Before the debate was adjourned I had said how important this measure was to every citizen in South Africa, and it is with pleasure that I can start by saying that we on this side of the House will vote for the Second Reading of this Bill although we have one or two reservations in regard to details, with which I shall deal in the course of my speech. Sir, these are serious times in which we live, and I think that this last week particularly has shown what a small country, with a small army, well-armed, well-trained and with the right spirit, can do. In this Bill we are dealing with one of those three requisites: the question of the manpower which we require for the secure defence of South Africa. We on the Opposition benches have always supported the Government in any move designed to strengthen the forces of South Africa. We need a strong force, not for aggression, but as a deterrent against attack upon ourselves. We recognize too the need for a change in the existing system of military training and in the existing structure of our Citizen Force. The ballot system, which was introduced in order to meet a specific problem, namely the problem of lack of facilities, which prevented the handling of all youths as they became available for service, introduced a form of discrimination which has created a good deal of resentment amongst many of the younger folk of South Africa. The elimination of that system which is proposed in this measure has our unqualified support. We believe that every South African citizen, if he is medically fit, should play his part in contributing service towards the defence of his country. There was also the problem of the tremendous shortage of instructors in the Permanent Force, a problem which this Bill is also designed to try to meet. Resulting from the shortage of instructors and from the system as it was designed, there was a tremendous amount of time wasted. Youngsters who had completed their training came out with one almost unanimous story from one end of the country to the other. That was that their first three months had been fully occupied, the second three months partly occupied, but that they regarded the last three months of their training as a complete waste of time. There was a feeling too that the youth leadership of South Africa was often wasted. Specialists were not being used in specialist positions. All these problems make it necessary to bring about a change. This Bill, which is designed to overcome those problems, forms only a framework. It provides a challenge which the defence chiefs now have to meet, and time will tell whether in fact we have found the final solution. We feel, however, that the framework offers sufficient prospects of success to give it our support. Had it not been for these changes, I believe that we would have pressed not for an extension but for a shortening of the training period since there seemed to be no object in calling up youngsters if their time was not going to be fully utilized. Therefore it is of the utmost importance that this particular problem should be treated as a matter of priority and eliminated through the machinery created by this measure.

I now want to refer to the consideration given to this measure in the select committee. Before the adjournment of the debate I had referred to the excellent spirit which prevailed there and expressed my appreciation to the chairman of the select committee on behalf of this side of the House for his attitude throughout the discussions. I would like to add to that by saying that I was certainly, and I believe all members of the select committee were, deeply impressed by the service chiefs who assisted us in considering the Bill. They showed that they knew their job and that they knew what they were aiming at. I think it is fitting that in this debate we should say that. I believe that so much depends on their leadership that it is fitting that South Africa should know that those in whose hands the training of their sons is placed are men who know their job. men who are dedicated to it and who, I believe, have given very serious consideration to the problems they have to face.

I believe, too, that they would have liked more. It would be unnatural if the Army Chiefs did not want the ideal. They would obviously have liked to have the perfect Army which this Bill cannot give because of the demands of our economy and the whole of our national life upon our manpower. Therefore the demands which have been made have been tailored to a practical balance between the national requirements and the requirements of defence. That restraint is something on which I think the Service Chiefs should be congratulated. They could well have come with far more ambitious plans which may have helped the Defence Force but which the country could not have afforded.

I believe there are two weaknesses, and only two, in so far as the planning of this measure is concerned. I would like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that perhaps he and the Supreme Command should give a little more attention to the medical aspect, to the medical corps and its plans for the future. I myself was not entirely happy that this aspect had received the consideration or the planning required. I think it is one aspect which should be looked at more carefully. The other aspect is that of cost, where I think we will find that the ultimate expenditure will be a little more than we originally anticipated. The system of calculation takes into account factors which I do not think in practice operate that way. But notwithstanding what I believe will be a greater cost than estimated, we still support the main provisions of this measure because we believe it is necessary for South Africa’s future safety.

Because of this, I want to deal with the main provisions of the Bill as they affect both defence and the public as a whole. Before doing so, I should like to refer to one matter which has created a little confusion, and that is the manner in which the printed Bill was printed. In the rubric to this Bill in many instances amendments which affect those clauses are not reflected. It was very difficult, until we on the Select Committee were kindly supplied with amended Acts, with the amendments inserted, to trace all these clauses. I think it is something we should watch in future. Where a rubric refers to the amendment of Act So-and-So, if that Act has subsequently been amended that amendment should be reflected in the rubric to simplify following it when one is studying that measure. I mention this now not as criticism of the Defence Bill, but as a question of procedure in dealing with the work of the House.

I think possibly one of the most important aspects of this measure is one which has received very little attention or publicity. That is what has been accepted as a mere terminological change, namely the changing of the word “training” to “service”. When you look at it and read the measure it sounds as if this is simply a matter of wording, but I believe that that is not so. It is far more than merely a change of terms, and in fact is fundamental to the whole concept of defence and to the thinking which we in South Africa should direct towards this subject. It is certainly fundamental when one considers the criticism which one hears from youngsters who have completed their training. Because they regard it as training, when they are kicking their heels they therefore feel that they are wasting their time. If we could get it across to the youth that what they are doing is not simply going into the Army to be trained for some hypothetical or, in many of their minds, improbable future eventuality, but that they are in fact rendering national service to South Africa during their period in the Army, it would be a good thing. I know that has been mentioned before, but it is something which I believe must be put across again and again so that the youth will not think in terms of training but in terms of rendering service to their country. Then they will look upon guard duty not as a waste of time, but as something which they are doing for their people. They will look upon the protection of essential services not as kicking their heels for all the hours they are not actually marching up and down the beat but as something which is necessary, positive and constructive. If that spirit of regarding their period in uniform as service to South Africa and not as a chore is accepted by the youth of our country, I believe it would do a great deal to create that third factor in any army, the morale and spirit which are necessary for the achievement, if necessary, of miracles. It is not the size of the dog in the fight that matters; it is the amount of fight in the dog which often counts, and that we have proved as South Africans. That we have seen again this week to the north of us, and I believe we will see it again in any future war. Therefore it is imperative that the spirit and approach of the soldier to his task should be the correct one. Parents and the public can play a big part in this. We are renowned for our hospitality to visiting troops and naval forces. We regard them as people whom we want to receive and entertain, but do we as South Africans look upon our own boys in the same spirit? Do we regard our own soldiers as equally deserving of that respect and attention that we give to other friendly forces? Therefore I believe that the parents of South Africa can also play a part by their attitude towards those who are rendering service to South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to have to say it, but I notice that although there are a number of hon. members who agree with me, there are some who have never given service to South Africa and who seem to be more interested in discussing other matters than in discussing the defence and security of our country, judging by the conversations that are going on. It is not easy to deal with a subject on which we are all basically agreed when there are those who obviously have no interest in it and wish to carry on private discussions.

Order!

The second important aspect of this measure is the general call-up as opposed to the selective ballot. Here an improvement has been introduced in the wording to ensure that every youth who is fit for training will now have to do service either in the Citizen Force or in the commandos. It may be difficult in the initial stages to utilize all those who are drafted to the commandos, but I hope that in fact the earliest possible steps will be taken to ensure that drafting to the commandos is not simply another name or a camouflage for exemption from service. Those who go into the commandos will in fact feel that they are playing their part and not that they are the lucky ones who escaped. The Bill is designed so that they will give exactly the same amount of service in the number of days, spread over a longer period, as those who are in the Citizen Force. It is essential that in fact that service should be rendered so that the sacrifice is equal for all our youth.

The other important innovation is the introduction of a clause permitting the call-up of immigrants, those who come to South Africa to live here permanently and who—or whose sons—up to now have not had to render service. We on this side of the House agree wholeheartedly with this addition to the measure. In fact, both sides independently introduced this same thought on the Select Committee. Both sides were agreed after careful consideration, that the method provided in the measure for dealing with this by proclamation is a satisfactory one. It is only right that those who enjoy the privilege and advantages of living in South Africa should also share the responsibilities which our sons have to bear. Then too it will help to eliminate the resentment which is often felt towards immigrant youth by our own sons who have to do service. Two boys leave school together and the one gives up a year of his life to serve his country whilst the other one, who is an immigrant. does not. They meet again a year later, and find that the one who has escaped service because he is an immigrant is now a year higher in the ladder of promotion. That sort of thing creates ill-feeling and resentment. This will help to eliminate that resentment and I believe that it is in the interests of better relations between the new South Africans and the old South Africans. They meet together as youth, they serve together as youth, and they learn to grow together into one nation.

I should like to suggest that we go a little further, not necessarily in the Bill but administratively. Those who do their service and have completed it should be approached and given a simplified form of application for citizenship before they complete their military service. The result will be that when they leave the army they will leave it having served, having accepted responsibility, and also having become South Africans—legally and in every sense of the word.

The next important provision is that of service liability. This increase of liability of the citizen force from four to ten years and of the commandos to the amended figure of 16 years, makes a tremendous intrusion into the private life of the young people. It is a long period. It means that a youngster going into the army when he is 18 will be 28 before he comes out. He will often by then be married, hold a reasonably responsible job, and have family and home responsibilities. However, there is no way of avoiding this if we are to build up the target force which we accept is necessary. This cannot be avoided. The liability for most of them is not an increase in actual service rendered, as the Minister pointed out in his introductory speech before the Bill went to the Select Committee, but purely a spread in the number of years for which they will be liable to serve. For the vast majority they will still only do their nine months and then instead of doing two camps in the next three years, they will do three camps—one camp every third year over the next ten years. Therefore in fact there will be no extra demand, or very little extra, in total days served demanded from the majority of our youth.

For the navy and the air force the proposal of one year’s service with no subsequent liability is to my mind a very acceptable one.

In almost every case where one talks to youths who have done their service, one finds that it is not the nine months that worries them; it is the continual periods after that which break into their normal life once they have come back to civvy street. Therefore the navy and the air force, where it is possible to eliminate this will be even more popular than they are now. But for the regiments it is impossible to eliminate this subsequent service. They are the backbone of our army, they are the backbone of our protection, and upon them depends our security. Therefore it is unavoidable that those who have completed their first continuous training and service should then continue to render service in subsequent years. Here I should like to join with the hon. the Minister in paying a tribute to the Citizen Force officers who on a voluntary basis have provided the backbone of what is in itself the backbone of our defence—those officers who freely and voluntarily after the completion of their compulsory service then continued to serve in the Citizen Force regiments. They gave the leadership which was necessary to those who followed in subsequent drafts. I do not believe that we can ever express adequately our appreciation and gratitude as a nation to those who have performed this task. I believe that it is fitting that now in this Bill we should be taking steps to make their task easier, to strengthen their position and to give to them the additional officers necessary to bring the regiments up to strength. This, however, means that we are calling for an additional sacrifice from the leadership corps of our youth. The demand which will be made on those who are to become officers and N.C.O. instructors is something over and above what the mass of youth will have to do. In fact they are asked to give an extra three months of their lives to their country. This is unavoidable to an extent, but we believe that the present proposal takes it too far. We believe that to ask the young officers to do nine camps in the first ten years is asking too much of them. It is proposed that they would serve ten months in their first year and attend a camp in each of eight of the following nine years. We believe that this is too much. Therefore we will move in Committee to reduce the five periods of 12 days per year to three periods of 12 days so that every third year those who have been chosen to become leaders will have one year clear in which they do not have to go to a camp. However idealistic we may be, we must face the fact that most employers will give only what they are legally obliged to give, which is unpaid leave for the period of continuous training in subsequent years. That means that most of these lads are going to have to take or will take their normal vacational leave from their work in order to perform their camp duties. From 25 onwards many of them will be married. They will have to pay rent and will have responsibilities to a wife and family and they will simply not be able to afford to give up the additional time as unpaid leave. This means that in practice for the first ten years of their adult lives they will have no normal holidays. We will therefore propose to reduce this period to five years so that where the other ranks will be doing nine months and three camps of 26 days each, the officers and N.C.O.s will be called upon to give one extra period of 12 days in each of the three year cycles. They will have one in every three years free to go on holiday and do whatever they wish in their normal holiday period. We feel that this will not interfere unduly with the efficiency to which they can be trained and that it will not weaken the contribution which they can make to the forces as officers and as N.C.O.s to an extent which will be so damaging to the Army that it justifies this tremendous call which is being made on them.

We feel too that this calls for the reconsideration of another aspect. When the national servicemen are called up, they are boys just out of school. When they come back for their subsequent training, as I have said, they have responsibilities. We believe that— in the initial stages perhaps not to the same extent—but for the subsequent camps there should be a radical revision of the pay scales for officers, N.C.O.s and other ranks. It may not be so vitally necessary to have radical changes for the first nine months, when the trainees have just come out of school. They receive their food and their uniforms and perhaps one could consider that this is a sacrifice. Once they have reached the stage when they have homes, however, they cannot simply shut those homes or not pay rent for one month of the year in every three years or, as is proposed in the Bill, lose this money during eight of the subsequent nine years. It is in those years that we believe a radical revision must be made both of the allowances and in particular of the dependants’ allowance.

The present dependants’ allowance of R1.75 maximum—it is not everyone who gets the maximum—is quite inadequate for the average family man. No man can pay rent, keep up his hire-purchase payments and feed and clothe a wife and children on R1.75 a day. We therefore feel that Permanent Force rates could be paid at least for subsequent camps, when the trainee is older than when he went in for his initial training. For the first nine months there could be an improvement as well. I realize that this could have tremendous financial implications. The change need therefore not be a radical one, but a small improvement there might however perhaps just make the difference between feeling unhappy and feeling that they have at least enough pocket money to save up for the odd week-end. A boy in the Navy, for instance, coming in from Simonstown to Cape Town to attend a cinema, pays just under 50 cents. That means a whole day’s allowance, not counting other deductions which he makes for haircuts, the local camp cinema and so on. It takes him one day to pay for his train fare. If he takes a girl friend to the cinema, it will take him another three days just to pay for the tickets. If he buys her a cup of coffee or something afterwards, it means another day’s pay. By the time you have finished a whole week’s allowance is spent to go out just once. [Interjection.] Yes, I agree, but these youngsters feel that it is worth it. We old grey beards might not think it is worth it, but they do. [Interjections.] I am glad to hear that they are not all in agreement with me. I have some support for the point of view that there should be, even for the initial trainees, some improvement, and a major improvement for those coming back for subsequent camps.

Then there is the question which arises from the proposed use of national servicemen as instructors. One of the things that has struck me noticeably when talking to people who have completed their training is the fact that when they complain about the odd bullying and maltreatment—this is something which is inevitable—in nine cases out of ten it is not maltreatment by Permanent Force instructors but by what they call the “ou manne”. These are boys just out of school, many of them not used to authority, who are suddenly given power to which they are not accustomed. Those who have been to boarding school and who have been prefects are used to some measure of power. I think hon. members will agree that when they have heard complaints of maltreatment or of bullying it is nearly always from the young age group and not from trained, qualified Permanent Force men. Therefore it will be necessary, in utilizing national servicemen as instructors, to ensure a higher standard and a greater degree of supervision than would normally be the case if more mature instructors with more experience were being used. When a mature instructor is given responsibility he can very often carry it out with very little supervision. When we are using national servicemen who have only had in effect three or four months’ training and very little training in leadership, they will have to be carefully watched, supervised and above all taught the primary sign of leadership, which is to be respected rather than to be feared. That is one aspect which will have to be taken account of in the planning of officer appointments in the training scheme.

Then there is the new innovation of the selection boards. Much will depend on these. One of my colleagues will deal later with ideas regarding the composition of the selection boards. These boards will be responsible for allocating those who will go to the Citizen Force and those who will go to the commandos. They will also be responsible for selecting potential officers and N.C.O.s. Here too, I believe that there is a possible weakness. A youngster does not always show his true potential whilst he is still at school. Even if he shows it, he may not, for some reason or other, get on well with the cadet officer or whatever officer is going to be consulted by the selection board. Therefore I feel that the door must be left open for those who have not been selected by selection boards as potential officers, but who show when they get into camp as trainees, doing their initial training, that they have leadership qualities. The door must be open for them to move up into the officer and N.C.O. training courses. We must not rely entirely, nor even mainly, on the pre-training selection done by boards who must deal essentially on what they are told and not on what they know of the lads concerned. They will be selected by these boards and then those who are selected as officers will go in for special training and similarly for the N.C.O. instructors.

There is another weakness which we will oppose in the Committee Stage, namely the provision for compulsory promotion. I do not believe that one can have an unwilling officer. A leader cannot act under duress. Unless a person is willing to lead, he cannot be a proper leader. Therefore I believe that the provision that a person must accept promotion and may not refuse it, will not create the right sort of atmosphere or the right sort of officer corps. I believe that steps must be taken to make promotion attractive, to make the people want to become officers and to lead out of a spirit of leadership and not because they have simply been told: “You were a good prefect at school; we are going to make you an officer.” Immediately they know that they are going to have to do an extra period of three months, you will tend to create an attitude amongst those who do not want to make that extra sacrifice of lackadaisicalness, disinterest and possibly even a deliberate attempt to appear to be unsuitable officer material. This will affect not only his military career, but may well affect the boy’s career throughout his life. Therefore I believe that the choice of leadership must be made out of those willing to lead and not those dragooned into it. I hear some of my friends on the left disagreeing with me. If there is a war, the first thing that is essential is that your men must trust and have confidence in their leaders. That is absolutely fundamental. One cannot have proper morale if your men do not have complete trust in their leaders. And if leaders are unwilling leaders, they are not going to have the trust and confidence of those who follow them.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we will oppose that provision when we come to the Committee Stage. We welcome the amendment concerning Exemption Board procedure which eliminates applications for exemption being made by an employer without the knowledge or consent of the employee. In many cases an employer applies, because it suits his convenience, for deferment. A boy who has finished his apprenticeship and often is married then has to do his nine months training, not of his own choice, but because an employer found it inconvenient to break into his occupation at that stage. The amendment to the Bill eliminates that. One other aspect of the Exemptions Board is one which we are told is already the position. I should however like to raise it here so that the hon. the Minister could confirm it, and that is that those wishing to study overseas or undertake an overseas trip will have that taken into account for deferment. I am not talking about exemption but of deferment. If youngsters are going to have to wait until they are 28 before they can go overseas, it will take a lot of the spice out of the life of those many thousands who look on their early youth, their early twenties, as the time when they can get out and get a bit of experience of the rest of the world. And therefore I hope that the hon. the Minister will confirm what we were assured was the position, namely that overseas study and overseas trips are regarded as grounds for deferment of training. This would also affect the question of the five or three 12-day periods, if a person is clear for one year out of three he can use that year if he wants to go overseas for a year or more.

One point on which the Select Committee received many representations was the question of conscientious objectors. Here we agree with the decision of the committee to leave the position as it is now. We feel and accept that it is impossible—although we may have had ideas initially of trying to find a way— to determine whether a person who claims as a result of religious conviction to be opposed to war, is in fact so opposed. That is something which only a person himself can determine. No board, no committee, can say: “Yes, you are in fact religiously and conscientiously opposed to war, or you are just plain yellow or plain lazy”. During the war we had the same sort of thing. People claimed to have been opposed to war who may not have been so opposed. And who was to say who was sincere and who was just not willing to fight? Therefore I say we accept the retention of the position as it is, namely that where a person has conscientious grounds for not wishing to fight he can be placed in a non-combatant capacity but will still have to do his service for the same period.

Then we come to the one point on which we strongly disagree. This concerns the very wide terms of the censorship clause in this Bill. We accept the needs of security. We accept the necessity for confidential information to be protected. Therefore we accept the provision for the elimination of the war-time qualification so that the provisions as they now exist in time of war shall apply in time of peace. We accept that the dividing line is often very thin and therefore we are prepared to support any measure which gives protection for necessary, essential security information. (But we do not believe that one should go as far as this measure goes. This measure places an iron curtain of secrecy around every aspect of our forces. The proposal is to prohibit any report whatsoever on any member of the Defence Force. Taken literally it means that if any soldier is knocked down and killed by a motor car in Adderley Street it could not be reported, the reason being that it would be a report on a member of the Defence Force and it would tend to alarm and cause despondency amongst his family. If it is taken to an even more ridiculous length you could not report the marriage or any social activity of a person if it was liable to create any emotional reaction amongst any other two or three people. We therefore feel that this clause must be limited to security information or to information of any sort which may harm, endanger or prejudice either the security of South Africa or our foreign relations with any other country. We will therefore move, not the amendment we moved in the Select Committee, but a simpler one which will limit the censorship provision to any matter affecting foreign affairs, foreign forces or to any matter affecting a member of the Defence Force or the activities of the Defence Force in so far as they affect national security. We do not believe that it is healthy to try to draw a veil round our forces. It is interesting to note that other countries are going just the other way. They are lifting restrictions on defence matters. I have here a recent instruction regarding the American forces. It is dated the 11th May, less than a month ago. It says: “Reveal maximum information, Mac Namara tells defence aides.” An instruction went out to reveal the maximum. Here we are going in the opposite direction, wanting to reveal the minimum. We feel that we have nothing to be ashamed of in our forces. We have nothing to hide. Where it is a security matter, certainly. That must be protected. But if we want to protect the Defence Force from any report whatsoever then we create a suspicion that there is something to be hidden. That can do far more harm than any report can do. A false report can always be dealt with but secrecy of this nature will create the impression and the suspicion that there is something radically wrong. We are prepared to protect security but we are not prepared to protect abuses. Therefore we feel that there must be the right to publish matters or reports which do not affect our security even if it may embarrass the forces in some or other way. We do not believe that they should have anything to be afraid of.

Finally I would like to say that the improvements introduced by the Select Committee indicate the value of a committee of that nature when dealing with a measure such as this. I do not wish to list them but there were some eight proposals which we made which have been incorporated into the Bill by common agreement. These were proposals which I believe improved the Bill. Some of them were of a minor nature, whilst others I believe were quite important. There was the reduction of Commando service liability from 20 to 16 years and the reduction of the non-continuous training from six days per year, to three days. I believe the changes will help to improve the approach and attitude of the boys undergoing national service and I mention it to indicate the value of a select committee which is prepared to co-operate in seeking the best which can be achieved. We will therefore support this Bill at Second Reading. We will oppose the five 12-day periods and move that it be reduced to three periods with consequential amendments. We are opposed to compulsory promotion and we will try to limit the censorship provisions of this Act. We hope that the hon. the Minister will meet us in these amendments so that we can have a fully agreed measure with both sides of the House and the whole of South Africa supporting a stronger and better Defence Force and greater security for our country.

I should also, at the outset like to express my gratitude towards hon. members of the Select Committee for their extremely conscientious and faithful support and for the work which they have done on the Select Committee. Sir. if you were to glance at the report of the Select Committee, you would see that the members of the Committee attended the meetings very regularly.

I am not going to reply now to the criticism expressed by the hon. member for Durban (Point). We shall have the opportunity of; going into that during the Committee Stage. What I should like to do, however, is merely to say something in regard to two points of criticism. The hon. member’s one point of criticism was in regard to the compulsory appointment of officers. I just want to say that this Bill is now making provision for the training of junior leaders, and we are going to use those junior leaders as well as noncommissioned officers and inspectors so as to alleviate our manpower position. They are called up three months before the time so that they can undergo their basic training of three months, and then they are posted to their units where they will be trained with the other citizens. That is why it is essential that one should select the junior leaders beforehand while still at school so that they can receive that basic training. I am quite certain that the hon. member is wrong if he thinks that the Department of Defence and the Minister would allow people who do not pull their weight as officers to be kept on, or if he thinks that other members of the Citizen1 Force, of the commandos who display qualities of leadership will not be appointed. The fact of the matter is that one continually finds that people drop out of the units as a result of illness or death; one will always have vacancies which can be filled by appointing persons who, at a later stage, displayed signs of having talent as leaders.

The second point which I want to deal with is the question of what the hon. member called “censure”. I deplore the fact that the hon. member used the word “censure”, because it puts an entirely unfavourable complexion on this clause. It is a pity he used the word “censure”, because it is not a question of censure. The hon. member mentioned the example here of a private killed in a street accident whose mother would feel even worse if she were to read the report in the newspaper, and he suggested that, for that reason, no publication should take place. I think one should regard this provision from a military point of view. The intention is not that a report may not be published because it will cause the mother of the person in question to be grieved; the intention is that it may not be published if it could influence the population as a whole, or at least a large number of people. I think it is wrong to ascribe such a limited scope to this clause.

I want to associate myself with the hon. member’s statement that we are pleased to have reached the stage where we can introduce compulsory military service on a national basis; I also want to join him in saying that we are now eliminating the two existing forms of discrimination, discrimination in the first instance between our own boys, where we make fish of the one and flesh of the other —where we call up one boy and exempt the other without sound reasons—and where we sometimes exempt people who are physically and mentally able to receive training, whereas we sometimes train people who are not so physically and mentally well-equipped to receive training. The other form of discrimination which is now being eliminated is the discrimination between our own citizens and the sons of immigrants. I want to point out that the sons of immigrants who can be called up in terms of this authorizing clause, are those boys under the age of 20 years who have entered the country and who have been domiciled here for five years. In other words, all those below the age of 20 years who enter the country may be called up for military service. I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that this provision is not really going to affect the skilled manpower which we are bringing into the country, because a person 20 years of age is not yet a skilled person. The actual skilled manpower which is being brought into the country is not going to be affected to any large extent by this provision.

Together with the hon. member for Durban (Point). I am also pleased about the more comprehensive task which is now going to be given to the commandos. The hon. the Minister said in his Second Reading Speech that the commandos are now going to become a full-fledged part of our Defence Force. In the past there has been a large degree of frustration amongst our commandos. They felt that they were merely an appendix to our Defence Force. Provision is now being made in this Bill, as far as the length of the training period is concerned, that they will receive the same training as members of the Citizen Force. We are also pleased that they are now being entrusted with a greater task, the task of safeguarding the interior, guard duties, etc. I think that since the commando system is a creation of our own nation, this provision will lend new support and give new life to the commandos. In this regard I want to express the hope that the hon. Minister’s Department will see to it that existing officers of commandos receive the same training as the new officers will receive, and as quickly as possible. This new national military service which we are now introducing will also enable us to make a very much more effective classification of our young men. In the past it has happened that people who were to cccupy key-posts in their future career received military training in the Citizen Force and that actually led to a major dissipation of strength, because training was given to people who knew in advance that they could not be called up. That was not only a wastage of manpower but also a wastage of money. Since we now have this two-fold classification, i.e. where one group of boys go to the Citizen Force and the other group goes to the commandos, we can now decide in advance and on a more rational basis that those who are going to occupy key-posts will go into the commandos. I think that is a vast improvement on the existing position In addition I also want to say at once that one is not always able to determine a boy’s future in advance; one will not always find it possible to say that he will one day be a key-man, but to a very large extent one is nevertheless able to do so.

I also want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Durban (Point) said when he made a plea in regard to the pay of our Citizen Force members and the commandos. The members of the Select Committee were all very concerned about this matter. However, we did not want to make provision for that in the Bill. Nor did we have the power to make recommendations, otherwise we could perhaps have submitted something in this regard to the House. But since the service will now extend over a longer period of time we feel on both sides that something should be done in this regard, particularly in the latter periods of training. Since the period of training in the Citizen Force will now be ten years, and since compulsory training is now being extended to the age of 25 years, it means that if a young man obtains exemption and is subsequently called up then it may happen that he only completes his training in his 37th year. If a person is, for example, registered at the age of 25 years—suppose it is in the case of an immigrant—and he is called when he is 27, then in ten years’ time he will be 37 years old. In the case of a member of a commando it is possible that he will actually be in his early 40s, if he were called up at a later stage in his life, and that is why these people will have to make great sacrifices in order to meet their obligations. We know that many employers do not pay the salaries of their staff who have been called up. Nor can one expect the State to compensate them by paying those salaries. I want to say at once that I think that the wage should be calculated on a rising scale according to the years of service in the Citizen Force or in the commandos. To-day the wage is being calculated on a basic scale; it does not increase. An increase is only allowed according to the officers’ ranks, but there is no increase for years of service. I feel that we should nevertheless see whether we cannot do something in this regard.

A second recommendation which I should like to make is that we should keep statistics of the losses suffered by the members of the Citizen Force and the commandos. I think those statistics, which would be kept by the Defence Force, will give us an indication of what sacrifices our people are making and cm what basis we must calculate the compensation. Since we are asking our people to make this great sacrifice, since we are now introducing national compulsory military service, it is essential for us to inform the nation that in comparison with the demands which other countries are making on their citizens, these demands are not too great. There are various Western countries which demand much longer periods of time from their citizens than we are doing; I have here a list of those countries. Australia demands 24 months; France, 16 to 18 months; Greece, in the fleet, 18 months, and in the army and air force, 24 months; Italy, in the fleet, 24 months and in the army and air force, 15 months; Netherlands, in the army, 16 to 18 months, and in the fleet and air force, 21 to 24 months; the United States, 24 months; and Germany, 18 months. There are a few countries which are demanding more or less the same sacrifices from their citizens, such as Belgium, where it is 12 to 15 months; Denmark, from 12 to 14 months; Norway from 12 to 15 months; and Sweden, 10 to 18 months. I have now given a general picture of the compulsory military service in the various countries and it indicates that what we are demanding from our young men to-day is not out of proportion when compared with what other countries are demanding from their young men.

I also want to point out that the sacrifice which we are now demanding from our young men is not as great as the numbers may seem to indicate, and with the permission of the Chairman of the Manpower Board I want to furnish the following figures in order to indicate what the effect is going to be in man-weeks. Under the existing system we have taken 864,000 man-weeks in a year for the training of our Citizea Force and the commandos. Under the proposed new system it will be 931,000 man-weeks per year. If we reduce that to manpower, it means an additional 1,300 men per year which we would be keeping out of the labour market. Calculated as a percentage of our total white manpower, it is 0.16 per cent. In other words, the sacrifices which we are going to demand are really not as great as they may appear to be when we consider the large number of young men whom we are going to train. On the other hand I want to say that since we are demanding these sacrifices of our young men, our nation and our employers must adopt the attitude that our nation and the employers will be more than compensated for these sacrifices which they will have to make. I am thinking of the additional physical and spiritual vitality which is going to result from that to the benefit of our nation, the greater discipline, initiative and leadership talent which is going to be intensified. It can only be to the good of our nation.

When we consider the sacrifices which have to be made, then I think that those sacrifices will be more than compensated for by this new potential which we are going to cultivate in the citizens of the country. I think we must make an appeal to our nation to regard these people whom we are going to draw from the labour market not as a debit but as an asset to the nation. In this regard I want to say that I feel concerned about the number of young men whom we are having to exempt on medical grounds. I have here a report which appeared in Die Burger on 30th November, 1966. I must say that this information does not really tally with the information which was submitted to the Select Committee, but because the Select Committee’s information is confidential, I cannot use it here. According to this report the position is as follows (translation)—

This is a picture I find a little disturbing. I hope that since we are now going to call up all our healthy young men, we will before long give this aspect of the problem our attention as well. I do not know what the solution is. Perhaps it is not a matter for the Minister of Defence. Perhaps it is a matter to which other Departments can give their attention, but I feel that we must do something in this regard.

Another matter which I want to emphasize more—something which the hon. member for Durban (Point) also did—and which is also causing me concern is that there is evidence that amongst our young men there is sometimes a lack of the right approach in respect of compulsory military service. I want to refer to the recommendation of the Groenewoud Committee, which was submitted to us in this report. One of the recommendations was that a mental training programme should be introduced in order to prepare those liable to military service mentally in order to encourage a positive attitude towards compulsory military service. The members of both defence groups who visited the Infantry School at Oudtshoom during this session will remember that one of the high-ranking officers said on that occasion that he found a lack of motivation amongst our young men. I feel that we must do more in this direction, as the hon. member for Durban (Point) also said. I think we must begin with our schools so as to cultivate in our children the correct frame of mind in respect of compulsory military service. But we must also work on the parents. There is no doubt that too many mothers think that it is wrong to allow their sons to attend the military camps for training. I think we must make more use of radio and Press than we have done in the past so as to emphasize the advantages to our nation arising from this. I also think that hon. members of this House must do their duty in their constituencies and present these matters to the public in a more positive way.

I want to conclude by saying that I hope that the training which we will afford our young men is going to be a means of cultivating a positive spirit of patriotism amongst our youth. I want to express the hope that when we appoint instructors to train those boys, and when we appoint our junior leaders, we will’ see to it that the correct attitude is displayed by those officers and non-commissioned officers, because if they do not display the correct positive attitude, we will never find it in the young men. If we cultivate the correct attitude, I am convinced that we will not only have better soldiers under this new system but we will also have better citizens and men for-South Africa.

The hon. member for Pretoria (West) mentioned the lack of motivation on the part of our youth. I was glad to hear that he kept it to motivation, but he soon changed his tune to patriotism, and he spoke about the lack of patriotism.I want to deal with that for a moment, because we have heard not only to-day from the hon. member for Pretoria (West), but we have heard ever since the budget that there is this lack of patriotism amongst our youth. But we must not forget that the civilians do not realize what the position is in South Africa to-day, and in fact they are confused by the double talk of the Government.

Our youth must be confused to-day, nobody more so, when even for us it is difficult to draw a distinction. We find the hon. the Minister of Finance and the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs telling us of the peace, the quiet and the prosperity there is in our country, and reminding us of the world confidence there is in South Africa. But on the other hand we hear, as we have heard only this last week from the Deputy Minister of Police, the Minister of Justice and indeed from the Minister of Defence, that there are great dangers facing South Africa. They say that we must appreciate we are in a state of semi-war. The youth outside do not see anything untoward. They read in the papers of some terrorists or saboteurs or what have you in South-West Africa, but they also see that the S.A.P. cope very well with these people. The only thing which is a reality to them is indeed the battle which they have on the economic front in their private lives. Therefore I think it is quite unfair to accuse them of being unpatriotic towards the country. Moreover, I think that the degree of sacrifice which the Government expects them to make on the economic front in order to do their duty, that they must fall over one another to serve in our Defence Force, is unfair. I do feel if they realize the situation and they know for what they are required and for what they must train, they will indeed come up to scratch as our men have always come up to scratch in the past.

Therefore I associate myself with what the hon. member for Durban (Point) said, that it is indeed the motivation which we must try to inspire. But let us not confuse motivation with a lack of patriotism.

While we are talking about motivation, may I just for a minute discuss this matter because the training scheme we have here tries to achieve an object. We are in full agreement that this object, as is stated in the White Paper, is one of deterrence and to provide security for our mainland. Let us for a moment refer to comparable nations on this matter. Let us for example examine the position in which Canada finds herself. She is, of course, fortunate in being on the same continent as the U.S.A. so that she has her deterrent factor through her close association with the U.S.A. The U.S.A. provides it for her. Consequently, she can concentrate her commitments in defence on other aspects, such as the peacekeeping force of the U.N. and her commitments towards N.A.T.O. Our great deterrent factor must be the major Western powers. We must tell them exactly where we stand, that we in fact support the Western standards and we must emphasize and reiterate this fact all the time, on every possible occasion.

Order! Is the hon. member not covering too wide a field with this discussion?

As you wish, Sir. I merely wish to compare the motivation for this legislation which we have before us to-day with what happens in other countries. We heard the hon. member for Pretoria (West) mention the periods of service in other countries. He mentioned, amongst others, Australia which has a period of two years. Australia’s commitment is for two years only and does not stretch over a period, as we will have, of ten years and more.

When we come to this question of change I want to put it very clearly that the United Party favoured the reduction in the old system of the training period because we felt that where a build-up of strength was required it could only be achieved in two ways, namely (a) an increase of instructors and (b) by the reduction of the training period. The proposed plan, as we have seen, provides for a scheme which will provide a certain number of instructors. Therefore, we favour this scheme and we on this side will support it. But I do want to warn that these instructors will not have any experience at all other than the course they have to undergo to qualify as instructors They will have no service period to back them; up, and in fact, as the hon. member for Durban (Point) pointed out, they will have youth on their side. Consequently, we are going to have immature instructors, and I must emphasize that they will need very close supervision and control. I grant that the ones who do come out will be very successful leaders, but they can only be used to a limited extent because they can only be used in the initial stage, during the first period of training. After that, when their units return subsequently for continuous training, they can only be taught by experienced instructors who must of necessity come from the Permanent Force. The training programme will, therefore, be a heavy strain on the Permanent Force. They will have to handle many men, and the scheme cannot succeed unless the Permanent Force is brought up to full establishment, and unless that establishment is increased all the time as this scheme progresses. We must make every effort to attract more men to the Permanent Force and I do feel we should use the short-service contract system to a greater extent. We have had discussions during the Defence Vote on the Permanent Force and its shortage of men; so I do not want to repeat the arguments that were raised then, except to say that those arguments are all valid and even more so under this new scheme. If we are to bring about an efficient force with limited numbers as we should like to, we must set about it in the right way. As the hon. member for Durban (Point) pointed out, we have seen what can be achieved by an efficient, even if small, force. What is important is quality rather than quantity. We can only achieve that by building it around a good Permanent Force or semi-Permanent Force. With our modern equipment requiring specialists in its use, we all appreciate that the training which will be given to the Citizen Force and the commandos will not be enough to make them specialists. Therefore it is even more important that the Permanent Force be expanded. Indeed, we are very glad to see that the Air Force and the Navy to a very great extent fall in with this in that they very largely build on their Permanent Force strength. We also appreciate that the Army cannot, because of different considerations, do it to the same extent. But we still feel that more can be done for development in that direction.

I would say that more use can be made ot integrated training. I also appreciate that much is said about the esprit de corps of the different arms and that, consequently, training must be within that arm only. But I feel that that can be achieved in any case, irrespective of where the initial basic training takes place. I do not mean by this the old amphigarious training which we had in pre-war days. Nor do I mean the integration which is taking place in Canada, and the extent of it. There the rule is that there must be no differentiation between the various arms at all. However, I do not see why a particular branch, whether it be for the Air Force, the Navy or for the Army, cannot all start off under one training unit. After all, if you peel potatoes or if you sit in front of a wireless set or if you look at a radar screen, whether it be in the Air Force, Navy or the Army, it is done in exactly the same way in all three cases. If you have to train men in each different arm it leads not only to a duplication but a triplication of training equipment as well as the facilities that have to be provided. I am quite sure that where integration between the arms of our Forces has already taken place to a certain extent, this can be developed much further. I think that the esprit de corps of each arm as such would not suffer at all or in any way. In this regard there is also the question of training in the different arms people who will be used to do the work of another arm. May I give the example of the Air Force where they are required to train security people, in other words guards. Guarding is in fact a responsibility of the Army. Why then must the Air Force do the training of half its trainees as security guards when the Army can do it. Should it be that that is the established practice, then certainly the time to change it is right now and not wait until we are in trouble or have trouble because then a change will create a very much larger dislocation than it will af the moment. What is more is that we have heard a lot about there being no discrimination in the training of our trainees. That is why the commando training has to be so long compared to the Citizen Force training. Yet we find that the Air Force in training these security guards only require them to do one year’s training. They will then have totally finished their commitments. Whereas their counterpart in the Army is saddled for another ten years with responsibility towards the Force.

I should like to say a few words about the period of training. We all appreciate that more time is required to make a reasonable soldier of a Citizen Force man. I think that we also appreciate that it is not our endeavour to make professional soldiers of our trainees. As long as they can be given a good grounding with the basic essentials, that is all we want. However, under the new scheme a very heavy burden is being placed on the trainee. The total continuous period is practically equal to that of other countries but the spread of this continuous training is very much longer in South Africa where we now have this period of ten years in the Citizen Force and 16 years in the commandos. Particularly towards the latter half of each period the trainees’ responsibilities will have increased greatly. At this stage I must support the hon. member for Durban (Point) on the question of leave which will be due to these people. We know that the Act provides that the employer must give special leave to a trainee. He does not give him anything else. He does not have to pay him for this period and he does not give him any other assistance whatsoever. We know what the pay position is in the Army. This is particularly true of the leadership group who have the heavier responsibility and obligations. I must therefore also support what the hon. member for Pretoria (West) has said, namely that pay should be increased particularly after the first year. I think that as a trainee progresses through this period of service, his pay should increase with that service. That applies even more to the commandos where they have to do a 16-year period.

We have heard a lot about the Citizen Force trainee and we do not foresee any major problem in that regard initially because the trend is very much the same as before except that there are now three camps instead of two. But the numbers are going to build up very rapidly. We find that from the end of this year there will be no retirements from the Citizen Force for at least seven years. That means that until 1974 nobody will be relieved of his obligation to serve in the Force. The spread, however, of continuous training is such that our defence authorities should be able to cope. I think that the success of the scheme is very largely dependent on the way the commandos are handled. We know that the commando training of the past was not particularly good. As a matter of fact civilians joke about it and call it a complete farce. I would point out that to put this right will require great determination and firm action. We have heard little about the details of commando training. As a matter of fact I am rather alarmed at the inconsistencies that exist about the future of commando training. How much of it will be continuous and how much non-continuous? There seems to be conflict even amongst the very high authorities in the Defence Force as to exactly what they intend doing with the commandos. It is going to be a major organizational feat to get them to work efficiently. According to the Bill, as regards even the first period of two months of continuous training, the commando trainee has not got to do it in one period, but can spread it over the year, according to how it can be arranged. That already is a great difficulty. It will be hard indeed to get any reasonable standard of basic training imprinted upon these trainees. It will be even more difficult during the subsequent periods of 19 days each year, and especially if these 19-day periods are not continuous, as we are led to understand they may well be. We understand that one of the main purposes of the commandos will be to take over guard duties from the Citizen Force. This will certainly not assist in their training. It will not be of much value to them. But even assuming that it is continuous training for a week at a time, can you imagine, Sir, the waste of time there will be in changing around and the expense that will be incurred in a weekly change-round of the thousands of people because we are not now talking in terms of the old commandos. We are talking now in terms of people who are going to be trained and changed every so often. I can foresee that if this is not organized well, we are going to find that the commandos that are near points that have to be guarded, will do their full service and others further away will not do their full share, particularly in the case of the rural commandos. I think that this is one of the major aspects which we will have to watch in making our new scheme a success.

I should like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to one factor which I think is essential and should be incorporated in this Bill. Where provision is made now for university students to join primarily the commandos to suit their particular circumstances, provision does exist for a commando trainee to be used in the Citizen Force. He can be seconded and used at the pleasure of the Minister. However, I should like to see that a member of a commando can be transferred to the Citizen Force and not just be seconded to the Citizen Force, and also that this transfer can be effected without him having to do the increased training period required for the Citizen Force initially.

In other words he goes to the Citizen Force from the commando as though he had started off in the Citizen Force. Students receive a technical training at university. The average period of their course is between four and five years for their degree and subsequent certificate. During that time they will have done their two months’ continuous training in the first year. They would probably have attended three or four 19-day courses. This means that they will have done approximately five months by the end of their course. I suppose one can say that 90 per cent of these qualified students will be leader material. I agree that it does not of necessity mean that because a man has a degree, he is a leader, but I presume that a high percentage of them will be leaders. Therefore it will be a complete waste of time for these people to be used in the commandos when they could be used much more effectively in the Citizen Force. There is of course a great difficulty which will be experienced when they leave the university. They will be spread over the whole country and they will have to join up with new commandos. I feel that whereas they can be used by the Minister in the Citizen Force, it would be unfair of him to use them to any great extent in the Citizen Force and yet still make them remain attached to the commandos to serve their full 16 years. Consequently I would suggest that the new section 22 (10) could easily be amended by the addition of a proviso to make it possible for a member of the commandos to transfer to the Citizen Force, subject always, of course, to the approval of the Minister.

I also want to mention that, inasmuch as it is important that we get the balance of the force worked out well, that same balance amongst the units is of primary importance. We cannot put all the citizens of one area into the same unit. Our units are soon going to be at full strength and when the call-up comes, even for the annual camp, we may find the situation where this could have a crippling effect on a specific area. Indeed, when manoeuvres are anticipated or when they are expected to be carried out, and it involves two or three units, the effect can be very bad indeed. Even worse is the fact that, should mobilization come, these people are all in a unit from one specific area. We all know that it can happen, and it has happened in the past, that units have been wiped out in toto. It certainly would have a very bad effect if all the boys from one area were to go at one time. I appreciate that working out this balance will bring about major problems, but it is one of the problems the Army has to face. The administrative difficulty exists, and even more so the difficulty of non-continuous training, apart from camps, when part of the unit is in point A, and another part is in point B or C or D, or whatever the case may be. It is necessary, however, that the nucleus of any unit should come from one particular area.

Then I have a few general remarks about the Bill. Firstly there is the question of apprentices. We find that most of our children leave school at the age of 18 years, but some leave at the age of 16. Such a boy will work for a year before he is called up, because he can only be called up in his eighteenth year. We may find that some of these boys will have been apprenticed to some trade or another. The boy may be an ordinary motor mechanic or an apprentice in any other branch. He may even be an articled clerk or something like that. I presume that it will be the policy of the Defence Force to use these apprentices within the ambit of their own particular trade. I do feel that these trainees will gain excellent experience during the time they are in the Army. They will have learnt much. Their training will have been diversified because they will come into contact with situations which they may possibly never see in civilian life. What is more, discipline will have been instilled into them. Consequently they will in fact be very much better apprentices at the end of their training period than before they went in. I feel that where the Apprenticeship Act (No. 37 of 1944) now allows a maximum of only four months credit for any apprentice, the hon. the Minister should have a talk with the Minister of Labour. Let us see if we cannot get this extended so that every apprentice, irrespective of what year he is in or for what period he serves, receives full credit for the time he is in the Army, towards his apprenticeship in civilian life.

The question of leadership has been raised. I can do no more than support the hon. member for Durban (Point) in saying that we are against anybody being forced to accept promotion. With the added obligation must come added advantages. We shall only get the best leader material coming forward if in fact they are competing for leadership. Certainly they will have no desire to lead if leading means sacrifice to them. We shall not get the best, as has been pointed out, if they are forced to accept promotion. We find that this has already been proved by the old system. The desire for leadership through voluntary means was cancelled by the desire to complete service as soon as possible. Hence the lack of leaders, which is one of the reasons why we have this Bill to improve the position in regard to leadership. I therefore feel that where an extra commitment is placed on leaders, they should get the advantage which goes with it. Any commitment without an advantage mitigates against leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I regret to say that the hon. member who has just resumed his seat misunderstood completely the place and the function of our commandos under this dispensation in future. I regret having to say this, because the hon. member was also a member of the select committee where he had time and opportunity enough for study in regard to this matter. Judging from what the hon. member said here this afternoon, he does not understand the position at all, nor does he understand the special functions which the commando system has to to fulfill. This almost causes me to say that the traditional view which hon. members on the opposite side of the House have held in regard to the commando system, still lingers on. That is why I regret what the hon. member had to say, especially after the speech made by the hon. member for Durban (Point).

It appears to me that the major point of difference between the two sides of the House in respect of this amending legislation has to do with the question of the period of training. Hon. members on that side of the House feel that an unnecessarily long period in the life of a young man is being occupied with military training. I shall return to this point later, but I just want to refer to the fact that the hon. member for Pretoria (West) made mention here this afternoon of the period of training in comparative countries in the world. I cannot do other this afternoon than to relate the occurrences of the last few days in the Middle East to our entire training system, because we have a few lessons to learn from them. Firstly, we can learn the lesson that the best and most modern weapons produced by this technological age are worth precious little in the hands of people who are not well trained; secondly, that a well-trained army, no matter how small it may be, is able, with the help of good weapons, to resist in an efficient way a formidable and superior force; and, thirdly, that a national army, in contrast to an army which consists purely of professional soldiers, a national army which is inspired with love and patriotism for the vital matter of the survival of their own country, is unconquerable, even in this nuclear age. The fourth lesson which we can learn is that a nation who se right of existence is being threatened is to-day dependent solely upon its own strength and its own abilities to protect itself. It will obtain no assistance from the major powers or from the United Nations, because those people look after themselves, and their fear of the nuclear weapons of the other powers is such that they do not readily intervene in such a war.

It also shows that the Gyppo has not changed in 20 years.

It has been said before that we do not have any allies, and that we are in a deplorable military position. Sir, people should not come forward with arguments like that to-day. Every country in the world, a small country as well, has to rely on its own strength, its own means and its own ability to protect itself. The last lesson which we can learn from this situation is the lesson of being prepared. Even though there should come a time in a nation’s military history when the pressure on it may perhaps seem to be diminishing, that should by no means persuade it to relax its training efforts, because if it did that it might, in view of the speed with which things happen in the world to-day, be caught napping.

Mr. Speaker, against this background we therefore want to discuss to-day the training of our own Defence Force, as well as the particular attitude towards military matters which we in South Africa are developing. In particular we want to state to-day, for the sake of parents whose children will presently be called up for training—and we want to say this for general consumption too—that with all our military activities we do not intend risking or sacrificing the life of one young South African for foreign territory or possession, because we need the lives of those young South Africans too much for the defence and protection of our own territory. We also want to inform parents—and I am saying this in pursuance of what the hon. member for King William’s Town said a moment ago in regard to the lack of orientation of young people, here and there, in regard to military matters —as well as to the young men that greedy, envious eyes are directing their gaze towards South Africa. There are people who seek our downfall. A few days ago the hon. the Deputy Minister of Police sketched the situation in South-West Africa to us here. Consequently there is no question of there not being an urgent need for us to give our young people military training. But to that we want to add that there is no country in the world to-day, whatever its circumstances at this time, which can regard itself as being militarily safe without its having armed itself. We have the example of Switzerland, situated in the heart of the European area, where the struggle of the past two world wars took place, which remained neutral but which has in spite of that, although not involved in those wars, never ceased to give her young people military training and to arm them. Since the hon. member who spoke before I did has complained about the period of training and said that ten years in the case of the Citizen Force, or 16 years in the case of a person who becomes a member of a commando, is too long a period in the life of a young South African, then I want to tell him that in Switzerland, which did not fire a shot in the two world wars, and was not involved in them, every citizen who is medically fit makes his services available to the Defence Force for 40 years of his life.

The training period is four months.

Yes, the basic training period is four months. The hon. member for Durban (Point) has not grasped the point at all. The basic training period is four months, but after that every citizen of Switzerland must attend refresher camps repeatedly, and he remains liable to military service up to his 60th year.

In South Africa he remains liable up to his 65th year.

The hon. member spoke about military service for ten years, but it is not continuous military service over a period of ten years. The period is ten years, but the actual period of service is only 15 months and a few weeks. The hon. member felt that this was too long. I say that even in the case of Switzerland which regards itself as being very safe, it cannot forgo giving the necessary attention to training and arming itself. Mr. Speaker, it is a harsh truth—we are not exaggerating the matter and this must be stated outside by both sides of this House—that we cannot relax our military effort. We cannot return to the position where we found ourselves in 1961 when we amended the Act in order to expand our training scheme and when doubts were expressed from that side of the House as to whether it was really necessary to go so far as we wanted to in that measure, and when it was intimated that the measure was only being introduced in order to quell domestic difficulties. Let us tell our people that it is essential, and that it has become permanently essential to give our attention to the military training of our young people.

Mr. Speaker, the South African nation is known as a rescourceful nation, one which easily adapts itself to circumstances, and this applies particularly in the military sphere as well. In our history we find the example of the commando system which was the result of resourcefulness and which was born of the circumstances then prevailing, a system which has caught on so well that it is still being used in South Africa to-day as well as in other countries of the world, in altered circumstances. We developed guerilla warfare in South Africa. In 1961, after becoming a Republic, when we found ourselves in a changed world, we had to come forward with a different approach in regard to the question of the training of our young people, and the best which we could do at that time with the means and the manpower at our disposal was the expansion of the ballot system, which had its faults. Those faults have become clear to us in the period which has just elapsed. Nowhere were these faults more clearly to be seen than in the administrative burden of exemptions which was placed on the exemption board. These faults were indicated further, firstly by the fact that we did not have the strength which we had envisaged at our disposal; secondly, by the complaints of boredom which were made in certain cases, boredom which was attributable to the fact that we did not have sufficient Permanent Force instructors; and thirdly, by the feeling of resentment which arose in some cases between young people who had been called up and others who got off scot free. It became clear to us that what had already been advocated in 1961 but which had been impossible to implement owing to circumstances then prevailing and also in view of the means at our disposal and the manpower, is now necessitating that we proceed to make every young man liable to military service.

We are grateful for the evidence which the chairman of the Manpower Board gave before the Select Committee to which the hon. member for Pretoria (West) has also referred, which indicates that this expansion of military training, so that every medically fit young man is to be trained, is doing very little harm to our manpower position because of the diversification of our forms of training. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) referred to the minor difference it would make. But I want to make the point that manpower which may perhaps be utilized temporarily for military purposes during their training, can by no means be regarded as having been applied uneconomically, because the price of safety for a country is continual vigilance, and its activities in a military sphere is the price it has to pay for its safety. The country which is not prepared to pay that price or to apply manpower to that purpose, can find itself in the position that everything which it has tried to build un economically and otherwise, can be destroyed in an instant. But I want to add that a young man who has completed his military training is also of far more economic use to his future employer when he leaves that training camp as a disciplined man and one who is still connected with some military unit or other.

We have learnt, from the lesson Israel taught, that the private who has to handle modern weapons, must be very well trained, and that he must have the right approach to the Defence Force and his own tasks. Our own military leaders have made it apparent to us that our training has not up to now kept pace with those requirements. That is why I now want to ask that we on both sides of the House should refrain from differing from one another to-day in regard to the question of a few weeks out of the lives of young people which is being requested so that they can receive military training. We cannot afford a large Permanent Force. We have to rely on a Citizen Force drawn from the civilian sector who know what the needs of the Defence Force are, but who also know what they are fighting for. I said that our commando system will also come into its own again under the new dispensation because we are now going to undertake training by means of the commandos as well, which will ensure better control for the officers of the commandos over people who have been allocated to the commandos for training. That will mean that the commandos will also undergo a process of rejuvenation in that more of the privates will be resilient young men. But there will still be room enough in the commandos for the associate member, the man who has served his time in the commandos who has learnt to handle a weapon and who is specially equipped to play his role in the special task of the commandos in South Africa.

On this occasion I also want to pay tribute to to-day’s officers in the commandos as well as in the Citizen Force who have offered their voluntary services, for the time they have spent on this matter, and on the many other things they have done in regard to military activities-things which they did quite voluntarily. I pay tribute to them, and we trust that, in the period during which they will still be there, before they are replaced by officers who will have to serve out their compulsory time, they will still be of assistance in this great task.

In conclusion just a word in regard to the Press clause, which the hon. member for Durban (Point) has called the censure clause. I cannot view it in that light. What is being envisaged is essential. Incidents which we have experienced have drawn our attention to the fact that it is absolutely essential that we cannot allow everything in regard to our Defence Force or our military activities to be freely published. What is being envisaged by the hon. the Minister is that a special liaison officer will be available to tell newspapermen on request what they may publish. It is also being envisaged by the Minister to inform the Press by means of a statement of what normal daily activities they may in fact publish. In this the hon. the Minister has obtained the co-operation of the Press Union. I want to go so far as to say that what this provision includes is nothing more than what could be expected in terms of normal decent journalistic ethics, it is what any decent journalist would in any case do if he acquired a piece of information, i.e. to inquire from the military body in question whether he might publish it.

We are grateful that we have rached the point where we are going to expand the training of our young people to the stage where every able-bodied young man will also contribute his share to the safeguarding and protection of his country. I also want to express the hope that if there have been complaints— as the hon. member for Pretoria (West) also said, i.e. that not all young people had the correct attitude towards the defence of their country—that every parent and every school and every hon. member of this House will make it his duty to inculcate in our young people the correct attitude towards that task.

I wish to support the emphasis which the hon. member for Stellenbosch has placed on the approach we are making in regard to the reorganization of our Defence Force, namely that our approach in this country is to ensure the maximum preparedness for defence to ensure the security of our country, and that we are not preparing for any acts of aggression. I want to say, also, that I listened with interest to the deductions he made from recent events to the north of us, and I want to add one further lesson to which I shall revert a little later, and that is the lesson of the necessity for preparedness for action at short notice. No matter how well equipped or trained a defence force may be, if mobilization lags, the whole benefit of training and equipment is lost.

Before I come back to that point I should like to say that to me this Bill before us introduces two basic changes in the military tradition and history of this country. The first one is the concept of obligatory service in place of training which was the concept hitherto in so far as our Citizen Force is concerned. I must say that this, the changing of the word “training” to “service”, is not merely a question of terminology. I believe it is a more realistic approach in modern circumstances. I would myself have preferred to have seen the period of continuous training lengthened even up to two years and non-continuous service omitted had it been a practical proposition for a country such as ours. I believe that that basis of preparation of a Defence Force can only be adopted in a country where the population strength is such that you can maintain within a two-year period a sufficiently large force available for an emergency. In South Africa I do not see that that is possible, and thus one finds it necessary to accept as a matter of necessity the extension of the four-year period to a ten-year period of non-continuous training to ensure that we have in the Citizen Force of South Africa the required number of men who are armed, who have their equipment and uniforms and are on unit strength in case of mobilization. I think we only have to look back to the past history of this country to see what time-absorbing processes preceded getting our forces operational in the past. Those leisurely times, those leisurely months, are not here for us to-day—we have to be ready at very short notice. For that reason I decided that there was no alternative but to accept the extended period of service rather than only to have a longer term of continuous training.

The second basic change which is inherent in this Bill is that the volunteer basis of South African military service, which has been the basis of service in the past, has now gone. In terms of this Bill we will have conscription in this country. As one who has looked at that change and has sat on the Select Committee, I find that the circumstances are now such that as much as one should have liked to have seen a continuance of the system of a volunteer army, that would not meet the circumstances in which South Africa finds itself at the present time. For that reason I support this measure fully in so far as the basic principles are concerned. As regards certain details, I shall also have some comments to make.

This Bill provides the machinery, the framework for an adequate defence force in South Africa. It provides the framework whereby in the shortest possible time an adequate force of armed men can be mobilized. The utilization of this machinery is of course in the hands of our Permanent Force and we can only hope that by providing this machinery the Permanent Force will be in the position more easily and more effectively to provide the force that we require.

The planned training also requires that we should train the necessary ancillary forces. Although this Bill does not deal with the matter in any detail, we will look with interest at the arrangements which are going to be made by the Permanent Force, by the supreme command, in regard to the provision of the backbone—if one might call it that—of the Citizen Force for operational purposes. I am talking of the training of staff officers. One realizes that with a regiment going into operations immediately there is required the directorate, the upper management, to ensure that that force has its intelligence officers, adequate means of communication, administrative officers, has its supply columns and sources of supply adequately arranged, has its technical officers, and has adequate medical services at its disposal. These are aspects of the planning with which we will have to be concerned as the years go by to see to what extent they are fitting into the new planning with increasing numbers of men who will be under arms when this ten-year period becomes fully operative.

I want to mention in regard to the question of immigrants that I want to welcome the provision which is now being introduced. In future immigrants will have to render service if they have resided in South Africa long enough to entitle them to take out citizenship. During the sittings of the Select Committee it was interesting to learn what a considerable number of people are concerned in this group. I believe it is estimated that at the present moment there are in the age-group 21-24 something in excess of 3,000 men who could be made available and who could render service in our armed forces. The question of the immigrant being brought into our training scheme is a material and strengthening factor as far as our services are concerned.

The other matter which obviously is of concern to all aspects of our national life is the question of manpower. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) has dealt with the information which we received in this regard. It is matter again where one must weigh up the demands of the private sector—or the civilian sector— as against the demands and requirements of our forces. The evidence in this regard was full, complete and quite convincing, and was to the effect that the system of training on which we are embarking is not one which need disrupt to any material extent the country’s manpower position. The disruption obviously will come in so far as the individual is concerned during the period he has to serve.

The question of the period which he is called upon to serve is a matter which has been raised by the hon. member for Durban (Point). I know it is the intention that the man who remains on the roll of his unit after his initial period of training will only be called up once every three years for the camp training. I think that is the intention. I think it is most important that these young men should know that at least once in three years they will be free of an army camp. They can then make their plans for their families, especially after the first three years on strength. As they get on to their middle and late twenties they can know that once in three years their leave arrangements can be made without regard to an army camp. Because the younger man at the moment, I believe, frequently, because of the financial implications, uses his annual leave in which to do his army training. Some of them get full pay from their employers during this period, and others find a good deal of pleasure in this training and the camps, especially the young unmarried men. But it will be unfair to their families if that routine is to continue when they get married and have families and other responsibilities. I hope the hon. the Minister will have regard to the proposal which is going to be moved during the Committee Stage by the hon. member for Durban (Point).

There are two aspects as regards postings to which I want to refer. Clause 38 of this Bill refers to it as selections. The first one is the question of the selection of the individual. I wish to refer the Minister to the recommendations of the Groenewoud committee as published in a summary of their recommendations. We find there is an inconsistency to some extent with the recommendations. In Part I, paragraph 2, we find the following—

In other words, the serviceman should have a choice. Later on we find another recommendation under “Citizen Force” on page 2 of the report which we have. I think perhaps it is a more applicable one. I refer to paragraph B (2), which reads as follows—

I believe that is a rather big responsibility which will rest upon the shoulders of the selection boards in ensuring that the young fellows when they have left school are given the opportunity to be posted in accordance with what are likely to be their occupations in later life. I believe that to be not an insurmountable problem. It is, however, one that must be constantly watched so that the man who has finished his training, or even the trainee during his course of training, serves in the arm of the service compatible with his eventual civilian occupation.

The second aspect in regard to this question of selection is the conflict with which one is faced in building up the esprit de corps of a unit, that is the desirability or otherwise of putting the youths from one centre into one unit. The hon. member for King William’s Town has quite correctly drawn attention to the results that might occur in war operations if that is done. One has the conflicting problem of establishing a peace-time esprit de corps by getting young men together who know one another and who associate with one another in sport or civilian employment. If however those men go into operations in that manner you might have one town or one small community suffering a heavy loss in one engagement taking place over a day or two. This happened in the last war. One knows that regiments were virtually annihilated or half were annihilated and the rest taken prisoner on one day. There was an air of gloom and depression in one community which had supplied the men for that particular unit. It is a problem because if one does not adopt that procedure in postings, the regimental esprit de corps suffers and you have people from all over the province coming into a unit and the same peace-time esprit de corps is not maintained.

Linked with this is the question of the self-sufficiency of our Defence Force. Here I want to mention with how much pleasure one has noted in the White Paper issued by the hon. the Minister the constitution and functions of the Defence Council which has been established. I believe that the responsibilities and spheres of operation of the Defence Council are vital for the maintenance of the ancillary services and the self-sufficiency of our Defence Force.

In conclusion I want to refer to the Permanent Force which of course must provide the motivation for training and which is the basis upon which an operational force would be created in time of war. I want to refer to some of the recommendations of the Groenewoud Commission. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister will be able to give us some further information concerning progress in this regard. I refer to the question of the remuneration and the conditions of service of the members of the Permanent Force. At the moment the problem seems to be that the ranks are equated to civilian posts by the Public Service Commission.

Order! I do not think that that has anything to do with the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I accept your ruling, but I felt that as part of the background of our Defence Force we should have …

Order! The Permanent Force does not come under this Bill.

Perhaps the happiness of those who must train the Citizen Force is not material: I will abide by your ruling.

I want then to deal with one other aspect of the training which arises from the selections and the postings; that is the dove-tailing into the planning of our Citizen Force of a function to be performed by the Coloured people of South Africa. They have performed this function in defence in the past and I believe that they are still able and will be able in the future to perform that function. According to this White Paper they form a part of our Permanent Naval Force. I believe that in the planning of our ancillary forces, particularly in regard to stretcher bearers etc., the Coloured people can and should have a part to play in the Citizen Force of our country. I do not want to deal with the matters which we will discuss more fully in the Committee Stage and the amendments which will be moved.

I want to conclude by saying that I think that the officers of the Supreme Command, as has been said by the hon. member for Durban (Point) and others in this House, should know that they have the country and members on both sides of this House supporting them and wishing them success in the task which will be thrust upon them by these innovations embodied in this Bill. The administrative problems will be legion. The success of this new scheme will depend almost entirely on the maintenance of public confidence by the way in which this Bill is applied and the way in which the men who come in for a further period of training are treated. It rests on the shoulders of the Supreme Command and upon those to whom they delegate authority to ensure that this Bill operates well. All I can say is that this side of the House wishes them success in that task which they will undertake for the benefit of our country.

Mr. Speaker, I can only agree with the hon. member for Green Point in so far as he subscribes to the principles of this Bill. I just want to refer in passing to two points which he touched upon. The first point is the question of the classification into units of those liable to military service. It is in fact true that the Groenewoud Commission recommended that as far as it was practicable classifications should be undertaken according to the desires of those liable for military service themselves. I believe that a condition should be attached to that, to the effect that something like that should only take place in so far as it will not bring about the disruption of the entire Defence Force organization.

As far as the question of esprit de corps is concerned, it is a very old principle in the South African Defence Force that units in South Africa are divided up in the form of regiments. Training units and service units are divided up as regiments. They are also being maintained as such. Up to now the system has worked very well. I think that such an old tradition has been built up—I think the hon. member has experience of that tradition of the regiments—that it would be impossible to make that classification on any other basis whatsoever than is the case at present. I think that the other principles which the hon. member touched upon can be fruitfully discussed in the Committee Stage. I should like on this occasion to inform the hon. the Minister that there is much appreciation for him in the country, both within as well as outside the service. I think that I am fully justified in mentioning this to him on this occasion. Recently I have made it my task to talk to numerous men in the Defence Force in order to ascertain what their feelings were. On that an attitude towards this legislation can be based. I find only appreciation for the way in which the hon. the Minister has undertaken his task, for the zeal which he has displayed, and the energy which he has spent in making, up to now, a very great success of a new task. I think that I am speaking on behalf of both sides of the House as well as on behalf of the country when I say that this appreciation is to be found on a very broad level. I want to congratulate the Commandant-General on this legislation. I think it is for him an ideal which he has been cherishing for a long time, one which he sees partially realized in the form of this legislation.

There is a further lesson to be learnt out of the news which is at present being brought very specifically to our attention. It is that nobody can rely on the United Nations as a body for peace and that everyone is thrown back upon his own resources to work out his own salvation. I think the hon. the Prime Minister stated this point on another occasion very clearly and very appositely. Because that is so, it is at this stage that we need this legislation more than at any other. I think that it is also our task to inform the country that in spite of the apparent restfulness which is prevailing in South Africa, and in spite of the prosperity which we are enjoying, we should not develop a feeling of over-confidence in respect of military and defence matters. I do not think we should lapse into a feeling of over-confidence which could be dangerous to us in future. With that I do not want to maintain that war is awaiting us just around the corner. Nevertheless I think that we must begin to perceive this matter in its correct perspective. We must bring home the matter to our people in its correct perspective and inform them that everything is not so peaceful in the world, particularly in respect of South Africa, as we would perhaps like to see.

This legislation is the product of long and thorough study. Before it was submitted to the Select Committee the Department had already given very thorough attention to the matter. It is also a fact that much fruitful work was done in the Select Committee and I want to associate myself with the hon. members who have expressed their gratitude towards the officers of the Defence Force who supplied us with valuable background information so that this discussion could take place more rapidly and without hitches. Since we are now going over from a ballot system to a compulsory service system, I just want to emphasize briefly what disadvantages were inherent in the old ballot system. During 1966 there were 56,663 men who were liable to be balloted. Of them 43,301 were balloted, but during the same year 6,090 were exempted after having been balloted and 15,406 were granted extension, while 3,084 were declared medically unfit. In other words, after having been balloted 24,580. or 57 per cent of the original number who had been balloted, fell away. Hon. members can realize what a tremendous administrative burden is placed on the organization which has to handle this exemption from balloting. This system is now, in a logical way, being reversed so that this elimination, which is essential, and which will take place, will now take place before compulsory service. During a long elimination process, which is going to start in the schools, an end-product will be obtained where almost 100 per cent compulsory service is going to be performed. In this way a tremendous amount of administrative bother is going to be eliminated.

At the moment our Citizen Force soldiers are receiving what is for the most part conventional training. I want to plead with the hon. the Minister and ask that we continue along the course which has already been adopted, i.e. that the emphasis should fall to an ever-increasing extent on unconventional training. The threat to South Africa is not necessarily a conventional threat, but one where the possibility of an unconventional threat can arise. Mao Tse-Tung said in one of his writings that the ideal mode of action was to follow up guerilla warfare with conventional warfare. If one thinks of a pattern of threat to South Africa, it is highly probable that it will follow precisely this dictum of Mao Tse-Tung. That is why it is necessary for our Citizen Force soldiers to be trained in this direction to an ever-increasing extent. Our commandos are going to play a more and more important role as the guarantee of safety for South Africa. But, since they are going to make domestic safety their main task, I want to entreat the hon. the Minister that we, as far as the question of civilian protection is concerned and which is also going to become one of their tasks, that the training of the commandos should also concentrate on their performing certain tasks for civilian protection. The importance of civilian protection is assuming greater proportions in the eyes of the world, to such an extent that the great powers regard civilian protection as one of the three legs on which their defence systems must be based.

In passing I also want to refer to a few other matters. The first is the question of housing for the Defence Force, and more in particular those of our Permanent Force men who are concerned with the training of these men liable to compulsory service for which we are making provision. Some people may have the misconception that when one builds a house for a Defence Force man, it is paid from the Defence Force funds which exist exclusively for Defence purposes. But I say that this is a misconception, because for every house which a Defence Force man builds we make a double investment. In the first place we make another house available somewhere else, the house which he had lived in up to that time. According to our housing programme that house would have had to be built in any case. In other words, houses are not being built specifically for the Defence Force. In the second place it is essential, for administrative purposes and for the beneficial management of our Defence Force, that we should establish better housing schemes at our military installations, where the comfort and the satisfaction of the men are important. We have equipment worth hundreds of millions of rands which has to be handled, and we must make the men handling that equipment happy and satisfied.

I also want to refer in passing to the cadet corps which in my opinion forms a very important part of our training system at the moment and which in future ought to do so to an ever-increasing extent. The cadet corps ought at this stage already to be the source from which we select our prospective leaders. The cadet corps, must at that stage already be built up as a unit and when I say that it perhaps means that the various types of units which we have up to now had in the cadet corps will fall away. I believe it is in accordance with the desires of the hon. the Minister that we should have a cadet corps with one uniform, perhaps with distinguishing lapel badges, or a badge on the sleeve, which will distinguish them as units. But in the first instance a cadet corps must be built up as a whole. In the second place we must select our material there and we shall have to be supported by the cadet officers and the educational authorities. It is perhaps a task for the Educational Advisory Council and I therefore do not want to go into the matter any further. But in my opinion it is essential that more and more use should be made of the cadet organization to do the spade work leading up to the eventual group trainees which we are going to handle. When I say that then I feel that the cadet corps should receive more theoretic training, that they should be given more lectures, and that they should be afforded greater opportunities of learning on their own in an early stage of military training. In respect of the ballotees, or rather those who will in future be liable to military service, I want to address the request to the hon. the Minister that since we are going to train these men for long periods of time we should at least make provision for two things. In the first instance, where a person is receiving training for a year, it is extremely important that he should receive, during that time, at least a week’s vacation in order to visit his home or the neighbourhood where he came from. I think that that would get those people onto our side and make them happy. I think it is essential that we should at least give them that period of leave, and together with that their travelling facilities there and back should be such that they do not have to provide for it out of their meagre remuneration. Most important of all, it ought not to be necessary for them to hitch lifts. I think that is a decadent custom.

I want to conclude and should like, on behalf of the House, to wish the hon. the Minister who is dealing with this measure and who has now been burdened with the problem of implementing it, everything of the best, and so, too, the Commandant-General of the South African Defence Force and his officers and non-commissioned officers who will in future be taking a great task upon their shoulders. We realize that it is a great task, but they are manning the outer defences. In South Africa they are manning the outer defences in the struggle for the survival of a civilized and orderly state here in Africa. That is why we wish them everything of the best and we give them a handshake of encouragement and wish them strength for the task resting on their shoulders.

Mr. Speaker, before offering a few observations on the Bill generally, I should like to refer to the failure of the present system, the ballot system. I think we are all agreed about that now and the figures given by the hon. member for Middelburg were most striking. The hon. the Minister dealt with it as well, very effectively. I was a member of the Select Committee which drafted that 1957 Bill. I think the hon. the Minister was a member as well and also the hon. member for Pretoria (West), if I remember correctly. I think I am the only survivor on this side. I had serious misgivings about this system. I felt it could not succeed and I will give the reasons afterwards, because I think some of the inherent weaknesses of the ballot system one finds also in this Bill. I shall try to deal with that in due course. In dealing with a Defence Bill one has always the pleasure of knowing that there is not only a large measure of agreement, but general agreement. If there is a difference of opinion, it is a personal difference of opinion across the party line. Where there are divergent views, these divergent views are not expressed in a spirit of carping criticism, but rather in a spirit of constructive criticism expressing personal views, not because we are dissatisfied with the Bill but because we want to improve the Bill. I think the best that can be said about the Bill is the summing up of my half-section this afternoon, the hon. member for Durban (North), when he said that this Bill was the best that could be achieved. I think that is a very fine compliment to the members of the Select Committee, to the Minister and to all his advisers. I have said that we are generally agreed when we consider the Bill. We approach it in the spirit of Macaulay’s ancient Rome—

Whatever our political party, on one thing we are agreed when we discuss a Defence Bill: All are for the State, all are out to do the best work for the country, and whatever a man’s station in life is, we who serve the country and serve in the forces, realize that we are all serving together, from the highest to the lowest. When we consider a Defence Bill, we have to consider twin portfolios, not only Defence, but the portfolio which inevitably goes with Defence, namely the portfolio of Foreign Affairs. From time to time one sees a country with one kind of foreign policy and another kind of defence policy. Where there is a powerful foreign policy, one has to have a strong fighting force to be realistic and support that policy. What is our position to-day in the world? We are in fact isolated. We have to be prepared to stand alone. We have no allies, no allies who will fight for us. Therefore it behoves us all to stand together and build up a strong fighting force.

When we come to consider defence, it is not only a matter for the professional soldier, although we pay tribute to him. As Clemenceau said: “War is too serious a matter to be left to the generals.” War is a matter that concerns every man in the country, and the humbler he is, the more it concerns him. I feel that we in South Africa have a citizen army. Our army comes from the people. It is the old proud South African tradition, the tradition of the first Defence Bill, the 1912 Act. I suppose there are still some of us in the House who have served in the South African forces under the provisions of that Act. What we have to say to-day is this: How can we create and train a citizen army and what demands can we make on the ordinary citizen? That is the problem we have to face. I think the White Paper produced by the Department is an exceedingly good one. We asked for it 12 years ago, when we asked if something of this kind could not be produced, similar to what they had in other Western countries, an annual statement of this kind. And what I like particularly about the White Paper is the opening paragraph, the first two sentences, because it is all there, the philosophy is there. What you have to produce in a country is the intention, as the officers will understand, and the method. Here is the instruction from the hon. the Minister—

General Eisenhower aid his instructions were: “You will land in Europe, defeat the German army and occupy Germany.” He said that those were his instructions. For the rest it was left to the specialist. Sir, the Permanent Force used to be referred to as a training cadre. In this modern world we refer to it as a cadre of specialists. We accept that. This is how they are going to carry out that instruction—

The instructions of the hon. the Minister to his heads of Department are:

“You will maintain a well-trained, well-equipped and balanced force capable of fulfilling these roles.” Those are his instructions and we should help him. Where we differ and put forward different points of view, it is in order to improve what we have already.

Now, Sir, I come to the present Bill. This Bill makes very great demands on people, much greater than we have ever made before. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) gave us some examples and expressed concern about the physical condition of the men who would have to carry out these obligations. This Bill makes very great demands upon employers. Hon. members who were on the Select Committee will remember the relevant clauses. The hon. the Minister in his speech expressed appreciation of the sacrifices made by employers in the past. I want to say that kind words do not butter any parsnips. I want to give an example that has occurred within my experience, where a young man who had served in the forces and had given his services to South Africa, was approached and offered a commission. He replied that he would like to accept a commission. He then wrote to his Government Department and explained his position. He pointed out that he would have to go on training. The Department’s reply was: “If you are going to train, not on a voluntary basis, but are offering now to assist the country, then you must take vacation leave for that purpose.” Well, as a Member of Parliament I wrote to the hon. the Minister about it. I will not mention the Department; I do not think that would be fair because I assume that this is general Government policy. This is what he said—

Sir, that was the policy of the Government. When we ask employers to support the Government, I think the Government should start with its own Departments. Any man in the civil service, to begin with, who offers his services should receive every facility from the Government.

That is my first point. The next thing we say is that officers and N.C.O.s may be appointed not on a voluntary basis but may be commanded to accept a post and rank. We shall have to discuss that point in the Committee Stage, because that is a very great demand indeed. Moreover, in terms of clause 50 they may not resign. There is a long period of liability to serve, right into their married life. I am not complaining. I am merely pointing out what great demands we are making on people.

Now. Sir. I come to another matter. We must consider these great demands because, after all, if citizens are going to be asked to do these things we have to be prepared to make sacrifices ourselves as a Government; we have to be prepared to pay. I know there are some firms which are anxious to have men who are not physically fit for service because then they do not have to release them. Next we say that there will be a Selection Board to say who will serve. Sir, I have very strong views about the Selection Board. The hon. member for Durban (Point) said that I would have an opportunity to express those views.

One always has an opportunity in this party to express an independent view in the interests of the country. I feel that a Selection Board should be established on the lines of the British Conscription Boards. In other words, you would have representatives of the forces but also strong representation of the local civilian population, people who know the local circumstances. I feel that is essential. As I said at the beginning, I am not prepared to say that I am against what is being done at present, but I should like to make this suggestion for its improvement.

Then I come to another point, which I hope to deal with very thoroughly. It is this: Special provision will be made for university students. Sir, I have been a university student and I definitely oppose this. Let me read what the hon. the Minister said in his Second Reading speech—

It is too bad, is it not, that service for the country should interfere with his studies in any way! What is the difference between a university student and a printer’s apprentice? Sir, my view is this: This system we had failed, and in saying this I rely on the outstanding authority in the country, Combat-General Jacobs, whom I knew, a very fine soldier in peace and war. Let me quote what he said at a farewell parade in his honour—

I agree. The status of the soldier should be enhanced and also that of the old soldier. When I put up an annual plea here for the old soldiers of World War I it is treated very coolly. The young men going into the forces like to know how you are treating the old soldiers. Sir, I have sympathy with the young men who were dissatisfied because the fundamental principle in establishing a defence force is not being observed in the Bill. That is equal sacrifices for all. I say therefore that every man—Duke’s son, cook’s son, a professor’s son, farmer’s son, urban dweller and rural dweller—should all be treated alike. In the previous Select Committee, when I advanced this argument, I was told that we did not have the facilities for training these people. But it is not training now, it is service. Right throughout the Bill “training” has been amended to read “service”. I say that if a man is not going into the army to give his service, then he must serve the State in some other capacity for the same time and the same pay. There should be equal sacrifices for all. We had the case of three young fellows who had matriculated with four, five or six distinctions. Two of them were going to university and the third one had been drawn in the ballot. He was going to camp and thereafter he was going to go to university. Sir, I maintain that if young men serve some 12 months and then go to university, they will do well at university. We had men who served three, four or five years in World War II and then went to university. A university lecturer said that no finer body of students had ever passed through the university, because they had a more serious outlook on life. I say therefore that all young men should serve and they should serve together. We do not want the argument that this is an English-speaking regiment and that is an Afrikaans-speaking regiment. We want the spirit of World War II, where English was used one day and Afrikaans the next day, or both languages together; it did not make any difference. That is the South African spirit.

Now I come to the point that was discussed by the hon. member for Green Point, the use of Coloured troops. Earlier this Session we passed a Bill in which we made provision for special cadet camps for them. I think we should make more use of Coloured men as fighting troops. I have fought with the Coloured troops—fighting regiments, not transport drivers but fighting men, the first and second Cape Corps. They were great fighting men. We can train these men and they want to serve with us. I am not thinking only of the infantry; I am thinking of the Navy. Coloured men can be given a course of training as seamen. We can revive the old idea of naval reserve training. I feel that can be done.

Then, Sir, I come back to this important point I have dwelt on, that I want to see everybody in this country liable for service. I may be asked, “What about the man who is medically unfit?” Sir, he can be given the job I referred to which is not a military job. What about the conscientious objector? He can be given the same kind of job. In that way we shall make provision for everybody to serve the country. A man who is medically unfit should not go to university when another boy is on the square doing his military training. Sir, these are points which we must try to hammer out when we come to the Committee Stage. I know how the hon. the Minister feels. He is anxious to get the best possible Bill, the best that can be achieved. But whatever the hon. the Minister achieves it will be unanimous; there will be nobody who will oppose it because we cannot oppose a Defence Bill. If it is not good enough one still does not oppose it but one asks for something better; one comes back and asks for more. Therefore we will give the hon. the Minister the support that was indicated by the hon. member for Durban (Point).

This topic has already been exhausted, and for that reason I shall content myself with a few brief observations. With reference to the hon. member for Kensington, I just want to say that he gave his usual interesting performance here, which we enjoyed a great deal. All that baffles me about him as a respected educationist, is the statement he made here in regard to the obligation we are imposing on ballotees to serve as officers and non-commissioned officers, namely that we should not impose this obligation. To my mind it is a basic fact that any right-minded child, if he has qualities of leadership and if he can serve in the capacity as a leader, is prepared to do so even if he is compelled to do so. In this case we should not forget that these children will be selected by selection boards at these schools, and that the principal will quite possibly be a co-opted member of such a selection board. All the particulars contained in the cumulative record of such a child will be at the disposal of the selection board, and if, in the first instance, the principal or another teacher advises the selection board that such a child is not prepared to serve in the capacity of a leader, I think that it is obvious that he will not be compelled to do so.

At this early stage I want to appeal to the Opposition, whose co-operation in this Select Committee was extremely reasonable and fair, to reconsider their opposition to section 57 (a) (1) (b). A few days ago we also considered an Act which dealt with the security of our country, namely the Terrorism Act, and at that time we considered a provision which was much along the same lines as this provision. There we provided for a tremendously wide definition of terrorism, and we immediately created the safety valve that a prosecution could only be instituted if the Attorney-General authorized it. The Opposition agreed to that principle. Here we are dealing with precisely the same thing. We are granting very wide powers of prosecution in respect of a specific offence, namely the disclosure of information relating to the activities of the Army or a member thereof, but we are again creating exactly the same safety valve by saying that a prosecution may only be instituted if it is authorized by the Attorney-General. But we are going much further. This particular section creates quite a few essential alternative burdens of proof of which the State has to acquit itself before a person can be prosecuted successfully. There are three alternative burdens of proof. It has to be information or comment calculated, in the first place, to prejudice the Government in its foreign relations. The State must prove that. Secondly, the State has to prove that it was embarrassed and, thirdly, that members of the public were alarmed or depressed. These are alternative burdens of proof, but in each case the State has to acquit itself of the burden of proof and in each case they are important burdens of proof. But if the Opposition proposes an amendment of the sort they proposed in the Select Committee, they are placing a further impossible burden of proof on the State. I want to mention the case where an officer, dressed in civilian clothes, is involved in an accident outside the borders of the Republic and where his name is published. Then, according to the amendment the Opposition is considering, the State has to prove that that officer, even though he was in civilian dress, was engaged in an activity connected with the security of the State. Then the State has to prove that that Major So-and-so, even though he was dressed in civilian clothes, was engaged in this or that activity connected with the security of the State. That is an impossible burden of proof. In such a case one compels the State to disclose secret information in a public court, which was definitely not the intention of this section.

In regard to immigrants I just want to say very briefly that there is a very important point that I want to emphasize, namely that the Select Committee did not make this recommendation in connection with immigrants before it was perfectly satisfied that it was quite in accordance with international law. We have good examples of what is happening in other countries. I am speaking under correction, but I think that in Australia they can call up an immigrant who has been living in that country for only two years. In this regard I want to make an appeal, not to the Minister of Defence, but to the Minister of the Interior, or whoever the responsible Minister may be, for favourable consideration to be given by us in future to granting certain exemptions from the naturalization requirements to immigrants volunteering for military service at an earlier stage. What I have in mind is that if an immigrant has for instance been in this country for three years and then volunteers for one year’s military service, we can quite safely grant him a year’s reduction as regards naturalization requirements, because in my opinion one year’s service in the Army is one of the best integration and identification methods that exists.

I have many other things on my mind, but for the sake of saving time I shall conclude with one further observation. During our visit to Defence installations, we were impressed by one aspect that was emphasized by officers. In the first place, they said that in future they would lay much more stress on basic things which are of vital importance. For instance, much more stress will be laid on seeing to it that every ballotee is able to handle a rifle properly and shoot well, rather than stressing routine matters that are of lesser importance. But this was also an accusation, as was said here, namely that there is insufficient motivation amongst our youth. Motivation depends on many factors and bodies, but it also depends on our parents, namely whether they will in future be too quick in criticizing the Army because of petty matters, and whether they will side with their children when such children feel themselves aggrieved because of petty reasons. It also depends on employers, namely to what extent they will go on complaining when they have to give time off to young men liable to military service. It depends on organized commerce, namely what their future attitude will be in respect of these essential matters. But it also depends on the teaching aids we are going to employ in future so as to instil into our youth the right motivation. I am not referring here to sectional indoctrination. I am referring to motivation in the broad national sense. I want to plead that the hon. the Minister should pay attention to all possible teaching aids, such as film shows and the numerous other teaching aids that are available, so as to foster in the youth of this country pride in the very essential task that is theirs to perform. This new system creates a wonderful opportunity for nation-building. We are still quarrelling about how our schools can best serve the purposes of nation-building, but in this respect we need not quarrel. English and Afrikaans-sneaking persons are being drawn together. The two official languages are used alternately, and there will be a wonderful opportunity to build a nation in this way. As a matter of fact, this is such a wonderful opportunity for building a nation that I want to plead—and then I shall resume my seat—that once we have consolidated our efforts in this regard, we should also extend this system, in some or other modified form, to our young women.

The high level on which this debate was conducted by hon. members on both sides of the House, is probably a source of inspiration to the Supreme Command as well as the Defence Force in general, and I want to thank hon. members cordially for that. Actually, after the hon. member for Kensington and the hon. member for Kroonstad had spoken, I felt that I need not reply further to this debate. They ended on such a high note that I thought that we could only sing together and then go our own ways.

The hon. member for Kroonstad addressed a request to me in connection with the question of citizenship. Well, that is not my responsibility, but I shall convey his request to my colleague. I think there is something in it, particularly if one thinks of the olden days when there was a similar provision in the Republics to the effect that any person who wanted to serve in the armed forces of the Republics, was granted exemption from the restriction in respect of citizenship.

I want to thank the hon. member for Kensington for a very fine contribution. I must tell the hon. member a secret. The Commandant-General and I were not under the impression that this was such a very good White Paper, but we have now been converted by the hon. member.

†The hon. member referred to the question of the selection boards, and their constitution. I wish to assure him that that is precisely what we envisage with the constitution of the selection boards.

*Then the hon. member also made the point that we could not leave the responsibility for the Defence Force to the generals only. I cannot emphasize this strongly enough. To my knowledge the whole new school of thought—and I do not want to pretend that my knowledge is that of an authority—is that a defence force should not be isolated from the nation it serves. The defence force should in actual fact obtain the assistance of the entire state organization in all its facets, because a defence force is in effect political action. It is the result of political decisions. For that reason the entire population and the entire state organization should concentrate on helping to ensure the effectiveness of that defence force. Consequently I am glad that the hon. member made this point. I hope that all of us —not only the private employers, but also the State in general—will assist in getting this spirit to take root amongst our people, namely that the Defence Force belongs to all of us and that it is deserving of the interest of all of us.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) emphasized the points on which there was some agreement. I do not want to refer to that again. I also referred to certain aspects of this legislation in both my first and my second introductory speeches. I do not want to take up too much of the time of the hon. House. However, I just want to say this. In the past certain aspects of the training were quite frequently made to appear to be a waste of time, and under present circumstances this is still the case. It was said that it was a waste of time to provide certain basic training first and only then to use ballotees—in future, persons liable to military service—not only for basic training, but also for other purposes. These young men return to their homes and there they create the impression that their time is being wasted. I think that this state of affairs is partly attributable to being uninformed. Even the young man who stands guard is serving his country. It does not matter whether he stands guard at Van Rietskop or at Denham or at Ganspan. When he stands guard there, he is looking after expensive equipment and stores without which the security of this country cannot be ensured. That is the spirit that has to be created. I myself have spoken to young men who have asked me, “Why must we stand guard there? Surely, we are wasting our time”. My reply to them was. ‘‘Do you know why you are standing guard? Do you know what you are protecting? Do you realize what enormous responsibility is resting on your shoulders? The equipment which is behind lock and key over there and for which you are responsible, consists of vitally important munitions. Do you realize what service you are rendering to your country?” Mr. Speaker, we have a great deal of essential stores at our disposal. Without these stores we cannot take action if our country is threatened. I think that the one impression that has taken root amongst these young men, namely that once they have received their basic training and such training is not followed up by specialized training in some sphere or other, they are wasting their time if they merely have to stand guard, should be stamped out. We must kill that spirit.

Reference was made here to the section of the Surgeon-General. I can tell the hon. member that we shall have to give attention to that. I think that the Surgeon-General himself feels that attention should be given to this matter. There are certain defects that must receive attention, and we hope to effect improvements in that respect in due course.

†The hon. member underlined the concept of service instead of only training. I agree with the hon. member. I also tried to make the point in my first introductory speech and again at the last opportunity I had, namely when I introduced this legislation. There should be a new approach in the minds of all of us. The S.A.D.F. affords us the opportunity to do service, and whether a young man is receiving training or doing any other duty in the Defence Force, the fact remains that he is actually serving his country. It must be his pride to serve his country.

The hon. member for Kensington asked whether those young men who are going to university or those who are not called up for service in this sense cannot serve in another capacity. All I wish to say is this. I have in mind when I take over Civil Defence to make provision—and if necessary I will ask Parliament for the necessary powers—for those who on medical grounds are not called up for service in the Defence Force and therefore excluded from service in the Defence Force. I intend to use them as far as possible for Civil Defence. I want to make this point very clear at this stage already so that these young men will know beforehand that it will not avail them to try and sidestep service on medical grounds. I believe that a man who is excluded on medical grounds from service in the Defence Force itself, can be used fruitfully and productively in Civil Defence. I shall give my attention to that aspect as soon as I take over the sub-department of Civil Defence.

Another point I wish to make is this. For any successful Defence Force there is one element above all that is necessary, and that is a spirit of dedication. Without a spirit of dedication we can have all the weapons and ammunition in the world, and all the training; it will not help us. Without dedication it is no use trying to build up a proper Defence Force. On this aspect I think both sides of the House can do quite a lot in helping the Defence Force to create that spirit of dedication in South Africa. This is the one terrain where we as a people can jointly serve our country in a spirit of co-operation and dedication to the best of our ability.

The hon. member also referred to the position of the commandos and he expressed the fear that the training of the commandos might be neglected. I wish to assure him that we are determined that the commandos will not be neglected, especially in view of the fact that the Minister of Defence is now also going to administer Civil Defence. We hope that one of the special tasks of the commandos will be to be trained specifically in the field of Civil Defence. That will not be the only field in which they will be trained—it will be one of their special tasks. I have already announced that a commando combat school will be established as soon as possible. We are working on the scheme at present. I have also already announced that after this legislation has been adopted we shall immediately start a system of appointing commando officers instead of having them elected. I think these steps ought to prove to the hon. member that we mean business also with the commandos.

*The hon. member also referred to the question of allowances and pleaded for a general increase. I think the hon. member for King William’s Town also referred to that. If an increase of 25 cents per person were to be granted in the allowances, it would work out to an additional amount of approximately R4 million a year.

On the nine months.

Yes, on the nine months. What do you think the hon. the Minister of Finance will do with me if I asked him for a further R4 million? But what we can in fact consider, what I think we can consider sympathetically without making a promise to-day, is the question of the uninterrupted period of 26 days I do not think that it will come to an enormous amount, and I think that it will be a great help. We can look into that. I am giving the undertaking that the moment this legislation has been passed, I shall have that aspect investigated, and then we shall see what progress my colleague and I are able to make in this regard. Then the hon. member referred to the question of the obligation to serve as officers. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) has replied very effectively to him on this point. However, I want to emphasize the following. The whole basis of this Act is compulsory service. It is the principle on which this Bill is based. One only exempts a person from compulsory service when he is medically unfit. In other words, the whole principle on which this Act is based, is compulsory service. And if one accepts that obligation one might as well extend it to one’s officers, too. After all, they will be chosen with care. Surely, the Defence Force will not offer a commission to a person they know to be as obstinate as a mule. After all, they are going to select their people. But the point is that if one wants to ensure continuity and proper organization, then one should at least not have the position every second morning that a person resigns because of some trifle or other. There should be a measure of control and a measure of obligation, and as the whole principle of the Act is compulsory service, I do not think that we are being unfair in this respect.

The hon. member also referred to the question of postponement for those who are studying abroad. That is the practice, and in consultation with the Minister of Labour it is my intention to have at a later stage, after this Session of Parliament, a fundamental discussion with the Exemption Board on matters of this nature. However, I am told that it is customary to apply something of that nature. Now, the hon. member raised the question of articles in the Press. The hon. member for Pretoria (West), the hon. member for Stellenbosch as well as the hon. member for Kroonstad referred to that. Allow me to say the following to the hon. member this afternoon. In my speech I went out of my way to explain that there was no vendetta against the Press in this regard. I went out of my way to assure the Press and the country that we did not want to conceal anything that should not be concealed, that we sought the greatest measure of publicity for the Defence Force because we realized that the Press was an essential element for stimulating enthusiasm for the Defence Force. The Press is an essential link between the ordinary civil population and the Defence Force. Its very purpose is to assist in bringing the chiefs of the Defence Force closer to the people, because the entire basis of this Bill is to establish a national army. That is why the Press is a necessity. It was also for that reason that I said in my introductory speech that we would as soon as possible, after this Bill had been passed—as soon after that as was practicable—furnish the Press with a list of matters about which they could write freely. Let me mention you an example. The Press will be able to write freely about an exercise to which we invite them. The Press will be able to write freely about a matter such as the one at which they were present this morning and of which hon. members are aware. The Press were present by invitation. The Press will be able to write freely about parent days which are being arranged and to which parents are invited to see how their sons are treated in the camps and how they operate. There are various spheres that will be opened up to the Press. But there are certain things we simply cannot allow any further. Not because we believe that there is always ill-will on the part of the Press. But I think that it happens sometimes that for the sake of their own interests and with a view to a little sensation and news interest, the Press dish up certain things with which they are keeping the public alive. But now I want to show you what effects this may have. I do not intend to mention newspapers by name, because I have no vendetta against this or that newspaper in regard to this matter. But I have here one newspaper which said the following on the eve of the International Court’s verdict on South-West (translation)—

The report continues along those lines and further on it says—

And that is why these steps were supposed to have been taken. And not one word of it is true. Somebody’s fingers itched to write such a sensational report. Suppose that this report was true, then it should not have leaked out in any case. Suppose that it was not true and that this report could have affected the proceedings of that International Court, since we knew that one of the stories that was used, was that we militarized South-West. Surely, we cannot allow this sort of thing. Surely, this is not in the interests of the country. I have in my possession a second example I want to mention to you. It reads as follows—

And then it is said in this report that this is a secret matter. The greatest secrecy is attached to it. And then a detailed report is written to say where the oil storage tanks are situated. Now, I know that one’s enemy can also ascertain these things. At present there are certain systems of espionage. We know about them but, after all, one does not hand to one’s enemy such information on a platter. I have here another example of a newspaper which wrote that a certain ballotee had sustained a serious head injury at Walvis Bay. The first time his parents heard about that, was when they read it in the newspapers. We had this matter investigated. What did the Defence Force find? They found that it did not contain a word of truth. This young man had not been injured at all. His parents were greatly distressed and quite a fuss was made about a report somebody blazoned forth simply because he felt like doing so. I cannot allow things of this sort. That is why I went out of my way to explain this matter before introducing this legislation.

I had an interview with the Press Union and this interview was subsequently recorded in correspondence which I have in my possession and in which I explained to the Press Union what measures we would take in connection with a Press liaison officer. I would be prepared to grant interviews to the Press from time to time. I informed them that the chiefs of the Defence Force would be prepared to grant them interviews, and that we would give the Press the greatest measure of co-operation in our power. But we simply must have the principle adopted now that everything as far as the Defence Force is concerned, will not be available for Press comment as a matter of course. That is simply not possible. I know the hon. member will say, “Yes, but look at our amendment.” I think the hon. member for Kroonstad has dealt with that very effectively. I do not want to use examples through which I may reveal military secrets, but it may happen that members of the Defence Force may be involved in accidents at certain places and that it would not be in the interests of South Africa that such accidents should become known.

It may happen that a member of the Defence Force, dressed in civilian clothes, may be moving between two points in a certain area, where it is absolutely essential that his movements should not be known in the event of his being involved in an accident in such an area. The hon. member is intelligent enough to understand that. The other day. when I introduced this Bill for the second time, I said that we were living in a time in which the dividing line between war and peace was no longer clear. A proper dividing line no longer exists. There may still be peace to-day and to-morrow one may find oneself in a state of war. We know that it is the whole modern trend not to declare war, but to start with terrorism, which leads to guerilla warfare and eventually to conventional warfare. Situations are being created to-day which should be taken into account, something which may not have been necessary in the past. This clause relating to the Press was drafted in such a way as to guarantee what may possibly be guaranteed in the interests of the security of South Africa. But we also provided a safety valve. If prosecutions are instituted, not the Minister but the Attorney-General is the one who decides that they should be instituted. What attitude can be more fair than the one we are adopting by placing this matter in the hands of those persons who administer the law in South Africa? Let me tell the hon. member at once that I am not prepared to make concessions in this regard; not because of any feeling against the Press, but because I believe that it is also in the interests of the Press that they should be guided to write about those things which can in fact not prejudice the security of South Africa.

The hon. member for Pretoria (West) referred to the question of medically unfit persons. I have already replied to that.

Then I want to discuss the question of the sacrifices employers have to make. Although I thanked employers in South Africa, I nevertheless think that some change of heart can still take place amongst many employers. After all, the service we require from the young men in the Defence Force is not only in the interests of those young men or in the interests of the Government of the day or of the State as a whole. The service rendered by those young men is in two respects to the direct advantage of the employer himself. In the first place, he is given an efficient worker who has been disciplined in mind and who has undergone other preparatory training. In the second place, an efficient Defence Force will provide stability for the employer’s undertaking. That is why I hope that we shall also have a change of heart amongst those employers who have not yet undergone that change of heart.

Then the hon. member for Stellenbosch made a very positive contribution, for which I want to thank him. I think he also dealt effectively with certain aspects which the hon. member for King William’s Town viewed somewhat critically, for which, however, I do not blame him. But I should just like to tell the hon. member something. The hon. member served on the Select Committee, not so? Surely, the hon. member heard there about the difficulties the chiefs of the Defence Force had to cope with. Surely, he knows that if the chiefs of the Defence Force had had their way, our periods of service would have been longer, just as in the case of Australia. But he knows, surely, that the circumstances are of such a nature that that cannot be done in South Africa. He himself would not have been in favour of that. Whether the two years are continuous or non-continuous, as it is being proposed now, the fact remains that in Australia the ballotee is available for two years. Such variations as are to be found amongst the Air Force, the Army and the Navy are caused by the fact that in the case of the Army we have to see to it, because there is a small permanent force, that we always have under arms a number of men who are ready to be made available as a fulltime force on behalf of the Army. We must make provision for that, and the best way of doing so is in the present way. Because the Air Force and the Navy are of a more technical nature, we are able to make such provision for them as we are doing in this proposed legislation, but not only because they are of a more technical nature. We can also do so because the Air Force and the Navy consist of permanent force men with a reserve, more so than is the case with the Army. I think that the reasons are obvious. If the hon. member accepts this premise, his misgivings will to a large extent fall away.

The hon. member for Green Point and other hon. members referred to the question of immigrants. I do not want to go into that matter again; I dealt with it in my Second Reading speech. But I just want to add that I hope we shall also obtain the assistance of the Press, since they would very much like to have something to write about as far as the Defence Force is concerned. I want to make an appeal to the Press that each newspaper should write us an article on how essential it is for these young immigrants, when they are called up, to inform us immediately that they intend to accept citizenship, so that we may assimilate them into the Defence Force. This is an ideal topic for them to write articles about for a few weeks. As a small incentive I just want to add that they may write a second article in which they may announce the Government’s intention not to grant permanent domicile in this country to those refusing to accept citizenship. Here we have two topics that I want to release to the Press for discussion right now.

In addition the question of the Coloureds was raised by both the hon. member for Green Point and the member for Kensington. I just want to tell both hon. members that once these Coloured Cadet Camps have been established and a reserve force has been built up, we hope that we shall be able to draw from the ranks of these cadets people for the Coloured Corps, but until such time we must continue with the present system of building up the Coloured Corps. As the hon. member knows, at present more and more use is being made of Coloureds in certain sections of the Navy.

Then I want to say something about the question of administrative difficulties. I do not have any illusions about the fact that if this Bill is passed, there will be many headaches in store for the Defence Force, nor do I have any illusions about the fact that it is quite likely that in practice many mistakes will be discovered as yet, in spite of the good work done by the Select Committee; and if difficulties are discovered in practice, I shall not hesitate to come back to this House with our difficulties. We must improve the Defence Act all the time: we owe that to the country. I only hope that we shall reach a stage where we shall be able to consolidate this legislation.

The hon. member for Middelburg pleaded for more training in unconventional warfare. I think that that has been accepted and that it has also been accepted in respect of the commandos. We must most definitely give very serious attention to this matter, also in training our officers. Mr. Speaker, I think that I have now replied to most of the points that were raised by hon. members. There are still certain other suggestions which hon. members made in the course of their speeches and which are of a more administrative nature. I want to give the undertaking that we shall investigate those suggestions. Where it is possible to convey those suggestions to the Defence Force Administration, that will be done. I want to conclude by saying only this: We are living in a very serious time and we are all praying that South Africa will not be involved in some disaster or other, but I also want to say here to-day that it is my conviction that as and when our value to the Free World is rediscovered, as and when the Free World makes the discovery that South Africa’s friendship is to its advantage, also in the military sphere, the enemies of the Free World will make plans against South Africa, and for that reason it is absolutely priority number one that South Africa should continue, within its economic and financial capacity, to build up an effective, mobile and combat-ready defence force in the air, at sea and on land. This is the basis of this legislation, and we hope that this, along with other measures, will also serve as a deterrent to those people who have hostile designs on our fatherland.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

As is customary, this Bill is being introduced in order to give effect to certain Budget proposals. In addition it deals with various matters affecting the Consolidated Revenue Fund and the Railway and Harbour Fund. I do not think it is necessary for me to discuss the individual clauses at length. A White Paper in which each of the clauses is dealt with in detail has been issued, but if hon. members would like more information on any of these clauses, I shall gladly furnish it to them. There are also a number of my colleagues present who will reply to points affecting their Departments. I think that most of these matters can be discussed more fruitfully in the Committee Stage.

As the hon. the

Minister has rightly said, this is a general Finance Bill. It is not a Bill which is readily discussed at the Second Reading stage. We will therefore raise our queries when we coble to deal with the Bill in Committee. We approve of the Second Reading.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I should like to have more information with regard to the company mentioned in section 1 (b), the Atlas Aircraft Corporation of South Africa Limited, and also in regard to Aero Properties (Pty.) Limited. The Government is now being asked to guarantee a loan up to R22 million. This Bill, of course, follows on Finance Bill No. 1 and Finance Bill No. 2 of last year. Sir, I have tried to get some information about the Atlas Aircraft Corporation because there is a very large guarantee being put up by the Government. The Government, the Industrial Development Corporation and the Reserve Bank are taking the responsibility for this loan. The questions which I should like the hon. the Minister to reply to are as follows: I have discovered from the I.D.C. report, in the paragraph they devote to the Atlas Aircraft Corporation, that the nominal capital is R18 million and that the equity capital that has been issued and paid for in full is R14,175 million. The cost of establishing the industry, including housing, is budgeted at R50 million. This is a very big undertaking, and the Government is guaranteeing any loan. Sir, is the I.D.C. a shareholder and, if so, to what extent? What part of the equity is held by the I.D.C.? Who are the other shareholders? Are the shares listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, our only Stock Exchange in South Africa, so that people may know what the market price of the equity is? When the shares were first issued, was there a public offer or were there over-the-counter sales or were they placed with certain individuals or companies? What was the manner of the issue of these 14 million shares? I also want to know about this guarantee. Is the guarantee there whatever the terms of the loan are? Secondly, will the Minister tell us what are the rates of interest of these loans? I hope the Government is not guaranteeing loans at higher interest than the Government is able to obtain itself. I should like to have that information as well. And who has put up the money for this loan? Was it put up in the South African money market or the overseas market? In other words, in the absence of any information I can get in the financial records of South Africa, we are asked to guarantee this loan or loans amounting to R22 million, which is about 50 per cent more than the equity paid-up capital. That is not always a sound basis for a loan. In view of the fact that the Government is guaranteeing it I think the Committee is entitled to some information on those heads.

I want to raise another point under clause 7, namely under 1 (3). This is a rather interesting item in that here we have the guarantee of a sum of not more than R739,000 to the Municipality of Umtata. It would appear from the White Paper that Umtata is running into some trouble in borrowing funds in the normal way—and I understand that this is the first time this has happened— and therefore the Government has had to come to the assistance of Umtata, situated in the Transkei, and has had to guarantee this loan. I am not querying the principle involved here, but I should like to have some information from the Minister about the loan that has been guaranteed. I should like to know who the lender is, how long the loan is for and what the rate of interest is. Because this loan will take a somewhat different form from the normal loan in that it has now the guarantee of the Government and therefore it should be on the most favourable terms. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us that this is the case.

In reply to the question put by the hon. member for Kensington, I think he will understand that I cannot go fully into details regarding the Atlas Company, because after all it is a business concern and one cannot disclose what may be confidential matters of the business concerned. After all, the point at issue here is not the guarantee of moneys borrowed by the Atlas Corporation. That has been decided upon already by Parliament. It is in the Act. The point at issue here now is that the Government should guarantee or give a counter guarantee to the I.D.C. and the S.A. Reserve Rank for guarantees they have already given. But I shall try to give the hon. member a few points of information in order to clarify the whole situation.

It is true that the equity capital of this Atlas Company is about R14.5 million. The total capital employed would be about R50 million. A large percentage of this R50 million is in respect of export credits. The rest would be in long-term and medium-term loans. We are asked only to guarantee not more than R22 million, which is less than half of the total capital employed. The I.D.C. is a shareholder in this concern to the extent of R3 million. The other shareholders are about 30 different companies stretching all over the commercial, industrial and financial fields of South Africa. These shares were not placed on the Stock Market, but they were placed with the individual companies who had been invited by the founders to become shareholders in this concern. It was a private placing of capital and not a public offer.

About the loans themselves, what they amount to and what the rates of interest are, of course here again I cannot go into too many details, but I think I can assure my hon. friend that these loans were not placed at exorbitant rates of interest. These interest rates vary from 5 per cent to 8 per cent. These loans were placed largely with foreign companies and to some extent. I should say about 40 per cent, in South Africa. About 60 per cent was placed abroad and about 40 per cent in South Africa. I do not think it would be right to disclose the names of the lenders at this stage. They are all well-known concerns both in South Africa and overseas. I think that is about all that the hon. member wanted to know. I just want to set his mind at rest that we are not going to guarantee any loans unless we have examined those loans. We shall not indiscriminately guarantee or counter-guarantee any loans. We first investigate to see whether they can be guaranteed or counter-guaranteed by us.

Will the equity be emoted on the open market so that the public can participate?

That is a matter for the company to decide. I cannot say anything on behalf of the company. I do not think that even at this stage they could consider doing that. I do not think it would be wise, but that is for the company to decide and not for me to say.

As regards the questions put by the hon. member for Parktown. my colleague the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development will reply to that.

The hon. member for Parktown wanted to know a little more about the loan to Umtata. I am afraid I cannot add very much to what the hon. the Minister of Finance has said, except to add that the lender is a big. sound South African insurance company. I do not think we need go further than that in an effort to disclose names. The period is 25 years and in this case the interest will be round about 7 per cent. The interest was reduced because of the guarantee by the Government.

Is this in connection with the new power station at Umtata?

Yes.

Agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

(Third Reading)

I move, as an unopposed motion—

Agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The body of this Bill is very short, and contains, apart from provisions in respect of certain concessions to licensees of customs and excise warehouses, a provision in connection with the dates on which certain provisions contained in the Schedules to the Bill will come into operation. These Schedules, which form the major part of the Bill, contain, apart from the taxation proposals which have already been discussed in Committee of Ways and Means, amendments to the Schedules to Act No. 91 of 1964, as amended, which have been introduced with effect from 17th August, 1966, by notice in the Government Gazette and which are now being sanctioned in terms of the provisions of that Act. The amendments are explained in a memorandum which has been made available to hon. members on both sides of this House.

Most matters of importance in this Bill are contained in the schedules and should, therefore, properly be dealt with during the Committee Stage where we deal with detail. There are however one or two matters, covering various items, which I should like to raise at this stage.

First of all I should like to seek information from the hon. the Deputy Minister in connection with the very large number of items affecting the chemical industry, items which appear in the schedule. A large percentage of the items on which an increased duty is now being placed are items manufactured for use in the chemical industry. I am sure the House will be interested to learn whether there has been a particularly abnormal increase in that industry during the year or what the reason is why this field of activity should play such a prominent part in the proposals regarding customs and excise.

Another field covering a large number of items is one to which we have drawn attention already at an earlier stage. I mean the poor motorist who is again being made the target of taxation increases this year. Not only do we find that there is to be an increase of duty on motor vehicles as such, an increase which we opposed at the time and will oppose again now, but we also find that various other items are now being made subject to duty, items which when imported as part of a motorcar have now to be invoiced separately in order that duty may be assessed on them. Here, it seems to me, we are really getting down to splitting hairs. In future when you want to import a motor-car you have to do that under one invoice, the windscreen wiper under another invoice, the generator under another invoice, and so on, even though these items come as part of the motor-car. I accept that all of us want to see our own industries being built up. Therefore it is quite reasonable that when an application is made by manufacturers of windscreen wipers in South Africa for protection, that they should receive that protection. Similarly with generators. But when you start itemizing each individual item for duty purposes, even though that item is part of the complete motor-car, it would surely not make such a difference to the industry, particularly where the local content thereof has been increased from 40 per cent to 45 per cent. Surely people are not now going to abuse the importation of new motor-cars, an item on which they are already paying a heavy duty. Surely there is no justification for imposing an additional duty now on parts of that motor-car—windscreen wipers for instance. I want to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he considers this to be necessary. When we come to the Committee Stage we on this side of the House will oppose the proposed increase in duty on motor-cars. We feel that the motorist is already carrying a heavy burden and that now is not the time to place a further burden merely because he constitutes an easy target to reach.

There is another matter to which I should like to draw attention at this stage. Last year when a tax was imposed on kaffir corn, we on this side of the House raised various objections to it. Consequently, it is only fair, I think, that we should now say: “I told you it was not going to work!” Because now this tax is being withdrawn. What a pity the hon. the Minister did not listen to us last year because now he has to cancel that tax and, what is more, has to repay the duty already levied. He has accepted it from people during the past year and now has to repay it because he found this tax to be impracticable. Instead of that he is now proposing a duty on Bantu beer. Here again there is discrimination, in that an employer with less than 25 employees can claim a rebate but one with more than 25 employees, or a local authority, will have to pay the duty of 2 cents. We object to the principle of this sort of discriminatory taxation, taxation based on volume. What I would have liked to see in this measure was a repeal not only of the taxation on kaffir corn but also of the sliding scale of taxation on ordinary beer. Tax on ordinary beer has now been in operation for a year. Recently there has been an outcry from sociologists who point to the fact that the taxation on beer was causing people to turn away from beer to hard liquor. Figures show that less beer is being drunk. The hon. the Minister of Justice, when he introduced the liquor legislation two or three years ago, made a major point of the fact that it was the policy of the Government to try to change the drinking pattern of South Africans, to try to get people away from hard spirits to natural wine and to beer. Last year we warned against this discriminatory taxation on beer—plus the fact that about half the cost of beer was not the producer’s fault but due to taxation added to the production price. We felt that the high level beer prices were reaching would affect consumption and have the effect of turning people to hard spiritis. Two weeks ago a serious report was published, a report which pointed to new drinking habits in South Africa. According to that the latest trend was towards cane spirits. This, of course, may please certain sections of the economy but, at the same time, it is in direct contrast to the declared policy of the Government, in direct conflict with the pattern which the Government claims it is seeking to create. We opposed beer taxation last year and we still hope that this system of discriminatory, sliding taxation based on volume against the beer drinker and beer producer will be withdrawn, like the duty on kaffir corn, at the earliest opportunity. Just as we objected to the punishment inflicted on the White beer drinker—because we said it would force him to hard spirits—so we object to the taxation on Bantu beer for the same reason. Kaffir beer is regarded as a healthy drink, as a food, and therefore its consumption should be encouraged and not used as a source of taxation—taxation which may cause people to turn away from drinking it.

What is going to happen now is that the municipalities are going to be the main taxpayers in this field, municipalities and the large employers of labour. They are not going to absorb this themselves but, will pass it on and we feel that if there is any field which should not have been attacked, then this is a field which should have been left alone. Therefore we will move, too, for the deletion of that provision when we come to the Committee Stage.

There are of course some bright spots in this legislation. I see that corn sufferers, for instance, have special provisions made for them. There is a special provision made for rebate of duty on corn plasters—but not on other plasters. This is very important! Croche hooks and knitting needles are other items which enjoy attention. Crochet hooks a'-e very important to our national economy, but why must cotton be picked for higher taxation this year? Sewing cottons are another item. You can bring in the crochet hook and the knitting needle but if you want to sew a patch onto your worn-out shirt sleeves or the seat of your pants which has become worn from sitting too long in Parliament then the cotton which you use is going to cost more. At a time like this when people are battling, the housewife is having more and more to make clothes last or to make her own clothes instead of buying them. Therefore, although it is a very small item, it is an item which is one of the million tiny little things which, when added together, create a pattern of thinking to which we object, and although we will not move for its deletion, I drawn attention to it.

Finally I want to ask the hon. the Minister if he could give us information on the two aspects affecting shipping which are dealt with in this measure. The one is the increased duty on ships themselves and the other rebates for components of ships, items which are obviously designed to assist the South African shipping industry. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to indicate his policy in this regard. Then I notice that associated with it is a rebate of fuel for coastal shipping. That applies to any ship plying the South African coastal routes, but it does not apply to other forms of transport, even though the same fuel may be involved. I would ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to give us some indication of his policy in regard to this and the reason for the discrimination between fuels when used by coasters and fuels when used by road transportation. With the actual detail of our amendments we will deal in the Committee Stage.

I want to support the hon. member for Durban (Point) in the protest he has made on the two items, namely motorcars and Bantu beer. In 1966-’67 the hon. the Minister imposed an additional taxation on motor-cars. In his Budget speech he simply said—

The reason was that there was an increase in the sales of cars. This year the hon. the Minister in his Budget speech says—

The hon. the Minister hopes to get R6 million. Now, what is the principle involved here? Is the principle of this additional taxation on motor-cars simply that there is an increase in the sale of cars? Because if so, it does not make sense. On the other hand, if the object is to help decrease the sale of cars because of the state of economy of the country, then the hon. the Deputy Minister knows as well as I do that this is not the way to tackle it, because this increase in duty has no effect whatsoever on the sale of motor-cars. The burden that the motor-car owner is being called upon to bear, is really becoming intolerable. I told the House in the Budget debate that the motor-car user was already contributing R200 million per annum in direct and indirect taxation. But there are other burdens that he has to bear. It has been the policy of the Government, and we have subscribed to it, that we should establish a local motor-car industry and each year the local content is expected to be higher. New the rebate which a person can get in respect of some of these duties in regard to local manufactured cars, and I use that phrase in the context of the local content, is being in-ceased this year again from 40 per cent to 45 per cent. But because of the fact that we have local manufacturing of motor-car parts, I think the hon. the Deputy Minister will be the first to admit that he is putting up the price of motor-cars, and the motorist is accepting this burden. The normal process of increase in costs the members of the public already have to bear. He is therefore faced with the position that there is a normal increase in the price of motor-cars because of the increase in prices generally in the country; there is an additional increase in the price of motor-cars because of the policy of trying to increase the local content of the car each year; and on top of that, for two years in succession, we have the hon. the Deputy Minister coming along and asking for more taxation. I think this is shocking treatment of the motorist. The hon. the Minister in his speech this year said quite clearly that motorcars could no longer be regarded as luxury items in all cases. I would like the hon. the Deputy Minister to tell us, since he has all the statistics, what percentage of the motorcars used in this country is used purely for luxury purposes? I think very, very few. People cannot afford to run motor-cars any more for luxury purposes. They use them for business, and if they are lucky they get a little use of them for their private affairs.

The other question is in regard to Bantu beer. As the hon. member for Durban (Point) has already said, last year when we objected to it we were overruled, and now it is found not to be workable. So instead of taxing the malt, the tax is now shifted to the beer. There is in existence at the moment and there will be until this Bill is passed a tax of 1c per lb. on malt. When the change takes place, the tax on Bantu beer will be 2c per gallon. Now, the hon. the Deputy Minister will know that from 1 lb. of malt one can make 2.6 gallons of Bantu beer, and the effect of this legislation is going to be that those people who will fall within the ambit of this taxation, are going to pay much more than they paid previously. In effect, I think it works out at 3.2c on the equivalent pound of malt, instead of 1c. Now who is going to suffer? The main producers of Bantu beer are the local authorities. They produce it to cell it to the Bantu in the urban areas. Funds that are received from the profit on Bantu beer are utilized to provide amenities to the Bantu. The hon. the Deputy Minister for Bantu Administration said in the House this Session that he was going to try to take some of these profit and use them in his reserves. However, the basic purpose of the profit on Bantu beer is to utilize it for the benefit of the Bantu. But what is happening now? The Johannesburg City Council for example is going to be involved in an additional cost of R400,000 per annum unless the council raises its prices, which I understand it cannot do unless it obtains special permission. I am informed that all the municipalities in the country are going to be involved in an additional payment to the Fiscus of R1 million per annum. Now what is the effect of this? The effect is that instead of this money being utilized, as it was previously, for the benefit of the Bantu, it is now going into the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the use of the taxpayer generally, and the person who is going to suffer as a result of this change in taxation is the Bantu, whether he be in the urban areas, where he is benefiting now, or whether he be in the homelands to where the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration wants some of those funds to flow. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister is going to find it very difficult to make a case for this change, because the impact of this new method of taxation is going to fall where it can least be taken. We do not like it; we think the principle involved is wrong, and we will vote against it.

Mr. Speaker, members of the Opposition find themselves in the fortunate position, of course, that they can always ask for tax relief or that they can plead that some tax which is being levied should not have been imposed. In connection with this duty on motor-cars, I think it should be pointed out in all fairness that it forms part of the pattern of the Budget. Seeing that the hon. the Minister went out of his way to finance his expenditure on a completely non-inflationary basis, and I think that met with general approval, he had to find the money from, inter alia, taxes. And this amount which he will derive from the duty on motorcars will amount to R6 million. R6 million is not at all an insignificant amount. If the hon. the Minister did not levy this duty and did not find the money from this source, he would have had to find it from another source— there is not the slightest doubt about this. Actually one feels, all things considered, that this taxation, had it been imposed on anything else, might have been felt more severely than in the case of cars. I think that here it was a case of a choice which the Minister had to make and I think he made a good choice in this connection. I want to point out, and I think hon. members will remember, that when this indirect taxation, which incidentally was the only indirect taxation in all the Budget proposals, was announced, the motor trade—and all the newspapers wrote a great deal about it—said that it was not at all concerned about the tax. It felt quite happy about this tax.

It is the user who has to pay, not the trade.

As far as the user is concerned, we have now obtained the figures of motor-car sales during April. Motor-car sales in April this year were higher than in April last year. That gives you the answer to the user to this tax. As I have said, the Opposition is in the fortunate position that they can plead for less taxation. But is this in point of fact such an enormous tax? During the Budget speech the hon. the Minister said that the duty on a small or light motor-car would amount to approximately R40. Let us say for the sake of argument that light motorcars sell at approximately R1,600. Now, R40 on that R1,600 is equal to 2½ per cent, and that is the higher price which will now have to be paid. If a person in effect does not want to pay more and if he normally keeps his motor-car for a period of five years, i.e. for 60 months, he simply has to keep that motorcar for a 2½ per cent longer period and then he would have received full value for this duty. [Interjections.] The hon. member is laughing? What is wrong with my argument? When I sit down he can get up. A person has to drive his old motor-car for a 2½ per cent longer period. He can also drive the car he had when this duty was imposed for a 2½ per cent longer period. That means that he will have to drive an additional 1½ months with his motor-car before he trades it in. He only has to drive an additional 1½ months. Hon. members themselves can work out what the position will be if he wants to trade in that motor-car sooner. If he wants to keep his car for three years before trading it in, he has to drive it for an additional period of approximately one month. That means that he now has to keep his motor-car for an additional period of one month if this duty will in fact be such a heavy burden on him. I think this is a sound counter-argument to the argument that this duty is a heavy burden on people. But then all taxes are unpopular. The hon. the Minister was faced with the situation that he had to budget for a year in which the Budget had to supplement the existing monetary measures and during a period in which we had to take active steps against inflation in this country. The hon. the Minister did not want to finance the Budget in an inflationary way. Consequently he had to look where to find the money. My submission is that this duty which has been imposed on motor-cars is not felt as severely as it could have been if it had been imposed on other things. If hon. members want to take the trouble to work this out, they will find that the duty amounts to approximately one-twentieth of one cent per mile on the normal life of a motor-car. Consequently I think that if we take all these things into consideration —whilst accepting that any additional taxation is unpopular—this is a tax which is bearable and one which need not push up costs unduly. Lorries are not affected at all. Vans, lorries and delivery vans, etc., are not affected at all. This is merely a duty on motor-cars.

I think it is important that the hon. the Minister of Finance when placing taxation on articles, particularly articles which are consumed by humans who pay the taxes, that he should take particular care not to alter social habits which are desirable. Quite apart from collecting the money there are habits which are undesirable and which can be influenced. This is not the first time in this House that I felt constrained to speak on the question of the over-taxation on beer and the boosting of more alcoholic drinks with their undesirable effect upon the people who consume them. The hon. the Minister should in all his taxation proposals pay particular attention to the social habits of people. One of the items in social habits is social drinking. It is important that this social drinking should not lead to excess and to a problem which is giving us in this House at any rate—when one follows the debates—a great deal of concern, namely the increasing alcoholism among the people. This is something which is likely to happen if the hon. the Minister makes it easier and cheaper for those young people and to be more effective in its effects on their brains and their habits at that particular time when they are under the influence. When one talks generally of a person being under the influence of alcohol, one means under the undue influence of alcohol. But even one whiskey or one cane spirit tot has some effect on people. Even though it may be social and it may not be to excess, it is nevertheless most undesirable. Beer is certainly in fact the only alcoholic drink in existence which contains vitamins. And with our increased difficulties with housing and with people obtaining fresh vegetables, it is important that a source of vitamins which is taken in this particular way should not be taken away. In wines, which I think the hon. the Minister perhaps is trying to encourage the drinking of, there are no vitamins. Dry wine may be pleasant but it certainly is an alcoholic drink and is frequently taken to excess. Beer is the drink of the working man. Beer is the drink which quenches thirst. Wine is not a great thirst quencher. It is rather a social drink. Of all the drinks that are available to the people of this country, beer is the one which should be encouraged more than any other drink. It is a wholesome, a healthy and a nutritious drink.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban (Point), who spoke first, gave us an indication that that side of the House was going to vote against certain clauses of this measure during the Committee Stage. We have once again seen the Opposition act as they did before: When we come forward with taxation proposals, they do not want to agree to them, but when it comes to services, they maintain that a sufficient number of services are not being rendered. I must honestly say that I cannot seriously accept any one’s suggestion that the duties should not be imposed unless they suggest alternatives.

Abolish the posts of a few Deputy Ministers.

That may be a good suggestion, but the money which that would save would be so insignificant that it would not really be worthwhile. The hon. member also asked a whole number of other questions, and that reminded me of the old saying that one man—someone like the hon. member—can ask more questions than 1,000 wise men can answer.

What chance does a wise man. or perhaps one who is not so wise, have in that case …!

Precisely. I want to try to deal with a few of the matters raised. As regards the variety of matters raised by the hon. member for Durban (Point), i.e. in regard to the chemical industry, shipping, etc., I want to reply in general that the recommendations in this regard were made by the Board of Trade and Industries. I do not think it is our task at this stage to deal with each of those considerations according to their merits. As far as the chemical industry as well as the shipping industry is concerned, these steps are being taken to a large extent for the protection and promotion of local industries.

The hon. member also spoke of the duty on fuel for coasters and for road transportation. Both these matters were carefully investigated by the Board of Trade and Industries and the Board recommended these steps. The hon. member also asked where we got the figure of 25 we mentioned in respect of the duty now being imposed on Bantu beer. This figure appears in the laws dealing with Bantu administration. This is the figure which is determined by the margin between a large and a small employer. I know that this is a figure which has not exactly been calculated down to the minutest detail, but in any event, that is where we get it from.

I think I should rather deal with the two major matters raised here by the hon. members for Durban (Point), Pinetown and Durban (Central). The hon. member for Durban (Central) spoke of the duty on beer only. As regards the other two gentlemen, they also spoke of the duty on motor-cars as well.

As regards the duty on motor-cars I want to give a few particulars to hon. members. In 1966 a total of 186,117 new motor vehicles were sold in the Republic of which 139,076 were motor-cars. These vehicles would have been subject to the duty we are imposing now, the remaining 47,041 were commercial vehicles. These vehicles which were vans, lorries, buses and other kinds of public passenger vehicles such as ambulances, etc., would not have been taxed. The hon. member for Parktown asked me whether I could tell him what percentage of the motor-cars were used exclusively for private transport, in other words, motor-cars which were used out and out for pleasure and luxury purposes and not in connection with work. Unfortunately I cannot furnish that figure to him. I think the hon. member will agree with me that it is a large percentage of the motor-cars purchased.

Now I should like to bring another very important factor to the attention of hon. members, one which has not yet been mentioned in connection with this duty. When a motorcar is used in connection with business, in connection with earnings, the owner is entitled to deduct the motor-car’s cost, depreciation and everything associated therewith for tax purposes. Let me rather put it this way. Everyone is allowed to deduct 20 per cent depreciation on motor-cars. In other words, if the total amount is deducted it means that a company gets back 40 per cent of the duty we levy on the motor-car. Surely that is the case?

Yes.

The hon. member for Parktown says that that is in fact the case. That means that the person who uses his motor-car for purposes of earning an income will really pay 60 per cent of this duty only if he is a company. In the case of a private person it may be more, depending on his income. Where motor-cars are not used for purposes of earning an income, in other words, where it is out and out a private car, no deduction in respect of the motor-car is allowed for income-tax purposes.

I should now like to express a few ideas in connection with the duty on Bantu beer in regard to which certain objections were raised. The hon. member for Durban (Point) spoke of the duty being refunded. I could not quite make out whether he was objecting to the provision in clause 3 for the refund of the duty on kaffircorn malt.

I was saying, “I told you so”.

Oh, I thought the hon. member did not want me to refund that duty! The only thing we are doing there is to make provision for the refund of the duty in cases where duty has already been paid on kaffircorn malt on the date concerned. Hon. members will recall that we originally imposed the duty on the malt. It is obvious that if the duty is on malt, that affects everyone, everyone who uses malt for the manufacture of Bantu beer. It makes no difference whether the beer is manufactured privately or by the municipalities or large employers—it affects everyone. It was felt at first that that might be the best way of imposing the duty on Bantu beer, because it was in point of fact the intention to impose the duty on the beer and not on the malt or the kaffircorn. You will recall, Sir, that several years ago, in 1962, a duty was imposed on unfortified wine. That gave rise to representations that there was only one alcoholic beverage which was not subject to duty, namely Bantu beer. Consequently a duty was imposed on kaffircorn malt last year. That was intended to be a duty on Bantu beer.

Why must the Bantu pay that?

If the hon. member will only exercise a little pafience, I shall deal with that in a moment. I should like to give a reply to that question because it was said here repeatedly that we now wanted to collect more money from the poor consumers of Bantu beer. That is not the case. I shall explain this point in a moment. It appeared that there were certain irregularities in connection with the duty on malt. Just about 25 per cent of the ingredients used in the manufacture of Bantu beer by the municipalities, the large manufacturers of Bantu beer, is in point of fact kaffircorn malt. Other ingredients make up the remaining 75 per cent. Therefore it was decided to place a duty of 2 cents per gallon on Bantu beer instead. The hon. member for Parktown made an analysis here. I do not think his figures were quite correct. The hon. member spoke of 2.6 gallons. In point of fact one pound of kaffircorn malt produces only 1.6 gallons. To tell the truth, on the average 180 pounds of malt generally produces approximately 280 gallons of Bantu beer.

Therefore it appears that a duty which will now be paid by the municipalities which are manufacturers of Bantu beer will amount to three times as much as before. In addition it appears that the imposition of this duty leaves the private brewer completely free. In other words, the person who buys his malt in the shop and makes the beer at home will not have to pay this duty. Why do hon. members opposite not complain about them? They would like to make a fuss about the higher taxation which will now be imposed on the consumer of Bantu beer but they do not mention the fact that the private brewer will now pay no duty whatsoever.

In the few minutes which I still have at my disposal I should like to indicate that it will not be necessary to pass the payment of this duty on to the consumer of Bantu beer. The hon. the Minister, too, held out the prospect that it would not be necessary to do so. In the year 1964-’65 Johannesburg made a profit of R1,439,000. In 1965-’66 its profit was R1,476,000. In the same years Pretoria made profits of R464,000 and R635,000, respectively. The profit at Alexandria, for example, increased from R368,000 in 1964-’65 to R505,000 in the next year. In other words, there is no need for the consumer to pay the duty. As the hon. the Minister envisaged, the additional levy can quite easily be paid by the municipalities and there is no need for the extra duty “to be passed on to the consumer” as the hon. member said.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.