can ask just what he likes and South Africa will give it to him, because South Africa knows that its defence is in good hands, in the hands of a man with vision who looks to the future and who is taking this action only because he wants to safeguard the future of South Africa to the best of his ability.

We on this side of the House have already announced that we support this Bill and that we agree with the hon. the Minister that it is necessary under the circumstances for these measures to be taken. We have also said that we are surprised. One would have thought that the Government would have taken some of these measures before, once the hon. the Minister realized where his Government was leading South Africa to. Going back into history one can see how this side of the House, when they were still in power, started years ago with the training of the youth for military purposes. I well remember how in 1936 and 1937 the then Minister of Defence tried to establish regiments at the universities and how that side of the House which was then in opposition obstructed the Government and how a number of students were organized at Stellenbosch to ridicule the whole situation and to chase Mr. Pirow, the then Minister, out of the hall. I ascribe their lack of patriotism at that time to their being inexperienced and not having the responsibility which an Opposition should have. When this hon. Minister comes forth with drastic measures he is not the cause of it; he is merely the victim of it. He has become the victim of his own party. We will help him, even if his own party will not help him Let us look at the history of three years ago. At that time the hon. the Minister’s predecessor in all seriousness made a statement in the House and said the Government was going to spend less money on defence that year and would make the Defence Force smaller but more effective and with more striking power. Where is that striking power he spoke about? At that time every Nationalist thought that the whole British Empire would collapse if the hon. the Minister as much as coughed, and where is he now? The hon. the Minister should then already have known what was necessary. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) is one of those who at that time ridiculed the fact that we wanted more military training. I say that this Government has no definite policy. If the money is scarce in one year then they spend less and make the Defence Force smaller. Now the hon. the Minister says that conditions are so dangerous that we must spend more and we must place the Active Citizen Force on a permanent basis. But what worries me is this. Last Friday the hon. the Minister made a speech at Queenstown and he said a few peculiar things there which I think he must explain to the House. He said, inter alia, that the men would have to undergo a refresher course so that they would be prepared not only as a precautionary measure on 31 May but also for other things. What other things is the hon. the Minister referring to?

To ensure public safety when we are in danger, of course.

It would have been well if the hon. the Minister ended at that, but he goes further and says—

Order! The hon. member cannot read from a newspaper.

This is not comment on this debate, but if you do not want it then you must rule accordingly.

On a point of order, is the hon. member in order to comment on the calling up of certain regiments, which has nothing to do with this Bill, because that is what is dealt with in that speech?

That is not a point of order. The hon. member may proceed.

The hon. the Minister went further and said—

If we are attacked.

But you did not say that. I will accept that from the hon. the Minister, but as it was reported the hon. the Minister said—

On a point of personal explanation, what I said was this. I stated very clearly that if South Africa is attacked from across her borders we shall, if the Whites stand together, be able to hold out long enough until we eventually cause a world war.

I accept that, but then there is another difficulty in the statement of the hon. the Minister because he goes on to say that with such a prospect the countries are very hesitant …

Order! I have allowed the hon. member to go much further than what the Bill permits, but I do not think he should go too far.

You support the Bill. Why are you still talking?

I submit to your ruling. If the hon. the Minister tells me not to read into this what stands here then I accept it but my difficulty is this. The hon. the Minister said in introducing the Bill that the purpose is not to use the powers of this Act to form a second Police Force, and what happens now? Let me tell the hon. the Minister that I shall be the last one to criticize him for having called up the Defence Force. It is his duty to take precautionary measures and to ensure that the safety of the country is maintained. But the hon. the Minister cannot get away with it by saying that the whole purpose is only internal security. The entire system of training shows it. Three years ago I already said in this House that the arming of the Defence Force and the system of training indicates one thing only—“it just amounts to an auxiliary Police Force”, and that is so. What the lion, the Minister is doing now is necessary as a result of the policy of the Government, but where do we stand now? We stand isolated in a hostile world. None of those hon. members can rise and say: There is a partner of the Union. [Interjections.]

Order!

No one can rise and say there is a possible partner of South Africa. It is no use rising each time, as the hon. the Minister and members of the Government do, and say that we side with the West, and every time they say this the world says: We do not side with South Africa.

I do not know what the hon. member thinks about Britain but we have a defence agreement with them.

This is something new. Last year I asked the hon. the Minister what agreements we have with Britain and this same hon. Minister said we have no agreements with anyone except in connection with Simonstown.

It is Simonstown that I am talking about.

But this only means that when England is at war she takes it, and if South Africa is at war and England does not enter into it then we take it, and if there is no war then everyone does as he pleases.

The hon. member does not appear to attach much importance to that agreement.

Then the hon. the Minister must explain it. The hon. the Minister is getting into difficulty more and more. There was a time when the United Party was in power when they were accused by the hon. members opposite of having secret agreements which they knew nothing about, but what is happening now?

Order! The hon. member is going too far now.

I will no longer concern myself with generalities and the causes of the Bill, but there are a few specific matters which I want to discuss. The first is this. Every citizen will and must be prepared to help the Government in a crisis, irrespective of his political differences with the Government, and I hope that every member of my party will support this Government in a crisis, whether it is internally or externally. But I want to add this, and I want to warn the hon. the Minister that this attitude from the side of the Government of treating the Opposition like dogs every time they cooperate must cease. We are sick and tired of it. I will explain what I mean. Last year, at the passing-out parade at Saldanha, a statuette was presented to the best pupil. Mr. Sneaker, I have taught my children, and I think that all of us on this side have done so, that military discipline demands that one shall be loyal to the State and having political differences with the Government does not mean that you can rebel when your country is in trouble.

What has this got to do with the Bill?

It has plenty to do with it, if you will only allow me. What happened? The Dux-student was presented with a statuette, and of whom? Of the late General Beyers. For what purpose? Because he was a National Party hero in a time of rebellion; he was Chief of the General Staff and he rebelled, and I do not want my child, the day he is entrusted to the care of that hon. Minister, to be taught that they will be honoured for being rebels in their own country. [Interjections.]

The hon. member said he would explain what this has to do with the Bill.

I have already done so, Sir. It is very clear. If I pass a Bill in terms of which I hand my child over to the hon. the Minister for military training I am entitled to tell the hon. the Minister that he must not abuse this Act by teaching my child rebellion.

I want to go further. I want to ask the hon. the Minister who was responsible for the appointment of Rev. Boshoff, that political minister? He prays for my child, and I do not want him to pray for my child.

Order! The hon. member can discuss these things under the Vote of the hon. the Minister and he can also discuss policy under the hon. the Minister’s salary, but not under the Bill. He must come back to the Bill.

I want your ruling here, Sir. We are discussing basic training and these things I am talking about now take place in this basic training.

On a point of order, Clauses 1 to 3 deals with service in the Citizen Force and with training. I understood the hon. member to be discussing the spiritual guidance being given to these young men. Surely it is relevant.

No one can be called up in terms of this Act without being expected to attend divine services at which Rev. Boshoff is the preacher. Therefore I think you will permit me to discuss this aspect of the matter.

I will not allow it. The hon. member cannot discuss specific appointments now. He must come back to the Bill.

May I then just say that the hon. the Minister ought to ensure that no political appointments are made in the Defence Force. Will the hon. the Minister rise and say that he will take steps to avoid such political appointments being made?

I did not make any political appointments. This minister received a call.

As in the case of Rev. Boshoff, I would also not like it if Bishop Reeves was to be appointed Chaplain of the Defence Force. But I want to come back to the details of the Bill. In the first place I hope that where the hon. the Minister has found it necessary to extend the period of training and he is now virtually making it a full-time force—and the hon. the Minister said that the Permanent Force should also be enlarged—that he will consider again taking women into the force because of the good work they can perform in the Permanent Force and also in the Active Citizen Force. In England in particular it has been proved that women are more efficient in radar than men because of their accuracy and their natural ability for that work.

A second point I wish to mention is this. I wonder whether it is not possible for the hon. the Minister to look into the whole question of school cadets. I think it would be possible to eliminate quite a few months of training if the school cadets were to-day as active as they were before. I have in mind schools like Bishops and others where the cadet corps have become a tradition at the school, and there is no reason why the Afrikaans schools will not do the same, and I think the hon. the Minister will act wisely if he gives special attention to cadet training.

There is another aspect of the matter which has already been mentioned by the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) and this is the concern which some of us have about the question of exemption from compulsory training. I hope the hon. the Minister will seriously consider not granting any exemptions except in the most serious cases. We have a lot of experience of this, not only under this Government but also under previous Governments, that precisely those persons who must be trained usually make use of the universities and other refuges in order to avoid military training. When the country is in the critical position it is in at present then it is a problem not only for a section of the population but for everyone. If one person is called up to do his duty, let us then all be called up to do our duty. When sacrifices are called for, when people are compelled to join up in large numbers, then I hope the hon. the Minister will see his way clear to give proper remuneration to those recruits, especially those who are the sole breadwinners of the family. I hope that the hon. the Minister will also go into another aspect of the matter. Where young men must now undergo military training and then perhaps join the Public Service a year later I hope the hon. the Minister will persuade his colleagues in the Cabinet to set an example to South Africa by ensuring that that year of compulsory training will count for pension purposes in the Public Service. It is not easy for a young man to offer up a year of his life in time of peace in the service of his country and then to find that that year is not taken into consideration for promotion and pension purposes.

If he does not do it he may never in his life get a pension.

I am not as pessimistic as that hon. member. I think this period of crisis will pass; I think another Government will come into power sooner than the hon. member thinks and then there will again be peace and happiness in South Africa.

I shall not reply to the tirade of the hon. member who has just sat down. I should have liked to do so but I am afraid that you will stop me and then a good speech would be spoilt. I shall consequently not reply to the remarks by the hon. member; I think there will be an opportunity during the discussion on the Minister’s Vote to reply to the matter he has raised here. But I should like to reply to one point, namely where the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson) has said that we stand alone in a cold world without friends. I assume that the hon. member was saying that with reference to our defence. Allow me to say at once that I think that South Africa’s strategic position and geographic location give us such tremendous strategic importance that we do not in fact stand alone. I am just very sorry about one thing, and it is this: I do not know of any of these African States whose favours the West and the East are courting so anxiously to-day and in whose interests we are apparently being sacrificed to-day, that have committed themselves in any way in the sphere of defence to the East or the West, and if the hon. member means that we must commit ourselves cheaply to the West, then I say that that will not have my approval. I think that we should not offer our support so cheaply and that bearing in mind our strategic position and the fact that we have a greater potential than the rest of Africa and many other countries in the Western world in this great struggle which is taking place, we do not need to commit ourselves holus-bolus to anyone. I think that a little more independence and neutrality will serve South Africa better at this moment.

Again?

Must we be neutral between the communists and the West?

You are a communist.

Who is a communist?

You are an old communist.

On a point of order, is the hon. member entitled to call me a communist?

Did the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) call the hon. member a communist?

I asked him whether he was a communist because it sounds like it.

He said that the hon. member was a communist.

On a point of order, is the hon. member for Cradock entitled to ask an hon. member whether he belongs to an organization which has been banned, with the implication that he supports an unlawful organization?

If it was put in the form of a question, it is permissible.

On a point of order, the hon. member for Cradock has just said the hon. member for Green Point supports the communists.

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

On a point of order, the hon. member for Cradock said “You are a communist” three times in succession.

The hon. member must accept another hon. member’s word.

On a point of order, I clearly heard the hon. member saying that. He said “You are a communist” and he is now trying to run away.

The hon. member for Green Point must accept the hon. member’s word. If he refuses to do so, I shall have to ask him to leave the House.

On a point of order, with the utmost respect, the hon. member for Cradock said “You are a communist” three times.

Order! The hon. member must resume his seat immediately. Whether the hon. member heard it three times or five times makes no difference. If another hon. member says that he has or has not made a certain statement then his word must be accepted.

Can he tell untruths as much as he likes?

Order! The hon. member heard what I have just said. If he makes any further remarks, I shall have to take further action against him.

In the light of your ruling, are you going to allow hon. members to ask another hon. member: “Are you a communist?”

Order! The hon. member must resume his seat. The hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) may proceed.

In this Bill we are dealing with the provision of improved training facilities and with an increase in our manpower and as a result of improved training, the improvement and strengthening of our striking power. In addition we are dealing with an increased integration of a large number of citizens into the defence system of our country. Why is this being done? After all it costs money to train people; it will result in disruption, and we must necessarily view such a reorganization within the overall framework of our defence policy. Soldiers are trained for a specific purpose and this Bill provides for improved training over a longer period of more men which will eventually result in our having a continuous fixed number of men who will be permanently under arms at various strategic places in the country. These men are being trained to defend our country or to attack. In other words, this will cost money, and they are being trained for a specific purpose. The men who will be trained under the system provided for in this measure will at one stage or another be used on three fronts; they will be used in a global war or in a local war or they will be used for the defence and the maintenance of internal peace and order. They can only be used for one of these three possibilities—a global war, a local war or the maintenance of internal order. If we take all the various factors into account, it is clear that we are not living in peaceful times. I do not think that there is one Western government which can rest peacefully, contentedly and calmly. The events in South Africa and the anticipated events outside South Africa and the developments in areas such as Laos, Cuba, Algeria and the Middle East make it essential that we in South Africa should take steps to be prepared within the limits of our ability to meet the shocks and the developments which may come. Our position is not becoming by any means safer as a result of the development of the struggle between the East and the West; on the contrary, uncertainty is increasing. We see every day how the communists’ tactics are achieving one success after the other and how the uncertainty, doubt and irresolution of the West are providing a fertile field for the development of the communists’ tactics and pattern. We must therefore bear in mind these three possibilities with which we are faced to-day as the whole process develops before our eyes. What will we have to do if a global war breaks out? To what extent does this legislation and the organization for which this Bill provides, increase our readiness in case of a global war? In this regard I want to say that if a global war breaks out, the most modern weapons which science can produce will certainly be used.

The atom bomb.

Perhaps not. I see that the Nato powers are now concentrating to an ever-increasing extent on the accumulation of conventional weapons, and it seems to me as though Nato, Seato and the Baghdad powers consider that conventional weapons will be used in the next war and that the atomic weapons will not be used in the future just as germ warfare was not used in the past. But if this should happen, we as a small country will not be able to defend ourselves against nuclear missiles; we must forget about that. Consequently as regards defence against a blitzkrieg in which nuclear weapons and missiles are used, this legislation is of no assistance. As a small country we can forget about defending ourselves in that case. In the case of a global war we shall also be obliged, if we are involved, to rely on collective defence together with other more powerful nations. But if a global war should break out, we must expect that within that global war we will also have to carry out a specific task on a collective basis and we shall be faced with the following obligations: We shall have to have trained men for the defence of our borders against occupation forces because even if one uses missiles and aircraft, one’s aircraft and one’s country’s borders will have to be protected. Consequently we shall require trained men for that purpose, and this Bill makes provision for that aspect, and satisfies me in this regard. We shall have to protect our airfields and our strategic points. We shall have to maintain an effective system of civil defence. For this purpose we shall require trained men. We cannot use untrained men in our system of civil defence because we would be cold bloodedly murdering such a person. But our maritime air squadron will have to undertake tracking and reconnaissance tasks particularly over the sea, especially in view of the fact that we have such extended sea lines. For that purpose we shall require trained men and the Bill provides for that aspect. But in case of a global war or a local war, in the light of the spread of Communism throughout the world, we shall also have to be very mobile and maximum mobility can only be achieved by the use of trained men. The best trained man is the most mobile man, and for that reason this Bill provides for integration of this training with other steps which the Minister is taking, i.e. he is in fact acquiring the equipment and methods of transport which will increase our mobility in South Africa with her long distances. I am thinking for example of the helicopters which we are buying: I am thinking of the emphasis which the Minister is placing on acquiring a transport fleet for the purpose of transporting soldiers by air with a view to increased mobility. Our air transport will be important. But we shall require men to man those aircraft. We shall require trained men to handle and to man that air transport and the other equipment which is required for purposes of mobility, and the Bill makes provision for that aspect. We shall have to give an answer to the communists’ methods and pattern particularly in South Africa, and I see the answer in increased mobility and improved training and in my opinion the Bill makes provision for that aspect. Well-trained men are necessary, a period of training is necessary; training processes must be improved for which this Bill also provides, and for that reason I am satisfied with this Bill. We must take note of the possibility, as we see happening to-day, that our borders will be threatened for a long time to come. We take the position in Angola for example. I do not know how long this threat will remain. We must be prepared for this eventuality and this measure increases our preparedness and readiness for such eventualities because it will make better trained men available and because it will result in our having a steady stream of trained and armed men to guard our strategic areas against whatever threats may arise. This measure is in line with what is being done practically throughout the world. If I examine what is being done in Britain, in New Zealand, Canada, Australia and even the United States and Russia as regards the reorganization of their defence forces over the past four years, I see that this Bill merely provides for what they have been doing. Australia has reorganized her entire defence force with a view to increased striking power, increased mobility and improved training. She has also increased her permanent standing army.

They have reduced it.

They have increased it and Mr. Townlee, the Australian Minister of War, has referred to “the most effective army formation ever established in Australia in peace time” in discussing the increase by 35 per cent of the “regular army brigade group” last year. These forces have been increased not only in Australia but in Britain as well. The defence forces of the entire world are being strengthened with a view to greater preparedness, greater mobility and greater striking power. I just want to read to the House what the British Minister of Defence said in the British White Paper of 5 April 1959. I am reading this to show how this reorganization for which this amending Bill provides, is in exact accord with what is happening in Britain. The British Minister of Defence said: “We must be prepared”—

That was when they abolished national service?

Yes, but the fact remains that they have reorganized their entire defence force with a view to increased striking power. That is why the bomber and the fighter are disappearing and that is why they are concentrating on missiles and projectiles. We are therefore dealing here with a policy which is being followed everywhere in the world as a result of the new turn which the defence policy of the whole world has taken. No one can foresee what is going to happen. Armaments are changing at a tremendous pace; ever-increasing mobility is being called for and ever-increasing demands in respect of the preparedness of a state’s defence forces are being made. I want to conclude by saying that I am pleased to vote for this Bill which provides for improved training facilities, improved training processes, for an improved method of balloting and for stricter discipline which will definitely improve as a result of the new exemption procedure. We are living in dangerous times and I want to congratulate the Minister on having introduced this Bill because when I see the measure against the background of other steps which the Minister is taking such as the acquisition of helicopter squadron, air transport, improved air fields, improved weapons, increased supplies of ammunition, and particularly the emphasis which he is placing on the local production of ammunition, I say that we are on the right road. We are keeping ourselves in readiness for whatever may happen. I want to conclude by reading what Khruschev, the Russian Prime Minister, said on 14 January 1961 in discussing the Russian defence policy. It gives us an excellent outline of the position. He said—

When the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) opened the debate on behalf of the Opposition, he asked: What is the threat? Why this reorganization? My reply to the hon. member is as follows: The whole world is living in uncertain times; the whole world is living in the grip of a cold war; the whole world is living at a time when new deadly weapons are appearing every day. The world demands of us and it is practically forcing us and it is making it essential that as far as our defence is concerned, we should be as prepared as possible, even if it costs far more than we should like to pay. This Bill makes our small Defence Force better prepared and more ready, and I therefore think we should all welcome this Bill.

In the speech of the hon. member who has just sat down there was evidence, or at least glimmerings of evidence, of an hon. member who is trying to move with the times and to look at the serious position in which we find ourselves. Unlike the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins), the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) is clearly not a complete Rip van Winkel. I was surprised at the hon. member for Wakkerstroom quoting as a military authority a speech made by Gen. Smuts in 1917. Sir, wise man that Gen. Smuts might have been, I think the hon. the Minister of Defence and his advisers will realize that defence policies which are based on statements made by people in 1917 are completely out of step with the modern age in which we live. One of the points on which the hon. member could not wrest himself away from concepts of the past was to overstress the importance of our strategic position. He indicated that to some extent it was not so necessary to have allies and that it was not so necessary to have treaties, because if it came to a global struggle, then South Africa’s strategic position would be its best protection. Well, I do not want to underestimate the strategic importance of South Africa, but let us also realize that as we move into the field of nuclear warfare, so the strategic position of countries like South Africa recedes into the distance and into the past. Whatever importance the Cape might have been as a sea route at the time of Jan van Riebeeck or even at the time of the Napoleonic wars, South Africa will not hold the same strategic position in the future which it enjoyed in the past and which provided it with a certain degree of collective protection from the Western powers.

This Bill has been introduced by the Minister of Defence in sombre tones. He indicated to us that the object of this Bill was to reorganize the conditions of service in the Active Citizen Force and to revolutionize both the period of training and certain aspects of the system of training of young men who are called up. The objective stated by the hon. the Minister was to see that he as the Minister responsible for the defence of South Africa had adequate trained forces available to meet any dangers to the State either from external aggressors or as the result of internal disorders. I think viewed in general terms it is a laudable objective. Viewed in general terms it is necessary for the State to have at its command sufficient and adequate trained forces to meet either of these two ugly eventualities. But the hon. the Minister—and I am pleased about this—did not speak only in general terms. He related the demands which he was making on the South African nation to the present situation both inside and outside South Africa. I think we are indebted to him for stating in his introduction to this debate not only the immediate demand that he was making on the nation, but in painting the broad picture of the position both externally and internally for South Africa. It is necessary for us to realize that one cannot debate a Bill such as this in a vacuum. One has to relate it to the circumstances in which South Africa finds itself vis-à-vis the rest of the world, and relate it to the circumstances which prevail within South Africa to-day. Secondly, even if viewed against the background of these circumstances there is merit in this measure, then I think the Minister must not expect the Opposition to remain silent where there are reasonable ciriticisms to make of the manner in which he wishes to avail himself of this new striking force.

I want to take up the hon. the Minister on the first part of his address when introducing this Bill, and to consider this measure against both the external and the internal background of events in South Africa. It is quite clear from the introduction of this Bill from the hon. the Minister’s speech, that both our external and internal position has deteriorated alarmingly under the present Government. The Government will claim, as far as external affairs are concerned, that this is largely as the result of factors and forces over which the Minister and this Government have no control. It will be claimed, and it has been claimed by the hon. member for Ventersdorp, that it is the result of growing world tensions; that we in South Africa are becoming a pawn in the great East/West struggle; that this is a result largely of the unsettled state of the world as a whole and of the unsettled state of the Continent on which we live. I think we must accept that the world is going through troubled times at the moment. Are these times any more troubled than the times we have known since the end of the last world war? Is the situation in the world any more explosive than it was at the time of the great Berlin airlift in 1948? Is the situation in the world any more explosive than it was when a cold war changed to a hot war in Korea? Is the situation regarding Africa any more explosive than it was at the time of the Suez crisis when you did have the armed intervention of one state in the sovereignty of another? Sir, the world is going through a period of trial and uncertainty but I think we must realize that there have been other periods of trial and uncertainty and never before in peace-time has it been deemed necessary by a Parliament of South Africa to mobilize the young men to the potential defence of their country as the Minister wishes to do under this Bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, might I have your guidance on this matter, because the hon. the Minister is asking for permission to amend completely the service of young South Africans in the Active Citizen Force and to completely and radically reform the method of training with a view, as he says, to have in continuous service of the country some 5,000 to 6,000 fully trained personnel. Mr. Speaker, we on this side have said that under the circumstances prevailing we would concede that it is necessary, but at the same time I do think that it is necessary for us to analyse these circumstances, their duration and their cause. Sir, in earlier times it was possible for South Africa not only to think in terms of defending its own borders, as the hon. the Minister will under this Bill, but only a decade or so ago, it was possible for South Africa to defend her own borders on the one hand and to supply a striking force outside the borders on the other. Only a few years ago it was possible for the Minister of Defence to stand up in this House and say that in addition to protecting South Africa, we were committed to send troops to the Middle East in order to maintain order and peace in that part of the world. This Bill, necessary as it might be, as the result of the handling by this Government of both the external and internal situation, truly reflects the utter, utter isolation in which South Africa has moved in recent years. This Bill reflects truly the failure of the present Government to maintain friendly relations between South Africa and the other states either of the West or on the African Continent.

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

Sir, this Bill to mobilize the young men of South Africa in the Active Citizen Force …

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill. I cannot allow a general debate on the policy of the Minister of Defence.

Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with the provisions under Clauses 1, 2 and 3. The first one is “service in the Active Citizen Force”, the next one deals with the “maximum period of compulsory training”, and the third one deals with “whole-time training”. These are three new provisions which are being introduced into the Defence Act and which the hon. the Minister says are required in order to place at his disposal in these troublous times, additional striking power. These sacrifices which he is demanding of the people of South Africa, I say, is the price which we have to pay for our leaving the Commonwealth of Nations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. the Minister when he replies to this debate, should give us more cogent reasons than those which he has given as to why as far as external aggression is concerned it has become necessary to increase the striking power of the Defence Forces. Most countries depend for the augmentation of their defensive forces against external aggression on bilateral treaties, on non-aggression treaties and mutual alliances. Can I ask the hon. the Minister whether there are any of such treaties in existence as far as South Africa is concerned and to what extent this additional mobilizing of the army, as envisaged under this Act, is the result of the fact that we can no longer rely on joint defence of South Africa by not only South Africa but the friends we had until the recent past. So much as far as the external position is concerned—a position which is fraught with danger.

What about the internal position? The Minister has indicated that part of the additional training which these young South Africans will have to undergo is to train them to meet the threat of external aggression, but the other part of that training—and he was specific in his introductory speech—was to make these people also ready to meet any internal disorder. I think it is necessary for us once again to reflect on the need of the hon. Minister to train young men to deal with the internal situation, because it must inevitably be construed as emphasizing the fact that our internal position has deteriorated under the present Government.

That is not a correct reflection of my speech.

A year ago it was not necessary to take a larger number of people into the army and to train them in this way. In 1961 it has become necessary. Surely that can only reflect a deterioration in the internal position. I expect the hon. the Minister once again will say as a justification that there are problems over which this Government has no control. He will refer, as the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) did, to the infiltration of Communism in various forms into the internal situation of South Africa; he will no doubt refer, as the hon. member for Ventersdorp did again to-day, to the growth of hostile nationalisms, both outside our borders and inside our borders. But, Mr. Speaker, we want to know from the hon. the Minister in his reply: Is this the Government’s answer to the growth of Communism here, is this the Government’s answer to the increasing racial tensions and the resulting rise of nationalisms within our country? Is this the Government’s answer: Force and more force? Is the Government’s answer: Threats and more threats? Is the Government’s answer: Bannings and more bannings? Is the Government’s answer to come year by year and to increase the striking force of our own Defence Forces? Mr. Speaker, the people of South Africa have always shown their willingness to help their Government, and I am very pleased to say that we can be proud of the fact that the number of people who have not been prepared to support the Government in time to war have been very, very few indeed. I believe that if the hon. the Minister wants to call upon South Africans to make these sacrifices, he will have a response—and I would like to see him have a willing response, I would like to see all South Africans rally to the call if South Africa is threatened either from without or from within—but then I would say to the hon. the Minister that merely measures of force, merely restrictive measures, merely measures which imply more and more strength to the armed forces of South Africa, are not the methods likely to get the cooperation of all the people in South Africa. Rather would we like to hear the hon. the Minister tell us of the reforms which he is going to introduce in a more general way once we have got over the difficulties in which we find ourselves to-day.

In our defence?

Mr. Speaker, we would like as a corollary to mobilizing the army, to hear from the hon. the Minister about such reforms. Surely the hon. the Minister is not going to suggest that the whole answer to our problems is the mobilization of the army? Surely while one mobilizes on the one hand one thinks in terms of reforms, one thinks in consultation with the people who have to be governed in South Africa. Mr. Speaker, the Defence Force have always had a statutory rôle to play in maintaining internal security. It was defined in the original Defence Act, it was defined once again in the Defence Act of 1957. In the past it has been held, and it has been the practice to use the Defence Forces for the purpose of internal security as an exceptional force, as the last resort to supplement the other forces which are available to the Government. What alarms us on this side of the House and what I think alarms the people of South Africa, is the increasing frequency with which the army is being used to assist in governing South Africa.

Order! That is not under discussion now. The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

Sir, I want to deal specifically with the Minister’s statements, and I put it to you in all earnestness that the Minister stated that he requires these three major amendments to mobilize and train our Citizen Force so that he would have available to him additional striking power both in the event of external agression and in the event of internal disorder.

I never used the words “striking power” in connection with internal disorders.

If those are not the exact words, he at any rate wanted to have available, whether it has striking power or no striking power, an additional force to deal with internal disorders. I do not want to put the wrong words into the hon. Minister’s mouth, but he did say that the two objectives which he felt would be achieved by this measure were partly to increase our force to deal with internal disorder and partly to deal with external aggression. He stated that the first three months of training would be used almost exclusively for training in respect of internal disorder and the latter period of three months of training to specialization for dealing with external aggression. Now where the hon. the Minister asks the power to increase the army in respect of dealing with internal disorder, then surely it is necessary and desirable that we should relate it to the history of the use of the army for putting a stop to internal disorder. I come back to the point that I think that it is unfortunate that the impression is being created by the hon. the Minister that he sees as one of the major rôles for the Defence Force of South Africa, the suppression of internal disorder. And if he takes special powers to have this force available, then one can assume that his prognostications for the future are that he anticipates more and more internal disorder in South Africa. I think it is extremely unfortunate that to date our army has had to be used to the extent that the hon. the Minister has used it in respect of internal disorder, and I think it is equally lamentable that he is asking for additional powers to mobilize the army to a greater extent in the future to deal with the internal disorders. We would like to see the army merely as an auxiliary to be used in certain exceptional circumstances.

This Bill makes provision under Clause 1 of the Bill which is going to substitute Section 21 of the original Act that every person allotted to the Citizen Force (subject to certain provisions) shall be liable to serve in that force for a period of four years. Now, Mr. Speaker, the period of training is to be a continuous period of nine months in the first year, and I would like to know, Sir, in addition to the period of continuous training which these young men have had in the past, how many days of compulsory military service did they have during the emergency last year? How many days of additional military service did they have during the Pondoland emergencies last year?

What has that to do with the Bill?

Mr. Speaker, I should be very surprised if you required the assistance of the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) to control this debate. Sir, this is very pertinent. Here the hon. the Minister is asking for permission to extend the service of people in the A.C.F. and I am asking him to justify that against the background of how much service they have already been rendering the state to date. And how many people are at this stage engaged in special service as a result of mobilization?

Order! The hon. member must now come back to the Bill or otherwise he must resume his seat.

Mr. Speaker, might I once again seek your guidance? I am relating Clause 1 of the Bill which is a substitution of the original Section 21 which deals with “service in Citizen Force” to Section 28 of the original Act which says “a member of the Citizen Force shall be liable to render any service which may be required of any member of the Permanent Force”. Then it defines the service to be rendered by the Permanent Force and it says “service for the defence of the Union, and service in the prevention or suppression of internal disorder in the Union”. So we are being asked to allow the Minister to draft young men for training and during that training period he is entitled to use them for the suppression of internal disorders. Now before we grant these powers, surely we on this side of the House are entitled to know to what extent the powers which he previously had were inadequate. Why is he coming to us for more powers? How many young men has he at present mobilized?

I called the hon. member to order before. He must confine his remarks to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am asking your guidance …

Order! The hon. member is disregarding my ruling. I have given him guidance, but he is not taking it.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, Clauses 1, 2 and 3 relate to periods of compulsory service, and the hon. gentleman was putting a question to the hon. Minister of Defence, namely whether the services rendered by the Active Citizen Force during the emergency last year and the service rendered by those who have been called up now …

Order!

With the greatest respect, Sir, that is relevant to this question of continuous service. Sir, we are dealing with a Bill which provides for compulsory service. Certain members of the Citizen Force have been called up and the hon. member is putting the question to the hon. the Minister as to whether that service will be taken into account in respect of the service they will have to render once this Bill becomes law.

Sir, I am sorry if I gave the impression that I was debating the hon. Minister’s mobilization order. I was merely seeking information which would help us in considering this Bill. I am not questioning or querying his right at this stage to call up these young men. There will be an appropriate occasion to discuss that. At this stage I want to ask him how many of these people have done service other than the service which is normally laid down in the Act. So much for the general problem which confronts the hon. the Minister both in respect of dealing with aggression from outside and the difficulties with which the Minister is confronted as a result of the strained tensions which have grown up in South Africa, following largely upon Government actions. I think the hon. Minister wants to have at his disposal, for good reasons or for bad reasons, an adequately trained and efficient fighting force. Now all the emphasis so far has tended to be on training, and I certainly don’t under-estimate the importance of basic training in the building up of both the esprit de corps and the morale, the reflexes, the attitude of the individual soldiers towards their task. There are other aspects affecting the men in the Active Citizen Force, other aspects which are equally important if the hon. the Minister really wants to build up the Active Citizen Force into a strong fighting force. The first of those aspects, which goes hand in hand with training, is the question of morale. Mr. Speaker, you can train a man, you can give him all the weapons you like, but unless there is a spirit which moves them to fight, unless there is a good morale, unless there is an esprit de corps which runs through that whole army, then that whole army is not going to be the efficient army which the Minister would like to see.

Why?

If the hon. member had served in the army he would not have put such a question.

I have served in the army.

If the hon. member has served in the army, then there certainly is no excuse for such a stupid question. I want to ask the hon. the Minister not to under-estimate this question of morale. Mr. Speaker, all South Africans can serve the army, irrespective of their political views, if despite their differences, they have got a common objective which motivates them as South Africans. I think it is extremely important, and I think that the hon. the Minister is doing quite a bit in this regard, but I fear that 13 years under his predecessor have to a large extent broken down the fine morale of the South African Defence Force.

The next point I want to deal with is the question of equipment. If you have the morale, if you have the training, but you have not got adequate equipment, your men are not going to turn into useful soldiers. So we would like to know whether our young men are going to get the very best and the very latest of equipment. I put this question because we would like to know from the hon. the Minister: Has the situation changed at all in recent months so that the latest equipment is no longer available to us? Have we still got the same access to the equipment which we were able to get from other countries as we had a few months ago? Are we able to defend with the latest in aircraft, the latest in guided missiles? Are we making any research into the use of nuclear weapons? I ask this, because the hon. member for Ventersdorp tried to make a virtue out of necessity by saying that we should be a little more neutral as far as the Western powers are concerned. Sir, I suggest that talk like that is not going to assist the hon. the Minister of Defence, nor is it going to assist the Chief of our Armed Forces, when he tries to get those items of equipment which we cannot produce ourselves, and which we can only get if we are considered to be allies and not neutralists as far as the West is concerned. So I stress the importance of extending the field in which we can get equipment and I would like to know from the hon. the Minister in his reply whether our young South Africans are getting everything of the best.

The other thing which is important and which was mentioned by the hon. member for Ventersdorp is that an army in a small country needs allies. South Africa could not defend itself in a global struggle. We would like to know from the hon. the Minister who South Africa can count on as allies in times of war.

What has that to do with the Bill?

We want to train young people to play their part in defending South Africa in time of war and I think we are entitled to know the whole picture and not just the picture which suits hon. members opposite. We want to know from the hon. the Minister: Will South Africa go it alone? Are there any treaties? Have there been any changes in treaties which might affect the lives of these young South Africans who are being asked to serve South Africa? And when one thinks of allies, I want to come back to the internal situation. The hon. member for Wakkerstroom suggested that the hon. member for Salt River in asking for greater use to be made of the four-fifths of the non-White people in the defence of South Africa, that the hon. member for Salt River was merely saying this for overseas consumption. That was a reprehensible accusation to make against the hon. member for Salt River. The only point the hon. member for Salt River was making, and which I want to make again, is that the service of these 6,000 young South Africans in the A.C.F. will be of no avail if we have 12,000,000 hostile people in South Africa. You cannot defend South Africa, you cannot defend any country, unless you have the whole of the population behind it. In South Africa we have a peculiar position. The hon. the Minister wishes to defend South Africa, he wishes to strengthen the Defence Force by using only those South Africans who have white skins. Mr. Speaker, I don’t believe …

When did I ever say that?

Once again, I would be extremely glad if the hon. the Minister would indicate for the sake of these people who are being called up to serve with the A.C.F., how he is going to get the co-operation, not the passive co-operation, but the active co-operation in the armed forces of the country of the other four-fifths of the people of South Africa. Without that all the best laid plans of the hon. the Minister, all the best intentions of all the hon. members opposite, are going to be of no avail. I was shocked by the outbursts of the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) in dealing with the rôle which the non-Whites should play in struggles anywhere and the question of their training. He said that not only in South Africa, but nowhere in Africa should Black men be trained and armed. If that is so, does the hon. Minister share that view?

Yes, as far as arming them is concerned.

Does the hon. the Minister realize the debt of gratitude which South Africa owes to the people with black faces for the work they did during the last world war? Does the hon. the Minister realize that if you want to call on Southern Rhodesia, if you want to call on Portuguese East Africa, if you want to call on Angola, then the troops which would be sent by those countries to defend Southern Africa would not be White people? If that is the view of the hon. the Minister, has he laid down in respect of agreements between Great Britain, Belgium, Portugal and France, those countries with whom we had treaty alliances, that they may not use non-White people in respect of their treaty obligations? Because if the hon. the Minister is taking up that view, then South Africa will indeed stand alone.

I want to conclude with a few practical difficulties which flow from this Bill. I think the hon. the Minister will realize that it is going to have an effect on the manpower of South Africa that is at present available for other purposes. I think he will realize that there is an extension of the period of the military service, although it is not as great as would appear on first blush, it must have an effect on the general question of manpower in South Africa. We must all be concerned about the serious state of affairs reflected in the Report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts as far as the manpower of the whole Civil Service is concerned. I would suggest to the hon. the Minister that if possible the period of service should be reduced or curtailed. One thinks of the effect it is going to have on industry, particularly in a time when import control is imposed and when that will give an added stimulus to local industry. Local industry will not be able to make the optimum use of the circumstances because of the prevailing shortage of manpower, which is going to be aggravated as a result of this measure. Let me say, however, that I realize that there are certain compensating factors. I believe that any youngster who has had a term of service in the army is all the better for it. I believe it creates a certain cameraderie, it knocks off the rough edges, and it certainly brings people of the various language groups together. Therefore I do not condemn the idea of having a certain extension of military service. I hope the hon. the Minister is going to keep this under review, because it cannot be a good thing to have a large proportion of the young White population continuously under arms.

There are other practical problems. I hope the hon. the Minister is going to pay special attention, as I think he indicated he will, to those people whose nine months’ service do not fall within one calender year. The hon. Minister has indicated that in respect of students or apprentices who have to work a full calender year, every effort is going to be made to see whether this can be complied with. I think of certain other people. I think of the youngster who is going to be called up in June. Is it going to be possible for him to get suitable employment from the time he leaves school in December until June of the next year when his employer knows that in six months’ time he is going to lose his service? I am quite sure that whilst that youngster is employed, he will not be trained, because the employer has no assurance that that youngster will return to the firm which has trained him, after he has finished his military service. I think of the possible temptation this is going to be for youngsters to leave school earlier. There is no doubt that very many youngster see the gymnasiums as a means of completing their school education. Here in the army, where there is no standard of education required for admission, I think it is going to be a temptation for youngsters rather to forgo their final year at school and to spend that year which should be taken up with school education in the army. I think particularly of those youngsters who are hard-pressed by economic circumstances, who want to start earning an income as soon as they can, who have perhaps to support their family. I think it is important to see that this additional training is not going to be an incentive to them to leave school earlier than they would under other circumstances.

I want to conclude by saying: Everyone in South Africa and certainly everyone in this House, is aware that the Government is asking the South African nation to make sacrifices. As I said before, I think it is to South Africa’s credit that where governments have asked young men to serve in the army on previous occasions, the number of people who have refused to respond to the call of the Government has been very, very small indeed. I hope that position will continue. What I think is important for the Minister to indicate to the people of South Africa is that we are not moving into a permanent state of semi-mobilization, that South Africa is not moving into a permanent state when military government with military forces will take the place of government by consent. Only when he can indicate that this is a temporary phase, only then will he get the wholehearted co-operation of all the people forming the South African nation. [Time limit.]

I am sure you will allow me by way of introduction to say that this House has now achieved a degree of maturity which enables us to discuss Defence matters without dragging politics into it. That has also been the position in the case of this Bill, with the exception of the childish outburst and the immature outburst of the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson), and partially so in the case of the previous speaker because the last speaker has definitely tried to make political capital out of this Bill. He has once again tried to create the impression that this Bill is merely enlarging our Defence Force in order to force the Government’s colour policy on the country by violence. I am sorry that he has adopted this attitude because otherwise we would have been able to listen to his speech with a fair degree of attention. I do not want to discuss everything he has said, but I want to discuss the matter from the point of view of how I see the position as a whole. In the first place I have asked myself in considering this Bill: To what extent will the adoption of this Bill better equip South Africa to meet the threats facing her? South Africa is faced with a three-fold threat—three dangers which I see. The first is direct aggression by a foreign power. The second is communist infiltration from neighbouring territories: and the third, local disturbances. I want to discuss each of these dangers briefly.

As far as external aggression is concerned, this in my opinion is not a particularly great danger for South Africa because I am convinced that none of the great powers of the world can allow South Africa to fall into the hands of another power. In other words, our strategic position is a very sound and good guarantee to us that we shall not be affected by foreign aggression. The last speaker said that we should not over-emphasize our strategic position. It is true; we can over-emphasize our strategic position. I do not want to do so because I want to say that we should try to maintain a measure of neutrality between the East and the West by being better equipped ourselves because we saw what happened in the case of the Suez debacle. Although it is an especially strategic area in the north of Africa, the West abandoned it. There could therefore be just as great a debacle on the southern tip of Africa if we rely on the West alone, and for that reason I think it is essential that we should strengthen our Defence Force to such an extend and that we should place it in such a position that we shall be able to meet external aggression so that the Suez debacle need not necessarily be repeated on the southern tip of Africa.

I come to the second danger which threatens us, namely that of communist infiltration. This second threat is in the light of the signs of our times, certainly the greatest threat facing South Africa at the moment. This communist infiltration takes place by means of terrorist bands which would cross the borders from neighbouring countries. We have seen how such a position has actually arisen in Angola. It is quite clear what the plan of the communist powers is and what the communist danger behind those plans is. It is namely to try to strike at South Africa by going through Angola to South West Africa. The target is apparently South West Africa, and the intention is that this infiltration will first go through Angola and then to South West Africa. South West Africa is actually the Achilles heel of our defence because the mandate contains a provision that South West may not be used as a military base for external operations.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the third danger, namely the danger of local disturbances. Local disturbances on the model of Sharpeville and Langa are being planned for the future by these agitators in order to awaken and incite Black nationalism in South Africa. This is in fact one of the great dangers facing South Africa. I want to quote what the hon. the Minister said in a recent speech, namely that—

To meet these dangers three steps must be taken. The first is the enlarging of our Permanent Force; the second the improvement of the training and preparedness of the part time forces; and the third the provision of a thorough training and equipment with modern weapons. As I read this Bill all three of these objects are being achieved. In the first place the Bill is trying to strengthen the Permanent Force by keeping the Active Citizen Force on a type of permanent basis. Mr. Speaker, here I want to say that the concept of having a Permanent Force which merely acts as a kernel or skeleton in time of peace and which is supplemented by the flesh, the blood and the muscles later in time of war is in my opinion an obsolete concept. The time has come when the Permanent Force should not only be the kernel, but should be a real force with real striking power. I want to express the conviction that the time when war could be fought merely by using volunteers or trained reservists from the Citizen Force is past. We are living in an era when professional soldiers are a necessity. Modern warfare is fought by means of technicians and scientists, and is particularly a war for trained professional men. Seeing that this Bill is also trying to strengthen the Permanent Force through the training of the Citizen Force, I think that we should welcome it and express our gratification at the fact that it is to be placed on the Statute Book.

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out for example, as far as the Permanent Force is concerned, that I think that we are building up one paratroop unit. I think that one paratroop unit is far too little for our purposes when we bear in mind that our borders are lengthy and that our communication lines extended. We do not have airfields available everywhere where they should be available. To make troops and equipment available at every point will waste a vast amount of time. In view of the fact particularly that as we see the position attacks and the great danger which threatens us will result from communist infiltration on the lines of what is now happening in Angola, it is absolutely essential that we should have paratroop units along all our borders, and not only one unit. Just think of the vast areas of South West Africa which as I have already said is the Achilles heel of South Africa. There we shall definitely require paratroop units. We shall also require them on our northern borders. It is indisputably necessary that we should have such units. I therefore think that one paratroop unit is far too little and that we should extend our Permanent Force by making provision for additional such units.

The present intention of providing nine months’ continuous training to the Citizen Force and of taking in recruits every three months so that we shall have fully trained men continuously under arms throughout the year will to a certain extent help the Permanent Force. To the extent that it will help the Permanent Force this step should also be welcomed. But. Mr. Speaker, I should not like to see this extension of our Citizen Force resulting as a result of this system in the Permanent Force merely being extended so that it can train the Citizen Force. The Permanent Force must also be able to serve on its own and should not merely be used to train the Citizen Force. I know that the Permanent Force under the present legislation can be extended, but it is always a question of money. I believe that South Africa can and should devote far more funds to her defence. Defence expenditure should represent at least 10 per cent of our national income, and that would still be very little. It should really be 25 per cent, when one compares it with the expenditure in other countries.

I ask myself whether it will not be more effective to maintain a larger full-time Permanent Force than to have a Citizen Force, the members of which are varying every six or nine months. Would it not be better to have a larger Permanent Force rather than a Citizen Force which is continually changing? Because when these men leave the Citizen Force, we must remember that modern developments in the military sphere are taking place so rapidly and are going ahead so rapidly that the training of a person who was trained let us say last year becomes obsolete after two years. I therefore ask whether this is the most effective way by which we can meet the dangers to which I have referred. I am asking this not because I want to condemn this Bill because I feel that the provisions of this Bill to a certain extent constitute a bulwark which is being erected against the dangers to which I have referred.

I now come to the matter which the Progressive Party have raised in asking: Why not integrate the non-Whites into our Defence Force? In the first place I want to discuss the question of why the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Eglin) accepts that the mere fact that a non-White is not a member of the Defence Force will necessarily make him “hostile”. Because the hon. member has said: What will it help to have a small Defence Force and four-fifths of the population of South Africa are hostile to that force? I cannot understand that type of argument. Why must we accept that they will be hostile merely because they may not serve in the Defence Force? Many of our non-Whites are not hostile to us to-day, and they are not serving in our Defence Force to-day.

The majority are not hostile.

There are two objections particularly, and these relate especially to the integration of the Bantu into our Defence Force, and I just want to mention these two objections briefly. The first is that this Defence Force which we are building up is the Defence Force of the White Republic of South Africa. It is not the Defence Force of the non-White part of the population The non-White part, the Bantu part, will in the course of time as they develop provide their own defence force. I cannot say to-day when that will be. Time will show us how these areas develop themselves. Let us say clearly that the Government is certainly not opposed in principle to the Black man serving in his own Defence Force. We only say that the Black man must not serve in the Defence Force of the White man; he must serve in the Defence Force of his own group, of his own state; that is to say, of the Bantu areas. That is the first objection why we cannot allow the integration of the Black man into the White Defence Force. The second is this. Even if we could integrate the Bantu into our Defence Force, we know that at the moment we have limited financial resources at our disposal for building up a Defence Force, and the question then arises with what type of people we want to build up that force. The Whites are educationally and otherwise far better equipped for training in the Defence Force than the non-Whites. Just as the non-Whites are not suitable for skilled work in industry to-day, just as little are they equipped to-day and suitable for training in the Defence Force. Even if we were therefore to advocate integration, we would have to bear in mind that from an educational point of view the Whites are far better equipped for training in the Defence Force than the non-Whites.

Are you also including the Coloureds?

No, we do not include them. The House will have seen in to-night’s Argus that the Cape Coloured Corps is to be re-established and will be given a measure of training. What I have said therefore does not apply to the Coloureds but it certainly does apply to the Bantu.

The hon. member who has just sat down made an amazing suggestion to this House. He suggested, namely, that this Parliament, and this Government, in passing the measure now before the House, is dealing with a defence force for White South Africa and that the non-Whites of South Africa will have their own defence force to defend their own states.

I meant in future.

Yes, I said “that they will have”, which is the future tense although the hon. member probably does not realize that. What he is, in fact, saying to South Africa is that at this stage the non-Whites of South Africa need not consider themselves to be part of this State or part of the population to be defended by the South African Defence Force in times of aggression. They are being told, in other words, that should South Africa be attacked, the Defence Force which we are trying to strengthen by this measure is going to be a Defence Force interested solely in White South Africa.

We are still the guardians of the non-European.

That is the implication of what that hon. member said, a clear and unavoidable implication. But there is yet another implication which can be drawn from that hon. member’s statement and that is that he must not be surprised if the Transkei should now come to the hon. Minister for Bantu Administration and Development and ask for permission to start their own defence force. This Bill makes no provision for that, but a member of the Government Party has suggested that in future the Bantu States will have their own defence forces. I would, therefore, like to ask the hon. Minister of Defence whether he agrees with that statement, and whether he is, in fact, planning in that direction, and whether he will consult with the hon. Minister for Bantu Administration and Development in regard to steps for the provision of a Bantu defence force for the Bantu homelands. The Transkei, for instance, has already asked for independence, and if it is as near as that—and the Minister for Bantu Administration and Development has said he hoped they will have independence soon—then, surely, the Minister of Defence should be taking steps to carry out what is, apparently, the policy of the Government as enunciated by the hon. member who has just spoken.

He said, he would not arm them. They must have kieries!

That is a matter for the Minister of Defence to sort out as to whether they will be armed with knobkieries, or assegais, or something else, but it is a suggestion which was made by one of the members of his Government, and I hope that the hon. Minister will deal with it very clearly. The other statement which requires a reply from the hon. Minister is a statement which was made by the same member, namely that South Africa should preserve a measure of neutrality between the East and the West. Now, let me say at once that we, on this side of the House, have no doubt whatsoever as to our attitude to Communism and the East, and we are not prepared to sacrifice South Africa’s security in order to maintain some form of wishy-washy neutrality between Communism and the Western world, and the Western way of life. We are being asked to pass a Bill to strengthen the defences of South Africa, to strengthen our internal defence, yet a member of the Government side in a debate on the strengthening of our internal defence tells us that we should remain neutral in the ideological struggle between Communism and Democracy.

I have said nothing at all about Communism.

The hon. member’s words were that we should “maintain a measure of neutrality between the West and the East” and he went on to speak in terms of Communism and the infiltration of Communism into Africa. He clearly indicated that Communism was to him one of the dangers against which this measure was designed. I want to say that I hope he was not speaking for his Government. He is, at any rate, not speaking for this side of the House when he says that South Africa should maintain a measure of neutrality in any struggle between the Eastern approach as against the Western approach to life. This is typical of this military expert who, when our Defence Force was tested, was not prepared to throw in his weight on the side of democracy …

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

I am dealing, Sir, with this Bill, a Bill designed to protect South Africa, and I am dealing with a suggestion made not by an independent, but by a member of the Government side, namely that despite the preparation of the Government to strengthen our Defence Force with the object of protecting South Africa, we should maintain an attitude of neutrality. I want to say that is to be expected. [Interjections.] That is to be expected from that hon. member and others of his party because it has happened before and it is, apparently, still their approach to South Africa’s position in the world to-day. Our approach on the other hand—and that is why we are supporting this measure—is that South Africa is part of the Western world, and that South Africa should play her part on the military plane in protecting Western civilization. We are not prepared to be neutral, and we are not prepared to put up a white flag to Communism or to the East. [Interjections.]

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

Sir, I am dealing with it. It provides for radical changes in the whole structure of our Defence Force, our Citizen Force, and these changes have a wide effect on South Africa. We recognize the implications of this Bill because it will, in fact, put back the lives of 10,000 youths of South Africa by one year. It will mean that whatever their future career was to be, some 10,000 further youths every year will have one year chopped off their adult life, and because of the seriousness of the implication of that to South Africa, it is necessary that we should have clarity on the provisions of this Bill. We accept the seriousness of the situation, but we are entitled to ask, in giving our support to this Bill, what it will mean to this country. I want to ask the hon. Minister—I hope one of the hon. members on the other side will make a note of this and pass it on to the Minister because he is absent now—to tell this House and South Africa what this Bill will cost us in cold, hard expenditure. I think we are entitled to ask this.

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Speaker, I am not talking about looking after sheep, but of the defence of South Africa, a matter of vital importance for our future. That hon. member has no knowledge of the defence problems of South Africa, otherwise he would not be talking like that. I say that we are entitled to ask what this measure will cost South Africa. I am asking this not in a spirit of criticism of the extra training which is being provided for, but merely from a desire that South Africa should know what we are going to have to pay. We have not yet been given any indication of what it will mean to the taxpayer of South Africa in extra taxes for the financing of these expanded Citizen Force and Permanent Force services. The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) pleaded for more than what is provided for in this Bill. He, namely, asked that our fighting force should be made up primarily of Permanent Force units. If that is part of the policy of the Government, namely, that the Permanent Force should form the backbone of South Africa’s fighting forces, then too are we entitled to ask what that would cost the taxpayer. At this stage, however, I would like to know what the financial implications to the country will be of these provisions. There is another cost item involved, an item which cannot be measured nor accounted for by the Government, but it is, nevertheless, one we have to face. That is the cost involved for South Africa’s economy and manpower. I would like, at this stage, to ask the hon. Minister to give serious consideration to the plea made by the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) that where this Bill is cutting off one year from the lives of some 10,000 youths per year, he should reconsider the pay for Citizen Force men so that those who would normally have gone into employment and thereby be making a contribution to the maintenance of their families, will be able to earn a realistic—if not necessarily a princely—remuneration to compensate for the year of their lives which is being taken away from them as far as their earning capacity is concerned.

Penny loyalty!

I am not talking about penny loyalty, but about humanity and the people of South Africa. That member is not interested in the widow who has to struggle to get her son through school, who has to struggle for ten years perhaps by working, scraping and struggling in order to get that son educated and who expects that when he leaves school he will be able to help her in her old age. That means nothing to the hon. member, nor does the hardships which will be brought about mean anything to him. I am pleading in the interest of those who will be affected and I am directing the plea to the hon. Minister who I believe is a humanitarian, that he should provide adequate salary scales so that there is no hardship generally to those who, out of a spirit of service to their country, will be giving up one year of their lives.

But there is yet another point, Mr. Speaker, in regard to which I think we are entitled to an explanation from the hon. Minister. When he introduced this Bill he did not take us into his confidence because he then asked us to give him powers to increase the period of training and to give him a permanent Citizen Force which will be under arms at all times. He told us then that the object of this measure was to strengthen the defences of South Africa against external aggression and that it was not the primary object of this Bill to provide an auxiliary Police Force, nor to build up a force for the maintenance of internal order. He emphasized—and he subsequently repeated it—that the main object of this Bill was defence against external aggression. The Minister nods his head thereby indicating that this is so. But at the moment of making that speech he knew that during that same week he would be calling out units of the Citizen Force and of the Commandos for full-time service.

Order! That has nothing to do with this Bill.

With respect, Mr. Speaker, I submit that the hon. Minister asked us for the power to build up a permanent Citizen Force under arms, a force which would go into training for nine months during the first year and three months of the years thereafter. He asked us for that because he said he needed that for the defence of South Africa against external aggression. My submission is, Sir, that at the moment of asking for these powers, he knew that he was going to mobilize the existing Citizen Force …

Order! That has nothing to do with the Bill.

The question which I want to put to the Minister, Sir, flows from that fact and is that as these powers were required to establish a permanent Citizen Force for 12 months of the year under arms, he should tell us frankly and openly what this force is required for, because by mobilizing Citizen Force units he has anticipated the provision in the Bill. Once this Bill becomes law, he will have a full-time Citizen Force under arms, but the Minister by his mobilization order has anticipated the provisions of this Bill. That is why he admitted in his speech of introduction that this was an urgent measure, so urgent in fact that its implementation could not wait. He could not wait for this Bill to become law, so that the force for which provision is made therein could be created in the ordinary course of events. We are entitled to ask because we on this side of the House support the duty and responsibility of the Government to maintain law and order and to defend the country. We have never disputed, and never will dispute, the responsibility of the Government to defend the State against aggression. Therefore we are entitled to ask the Minister to tell us frankly what aggression has forced him to anticipate the provisions of this Bill; what force from outside or from within has made it necessary for him to anticipate the creation of the Permanent Citizens’ Force which this Bill provides for?

Order! The hon. member is deliberately evading my ruling. I said that the existing state of affairs had nothing to do with the Bill.

I accept your ruling, Sir. It means that this Bill has nothing to do with the reasons the Minister gave for its introduction. The Minister said that circumstances in South Africa were such that he was obliged to come to this House to ask for the powers which this Bill will give him. He described the dangers facing South Africa and said that this was a very serious Bill he was introducing and it was necessary because of the situation in which we found ourselves. But you have now ruled, Sir, that this Bill has nothing to do with the situation, and therefore the Minister’s reasons for introducing the Bill must fall away because if this Bill has nothing to do with the situation in South Africa, why are we giving the Minister these extra powers to create this force? There is only one reason why we support this Bill, and that is because the Minister told us, and we recognize, that if there is a threat to South Africa it is necessary to have a properly trained A.C.F. We recognize the need for proper training which this Bill will provide, but it is unnecessary unless there are circumstances which require it. I ask your guidance, Sir, in dealing with this point, because I submit that it is germane to the powers which we are being asked to vote, that we are entitled to ask what the circumstances are which make these powers necessary.

The hon. member may proceed in the meantime.

If I may then consider the powers which are being asked for and ask the Minister to tell us, in view of the fact that he has said that this Bill is not designed for internal disorder, he should tell us what external aggression he expects to have to meet over the next two months or at any future date, and to tell us whether he believes that this Bill is so urgently necessary that he was obliged to anticipate its provisions. We are entitled to ask who the enemies of South Africa are. Against whom must our forces be used? The hon member for Ventersdorp spoke of Russia and of atomic and rocket bombs. We would like to ask the Minister whether the extra training and the extra forces he is providing have taken into account the type of warfare referred to by the hon. member for Ventersdorp, and whether we are making arrangements for training in anti-atomic or anti-rocket warfare. We recognize that we as a small country cannot hope to use those arms ourselves, but I think we are entitled to ask what provision is being made to protect South Africa should those arms be used against us, and what training and experience and information we are getting in regard to defence against such weapons, and from whom we are getting that information. We are liable, in our new isolation, to find sources of information such as that closed to us and we are entitled to ask the Minister to tell us and the country what alternative provision he has made for obtaining such information and the necessary training which will flow from it.

I would also like to ask the Minister whether the exclusion of non-Whites from the forces means that for auxiliary services he will have to rely on White troops.

Who said they are being excluded?

The hon. member for Heilbron said it was the policy of the Government to exclude them.

But surely you know they are there?

Then I hope the Minister will deal with his military expert from Heilbron. But if that is not true I am very glad to hear it and I would ask the Minister to give us a little more information on the part the auxiliaries will play. The provisions of this Bill will provide a fighting force, a citizen force with training to be given by the Permanent Force. There is the question of supplies and of auxiliaries and the background which is necessary to keep a fighting force in the field. It is estimated that you need five to seven people behind the lines for every soldier in the line. That means that if we are going to have 10,000 additional Citizen Force troops, we will require 50,000 to 60,000 or 70,000 people behind the lines. Otherwise only one-fifth to one-seventh of that force will be effective and the rest will be used in supplies and maintenance. We are interested to know from the Minister whether the force he envisages is going to be the actual fighting force which will be backed by non-military forces behind the lines to provide the services, and the transport, etc., which will require additional manpower to be directed for that purpose.

That brings me to the question of exemption boards, and here I would make a plea to the Minister to reconsider the provision he is proposing here and to consider retaining as the chairman of an exemption board a magistrate with five years’ experience. We feel that the lives of many people can be affected by the decision of an exemption board and it is necessary that the public should have complete confidence in these boards and that they should not feel that they are simply a tool of the Government, but that they will be fair and just bodies in which they can have complete confidence. Not that I am suggesting that the members appointed to these boards would be unfair, but it is necessary that the public should have confidence in them and the presence of a senior magistrate as chairman automatically gives confidence to those whose cases have to be dealt with by such boards. I would ask also that the representation of the Minister’s own Department should not be limited to one member of the board, but that he should consider perhaps saying that there could be more than one member from his Department. I say quite frankly that on balance I am not happy to see the control of exemption boards pass from Defence to Labour, but I recognize the difficulties. So whilst we do not oppose the transfer as such, we feel that in making that change from Defence to Labour we should maintain the judicial approach in the form of a chairman, and that Defence should be entitled to more than one representative on these boards. These boards will have a difficult problem because not only does it provide for exemption in peace-time, but this Bill amends the provision in regard to exemptions during war-time. In time of war, when much greater numbers are concerned, and very much enhanced problems have to be dealt with, these exemption boards will become a major factor both from the defence and from the national point of view. For the rest, in general, the provisions of this Bill provide for improved training. There are those who have spoken of inconsistency because we have said that this Bill is the price of our isolation, but we also said that we pleaded for these improvements many years ago. But those two points are not irreconcilable. The fact is that over the years we have seen the position towards which we have been developing. We have seen that this need would arise and we pleaded for these steps to be taken, as long as three and four years ago, when the original Bill was passed in 1957. This side of the House made many proposals which are now being accepted by the Government, because they are necessary, but that does not mean that the necessity is not born out of the situation in which we find ourselves, and that necessity is part of the account now being presented to the people of South Africa. It is necessary that they should know that whilst both sides of the House are agreed that these provisions should be implemented, they should know what account they will be asked to pay. But this Bill alone cannot give to South Africa a force which will save us in time of crisis, nor any other Bill which the Minister may introduce, because training alone cannot create an army in which the country can have complete confidence. There must also be the spirit and, above all, there must be the belief in the cause for which a man is fighting. [Interjections.] That is 20 years too late. The hon. member did not even have half-penny loyalty, because he supported a party which supported the enemies of this country. I am talking of the future.

Order! That has nothing to do with the Bill.

I was talking of the faith in a cause which a soldier requires, if he is to be a good soldier. War with all it entails makes demands on the faith and the courage of men, demands which are only made in times of crisis and which often demand almost too much of a man, and no law or pay or instruction can give that man in time of crisis that something extra which is required of him if he is going to be a true soldier of his country. I want to tell the Minister that if sacrifices are called for, as they may well be in the years ahead, from the troops who will be fighting for South Africa after this Bill is passed, the test of those troops will be the measure of their faith in the cause they are asked to defend, and this Minister can play a part, as a member of the Government, in ensuring that that faith is there, that the men whom he will now put into uniform will believe in the cause they will be asked to defend. He can play his part both in the Government, in its wider approach, and in his own Department to ensure that that faith is there, because that is his biggest problem. He can only create an army which will serve his cause if he can get that faith and that belief in the things which he asks the army to fight for. If those things are just and truly patriotic, I believe, as happened before, that the youth of South Africa will rise to the test. In the past they have never been found wanting and if they are called upon they will not be found wanting provided the Minister can give them something in which they can believe and have faith.

Does the hon. member think they can only defend the country when they believe in and agree with all the policies of the Government?

No, I said the Minister has to give the men something in which they can believe, not the detail of policy but a faith in their country and the direction their country is taking; not the policy of a political party but the philosophy of a nation. It is not the policy of the Government or of a party which matters, but the philosophy of the people, and this Government must know that the philosophy they ask the youth of South Africa to defend is one in which they can well believe.

I want to suggest that we should knight the hon. member who has just sat down. But I also want to suggest that we should choose the necessary emblems from the weapons he knows best, namely a bicycle chain and a cudgel.

I want to ask that the hon. member should be requested to withdraw those remarks, because they are a gross reflection on the hon. member who has just sat down.

What did the hon. member say?

I said that the hon. member should be knighted with the weapons he knows best, namely a bicycle chain and a cudgel.

The hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw that.

Hon. members have risen to say that they support this Bill and then proceeded to put forward criticisms, and the hon. member who has just sat down has done exactly the same thing. The hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson) was extremely critical. The hon. member who opened the debate on behalf of the Opposition, the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay), has said that the Minister is building up what has been broken down. Is it not tragic that when a constructive piece of legislation comes before the House and when we are extending our defence forces, hon. members should describe such legislation as something which is building up what has been broken down? Do hon. members opposite consider that we are being destructive whenever something is given a South African character? When we build up the Defence Force as a typically South African Defence Force, with a character unique to South Africa, does that represent breaking down? No, I am sorry that although hon. members have said that they are going to support the Bill they have been doing nothing but criticize, but I do not want to follow the hon. member into the maze into which he moved. I want to discuss the clause which deals with the training of our Citizen Force.

There is nothing better for the morale of a soldier and of a unit than to be given training. When a soldier knows his weapon and he is accustomed to handling it, he gains self-confidence and he acquires a broader perspective on the role he must play. When that cameradie which can only be built up through thorough discipline and unity has been inculcated in them along the lines which the hon. the Minister proposes in the Bill, one has troops who trust one another, who have mutual faith in one another and who will stand together under all circumstances. When one has that knowledge, one has self-confidence and then, when one has to deal with internal or external difficulties, one does so with self-confidence and self-control which can only be built up through thorough training and the accompanying discipline. For that reason we have a Bill before us which will give our Defence Force and our Citizen Force the opportunity to build up a team spirit which is the kernel of any defence force. With this mutual confidence on the part of the soldiers in their officers and the officers in their men, with that sense of solidarity and the spirit which enables one to go through thick and thin, that spirit which one only builds up through military discipline—this will be inculcated into the men of our Defence Force and I prophesy that we shall develop an unprecedented spirit of self-confidence.

I want to discuss the question of the exemption of ballotees from service in the Citizen Force. When the Minister moved his policy motion in the Other Place he quoted figures which showed that of 35,000 ballotees, 21,000 applied for exemption. Mr. Speaker, it has become a characteristic of our Citizen Force training that everything possible is done by persons who are balloted to gain exemption. For that reason I welcome Clause 7 which provides for improved control over the exemption of ballotees. It has become necessary that everyone, rich and poor, educated and uneducated, should do their duty shoulder to shoulder for their country and that they should undergo the training which is now to be made available to the Citizen Force. An exception should only be made and exemptions granted in a minimum of cases, namely in the most deserving of cases, so that everyone will have an equal opportunity to undergo this training.

I want to deal with the commandos which will also be very much affected by this legislation. Since certain of the ballotees will find themselves serving within the framework of the commando organization, I want to urge upon the Minister that the commando regulation should be so amended and should be so extended that they will be placed on the same basis as the Citizen Force. It is most essential that while these training facilities are to be made available to ballotees through the medium of the commandos they should be subject to the same discipline as members of the medium of the commandos they should be subject to discipline can we expect to turn out properly trained men. It is absolutely essential that the disciplinary code which applies to the officers of a commando should also apply to the other ranks. I want to urge very earnestly that the Minister should consider this aspect.

In conclusion. I want to deal with another matter which can be most closely linked with the training of our Citizen Force units, namely the integration of our civil aircraft into our Citizen Force training. We have a very great potential in the shape of our private pilots and flying clubs which could be put to very good use in times of crisis to defend their country both internally and externally. We have here a great potential in the shape of light aircraft which are well suited to the topography of our country, and by means of which air observations could be carried out very effectively. We have reached the stage where air observation is of the utmost importance. The light aircraft which are being used to-day in South Africa are most suitable for this purpose. The police are already using these aircraft on a large scale to undertake certain observations, such as the detection of dagga lands. We are dealing with aircraft which can fly at very low speeds and which can land on a very small airfield or on roads. They are very manoeuvrable and they can fly in ravines where fast, high performance aircraft cannot. The only alternative is the helicopter, of which I believe that there will not be sufficient available in the near future to play the same role as light aircraft. If these flying clubs can be integrated into the Defence Force and two-way radios made available to the Citizen Force and to the aircraft as well, we shall be able to carry out air observations throughout the day at very low cost. I want to refer to a Press report which appeared a few days ago dealing with Japanese two-way radio sets which cost very little. It only has a range of 10 kilometres, but is available at the ridiculously low price of R60. When a number of these sets can be made available, they can be used to very good effect by the commandos amongst themselves and between the commandos and such light aircraft. I feel that further investigation could be carried out in this regard with very good results and that light aircraft can play a very important rôle in our military structure.

We, on this side of the House, as has already been stated by the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay), who was the first speaker on this side of the House, are all in favour of this extra and specialized training which the hon. the Minister wishes to introduce in the U.D.F. I would like to go further and ask the hon. the Minister what he is doing in relation to specialized training to produce radar experts and technical officers to deal with that aspect of our defence. I will come back to that in due course. The hon. the Minister, when he introduced the Bill, said that with this extra training that the youth of the country would undergo, he hoped to turn out better citizens—people who understood discipline, and better trained men who would defend in the country when necessary. I agree with the Minister entirely in that respect. In fact, I would like to go further and say that I would like to see the utmost training given to all youth in the country. Like the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore), I would like to see full conscription in view of the dangerous years ahead of us and in view of the isolated position in which we find ourselves. I want to deal with the training that is envisaged in this Bill; I do not want to deal with the other aspects. I would like to suggest to the hon. the Minister he should consider the introduction of a Special Service Battalion as we had it in the ’thirties. If he did introduce such a battalion, I am quite sure that we will be able to deal with the ducktail element which we have throughout the Union to-day. That training made men out of youngsters who were difficult and who were leading useless lives. They became good citizens and were of great assistance to us when the war broke out. I think if the hon. the Minister would consider establishing two—or at least one, although two would be preferable—such special service battalions where youngsters who are sent there will undergo some three years’ full-time training, he would be doing a service, not only to the country, but to those youths themselves. If there is one thing that we require in this country to-day it is discipline amongst a large section of our youth.

When you use your force as we are doing and, as we will have to do in future, and, of course, as we have done in the past, for internal security when necessary, as well as in the case of external trouble, discipline and proper training are essential elements if you wish to produce a man that will be able to cope with mobs, riots and other troubles. We know that in times of war our youth receive a certain amount of training, but he gets even harder training when he comes under fire. My experience has been that the person does not acquire that patience and self-discipline in times of war that is so essential when he has to deal with civil riots and strikes. If there is one thing that can lead to bloodshed and often unnecessary bloodshed, it is when young and inexperienced troops, irrespective of what formation they take, are called out to quell riots and disturbances, especially in built-up areas if they have not got some experienced officers amongst them and experienced men within their ranks. Not only should they be under the control of experienced officers and have experienced men amongst them, but the men themselves should be properly disciplined. They should have been taught to put up with taunts, perhaps minor insults, and yet, in spite of that, not get trigger happy. That, to my mind, Sir, is one of the essentials where you use troops or, for that matter, young police in built-up areas to quell riots where mobs descend on them quickly, throw some stones, make taunting remarks, be provocative and then melt away in a matter of a few minutes. When clashes like that occur it is the one or two inexperienced people who lack the patience and discipline who fire the first shot, often unnecessarily and when it is not essential for their own safety and the safety of the people that they have to protect. That then leads to real bloodshed and greater trouble.

As I say, Sir, we support the Minister in his endeavours to train the youth of the country on a much wider basis. Here I would like to ask the hon. the Minister that when he forms these regiments, whether he will not revert to the old volunteer system and incorporate that in some way with the extensive training period that he envisages, so that he will have fully trained people who join the regiments from choice, people who will give those regiments that stiffening and that leadership and discipline within the ranks themselves as we had in the past. I think it is very unfortunate that, over the last few years, we have broken down the old volunteer system, so that to-day, after a man has been trained, he breaks away from his regiment and except, perhaps, for a few days’ training once in a while, he feels that he has no commitment to his regiment. Where you have volunteers who wish to be attached to their regiments after their initial training, you build up an esprit de corps, and it gives a stiffening to the younger troops that you will not get otherwise. The same applies to the reserve of officers and the officers of the A.C.F. regiments. I saw a report in the Press the other day that the officers on the reserve up to the age of 60 are again to be put on a war footing so that they may be called up. I hope the hon. the Minister will tell us if that is correct and whether he has studied the position in relation to the reserve of officers and the refresher courses that that reserve of officers should undergo, because during the last few years when that reserve had become depleted and many of the younger officers of the last war had resigned, it meant that we were losing the services of trained, and you might say battle-scarred, men; men who could lead in a crisis when called upon to do so, think it is really essential, in view of the fuller training that these young troops will now undergo, that they themselves should be officered by a certain percentage of experienced and what I call battle-trained and battle-experienced, officers.

There are two other matters that I would like to touch on, Mr. Speaker. When the hon. member for Kensington was speaking there was an interjection to the effect that we on this side of the House, the official Opposition, had opposed the present Act when it was a Bill before this House in 1957. I was one of those who served on that Select Committee for three years, and we introduced the Bill which is to-day our Act. We dealt with it objectively. There is no question about it that we supported the Bill before the House in the second reading; in the third reading and in the Committee stage three or four amendments were moved whose purpose was actually to extend training and to produce better troops.

Another thing that is very important, Sir, is service outside the borders of the Union. In this present world in which we are living it is ludicrous to talk about our troops including our Police Force having to defend our country only within our own borders. Take the Air Force and the fighter control by radar—because the modern fighter aircraft is quite useless without radar control—for example; I want to know from the hon. the Minister whether he is satisfied that the radar within our own borders can control our fighter planes in repelling an enemy. I might add that I hope we will get more modern fighter planes. I am not saying this in a spirit of carping criticism. If the hon. the Minister can provide the money—I will certainly vote for it—he should see that we have the most modern fighter aircraft available. But those aircraft are quite useless in a modern war without completely satisfactory radar cover to direct their efforts. We must have that radar equipment within our own borders, because it was said in a previous debate, last year or the year before, that our aircraft would only be Unionbased and that none of the Union Defence Forces would be asked to serve outside our borders, and the present Act provides for that. In other words, our aircraft will be based inside the Union and, to my mind, it is also quite ludicrous to say that our ships should be based only along our own coastline. I do ask the hon. the Minister to investigate the whole position and to take a completely new view of what is required in relation to defence under present-day circumstances. I can assure him that we, on this side of the House, will support his efforts the whole way in this regard.

I do want to ask the hon. the Minister, in view of what may come—we do not know from what quarter—what training our troops are getting in bush fighting. I have said this at a public meeting and the people laughed.

Bush carts.

That is the sort of thing that that hon. member deals in. I am dealing with a serious subject. Sir, and I am trying to deal with it objectively, I am not dealing with sheep or anything like that now. When we sent our troops to East Africa in 1915 and 1916 it is on record that regiments that were pushed into bush fighting had to be withdrawn and had to undergo further training because of the heavy losses that they sustained, in spite of the fact that they had been through South West Africa. They did not understand the first thing about bush fighting and that was why their losses were so high. I do hope the hon. the Minister will keep that in mind and will see to it that sufficient training of the right type is given to those men. Here again discipline is very necessary. The fact of a man moving in a bush may cost him his life. It is like game. As long as the game stand in the shadow you cannot see it, unless the hunter has very good eyesight and comes right on top of it. Unless your troops are well disciplined and have learnt to keep still at the right moment they lose their lives and the losses can be very heavy indeed.

There was another interjection from that side of the House when the hon. member for Simonstown was speaking. The interjection came when he was speaking about the difficulties which we were now facing in relation to the defence of South Africa and the commitments we had towards our neighbouring territories and about the defence agreements we had with other countries. He was asking the hon. the Minister to enlighten us on those matters. Somebody said, “Don’t you believe in isolation?” Well, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to matters of defence we cannot believe in isolation.

No nation in the world, not even America, can stand isolated in a world war and any war to-day can develop into a world war today.

Surely you misunderstood the member

No, Sir. The hon. member for Simonstown reacted to it and said “Do you mean that?” and the interjector said “Why do you worry about isolation”. That interjection was very clearly made and I think the hon. member for Simonstown will bear me out that it was said. It is very unfortunate that that is the frame of mind of hon. members opposite when we are dealing with such a serious question as defence.

Who said it?

It was an hon. member down that corner of the House—in the second or third back row. It was definitely said and I think that sort of statement in a serious debate like this is uncalled for and I think it ought to be dealt with right away. I hope the hon. the Minister will bear that in mind when he answers to the debate and tell us that he does not believe in isolation and that he definitely has defence agreements with our adjacent territories and other powers in the world. I do not want to deal with other matters that have already been dealt with fully by other hon. members but I do think that if we wish to build up a better Union Defence Force we should have better training in our secondary schools—it should be compulsory. All boys in secondary schools should undergo full training as they used to have in the old days. I myself was in South West Africa three weeks after I left school in Johannesburg, and so were a number of my school pals. We were right in the front line three weeks after leaving school and why? Because we were thoroughly trained; we had our crossed flags for signalling and we had our cross-guns for marksmanship and we were fully trained youngsters at a very young age. That full-scale training for cadets seems to have died off. It seems to me that the standard of training that cadets undergo to-day is generally speaking very poor. When I was at school it was compulsory and I think it will be a darn good thing if it were again made compulsory in all secondary schools. We shall then get first-class material that will only require a little finishing off when they get called up for the U.D.F.

There is only one other point I want to deal with namely exemptions. We were told that some 21,000 ballotees last year asked for exemption or deferment. I hope the hon. the Minister will be firm about this in future. In these dangerous times we cannot allow our young men not to be fully trained. Every young man, except those who are physically unfit, should be trained to take their place in the armed forces of the country when the need arises for them to do so. I do hope the hon. the Minister will look into this question and do away with this whole idea of service only within the Union. All the youth of a nation should defend that nation whenever necessary inside or outside the borders of that country.

The speech of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat came as a ray of light after a few of the speeches we had to listen to in this debate to-day. It was gratifying to get so much realism from an experienced member with knowledge of the subject and that gives one more courage for the future than was the case in regard to some of the speeches we have had to listen to.

What was really a pity this afternoon was the fact that the official Opposition said that they accept this Bill but the hon. member who has just resumed his seat said that they quite agreed with what the Minister wanted to do. But then certain hon. members opposite tried to create doubt by means of questions and suggestions. One hon. member, e.g., said that what the Minister wanted to do was all well and good, but that the morale of the Defence Force had to be built up. I want to put this question to some of the hon. members who spoke this afternoon. Are you helping to build up the morale of the Defence Force? I am afraid, Sir, that they are breaking it down. Are those hon. members encouraging a young man who becomes liable for military service to play his rôle with pride and readiness? I think it was the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Eglin) who enquired this afternoon about the men who had rendered military service last year at the time of the riots. Surely the hon. member knows—it was announced last year, as everyone in the Defence Force knows—that those men were exempted from training for the period during which they rendered service last year. That is a fact universally known in South Africa, but then that hon. member makes suggestions like that in the House. The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) asked meaningly: Yes, but what will it cost in hard cash and what will it mean to our economy? They say they support this Bill which provides for a long period of training, but immediately thereafter they ask what it will cost in hard cash and what the price will be to the economy of South Africa if we make these sacrifices. Suspicion is continually being sown. The hon. member for Durban (Point) also sowed suspicion in regard to our internal security. He asked whether this training was not intended merely to put rioters in their place. He asked, further, what aggression threatening the country compels the Minister to introduce this Bill now. The hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson) made a speech here which we all deplore. If I were a young man and I were to be led by that hon. member I would be very sorry for myself. It is scandalous for the hon. member to have made that speech in which he sowed suspicion in the minds of our young men in regard to the training they would get in the Defence Force. This Bill which the Minister has introduced deals with human material. It deals with the training of the men who comprise our Defence Force. This Defence Force is not only there to protect the freedom of our people and our country, but the defence force of any country, and also that of the Republic of South Africa, should be the pride of any independent country. I think it should be the duty of every hon. member of this House to help to foster that pride in our Defence Force, and it should be the pride of every citizen to participate in the Defence of his country. A soldier is not a murderer or a potential murderer; he does not constitute a threat to any peaceful citizen of the country. On the contrary, the soldier has to risk his life for the safety of his fellow citizens and his people. In the circumstances in which we live to-day a well-equipped and well-trained Defence Force is an absolute necessity, not only in South Africa but in every modern country in the world. Whether there is an immediate danger threatening the country or not, it is necessary for every country to have a well-equipped and well-trained Defence Force. I say that, Sir, because however peaceful it might seem to be here or elsewhere, hardly a week passes without our hearing of riots and new threats of war in various corners of the earth. Therefore I am so sorry that at a time like this when we ought to stand together and build up a Defence Force together, we find hon. members in this House who try to make this measure suspect. I say such action is irresponsible in so far as our internal security as well as our relations with foreign nations are concerned. We in South Africa during the last few years have had a particularly peaceful period and a very prosperous time.

You make me laugh.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who is laughing over there is a real picture of prosperity.

But where is the peace and quiet?

I think that is just the hon. member’s trouble. He has become accustomed to peace and quiet. Now that we are making an attempt to adapt ourselves to the new times we have to face, there is a sort of unwillingness or encouragement of unwillingness. I want to say that we in South Africa will have to adapt ourselves to a period of greater military activity, both in regard to personal participation in the defence of our country and in regard to making available more funds for the defence of our country.

I want to draw a comparison with a few other countries which are more or less in the same position as we are, and other countries which do not even find themselves in a difficult position. In the first place I want to mention the state of Israel. Israel is surrounded by enemies.

We are not surrounded by enemies.

I say I compare our position also with that of countries which do not find themselves in the same position as we do. Israel is surrounded by enemies. It has a population of just over 2,000,000; it is a small country, but those between the ages of 18 and 26 have to do military service for a full two-and-a-half years, compulsory military training. For women in the same age group it is two years. Even women have to perform military service. That training also includes agricultural training. But after that—and this is very important—the men of Israel are liable to military service for a further two years between the ages of 27 and 29, and men up to the age of 49 years and childless women, even though they are married, up to the age of 34 years are liable to render military service every year for a period of from 14 to 31 days. They can be called up to serve for that period. Apart from that, officers and non-commissioned officers are compelled to render an extra week’s service to their country every year. Men above the age of 29 are allowed to join up voluntarily for military service.

Now I come to Switzerland, a country in which during the great wars of the past decades not a single shot was fired in defence of their borders. But what does Switzerland do in regard to the training of its people? Every male citizen between the ages of 20 and 60 years is liable to render military service. The only exception made is in the case of people who are physically unfit, and then those exempted persons have to pay a special tax because they have been exempted.

May I ask a question?

I am sorry, but I do not have time to reply to the hon. member’s questions. The training undergone by men between 20 and 60 in Switzerland is that for the first 16 years they fall in what is called the Auszug, and then for the next period of 12 years they fall in the Landwehr and then there is a further period of 12 years in the Landsturm. During the first period of 16 years they must undergo from four to four and-a-half months’ continuous military training in the military schools. Thereafter they have to attend eight yearly courses of 20 days a year. When they come to the next group, i.e. if a man is 36 years old and is taken into consideration for the Landwehr, for the next 12 years they must undergo military training or a maximum of 40 days every year.

What is the point?

The point I am making, which the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr Durrant) evidently cannot grasp, is that other countries which do not even find themselves in the difficult circumstances in which we are, do everything possible to train their people as soldiers.

But we agree.

Very well, you agree, but then hon. members opposite, or at least some of them, try to sow suspicion in the minds of the young people who have to do their military service, and in the country, on the attempts being made by the Minister.

I want to mention some other examples. In France, the young men have to render military service for 24 months, i.e. for two years, of which 18 months must be continuous training. In Belgium it is the same, 24 months. In Holland it is 18 months. In Finland it is 240 days for ordinary soldiers, and 330 days for certain officers and N.C.O.s.

What percentage of the population is that?

What do you know about defence?

What I want to advocate is that we should realize that every one of us in this country has a duty to regard defence from a new angle. In the first place, we must co-operate. We must co-operate to convince our young men and the population that what the hon. the Minister is aiming at in this Bill is not a murderous campaign. We must co-operate to make the public aware that this period of peace and prosperity we have had and which perhaps brought us under the wrong impression in so far as the future is concerned will not continue forever. We must co-operate to make the population realize that there will have to be greater military activity and awareness in future. In the second place, we must co-operate to make the young men realize that it is the duty of every citizen to defend his country. I am very grateful for what was said by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Capt Henwood) and the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore). I fully agree with him. If our finances allow of it in any way I am in favour of it, but, as in the case of Switzerland, every man should receive military training unless he is physically unfit. I think we must also agree, particularly those of us who are in this House, that people who want to be exempted from military service for petty reasons should be taught that exemption cannot be granted for petty reasons. I think all of us know for what petty reasons people sometimes have asked for exemption in the past. Therefore, I am grateful for the institution of an independent body, as the Minister envisages in this Bill, to investigate the question of exemptions.

In conclusion, I also want to associate myself with the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District), who spoke about school cadets. I am convinced that if we want to make our people aware of their duty to serve the country, the right place to begin is in the schools. We must dispel the illusion that militatry service which other people perform, and we must bring it home to them that everybody should play his rôle and that it should be the duty and the pride of everybody to serve his country in this way. Then he will have made much progress. Now I do not believe that the system of school cadets trains young people halfway, as the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) thinks. I do not think that if a man was a cadet he has practically been halfway trained as a soldier, but if it has instilled in him respect for discipline and a realization of how necessary discipline is, it has already done much. The idea should be implanted in the minds of our people that every young man should have a share in the defence of our country. Although it is not directly connected with the military training of our people, I still ask that more attention should be devoted to our school cadets in order to create the correct spirit in regard to the defence of our country.

The hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. H. H. Smit) has dealt with a variety of matters, and I was waiting for him to deal with the effect that this Bill will have on university students. The hon. member represents a constituency which has many thousands of university students, many of whom will be affected by the provisions of this Bill. However, we had a lecture from him on the training facilities of Israel, Switzerland, France and such like, and also, I think, an unfortunate attitude that the hon. member adopted, and that is that the Opposition whilst supporting this Bill, is putting forward destructive criticism. Sir, we on this side of the House, although we are supporting this Bill, are endeavouring to point out certain matters that we believe require improvement, improvements which would be to the benefit of the Defence Force as such. Therefore as a responsible Opposition we are fully entitled, and indeed it is our duty to put forward certain suggestions which we believe should be carried out to further improve the provisions of this Bill.

Sir, when the hon. the Minister introduced the Bill, he mentioned briefly that sacrifices would have to be made, and in studying the provisions of this Bill before the House, one of the most striking features is the fact that the practical application of the provisions of this Bill is going to require considerable sacrifices by various groups of persons. Firstly, the South African youth will be required to sacrifice a great deal of his time, and as has been mentioned by other speakers, also in regard to his career, and setting out in life. In addition to that, the employers will also be called upon to make a sacrifice, and lastly, also the parents who in many cases look to their young sons to assist them and to augment the family income. However, taking these matters into consideration, first and foremost the question of the young man who is sacrificing his time is the important factor, because in accordance with the provisions of Clause 2 of this Bill, which amends Section 22 of the principal Act, this continuous period of nine months’ training means a great increase on the present period of two months, which trainees have been required to undergo. It firstly means that these young people will virtually be in training for a period of a year, and Sir, with this increased period of training. I foresee an even greater number of applications for exemption. The hon. Minister in Another Place said that some 21,000 young persons had already applied for exemption, and the question of exemption is one which brings me to a point which has already been mentioned this evening by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District), and that is the question of young persons who are idle, the idle youth and those who for certain reasons will not take employment. Therefore I think that the Department of Labour, although we have certain reservations in regard to the exemptions coming under the Department of Labour, that department can play a very important part in regard to these exemptions. Firstly, Sir, the question of dealing with a young person who is idle and refuses to work: One finds in the various offices of the Juveniles Affairs Board, which falls under the Department of Labour, that work is often offered to these young persons who are not prepared to take the work offered. It is pure idleness, and I think some provision should be made and some agreement arrived at whereby these persons who persistently refuse to take employment when that employment is offered to them, should be conscripted into one of the units for continuous training. I do not know whether it is wise to resuscitate past batallions that were established for certain purposes. In my own opinion that perhaps is not the wisest method, as a number of these batallions which have been abandoned with fine and proud records, such as the Special Service Batallion and the Youth Brigade, always had a certain stigma attached to them. That one invariably finds with units which are established for that particular purpose. So perhaps the wisest course to adopt is to see that these persons undergo this continuous training, would be to take them up in one of the units and not in a separate batallion specially established for the purpose. The training they are going to receive will obviously be of great benefit to them as far as discipline is concerned, and not a waste of manpower, and perhops after nine months’ of continuous training, it will be possible to place these persons back into society and back into the labour market.

The other matter which I wish to deal with is the question of the financial difficulties which may result from the sacrifices which will have to be made under the provisions of this Bill. There is the position of the employers. You $$$ that they are not compelled to pay these young persons when they undergo this continuous training. In reply to a question that I put to the hon. the Minister in the House last month, he gave me the rates of pay, and also stated that it was not the intention to increase the allowances that are paid to these persons when they have to undergo training. Now I would like to put it to the hon. the Minister that with this long period of training, financial hardships may be considerable not only for the parents who are often looking to their son to assist them in the family budget, but also to employers who more or less will have to subsidize the putting into effect of the provisions of this Bill. With the payment of a daily allowance of 50c per day, it will mean that a young person will draw R15 in a full month. Now if these young people are in employment, there may be considerable hardship. Although the age limit is reduced in terms of the Bill, there will be some persons who have started employment and then will have to leave that employment to go to camp, particularly, as they are going to be called up quarterly. Therefore for a young person earning R60 per month, it will mean that the employer to make up the difference in pay would be called upon to make up R45 per month, and over a period of nine months the total would amount to R405 for the period that he is away on continuous training. Additional costs would in some instances be entailed by employers having to take on temporary employees while their permanent employees are away for a period of nine months. Consequently, I feel the hon. the Minister should give his consideration to assisting these people, because, as he has said himself, there are considerable sacrifices to be made, and my plea to-night is that the hon. the Minister should soften those sacrifices, make those sacrifices less severe on the persons that will be called upon to make those sacrifices. My appeal to the Minister is to give attention to the question of the payment that these people will receive while they undergo continuous training. That would also help to relieve the subsidy that the employers will have to carry, and in some instances of small employers, they might not be able to bear this heavy financial burden if they have to make up the difference between the amount the young person was receiving and what he is receiving during his training. Therefore many of these employers may not be able to pay an additional amount in respect of these young people who are away, and then these young people would be left to try and maintain themselves on the 50c per day, which would mean that they would suffer severe financial hardship, because in the case I mentioned it would mean a loss of some R400 during a period of nine months.

Then I come to persons who are called up for full-time service. Here again this is another matter which requires the attention of the hon. the Minister, because these persons could also be called up for a considerable period of time shortly following a period of nine months training, so that the whole period that they would be away from their employment might be considerable. I mentioned earlier the question of the exemption boards, and the transfer of that matter to the Minister of Labour under Clause 7 of the Bill, and I referred to gauging the barometer in regard to the required manpower for each year. When the hon. the Minister introduced the Bill, he mentioned the question of apprentices. I want to deal with that shortly. However to indicate what is involved, and the number of apprentices that will be involved, I may mention that the latest report of the Department of Labour gives the figures showing the number of contracts, new contracts registered at the beginning of each year, and over the past four or five years the figures averaged between 8,000 and 6,000 per year. There you have persons who are required to go into the various industries each year to keep the various trades up to strength, and the overall number of apprentices that will be involved will number between 28,000 and 27,000—the total number of contracts in operation each year. So you see that a large number of apprentices are involved as far as the Bill is concerned, and therefore the provision that the hon. Minister mentioned in introducing the Bill, namely that a four-month remission would be permitted during that period of nine months, is indeed a most welcome one. But here, too, I would like the hon. Minister to use his influence to see that a remission period even further advanced to perhaps a period of six months, when taking into account the period of nine months of continuous training. The question of finding employment when these young persons return to civil life is a very difficult problem, and I hope the hon. the Minister can give us some assurance in that regard. I feel that a young person who is called up to commence training in January, finishing up in September, is placed in a difficult position in finding work. I hope the hon. the Minister will tell us when the first trainees will be expected to undergo their first period of nine-months continuous training. As I say those who will return after their nine-months training at the end of September will find it very difficult to find employment. Persons who have left school and placed in continuous training immediately, after that nine months training will come back in a period when as far as the labour market is concerned, it is very difficult to find work. As the hon. the Minister will know during the last three months of the year it is extremely difficult for young persons to find work. So I do feel that the hon. Minister should give some indication to this House as to whether he has any ideas as to how this problem can be solved. I know that there are certain channels open to him through the Department of Labour, through the Juveniles Affairs Board, which is also a vocational guidance institution, and I hope that the hon. the Minister can give us an assurance that this matter will be looked into. I then come to the question of the apprentices in the various trades. As far as these apprentices are concerned, who are required in the various trades, the Department of Labour is perhaps the best Department to judge as to what the manpower requirements are for a coming year. But as other hon. members have said on both sides of the House, we believe that it is to the benefit of the youth as well as to the country to see that as many people as possible undergo this full-time training. Therefore I would like to ask the hon. the Minister what he believes will be the effect in regard to our military gymnasia that are provided for, because in the Bill under Clause 3, the question of the gymnasia is brought in. Now we all know that the gymnasia have been doing excellent work. Linking that up with the question of employment, employers show a certain degree of preference for the young person who has undertaken a year’s full-time training at one of the gymnasiums, because one of the attractions of the gymnasiums is that the training is a comprehensive training, and perhaps the greatest attraction of all from the point of view of the employer and the youths is that they have completed their training. However, in terms of the Bill now before the House, these persons will be required to undergo further training. I would ask the hon. the Minister whether it would not be possible to be more lenient towards those persons who have undergone a full year’s training in the various gymnasiums. As the provision reads they will be required to do one less period of continuous training after they have completed their year in the gymnasium in comparison with those who come for the nine-months training.

What are you suggesting?

One period of continuous training less. As it is now, in this Bill, it says a period of six weeks, which will be two camp, so that some greater preference be given the hon. the Minister reduce that and only require them to be posted to a unit for a shorter period of time and to do one further camp, so that some greater preference be given to these persons who have undertaken training in the various gymnasiums. I think the effect is going to be that the gymnasiums otherwise will lose a great deal of their attraction to these people because of the fact that they will still be required to do continuous training and non-continuous training. I know that the numbers which can be taken into the gymnasiums have been increased. In reply to a question, the hon. the Minister stated that in the army gymnasium the intake is a maximum of 750, the Air Force gymnasium 750, the Navy gymnasium 365, making a total of 1,865. The popularity of the gymnasiums is obvious because the Army gymnasium had 947 applications, the Air Force gymnasium 1,154 applications and the Naval gymnasium received 770 applications. The work of the gymnasiums is excellent and I feel that if greater accommodation could be provided at the gymnasiums and greater facilities be granted, that would be an incentive as long as they will not be required to undergo the additional training provided for in this Bill. More young persons will be drawn into full-time service and they will benefit from the extended period of continuous training.

The other matter I want to deal with is one that I mentioned earlier on, and that is the question of a special battalion for certain young persons. I would like to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the fact that difficulties do exist in regard to some of these young persons who are not in employment. The difficulty is that no action at all can be taken in regard to their behaviour. They cannot be dealt with in terms of the Children’s Act because in most instances they are over the age to be dealt with in terms of that Act. And the police cannot deal with them because they have not committed an offence. It is a problem which I know the Government is alive to, because they had a sub-committee which discussed this matter, but they have not yet put forward any proposals. However. I do feel that we have an opportunity here, with this Bill now before the House, to make provision for these persons who persistently refuse to take employment, and he can compel them to undergo this continuous training.

Surely the hon. member does not want to turn the army into a reformatory.

No, Sir, that is the furthest from my thoughts that it should be used on that basis, and as the hon. the Minister will possibly know the reformatory only admits juvenile offenders and these persons are not juvenile offenders because they have not committed an offence and they are not criminals. They may be potential delinquents and criminals. I am not suggesting at all that persons with a criminal record should be drafted into the army. These are idle persons whom I feel should benefit from military training, and therefore it would be to their advantage to receive military training, and at the same time the hon. the Minister would be able to utilize this manpower which is presently being wasted. It it not a question of reform. They would receive the same training just as anyone else. I feel it would be a great pity if these people were to miss being balloted. I want to make certain that this type of person undergoes the full nine months of continuous training, to receive the necessary discipline. It is not a question of rehabilitation, but they should receive the necessary discipline and the army training which would be beneficial to them. So, Sir, we on this side of the House support this Bill, as other speakers have said, but I would also like to associate myself with the remarks made by other hon. members that it is beneficial to the youth and beneficial to the country to see that the maximum number of the young persons who are eligible for the training, receive this continuous training.

I am pleased about the attitude which some hon. members on that side of the House are adopting. There is one hon. member who held a higher rank than I in the Defence Force and that is the brigadier, the hon. member for North East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst), but many of those hon. members who talk so sneeringly resigned from their various regiments when the National Party came into power. We know of that wonderful regiment, the Merino Regiment. Because the name was changed many of them resigned from it. I know the objections which many of them had when a particular regiment was named the “Gideon Scheepers Regiment” after one of our Afrikaans heroes. That is the extent of the race hatred that we still find on that side of the House. I am not referring to every hon. member opposite, because I know many of those friends are sincere. I want to pay tribute to another person who has played an important role in South Africa, namely Sir William Campbell. What a wonderful role he played at the time when the Flag Act was introduced in South Africa! We take off our hats to him as an English-speaking person; what a pity that his successor is probably one of the most bitter Boer haters that we have ever had in this House! I think it is a great pity that their attitude has deteriorated to the extent it has.

Which clause is the hon. member discussing?

That has nothing to do with that hon. member. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I am grateful for this Bill. I want to say something about that part of the Bill that deals with the Commandos and I want to associate myself with the request which the hon. member for Middelburg-Bethal (Mr. J. W. Rall) made to the Minister, namely that we should make more use of lighter aircraft. The hon. the Minister knows that on the platteland many of our young men are trained pilots and all they want is a little encouragement and although they are getting a little from the hon. the Minister of Transport, I think they need greater encouragement. Those are the people who will become the good pilots of the future. In many cases they have already been trained, and I think the Commandos can make good use of reconnaissance planes. We realize, of course, that those are not fighter planes, but they can be of great assistance in locating the enemy. I understand the Belgians are using them in Kenya and Rhodesia and those parts make use of lighter aircraft. I think it will be a good thing if the Minister will see to it that greater use is made of those people.

I now want to deal with the Commandos and I want to thank the predecessor of the hon. the Minister of Defence for the wonderful way in which he has overhauled the Commandos and I also wish to thank the present Minister for that because I still believe that the Commandos are best able to cope with internal trouble. They have always been used in the past. They are very mobile and seeing that General Smuts make great use of the Commandos, I think we should make greater use of them to secure internal security. We know that the Minister already has his mobile units and we are grateful for that but I think that idea should be carried further and that we should use the Commandos as the Home Guards were used during the Boer war, because in all the platteland towns there are people who belong to Commandos and they can form themselves into small units in those towns in order at least to ensure the safety of the local residents and where people perhaps panic, to show them that precautionary steps have been taken and that steps have been taken for their safety. I shall appreciate it if the Minister will consider that. He knows, of course, what is the best thing to do but I should like to ask him to consider this. Although the Commando system has developed in a wonderful way, there are still defects and I should like to say something to the Minister in this connection. The Cradock Commando has a small shooting range near the national road and that shooting range may have to be moved and it will cost those people £1,000 to move it. I shall be pleased if the hon. the Minister will see his way clear to assist the people in such cases. That is an excellent Commando and I think the hon. the Minister knows that that Commando is at its full strength and that it can be called up at any time to give him the necessary assistance. That is all I have to say. I merely want to say to the hon. the Minister that this side of the House is not after money. The Afrikaner has never been paid in the past for the services he has rendered to his fatherland. We had the old Commando system. You provided your own horse, saddle and bridle and you went to the war; you did not ask whether or not you will be paid. The Commandos of South Africa are to-day still imbued with that spirit of love for their fatherland with which they have always been imbued and I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that unlike our friends opposite, we shall not reveal a spirit of “penny ha’penny loyalty” to South Africa. We shall give to our fatherland what we have given in the past, what the republics gave and even what the rebels of South Africa gave. They gave their lives and everything they possessed for the freedom which we enjoy to-day. Seeing that we are shortly to become a republic I hope we shall all act in terms of the spirit which prevailed in the past and that we shall all make our small contribution towards the safety of South Africa.

Much of what the hon. member for Cradock said is of interest. It was, I think, a pity that he should have begun with somewhat aggressive references to gentlemen whom he alleges resigned their commissions in the Citizen Force as soon as they discovered that there was a Nationalist Government in office and a Nationalist Minister of Defence.

It is true.

It may be true, it may be that certain people did that. One is of course tempted to cry “tit-for-tat” and to talk about people who resigned their commissions in the Forces at another time in our history when war broke out in 1939, but I do not think that sort of thing is going to get anybody anywhere and I certainly do not think it is going to help the hon. the Minister.

Apart from this, the hon. member for Cradock has discussed two suggestions which he believes may be of value to the force which the hon. the Minister is building up. Firstly, he spoke of the use of light-spotter aircraft. If I understood him correctly he does not mean specialized military aircraft, but light aircraft in the ordinary way, and he points out that these have been of use in the Congo, in Rhodesia and in Kenya. I think they have been of great use in these areas, but the point I wish to make is that aircraft of this type may be extremely useful in the sort of war, the sort of battle fought in these countries, which is of course a war against local aboriginal people. But any pilot who goes out in an aircraft of this kind against a modern highly-equipped army is of course a sitting duck and is asking for trouble. The second point that the hon. member made was to advise the Minister to consider using the Commandos or part of the Commandos as home guards for their towns in times of difficulty. This too in certain circumstances is a practical suggestion. But what interests me about these two suggestions lead me on to what I wish to say. The hon. gentleman was obviously speaking in terms of the use of the Defence Force against aboriginal people in our own country. These two suggestions would be of value in that sort of context, but they would not be of value if we were fighting a hostile aggressor, a modern army on our borders, and still less of course are they even relevant if fighting outside our country.

Where did the terrorists in Angola come from?

I think they come from Angola. Is the hon. gentleman suggesting that what the Defence Force has to cope with are terrorists here in South Africa? I am putting this question quite seriously. The hon. gentleman has asked me to tell him where the terrorists in Angola came from. I think they came from inside Angola.

I don’t think you are in command of the correct information.

Well, where does the hon. member think the terrorists in South Africa would come from, against which we could use these light aircraft?

I am quite prepared to reply if the hon. member will give me an opportunity to address the House on that point.

Oh no, the hon. member has already had that golden opportunity.

The hon. gentleman has now added to the evidence that I was producing by suggesting to us that there are going to be terrorists here in South Africa who will have to be coped with. I am afraid the hon. gentleman may well be right.

This is a measure which asks Parliament to agree to the calling up of men for longer periods and the calling of more men altogether and the maintenance, generally speaking, of a larger citizen army, and we are asked to do all this, which obviously involves sacrifices and expense, and we have indicated on this side of the House that generally speaking we are perfectly willing to vote for such expenses and such sacrifices. But in doing so it is our right and indeed our duty, to ask how this increased army is to be used and to what purpose this expenditure is to be put.

The hon. the Minister in introducing the Bill told us that this Citizen Force will be required for two purposes, for internal purposes and for defence against external aggression, and the hon. the gentleman has suggested that roughly this will be in the proportion of one-third to two-thirds. I think he mentioned three months training to be necessary for internal service and that he was now proposing nine months of training to be able to deal with external aggression too. Far be it for me to set myself up against the hon. the Minister as an estimator of these things, but I think he will agree that this is just an estimate.

I said that if you were preparing for internal difficulties, three months training would be sufficient.

I think the hon. Minister will agree that his estimate is merely an estimate. I do not know, and I do not think the hon. the Minister knows to what extent it will have to be used internally and to what extent the force will have to be used for external purposes.

The hon. the Minister’s guess is very much better informed than mine, but it is still a guess.

I did not make a guess about it.

Well, if the hon. the Minister were to make a guess it would be better informed than mine. The hon. the Minister has given us to understand that this force will be used for either internal or external purposes.

That is correct.

Then let me proceed from that point. I am going to express, for what it is worth, my own view—and I am sorry to have to express it, but I think the hon. member for Craddock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker), from what I read into his remarks, concurs, and I think the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) concurs in the suggestion I am about to make, and that is that this Force is likely to have to be used, as the Defence Force is indeed used to-day, for the prevention and control of internal disturbances to a considerable extent.

If it is necessary of course it will be used.

I want to make my argument from this point. I am simply stating the facts as I see them and I am happy to have the hon. the Minister’s agreement. I want to talk about the kind of training that is to be given to this Force, relevant to what the hon. the Minister and I have just agreed upon. I want to ask the hon. the Minister if, when he replies, he will give us some details on this point.

It has ‘struck’ some of us, listening to this debate, that there are difficulties involved in training a Force similtaneously for use against external aggressors—that is to say, for combat—and for use in the control of internal disturbances if that should become likely. When you train a force for combat—as I as a layman understand these things—you train them to inflict the maximum number of casualties on the enemy in the shortest possible time. You train them to inflict the greatest possible damage, not only to men but to materials and installations. But for the control of internal disturbances, the object as I have always understood it is to teach them to act while inflicting the very minimum number of casualties and, if possible, no casualties at all; to act, if at all possible, preventively rather than destructively. And so I sympathize most heartily with the hon. the Minister in the quandary with which he and his officers will be dealing, in the training of this Force for this bivalent purpose. There is nothing I can say that would add to the debate on the subject of how they should be trained for modern war; I am sure the hon. the Minister and his advisers will do all that is necessary, will do all that they can do in this combat training to see to it that they have troops which can inflict maximum casualties in a very short time. However there can be none of us who has observed the course of events in South Africa in recent years who has not seen the very great importance of extremely thorough and extremely careful training of any Force, whether it be the police or, as in this case, the Defence Force which is likely to be used in the preventing and control of internal disturbances.

Of course the more discipline there is the better.

That is the first place, I entirely agree. Indeed, if I may be so bold as to say so, when the hon. the Minister says that three months training will be enough to train people for the control of internal disturbances. I am not absolutely sure that I agree with him. I would feel happier if they had a longer training.

Well they are all getting nine months now.

That is excellent. But now I would like to know from the hon. the Minister what they are going to do for these nine months. There are, as one understands it, in these days, very well worked out methods which are applied in crowd control, which are implied in the prevention of, disorders, in dealing with riots, in dealing with mobs; in dealing with the sort of difficulties you get when you have internal disturbances. The principle, as I understand it, is what I have stated—to inflict the minimum of casualties. Methods such as the use of tear gas, use of water hoses if these are available.

Where they are available!

There is something else I would like to ask the hon. the Minister about: I am told that in other countries mounted men are found to be remarkably efficacious in dealing with crowd disturbances. I do not know if the hon. the Minister contemplates any detachments which will ride horses …

In this House I would possibly be the only man able to do something on a horse.

I gather the hon. the Minister would be very happy to be on horseback. I do not know if he would be happy to be on horseback in the middle of an internal disturbances—I doubt that any of us would. But I am perfectly serious in suggesting that this is one of the methods in which men might very well be trained if they are going to be trained for the control of internal disturbances.

Then there is the use of weapons other than firearms. I do not want to suggest precisely what they should be, but the training of men in short, to use any sort of method and any sort of weapon, with the use of the firearm as the last resort and then, I think, the use of the firearm, if possible, directed over the heads of the crowd first rather than into it. I believe—and I am sorry to say this, but I do—that the force which the hon. the Minister is building up and which he is going to train for a longer period and more thoroughly is going to find itself involved quite often in events of this kind. I am sure the hon. the Minister will agree that very much indeed in the history of the next few years in this country may depend upon the way in which men in that position are going to conduct themselves. And reverting to the hon. the Minister’s first interjection to me, I fully agree that discipline is going to be all important; the discipline of these trained men.

You can only say that when we talk about the police.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling), who is setting himself up as a presiding officer in this debate, is telling me that I can only say this when I talk about the police. With respect, I believe you, Sir, have been allowing me to say it about the army for quite some time now and I believe you are going to allow me to go on saying it about the army.

There is another aspect to which I want to refer, one which was raised a moment ago by the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Oldfield), and to which the hon. the Minister made an interjection which I do not think he meant very seriously. The hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) was talking about the desirability of getting into the Citizens Force for training young men of the kind who are not criminals but who have not so far shown themselves to be very useful citizens.

How will they get there? They are not debarred from the ordinary ballot system.

They should certainly get in on the ordinary ballot system, but as I understood the hon. member he was suggesting that there might be special units to which this sort of man might be drafted.

That was only one of the suggestions.

That was one of the suggestions. There was the well-known S.S.B.—the Special Service Battalion …

But they were committed persons.

Oh no! they were not.

They were not? Then I am sorry. In that case they can only get there by means of the ballot.

I am not suggesting that they should get there by any other methods, although there may be suggestions in that matter. The suggestion I am making is quite simple: I believe it would be wise now, as it was in the past, to have the sort of units where these men are trained, because I believe the psychological approach involved, and the educational approach in their training may well be somewhat different from what it is in other categories. I believe that you have every chance of turning out first-class fighting men from this material and, at the same time, you would be rendering a conspicuous social service by improving their standard as citizens.

[Inaudible.]

That hon. gentleman becomes more and more difficult to understand as the evening wears on. I think I have reached the stage where I can no longer reply intelligently to him. [Interjections.]

Order, order! The hon. member for Ventersdorp must now cease making these interjections.

When one speaks of these units similar to the old S.S.B., I believe it is here that one should refer again to what has been raised from these benches during this debate—the necessity if this country is to be effectively defended—and it is a country of 15,000,000 people—of finding a place for those who are not quite in the Defence Force of this country. Our views on these benches are well enough known and I did not stand up to push them particularly. I did not stand up to stress more than is necessary, that we believe that you can only defend this country as you can only run this country—when you recognize all its citizens as citizens in every sense of the word. But I believe that within the framework of the hon. the Minister’s approach it should be possible to establish units for non-White people, not only for Coloured people but also for Asians and Africans as well, who can be used for special tasks in the Defence Force, who can play their part in much of the work that the Defence Force will have to do and, I would suggest, who, if properly trained and disciplined, might be of considerable assistance to the Minister in the prevention and control of internal disturbances.

In the long run you cannot provide all the technicians, all the technologists, all the trained personnel and all the soldiers for a population of 15,000,000, from 3,000,000. I know what the hon. the Minister’s problems are; they are not exclusively defence problems. They are problems connected with the whole state of the country. But even within the frame work of those problems, and within the ambit of his own particular approach to race relations, I believe there is even now a special place in the Defence Force which could be filled by people who are not white. I would add my plea to that of the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) and the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Eglin) for the Minister to give very serious consideration to this aspect. Above all, the purpose for which I rose this evening was to express my very strong hope that particular attention should be paid to the special methods of crowd control with the minimum of casualties that are likely to be necessary as and when the Defence Force has to be used for the prevention or control of internal disturbances.

I do not want to follow the hon. member who has just sat down, except merely to remark that I believe that the work of the police is the work of the police, and that an army has only one object throughout the world: An army must not be used lightly, but when an army is used, it must be able to fulfil the function of an army.

However, I want to discuss the Bill, and the first point I want to make is that we should see this Bill for what it is, namely the grafting of a full-time training system onto our old traditional Citizen Force system. I welcome wholeheartedly the fact that this Bill is being introduced on this basis, but at the same time I want to make it quite clear that we cannot graft such a new system onto an old system without many problems arising which will have to be reviewed after a few years’ experience. I therefore want to make it clear that although I regard the idea of a Select Committee as unpractical at this stage, I trust that the General Staff will use the next year or so to study these problems, once the experiment is in operation, and that within a year or two a new Defence Bill will be submitted to this House which as is customary can be referred to a Select Committee and which will fully integrate this concept of fulltime training into our overall concept of civil defence and the training of our citizens.

In this regard I also want to ask that the hon. the Minister should regard a few specific remarks which I shall make at a latter stage as points which they should keep in mind during this period of study, and which they should perhaps try to apply administratively at this stage.

The second general point I want to make is that I agree entirely with what the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) has already said and with what certain hon. members have also said: I do not believe in the ballot system; I believe in national training for all the young men of our nation as a whole. I appreciate that this matter is being tackled along the correct lines; that we cannot suddenly launch a 100 per cent training scheme for financial and administrative reasons, and also with a view to our country’s economy. But I state as my unequivocal conviction that it should be our object to introduce full-time military training for all the youth of our nation within a few years. Because, as a former member of the Active Citizen Force who has also served a few years as a volunteer, I want to testify to the dissatisfaction which arises in the Active Citizen Force because the one brother is drawn in the ballot and the other not. The one man at the work-bench is drawn in the ballot and the other not. We can have the fairest possible exemption system, but a feeling of dissatisfaction remains amongst the people as a whole because of a duty which does not affect them all equally.

The last general point which I want to submit is that the hon. member for Kensington stated correctly at the beginning of the debate that we did not regard this matter so much as a party measure and that members would take the opportunity to submit their own individual opinions. While hon. members have been expressing their varying thoughts and have perhaps been speculating, the idea has on occasion been put forward—by hon. members on this side as well—that we should not follow a completely pro-Western policy, but that there should be a suggestion of neutralism in South Africa’s policy. As I have said before during this Session and as I want to say again to-night: I do not believe that only our military policy, but also our whole foreign policy as well as our national policy should be based on the fact that the Union of South Africa is unequivocally pro-Western, and the more the West tries to push us away, the more definitely and the more unequivocally should we as a united nation adopt a pro-Western attitude. I believe that this is not my individual opinion, but that this is the opinion to which effect is given in every statement and every action of the Government, and I should like to remove all misunderstanding in this regard.

I then come to my specific points. I want to refer to the young men who are still going to the military gymnasiums. In the first place I want to raise the problem that they are being allocated to Citizen Force regiments, and I want to urge that we should also consider their allocation to skiet commandos as an alternative, for this reason: A high percentage of the gymnasium cadets go to universities and small groups of these university students become farmers, teachers or else platteland residents. If we integrate them during their urban student years into an urban regiment, they later spend their lives in an area where the military organization is based on the commando system and not on the regiment system. It will be of inestimable value if we can use these trained gymnasium men as the kernel of our brandwag platoons in the commandos, in which they will serve later on in life. Give these men a choice, even if they have to sign for ten years’ service in the brandwag platoons of the commandos. After such a gymnasium training such a person knows that he is going to the platteland. Let us then give him an opportunity if possible to serve in a commando brandwag platoon rather than in the Active Citizen Force.

The second point I want to raise in connection with the gymnasium men—and I am referring particularly to those men who go to university—is their immediate allocation to regiments of the Active Citizen Force. Practically all the young men who go to university, can be used to serve in specialist regiments or in specialist companies within a regiment. These men go to the gymnasiums, but it is not yet known in which direction they are going to study. I believe that when a man has been at the gymnasium and he then goes to university, the authorities should wait for six months or even a year before he is allocated to his regiment so that it is known in which specialized direction he is going to study and he can be allocated on the basis of the specialized direction in which he is actually studying. In this regard I also just want to mention that in the expansion of our Defence Force I hope we shall also expand the research work of the Defence Force which hitherto has been minimal and that we shall give consideration to the possibility of using drafted members of the Active Citizen Force for certain research functions within our Defence Force. The last aspect relating to the students who go to the gymnasiums and to students in general, is that I should just like to have a very specific assurance which the hon. the Minister has already given by implication, namely that a student or prospective student—the problem is that one does not always know who are prospective students—will only be balloted in the first term of the year, because it really has a disastrous effect when such a prospective student is balloted after the first term of the year.

What about the second term?

The second term has this complication, namely that class fees have already been paid, that deposits have already been paid to the hostels and the students have been transported from far away in the Free State to Stellenbosch, or somewhere similar, and this represents unnecessary waste of expenditure. We must therefore be very careful in this regard.

The next specific point I want to make is that we should give consideration to another point which the hon. member for Kensington has also mentioned, namely that we shall now for the first time have a continuous concentration of several thousands of young men for whose cultural requirements provision must be made. Hitherto no organization or unit has been developed in our Defence Force to amuse or to uplift culturally these people when they are congregated together in their hundreds. There is no more boring place on earth than an empty barracks on a Saturday evening. If one is not amused within one’s camp, there are only two places to which one can go—one can go to the bar in the camp, or to the nearest town. This is a matter to which immediate and active attention must be given. We must also bear in mind that here we have a community with many diverse educational levels and tastes. I believe that the Department of Defence must consult not only the Department of Union Education but also organizations such as the N.T.O. and people outside the State organizations who are active in the cultural and entertainment world in order to provide an effective programme which can also be educational.

The last aspect which I want to discuss in connection with this training is that this Bill again provides for periodic training—the training for a few hours per week or 14 days. Mr. Speaker, I want to submit as my conviction that this periodic training is of very little value. It serves only one purpose, namely that it periodically brings the members of the regiment together and maintains personal contact. But as far as making the members of the force familiar with their weapons and giving them a real technical training are concerned it is quite useless. These men arrive tired after work; they must first do a little formal drilling and they must fall in and by the time they must be trained in using their weapons, they are tired and practically asleep. I believe that we should rather think along the lines of and additional year’s service during which there will be full-time camps, rather than this piecemeal periodic training.

Then, Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by replying to an hon. member who is unfortunately not here. I am referring to the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson) who saw fit this afternoon to make an uncalled for, underhand and slanderous allegation regarding General Christiaan Beyers. Mr. Speaker, I could very easily reply to the allegations and insinuations which have been made. I could very easily justify from history the fact that a statuette of the general was used as a price at a military ceremony. But I am deliberately refraining from doing so because if we wish to justify this action, we would have to use old and hurtful arguments which may offend certain hon. members opposite, and I do not want to hurt hon. members who may feel in that way. But I want to testify that I appreciate the general attitude of hon. members opposite who have English ancestries and backgrounds. We appreciate that at this time they are going through a difficult time in accepting a political change which they have opposed vigorously, and which is just as unacceptable to them to-day. They are showing signs that they appreciate that the strength of our nation has not been born out of our love for our two countries of origin, but that we have been born out of the struggles of heroes. Out of respect for those feelings I do not want to refer to this matter, but as regards the slanderous statement which this young member for Sea Point, who comes from an Afrikaans family, has made with respect to one of our great dead heroes, I just want to say this: He reminds me of the hyena which scratches amongst the stinking bones when the lions are gone.

Order!

Mr. Speaker, can we not have a little decency in the debate?

Order! The hon. member for Kempton Park must withdraw those words.

Mr. Speaker, I have said nothing about the hon. member. I have said what he reminds me of.

The hon. member for Kempton Park has not said that the hon. member is a hyena. He has only said that he reminds him of one.

The hon. member must not try to correct something which he thinks is wrong by saying something else which is also wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I shall first withdraw what I have said and then I say that the hon. member for Sea Point has made an unforgivably scandalous statement, something which does not befit him, and I want to say that this type of behaviour befits the worthy and honoured members on his side of the House just as little as it is acceptable to members on this side of the House.

I must admit that I agree with a very great deal of what the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) has said here this evening. I only regret that at the end of his speech he has to descend to the level which we have experienced from him before.

Order, order!

I do not intend dwelling on that Mr. Speaker, beyond saying I am very disappointed to have heard it after a constructive speech. When we come with recriminations and comparisons like that we get no further. I could also recite an instance when I was walking down the streets in Pretoria one evening together with two comrades …

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kempton Park spoke here this evening of the importance of entertainment for our young soldiers in our army camps. I very well remember walking down the streets of Pretoria from Sonderwater Camp one evening, and instead of going on the rampage as so many of us did whenever we got the opportunity, we heard Church bells and we went to Church instead. But we had barely sat down before the Deacon came along plucked us by the shoulders and said: “Soldiers are not welcome here.” [Interjections.]

Order, order! The hon. member must return to the Bill.

I will drop that immediately Mr. Speaker. I just hope that I will be forgiven by those who are perhaps hurt, and by that hon. member who has brought this debate down to this level to-night.

Did you have a uniform on?

Yes, and a very much better one than you will ever wear.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill introduces for the first time in our history what is virtually conscription. I want to agree immediately with the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) and also with the hon. member for Kempton Park and other members who have spoken before me that in a case like this everything in our power should be done as soon as possible to establish the necessary facilities for training, the necessary equipment, the necessary billets so as to get beyond this ballot system. The hon. member for Kempton Park point out, very wisely, that even in a close family circle or a circle of friends at work it happens that one brother is balloted for and the other is not; where you have two men working at the same bench the one may be balloted for and the other may not. In my particular case when I was in the Primary School there was a Cadet Corps for which I was too young, and I missed that. And when I went to High School there was no Cadet Corps. So I missed that. I was never included in the ballot, with the result that when I enlisted I had to start from the bottom—and I was not the only one, there were thousands like me. Of course those hon. gentlemen on the other side who are sitting grinning and making those disturbing noises to themselves are whistling in the dark. They have never even tried to get military training.

I feel that this is very important because at some stage or another, when this measure becomes an enactment it will be an endeavour on the part of the Government to bring our young men eligible for military service up to the highest possible standard, both in quality of training and also in numbers. But as long as you work on a ballot system many are left out. Should a time of emergency arise as did in 1939, you find yourself with hundreds and thousands of young men who might have comrades in the same age group and who have had the necessary training but they themselves had not.

Another aspect of preparation and military training that should be considered now is the training of women for army service. I agree with hon. members who spoke before me and who pointed out that the White population is too small in number to supply all the military requirements of the country. The hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) used the same argument to justify the establishment of the Cape Corps, or the training of Coloured soldiers. We in South Africa have had the experience of training women for military service. It is history to-day that we are proud of the fact that our women did answer the call and rendered meritorious service …

Did they fight on the side of the communists.

I cannot help it if that hon. member did not fight for his country; thousands of women had more guts than he had.

I did not fight with the communists.

Outside of the borders of the Union our women served right through to Egypt, North Africa and Italy. And every woman that served replaced a man who could be used for combat duties in front line service.

In Great Britain women were used on a much larger scale than in South Africa. We found, and it was found in Great Britain on a larger scale that for certain types of military service women were more suitable and adaptable than men. Those of us who have any knowledge of the intricacies of the technical side of military service to-day will readily understand what I mean. To a very large extent military equipment consists of instruments; very delicate instruments such as radar; precision instruments where readings and calculations are tabulated from time to time. It was found in Great Britain that women were extremely suitable, in many respects even more so than men for this work. If we want to achieve a standard of full preparation using only the small White population we have—or should I call it our small mature population—like other countries such as, for instance, Israel—we would have to use our women and give them proper training for military service.

Are you suggesting conscription for women?

The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) asks whether I am suggesting conscription for women. I could say that if conscription for men can be introduced I see no reason why it should not be applied to women. I would rather see some form of compulsory national service, whether semi-military or not. I would prefer that to the silly nonsense we have to-day which results in photographs of women in the newspapers trying to shoot a revolver. That is ridiculous. Rather let them be trained to render services on radar or other instruments such as I have mentioned. If it comes to the stage where women have to be trained to fire revolvers and shot guns I do not think there will be any of them left to fire them so that will not help us very much. Speakers before me mentioned the desirability of re-establishing such training units as the S.S.B. and the Pioneer Battalion. Erroneously, the Minister remarked that they were committed. They were not. But the late Mr. Oswald Pirow, as Minister of Defence—it was really his brainchild—established these units. Let us take an example from what happened in the past. There was an example of a really brilliant Idea. They were not committed and when it was started it was frowned on. I know of many cases where an attorney or some benevolent person interceded on behalf of a young man who landed in trouble and the magistrate accepted the fact that he would improve himself if he got a suspended sentence and joined the S.S.B. I can tell you. Sir, from my own experience that in the end, with the wonderful training those units got and the wonderful performance they put up in public, the sons of wealthy parents joined that unit, and after having served their time they went to university. I can mention several case like that. There was of course this, that it was properly tackled. You will remember that Mr. Pirow selected some of the best men in the Permanent Force and sent them to Britain to be trained as sergeant-majors. Apart from what the S.S.B. did during the war, you had some of those sergeant-majors, one of whom I remember particularly well, affectionately called “Papa Brits”, who became one of our best tank commanders during the war. But these men had a very good training in Britain and they were responsible for the training of these regiments. Sir, I can assure you that it was an eye-opener to see a retreat ceremony performed by the S.S.B., and when war broke out they went on active service. Last but not least there was the Pioneer Battalion, which the Minister should remember very well, because it was based in Bloemfontein. They were mostly the sons of people who could not educate their children. Even that unit rendered very good service after having received the proper training. I do not think the intention of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Capt. Henwood) or myself is to have a unit into which to draft the undesirable elements such as ducktails. But with the training facilities and the regular pay and the discipline and the morale which will be built up in them, I think that there will be an opportunity of getting many of our young people, especially in the urban areas where, due to economic or social circumstances, broken marriages, etc., there are many case where if those young people have an opportunity of going into a unit like that and getting the proper training it will benefit them enormously.

Tell me, how must they get there?

In the first place I can assure the Minister that with a neat uniform, that is already an attraction, and you will find young men joining it voluntarily. On the other hand, our probation officers plus the Department of Social Welfare can be roped in to assist in such a way that young men will be given a choice of going into a unit like that rather than to be sent to gaol for a first offence, which only makes a potential criminal of him. [Interjection.] No, it will not be a committed person. A committed person is one who has been ordered by the magistrate to be sent to a certain place as part of his sentence.

So he will get there on a bargaining system?

Well, now he does not get there on a bargaining system but becomes a ducktail. Instead of being an accessory after the fact when a motor car is stolen, he comes out after three months and steals a motor car himself. That is what we have to stop. I do not say those are the methods one should employ in order to build up the nucleus of such a unit, but it can all help. But I do not want to pose as an authority to advise the Minister. There are the Department of Social Welfare and the voluntary organizations and various ways in which this matter can be investigated. I am merely making a suggestion. The experts can formulate the details.

Now, I have spoken about the instructors who were trained overseas. I have no doubt that we have the men and the methods to train instructors here, but it stands to reason that those men who had intensive training overseas, men like Colonel Brits, and ex-Sergeant-Major Troskie, who was my Sergeant-Major—you have those men, but what worries me is that you have the Permanent Force today and here we have a Bill before us providing for a potential force of about 10,000 men to be trained. Now the question arises if you take your N.C.O.s and your warrant officers and your officers from the Permanent Force and spread them over these 10,000 men, will we have the resources in trained men and are we making adequate provision for training instructors?

Yes.

I am very glad to hear that. Then I hope that this will be intensified, so that we can cope with all our young men who reach military age every year and abolish the ballot system. The other evening the hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) made a speech and did some kiteflying—I do not know on whose instructions—when he advocated the possible training of the Coloureds for military service.

Do you oppose that?

I agree with one of the arguments he used, namely that the White people are too few to defend the country. I have said that all along. He also suggested the possibility of implementing a system of school cadets for Coloured schools. On that I can only say that it is up to the Minister to accept his suggestion, or to tell us what he intends doing about it. I can only say that the military adaptability of these people is perfectly obvious. We have never had school cadets in the Coloured schools, but we have voluntary organizations like the Boys’ Brigade, and the Moslem Boys’ Brigades in the bigger centres, and these people have on a voluntary basis been doing wonderful work in keeping these youngsters off the streets. The fact that they have had discipline instilled in them by experienced men who knew the elementary principles of drilling and that they had a uniform which they had to keep neat and that they looked smart marching down the street with their own orchestra on a Sunday morning or Saturday afternoon and the discipline they were given had a tremendous effect over the years in saving trouble for most of these youngsters who lived in areas where there were not adequate playing-fields or recreational facilities. They were kept busy and they learned to take a pride in themselves and they were taught discipline. I cannot see why this cannot be made official. I can assure the Minister that should he contemplate such a step, he will have less difficulty in implementing this in the Coloured schools as far as instructors are concerned than he will have in certain White schools. There are many Coloured schools where one or two of the teachers was an N.C.O. or a member of the now defunct Cape Corps. In my constituency there are quite a few schools where there are teachers or principals who are actually ex-sergeant-majors. The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw), who was an officer in the Cape Corps for quite some time, had the privilege some time ago in my presence of meeting one of his former sergeants, who rose to the rank of W.O.2, and he is also the principal of a Coloured school now and he is the president of the Coloured Legion of the B.C.S.L., Mr. Kearns. With material of that kind, a great deal can be done to give these young Coloured children at school the necessary sense of discipline and neatness and to give them a different outlook on life. I am not going into everything which the hon. member for Somerset East said, but this afternoon I learnt from the newspapers that discussions had actually taken place between the Minister and Colonel Sayers of the B.C.S.L. with regard to the re-establishment of the Cape Corps. As far as that aspect is concerned, I can only say that it is a welcome discussion to me and to many others, and also to others who, if not in so many words but in their attitude and conduct, might have despised the Coloured people in the past. I have said before that the day would come when they would be only too glad that we have those people for whose existence our forefathers are responsible to help us defend this land of our birth and their birth. We are not departing from South African tradition in any way if the Minister would carry on with what I saw in the Press and establish, to begin with, two units of the Cape Corps. Since the earliest days when danger threatened this country, these people answered the call.

Order! That point has repeatedly been raised.

Sir, if I may crave your indulgence, there are just one or two matters to which I would like to draw the Minister’s attention. That is that in the first place we are only too keen to impress on our people some form of tradition. We are a young country and I do not think we are over-laden with tradition, but we can be justly proud of the traditions we have. There are others of which we perhaps need not be so proud in that we are keener on talking politics or rugby than on doing hard work sometimes, but that is beside the point. When it comes to tradition, it is not only the White people of South Africa who can be proud. I feel that to give our Coloured compatriots a feeling of having a share and a stake in the country of their birth is also to give them the opportunity to develop the traditions they have established in the past. It is a known fact that the Cape Corps can be traced back to the year 1793. It is the oldest colonial military formation in the history of South Africa.

That point has also been made repeatedly.

I do not think the point has been made that the second oldest unit was the Cape Mounted Rifles, which was disbanded in 1870, and that was a Coloured regiment. The question that arises is this. The fact is that in a modern army facing modern conditions of war there is no such thing as a non-combatant soldier. In the last war we had the experience that the Cape Corps had some training in shouldering a rifle, etc., but they were not armed.

Why are you driving that point home?

Because the Minister will remember that when he was a member of this House and General Smuts was tackled because units of the Cape Corps were armed when they were sent to Madagascar, General Smuts’s reply was that he would be bereft of his senses if he sent them into battle as unarmed soldiers.

I am not going to arm them.

That is exactly the point. I have not asked the Minister to arm them, so I do not know why he is so sensitive about it.

But you said they should all be armed.

No, I never suggested it. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) asked a question this afternoon, and shortly afterwards he was accused of having suggested it. I am not suggesting it either, but what I am trying to impress on the House and on the Minister is that in modern warfare there is no such thing as a non-combatant soldier. I am trying to indicate that the artilleryman firing his 25-pounder was an armed soldier, but the unarmed member of the Cape Corps who drove the trucks in which the shells were carted right up to the firing line was not a non-combatant even though he was unarmed. The point is: Are we going to allow ourselves to be carried away by the question of arming or not and the training of these people in such a way that when it comes to the point they will not be able to do their duty properly or to be effective soldiers? If the Minister says they will not be armed, that is his reply, but then the question arises what they will be used for? I sincerely hope, and I say this with all the sincerity at my command, that should the Cape Corps be resuscitated as we read in the Press to-day, they will not be organized into units which will stand branded as labour units to do only the pick-and-shovel work or the dirty work.

The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

Sir, I think that what I am talking about is now completely covered by Clause 2.

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

Sir, if you would permit me, I would just like to ask the Minister that what we are interested in, after what we heard about the discussion between him and Colonel Sayers, is what will the rate of pay be for these men? We do believe in such a thing as the rate for the job. What ranks will they rise to? And will the Minister use his influence in the correct quarters so that these men can also have the satisfaction that should they have to serve as soldiers, in whatever capacity, in their old age they will be entitled to war veterans’ pensions also.

There is another aspect where I would like the Minister to use his influence, and that is that if we take the example of what happened in China, where 600,000,000 people were subjugated and subdued by the communist régime, it happened not because they were communists but only because they had nothing to fight for, and the aspect of giving these people something of which they can be proud and which they will fight for is also very important. I wish to submit something to the Minister on this aspect. I can assure him that it is of the utmost importance. In the first place it is no use having any military unit which you want to train for any purpose whatever without having the material, the men; so whatever military unit you are forming you must have the men, and unless you get the men you cannot do it. If we talk about the resuscitation of the Cape Corps and the formation of two units, I am concerned as to what type of men we will get to serve in these units, and that is very important. Just as much as the Minister is afraid of a military unit which will consist mostly of committed persons, undesirables, so I am afraid of what type of material we will get in these units. It is a very serious matter and I feel it my duty to submit it to the Minister, namely that a Coloured man is known to be a Coloured man by the colour of his skin. For heaven’s sake, do not give him a dirty green uniform to discriminate further against him on the grounds of colour. I hope the Minister will bear this in mind, because it is important. If these people are going to be used in the service of South Africa as soldiers, put them into a position where they can be proud of their uniforms and do not let its colour or design be a stigma as it is at present. I can assure the Minister that this is a matter of the utmost importance, and that not a single self-respecting member of the Coloured community will serve in the present type of uniform they have.

Oh, be quiet!

It is all very well for a man who cannot shoulder a rifle any more to tell me to keep quiet, because when the time comes to shoulder a rifle again I am still eligible. That is the unfortunate part of it, and in any case I think the stage has been reached where men who are beyond the age where they can do anything constructive should keep quiet. And in any case, when the hon. member had a chance to fight for his country he resigned.

There is just one other little matter I want to raise, and that is that any young man who enlists, whether White or Coloured, has some ambition if he has anything at all in him. As one who underwent training himself and who was in the position of being selected for promotion and for drafting into the officers’ training corps, I say that anyone with a little ambition looks forward to some promotion. I did, and there is nothing wrong with it, and it is not only the young men, but also the men who have had considerable training and service. What I feel should make a tremendous difference in considering a man for promotion is also his experience. I do not want to cast aspersions on previous Ministers of Defence or Chiefs of the General Staff. If I do, Sir, you will get other hon. members doing what the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) did, and we do not want that sort of thing. But I just wish to relate a little personal experience that has a direct bearing on what I have been talking about. In the beginning of the year I attended the opening of Parliament and I was sitting next to the hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst). and I asked him who a certain man in the officials’ gallery was, and he said it was Colonel So-and So, and then I recognized him because he had become rather bald over the last 16 years. But in 1944 that man was a colonel in command of 34 Liberator Squadron in Italy and he is still a colonel to-day. He certainly would not have been put in command of a squadron 16 years ago if he did not know his job, and if he was not a good officer. The point is that this Bill provides for a new system of intensive training for a much larger army, for virtual national conscription, and there is a big difference between what we are going to do now and what the position was in the past, and that is why I think this point is very important. In the past it was a question of volunteering. In the last war we had an army which had a glorious history and they joined voluntarily, and if a man joins voluntarily and does not show that he merits promotion it is just hard luck, but when a man has to sacrifice a year of his young life to undergo military training instead of going to university or working, when that young man is put into a position where he has no choice but to go into the army under compulsion, you might get the same sort of position that you get in regard to recruits for our Police Force to-day—and of this I have had experience because it happened in my presence. There was a commissioned officer whose job it was to seek recruits for the police, and he went along to a sergeant who had 27 years’ service and said: I believe you have a son of such an age; will you not influence him to join the police?

Order! What has that to do with the Bill?

Sir, if you would allow me just a moment, you will see that it is relevant. I am still on Clause 2. That police sergeant told the recruiting officer: If I could have my life over again I would not have joined the police, and I will not encourage my son to join the police. That young potential policeman had the choice of saying he would not join the police, but now many young men will be drafted into the army in terms of this Bill; they have no choice, and now one of them comes along to a person who was a colonel in the Air Force 16 years ago and is still a colonel. Must he then say to this young man that there is a brilliant career for him in the Air Force, that he will become a colonel and stay there for the next 16 years, when a man who left the Air Force as a lieutenant in 1939 is now a combat general? I am not casting any aspersions. I am at peace with the person concerned, but this sort of thing happened and it came to my attention forcibly …

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

To come back to the Bill, here young men are going to be compelled to go into the army. I would like to appeal to the Minister to bear in mind what happened in the past, and not to let that be such a deterrent that young men go into the army against their will and only look forward to the day when they can get out.

I am not altogether clear as to why the hon. the Minister selected this number of 10,000 men to be trained.

That is the first 10,000.

If that is what the Government regards as sufficient to defend this country from external aggression, it is manifestly absurd. I am not a soldier, but it is absurd. I therefore ask myself: Is it because that is all he is given money for? Is it all he can train at present with the staff available to him? If the money and the training staff are the reason for his selecting this number, then it is obvious that whenever there is more money available and as soon as he has further training staff he will be back asking for an increase in numbers. Now I am one of those who believe that every citizen has a duty to defend his country, and therefore I have no objection to the Minister coming with a request later for further men. But what I want to do is this: I want to try to help him as far as possible to conserve the manpower he has. I feel that there should be justice for all and I want to touch a little upon the standards of health of these future soldiers.

Now those of us who took part in the First World War, particularly those of us who happened to be in England when the war broke out, realize that the flower of England was killed in the first few months. With the shortage of trained manpower, the Government threw in its potential officers, the members of units like the Artists’ Rifles, the Inns of Court Bridgade, etc. and in my own experience, in the latter years of the war, there was a terrible shortage of potential officers. Not only that, but the standards of health which were in force in the British Army in the early days in 1914 were such that every man, no matter whether he was a typist or an orderly sweeping out the barracks, had to be Class Al man. The result was that towards the end of the war we found ourselves in the position of having a C3 group of people to choose from. We found that in the supply services and in units like the Medical Corps there were Class Al men who had been there all through the war, and we could not move them. You cannot take a regimental sergeant-major out of an ambulance corps and put him as a regimental sergeant-major in an infantry battalion. That is where those men were. We could not even take out the orderlies from the hospitals because we had no other trained men. Therefore I want to suggest to the Minister that he should now in his balloting and in his exemptions make a stand on the health standard of his recruits and not turn down men for minor defects, and that he should classify the various regiments and the various service as to what type of man they will accept, and what type of man will be the only type acceptable to them. There is room for unfit men amongst the medical orderlies, or even in the supply services. These are people who must be selected on medical grounds. It is only in that way that the Minister will be able to conserve the manpower available to him. I want to ask the Minister also to pay particular attention to the Medical Board, and I want to give him an idea which I hope he will consider, viz. this, that where a man is rejected on medical grounds, that rejection should be considered by a medical board. There is no room in a conscript army, which is what this is, for a decision on health matters by a single medical man, and there is no room for the mere acceptance of a family doctor’s certificate.