Mr. Speaker, last week when he opened this debate the hon. member for Yeoville furnished a definition of a fable, a definition which he found in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary. Unfortunately I have not had the time to give so much attention to authoritative books on language. What I do know is that a fable is a story or a tale, fictitious or true, told in very simple language with the intention, through such simple language, of making a profound truth or piece of wisdom intelligible to children and persons of poor comprehension. During the 16 years I have already been sitting in these benches, I have done my best every year to make certain economic and financial concepts intelligible to hon. members opposite, but I must admit that I have seldom succeeded over the years in bringing home those concepts and principles to them. Ultimately I decided to call in the aid of Aesop in an effort to bring these things home to them in that way. After the debate last week, however, I must confess that this attempt of mine did not succeed either. In fact, it failed hopelessly. If we examine the speeches made by members opposite and see the confusion and the conflicting statements, and if we take into consideration the superficiality and lack of responsibility shown in them, then one has to conclude that, alas!, my friends on the opposite side of the House still have very little understanding of the essence and the reality, not only of economic processes, but also of the true essence, evolution and growth of the problem of inflation which was, for the most part, what the debate was all about.

I should like to discuss for a while the problem of inflation and related subjects which hon. members, for the most part, discussed. I have read many books and periodicals on inflation. I have heard many opinions on this matter, but never in my life have I heard such a collection of conflicting statements and confused ideas as I heard last week, from a number of hon. members who have been called upon by the people to serve as an Opposition. One of the points raised here was the international character of inflation. They tried to tell us where inflation came from, but not one of those hon. members had the necessary insight into matters to refer to the international root source from which inflation springs. The hon. member for Yeoville referred to it in passing, but the hon. young member for Randburg was the only hon. member who had gone into the international root of the present day problem of inflation. I must congratulate him on this. I hope that he will continue in this way, and that he will serve as an example to the older members on the opposite side of the House. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I have learnt to speak even in the dark.

I now want to dwell for a moment on this characteristic of inflation, its international essence, and I should like to put this question to the hon. members opposite who say that it is all the Government’s fault: How do they explain the fact that there is inflation in every country of the world today, inflation at a higher rate than is the case in South Africa? How do they explain that inflation has today become an international ailment? It is being written about in books and periodicals. Some of the greatest economists and financiers have expressed their opinions on it. Every day a solution to and an explanation of the phenomenon of inflation is being sought throughout the world. This is a problem throughout the world. There has to be a reason for it. Apparently hon. members opposite are unaware of the existence of anything like this. At the beginning of my speech I should just like to refer briefly to something in international events which must have given rise to ideas on the international grounds of inflation. What went wrong with the world? After the war a depression did not, as usual, occur. What went wrong in the world to cause this storm of inflation to rage through the world for the past six to nine years?

I want to seek my first reason in the international monetary system, the international monetary system which has been disrupted as probably never before in modern history. I want to point out that in the international monetary sphere we, as nations, recently broke away from the Bretton Woods, system which was based on gold, and have still not succeeded, after exploring all avenues, in putting another system in its place. I want to point out that our international system has broken away from gold—the anchor, the corner-stone, the basis of finance in the past—without putting anything in its place. Today we have a world system in the field of international finance which is unanchored, which is motionless, and which is creating uncertainty and doubt among people, and uncertainty which expresses itself in a doubt concerning the continued existence, the validity and the value of money. Until such time as the world has come forward with a solution to this international monetary system, and until such time as they have found something which can take the place of gold, which can give that stability, that security, that steadiness which it does not have at present, as long as this is the phenomenon, as long as that monetary system prevails, there will certainly be inflation and a flight from paper money to fixed money.

I want to go further and mention other answers. Apart from this new phenomenon of breaking away from anchors in the international monetary system, we have recently had the phenomenon of the floating of monetary systems, monetary systems which no longer have a fixed basis, but which float from day to day, which has resulted in fluctuation and doubt and uncertainty in international money relations, and this of course has to be one of the causes of inflation. In recent years we have seen how the mighty America, which has a strong economy at home, constantly had vast deficits in its budgets, deficits which created inflation. But we also saw how America, with its undervalued dollar, pumped many millions of dollars out to the rest of the world. America inundated the rest of the world with dollars, dollars which were no longer based on gold, but dollars which had become unconvertible. It is calculated that America pumped 70 billion dollars into the rest of the world; she inundated the rest of the world with liquidity and with money and that increase of money in the rest of the world was a source of inflation. I do not want to elaborate on these matters for too long. Sir, there is another cause of inflation, a cause which I want to call a social cause. It was Lord Beveridge who was perhaps the first to present the idea of social security, social assurance, which one finds today in most countries of the world—that perhaps well-intentioned idea that, the State is responsible for the social welfare of every individual; that the State must guarantee every individual a subsistence, even though that individual has contributed nothing to the welfare and prosperity of the State. This fine idea of social security has inculcated in people the idea that they may ask for things without giving anything in exchange for them; it has inculcated in people the idea that they may constantly desire new things from the State without giving anything to the State in return. Under this new system the emphasis for people fell on rights and not on our human obligations. More and more freedoms are desired without more and more responsibility more and more security is desired without any willingness to take a risk. Sir, however fine and lovely and humane this idea of social security may sound, we must bear in mind that no State can distribute free gifts to a certain section of its population without recovering this from another section of the nation. Allied to this there is a third concept of the new age—and I think it was Lord Keynes who was responsible for it—and this is the concept of full employment—also a wonderful concept. But this concept of full employment has meant that the State, if full employment does not exist in the State, has to spend more money in order to achieve a greater percentage of employment and a smaller percentage of unemployment. I want to make the contention today that a large portion of inflation in modern times in certain countries, in a country such as the U.S.A. for example, is attributable to this concept of the need for full employment whatever the cost. Attendant upon this phenomenon in recent years has been the growth of powerful trade unions, trade unions which are today stronger than the Government of the countries in which they exist, trade unions which regard it as being their task to keep on requesting higher wages for their members; to exert constant pressure on the employers and the Government, so that in the end the remuneration of the worker increases far more rapidly than his achievements. Another phenomenon in this sphere, particularly since the world war, has been the phenomenon of the underdeveloped or lesser developed countries, dozens and dozens of them, poor countries which were for the most part former colonies of other states and which, for the most part, unless they were fortunate enough to discover something like oil, found themselves in an impoverished condition, Those countries are now demanding equality with the industrial countries, and some of the industrial countries believe that it is their duty to feed those other countries which were formerly dependent, those colonial countries, with development aid, so that their standards of living can approach closer to those of other countries. In this way money has been pumped into the rest of the world. Much of that money was lost because it was based on an incorrect principle; for one cannot transfer the West to the East or to Africa all that easily. But the money which was spent in this way on development is to a powerful extent one of the causes of the inflation the world is experiencing. Then, Sir, there is the psychological aspect, and it is that psychological aspect which is today perhaps the greatest factor in the generation and the maintenance of inflation, and this is what we call the inflationary expectations. Here in our country, and throughout the world, this idea is rife: “We are living in a period of inflation; we have for many years now been living in a period of inflation; it will never change; prices must continue to rise.” It is those inflationary expectations, that psychological attitude on the part of our people, which is today the greatest cause of the growing stream of inflation.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to mention briefly the newly-arisen problem of oil, oil which comes chiefly from the Middle East, but from other countries as well, and the price of which has quadrupled within a short space of time. Hon. members can imagine what the influence of the increased oil prices are on the internal prices of countries which are dependent upon oil. I think the world does not as yet have any idea of what that price is. It gives us just a glimmer of what that price is if we consider that the oil-consuming countries have to pay an estimated 70 milliard dollars annually to the oil-producing countries. Against this background, Mr. Speaker, I believe you would agree with me that there are international factors at work which are having a tremendous effect on world economy and which are a tremendous cause of the ever-growing stream of inflation.

Mr. Speaker, against this background I have to return to this debate and unfortunately I have to think back to what hon. members on the Opposition side suggested to us during this debate, was the cause of inflation and a solution to the problem. Unfortunately I have to confess that what they said was not only vague and impractical and confusing, but that most of what they said was intended to make party-political capital out of a world-wide occurrence. All they were trying to do was to find arguments against this Government, not arguments to solve a world problem. The hon. member for Hillbrow made the astonishing statement that it is the State and the State alone which creates money; that no one else can create money; that he cannot create money, for if he did, he would be in prison the next day; that it is the State and the State alone which can create money; and because too much money causes inflation, he said, the State is responsible for the inflation in our country. It is true that the State can create money if it has deficits in its Budget. But does the hon. member not know that most money is created by the banks, by the credit which the banks create? Does the hon. member not know that money is also created by a favourable balance of payments, by money which flows into a country? Does the hon. member not know that money is created or utilized owing to de-saving by people, people who withdraw their savings from banks and building societies, etc., to spend that money? When the hon. member for Hillbrow proceeds on those incorrect assumptions, we have another misconception from him, viz. the one in regard to the Government’s concessions which we are granting to the poor, the ailing and the aged. For I want to tell you, Sir, it was one of the strangest things I heard in this debate, i.e. that members on the opposite side who want to combat inflation, who want to curtail State expenditure, at the same time, make the most highly impossible demands for yet more services and expenditure, yet more relief, yet more subsidies and yet more money to augment the stream of money in this country.

The hon. member for Hillbrow, and other members too, expressed the startling idea that it is not true that inflation is being imported. Just imagine, Mr. Speaker, it is not true that inflation is being imported! This is the first time that I have come across this idea in all my investigations and perusal of books and articles by people who know something about the problem of inflation. Our economists here calculate that for every 1% by which the prices of imported articles rise, the inflation rate in our country rises by 0,22%. Over the past few months the prices of imported articles rose by more than 20% and consequently we have to deduce that of the present inflation we are experiencing here, 4½% is attributable to imported inflation. These imported goods are capital goods, Sir, goods which the farmers use on their lands, goods which are used in our factories and on the mines and consumer goods which are used every day, raw materials which are expensive and scarce, and, in addition, wood and paper and fuel and plastic—all items the prices of which are far higher abroad than here, and which consequently push up the prices of domestic articles. If one cannot understand this, I shall simply have to call upon Aesop again; perhaps then he will understand. This is the more expensive money, Sir. You know what money used to cost, in contrast with what it costs now, what the money costs which we have to borrow abroad. Yes, it is the general atmosphere which is having its effect on us as well, the atmosphere of insecurity and instability. All this has an effect on the inflation rate of today.

We come now to the other point which is allied to this and about which hon. members had a great deal to say, viz. the assertion that the State is the cause of the inflation, the State is the cause of inflation because of the State’s expenditure. Surely the costs of the State also rise, do they not? If commodities abroad increase in price, if wages and goods and services increase in price, how can the State prevent its expenditure from rising as well? After all, it has to cope with the same wage demands, it needs the same goods, and it also has to pay for the services rendered to it. Therefore its costs must also increase. It is nonsensical to say that if there is inflation outside, the expenditure of the State should not also increase pari passu. What is this increase in State expenditure? It is not the increase in State expenditure which is an inflationary factor; it is the question of how that expenditure is being financed. In the first place, when the Government has one deficit after another in its Budget, it piles one inflationary brick on top of another, and this has to be inflationary. But hon. members must admit—and hon. members opposite do admit this themselves—that this Government has not in recent years budgeted for deficits. On the contrary. It has in recent years built up the Stabilization Fund, our reserve fund, to an amount of R625 million. That is not inflationary. Even this Budget which we are now discussing—the hon. member for Constantia had to admit this—is really a neutral budget or a budget for a surplus. Inflation is caused by a government which has deficits, but in fact it is the financing of a budget which is the problem. It is the financing of a budget which creates the problem. When the financing of a budget occurs through taxes or loans, genuine savings, that budget is not inflationary. But a budget is inflationary when it finances its deficits by means of bank money. Hon. members must agree with me that this Government did not finance its Budget by means of bank loans, but that our previous Budget resulted in surpluses, and that this Budget will probably have a surplus as well.

†It was the hon. member for Johannesburg North who said that the Government had borrowed R134 million from the banking sector last year. Of course it is true that the Government did borrow R134 million from the banking sector, but that is not the whole truth. The hon. member referred only to the calendar year last year. If he looks at the figures for the last financial year he will find that we did not borrow that amount—which was really an amount of R120 million—and leave that deficit; actually we have improved our balance with the Reserve Bank by about R14 million.

*Hon. members now say: “If you had not borrowed the money internally, then you borrowed the money abroad, and that is inflationary.” That is correct; if we augment the stream of money by introducing money from abroad, then we are placing new money in circulation, and this has an inflationary character. But hon. members did not ask me how much of the money which the Government acquires in this way, leaves the country again. One of the hon. members referred to that, but did not go into it at all. Now I can give hon. members the assurance that of the money which we borrow abroad, an enormous percentage leaves the country again, whether in the form of loans which are being repaid, whether in the form of interest, whether in the form of purchases of State supplies, and whether, in particular, in the form of spending by my friend, the hon. the Minister of Defence.

†The hon. member for Constantia had a number of things to say during this Budget debate. He said that State expenditure was growing faster than the rate of growth of the economy. It is true, but is this not a characteristic of every young economy, of every young industrial State, that the State cannot provide enough savings for its investment policies? We are a young State in the fields of industry, commerce and mining, and this is nothing unusual. It is not unusual that we should spend money at a faster rate than the rate of growth of the economy. We are not the only country which does this. I think the hon. member will find that practically every growing and prosperous country in the world is guilty of this approach. Incidentally, I received some time ago a very interesting booklet on the perils of inflation, written by the chairman of the Union Bank of Switzerland. He mentions that in the 14-year period from 1960 to 1973 Switzerland’s State expenditure did not grow faster than the rate of growth of the economy in only two of those 14 years. It is a general phenomenon. I think there is no other country where it is not true that the expenditure of the State grows faster. In our country it is chiefly due to the demands on the Government by hon. members on that side of the House, as if the Government is an infinite source and can spend more and more without taking in something from the public. The hon. member for Constantia, as well as other hon. members on the other side of the House, complained about the small concessions granted to the public in the Budget. The hon. member for Durban Point spoke of a surplus of R700 million. I do not know where the hon. member got this figure from, but if it is true that we have accumulated a surplus of R700 million over the years then the hon. member for Constantia says that we have given away by way of concessions and subsidies in this Budget, only one-fifth of what we could have given away. I do not know where the hon. member got his figures from, but his addition must have been wrong. The hon. member must not only think about the sums we are going to pay out this year. He must keep in mind that we are already almost in the middle of the financial year. He should rather add the amounts which we are going to spend next year, in a full financial year, on the concessions we have now provided. He will then find that these concessions amount to about R250 million. He must admit that R250 million is enough for concessions in one particular year which is regarded as an inflationary year. This is what I cannot understand about hon. members on the other side of the House. They are always condemning high State expenditure and are constantly telling us that we should not spend more and more. But every time they come back and ask for more concessions without any idea or suggestion of where the State should get the money from. They are asking for inflationary expenditure, without proposing anything positive for the combating of inflation. The things they ask for are not anti-inflationary, they only alleviate some of the troubles and consequences of inflation. Hon. members mention subsidies and higher pensions, but these things do not solve the problem of inflation. Not at all. They actually aggravate inflation. They only alleviate some of the sorrows of inflation.

Dealing with this subject the hon. member for Yeoville stated that one of the sources of inflation in this country is the ideological expenditure of the State. I am sorry that the hon. member used the term “ideology”. Every year we have the accusation from the other side of the House that we are spending money for ideological purposes. I had thought that the hon. member for Yeoville would give us some detail as to what he meant by “ideology” and “ideological expenditure”. In this regard he did mention one example, viz. the number of control boards. Does the hon. member mean that we should abolish the control boards? Does he mean that we have to abolish the Wheat Control Board, the Meat Control Board, the Mealie Control Board and the others? What will the farmers on this side of the House say when they have to go back to the old system of disorderly marketing in the world? These control boards are there for the protection of our farmers. I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will agree with me that even if these control boards are inflationary, they are a necessity in marketing the products of farmers.

*The hon. member referred to an ideology. What does he mean by an “ideology”? All that I can think the hon. members mean by “ideology”, is that this side of the House has a plan; we have ideas; we have a policy which we feel strongly about, and to which we adhere. Because we adhere firmly to our policy, because we are a party with a policy, that is why we are sitting here. But hon. members opposite do not have an “ideology”; they do not have an idea or a plan; they have no policy which they all accept. That is why they are what they are, and that is why they are sitting where they are sitting.

†The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens is a serious-minded member, and I would like to treat his contribution to this debate seriously. I do not agree with everything the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens said. He said, for example, that public expenditure was causing inflation, and claimed that Government expenditure was largely unproductive. This is a refrain which we have heard right throughout the debate, that public expenditure is non-productive. What does he mean by saying that? Why do gentlemen on the other side of the House claim that public expenditure is non-productive? Of course, Sir, public expenditure is not productive directly as, for instance, investing in a mine or a factory. But that is not the essence of public expenditure; the essence of public expenditure is to make other expenditure in the private sector possible and profitable. Public expenditure is to lay the foundation for the country at large to develop physically and economically, in education and other spheres of life.

Let us look at just a few forms of public expenditure to examine this claim by my hon. friend on the other side of the House as to the productivity or otherwise of State expenditure. Let us first look at expenditure in the social field, for instance, as regards social welfare, pensions, subsidies and other social services. Would my friends tell me that this expenditure is not productive at all and that we should stop this expenditure? It is not productive directly in the sense that you cannot see cents flowing from that; you cannot get dividends. But it is necessary and only the State can supply it and supply it to that extent. If we look at medical expenditure in the form of health services, must that be regarded as unnecessary because it is not productive directly? Who is going to undertake that expenditure unless the State does it? Hon. members have been pleading for more and more expenditure on education, and quite correctly so. But is education a directly paying and productive investment? It becomes productive later but it does not mean immediate productivity.

It is obviously productive.

We know it is productive. I said “directly” productive. When you build a school or teach pupils, it is not a directly productive investment. Only years afterwards it becomes productive. Finally, let us look at the maintenance of Government services in general—for example, the maintenance of law and order and of our Defence Force, the building of roads, railways and harbours. I think, Mr. Speaker, that you will agree with me that it makes nonsense to characterize Government expenditure as being largely unproductive, because it is the basis of all production. If the State had not incurred this expenditure, there could hardly have been any production in other fields.

Now I come to the problems of monetary policy which have also been discussed in this debate.

*In modern times, particularly during the past year and the last few months, a great deal has been said about the monetary policy of the Government, including the Reserve Bank. In this sphere a tremendous amount of confusion has arisen. What is at issue here in the first place is the quantity of money in circulation. If we assume that inflation arises as the result of a maladjustment between money on the one hand and goods and services on the other, in this sense that there is too much money chasing too few goods and services, one of the tasks of a Government has to be to reduce the quantity of money in circulation. In so far as the State is able to create money, as the hon. member for Hillbrow argues, the State is able to prevent the inflationary creation of money by ensuring that it has no deficits in its Budget. That is what we are doing. In recent times we have had tremendous surpluses on our Budget, and this works in a dis-inflationary way, in spite of the allegation that the State is inflationary through its expenditure. Over the past five years, and it is important to know this, there was only one year in which the State’s creation of money was more than that of the private sector. That was in the year 1971, which was a very difficult year for us. In 1971 the State, through its loans, spent R318 million while the private sector spent R244 million. In all the other years the creation of money by the private sector was far more than that of the public sector. In 1969, for example, the State created R42 million while an amount of R488 million was created in the private sector. When we consider the past year, 1973, we find that the creation of money on the part of the State amounted to R120 million, while that of the private sector amounted to R1 536 million. When hon. members come to me again and tell me that the State is operating in an inflationary way in that it is creating money, I want to refer the hon. members to these figures which indicate that the private sector created twelve times as much new money than the State did. The greatest creation of money is not by the State, but by the banks. The dispute in recent months has centred around the creation of money by the banks. Recently there have been two complaints in particular, one of which was that money was very tight. There was insufficient money in the country. The second complaint was that money was too expensive and that the rates of interest were too high. As far as the first case is concerned, it is difficult for me to understand how the accusations can be levelled at the State and the Reserve Bank over the tightness of money which has developed recently. Money was being demanded everywhere, but the Reserve Bank refused to lower the liquid asset requirements of the banks to enable them to create more credit because it would be inflationary. Did the Reserve Bank have the right to do that? I think that if hon. members had listened to the figures which I furnished in my Budget speech, they would have realized that in the past year the creation of credit by the banks rose by 30%. In the past six months it rose by almost as much. In June 1974 their credit rose by R229 million, which is almost 30% when it is calculated on an annual basis. In this way a 30% creation of money is taking place by those bodies, and then the State is blamed for not wanting to afford the banks the opportunity of creating more money. I know that in America they say if one creates money in excess of 9% per annum, it is too much. They think that one should come down to a basis of approximately 6% additional money per annum. Only today a report appeared in one of the newspapers stating that in the first quarter of this year the United States had succeeded—and the hon. members should take careful note of this now—in reducing money in circulation to 4,9% on an annual basis. Over the past 12 months the creation of money in the United States, the money in circulation, increased by 5,2%. America has now brought it down to 4,9%. We, on our part, are talking about 30% in one year. And then we blame the State for not being more generous in regard to this creation of money. The dangers attendant upon on such creation of money are, firstly, that it leads to increased inflation and augmented consumption. It leads to demand inflation, which in its turn leads to increased imports. We have seen how much is being consumed, and to what extent retail sales have grown in recent times. We have also seen how the quantity of goods we import has increased. This, therefore, leads to increased purchases and in particular to a pressure on our balance of payments or trade when too much money leaves the country, more than is coming in. I think that hon. members would agree with me that it would be unwise to create too much money on that basis.

This brings us now to the problem of interest. I want to say something about the course which the authorities have adopted in this connection. On this matter as well we find two opinions on the opposite side. There are people who say that money is too cheap and too easily obtainable and that this is the reason for our inflation, and there are also people who say that money is too expensive and that that is why we have inflation. There are people who say that money should be made cheaper in order to counteract inflation, and there are people who say that money should be made more expensive in order to counteract inflation. It is a difficult matter. What we know, is, in the first place, that interest rates in South Africa were and are considerably lower than in most parts of the world, at least as far as South Africa’s trading partners are concerned. What we know, is that these low interest rates in South Africa must lead to an outflow of capital and to a reduced inflow of capital, and to all these leads and lags in the imports and exports; it leads to the financing of imports locally instead of by export credits from abroad; and it leads to a weakening of our balance of trade. The tremendous credit which is created and the vast loans which are granted, are probably among the major reasons why there has been so much pressure on our balance of trade recently.

South Africa cannot remain out of proportion with the rest of the world for so long as far as interest rates are concerned. Nor can we push up interest rates all at once, for that would cause confusion and do harm. Therefore the Reserve Bank has to increase its bank rate and the interest rates gradually in the hope that we will gradually achieve a rapprochement between the rates abroad and those in South Africa. The increases which the Reserve Bank have made in the last few years, it has made in the hope that, firstly, they would result in a better capital balance in our balance of payments, i.e. that they would attract new money; and, secondly, that they would teach people to save; and, thirdly, that the high rates of interest would result in less consumption, less consumer spending, in South Africa.

†Here again the hon. member for Constantia differs from me. The hon. member for Constantia says that the differential rate of interest is of secondary importance. Actually the hon. member meant that it is of secondary importance when there is a different rate of interest between South Africa and the rest of the world. That is a very extraordinary statement that was made by the hon. gentleman. The hon. gentleman says that the investor goes for growth and is not concerned about interest. May I ask the hon. gentleman why all the stock exchanges in other parts of the world, America, France, Germany and Britain as well as South Africa, experienced the position that stock exchange prices have fallen over the past year? There are many reasons for this but one of the main reasons is the high interest rate. People are reluctant to take money on which they can receive 13% or 14% and invest that money in stocks and shares bearing in mind the risk that accompanies that investment.

He said, for instance, that the differential placement of money is of no importance. Of course it is of importance. If interest rates in the rest of the world are in excess of interest rates in South Africa, how can you expect people to lend money, their money which they can place there at higher rates of interest, to South Africa at a lower rate of interest? Here in South Africa too, interest rates play a very important role in the movement of money, of capital. If the hon. gentleman does not believe me, let me make a bargain with him. I want to tell him that I shall lend all the money I have—which is not much—to him at 15% interest and I shall borrow it back from him at 10% interest. I do not think I need discuss this matter any further.

*Another question which is frequently discussed here, is the question of defence. One of the matters which weigh very heavily with us as South Africans today, is that of defence, the rising expenditure attendant upon this, and its inflationary effect. In the speeches made on that side of the House last week, I heard various nuances of opinion. In general, from what I heard from hon. members opposite, I must deduce that hon. members of the Opposition believe that increased defence expenditure is justified. Is that true, or am I wrong? Could hon. members opposite tell me whether we are justified in incurring heavy defence expenditure?

Yes.

The hon. leader of the finance group opposite says “yes” and I am very pleased he has done so. I do not know whether all of them agree with him, but the hon. member for Yeoville has now stated that the United Party is satisfied with our incurring this heavy expenditure, expenditure which has inflationary consequences and which causes expenditure to soar. I want to put this question to hon. members opposite: Is defence expenditure productive in the ordinary sense of the word?

It is very productive, for without it we could not live, we could not manage.

I say “productive” in the ordinary economic sense of the word. I mean it as the hon. member for Johannesburg North means it—whether it produces dividends and profits?

One’s factories cannot exist unless one defends oneself.

Hon. members always evade my questions. I ask again whether defence expenditure is directly productive?

The principle is the same in the case of a factory owner who gets someone to guard his factory. The expenditure is the same.

I am very pleased that the hon. member is adopting that attitude. The hon. member is, on behalf of his party, adopting the attitude that we may spend money ...

On the defence of our country.

... on the defence of our country.

Yes.

That same money therefore which the hon. member for Johannesburg North said could be utilized to far better effect for investment in mines and factories, and would therefore produce direct dividends and profits. Does my hon. friend, the hon. member for Yeoville, agree with me that defence expenditure in that sense is not productive? I do not know whether I should quote Aesop again. Hon. members of the Opposition agree with me that we must defend South Africa; I think they agree with me that defence expenditure is not as productive as investment in factories or mines or enterprises.

Defence expenditure is necessary ...

It is absolutely necessary. Sir, I now want to make my point which is this: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and hon. members on that side are so fond of saying that I am the man who wants to bend economic laws. I did say so, and I say it again. My defence expenditure is expenditure which is not directly productive, but I am incurring it in spite of the fact that I could invest that money more productively; I am incurring it, and I am bending an economic law in order to ensure the future of my people.

That is a debating point.

Yes, it is a debating point; hon. members on that side are turning it into a debating point.

If someone is looking after your house, nothing will be stolen.

I am pleased that that hon. member is here. I referred to indirect expenditure which one incurs, expenditure which is necessary for one’s country but which is not directly productive, but is in fact indirectly productive.

You need the night-watchman so that your goods are not stolen at night.

I come now to the other matter to which hon. members referred here, and that is Iscor. The hon. member for Von Brandis stated, with reference to the R130 million which we are now spending, that he had said here years ago that Iscor would need a great deal of capital. With all due respect to my hon. friend I want to say that it is not so strange that he said many years ago that Iscor would require additional capital; we knew it. I might just as well predict that in five years’ time December will be a summer month. We knew that Iscor would grow, and grow with borrowed capital, and that there would come a time when there would have to be a greater injection of capital to increase Iscor’s gearing; that we have too much loan funds as compared with capital funds; and the time has now come for us to give Iscor capital. I want to add that it was not only we who thought so, but that the lenders, the banks we were dealing with, requested that Iscor should strengthen its own capital.

†The hon. member for Johannesburg North says that this was unnecessary; that Iscor’s credit standing is not in issue because its loans can be guaranteed by the State.

*Sir, the hon. member insinuated that my Government and I knew very little about the capital market of the world. How could he make a statement like that? How could he make the statement that it was unnecessary, and that because Iscor’s loans are guaranteed by the State, its credit standing is not in issue?

Given the profits that you have not allowed Iscor to make, there is only one thing that you could do ...

The hon. member is talking now about something which is not relevant to what I am going to say now.

*That capital has to be spent in the first place because the lenders require it of us. Why are the lenders asking for this? Even though the lenders have the State’s guarantee, they still want the institution itself, to whom they are lending money, to be strong, and my hon. friend, as a banker, will understand this. The hon. member ought to know that if Iscor and Escom and all the other State corporations go abroad to borrow money, the money is guaranteed by the State, but they must nevertheless pay a high rate of interest. Why? Because the lender wants the assurance that in spite of a State guarantee that institution should be solvent enough to be able to pay back the debt itself; because the lenders would not like, if the debt is not paid, to have to turn to the State to claim the money. And the capital forces, about which we know so little according to the hon. member ... May I inform the hon. member that before he had had any political perception, I had for 16 years been dealing with the capital powers of the world, and therefore I also know something of what is happening there. And the capital powers demand this. In addition the hon. member also said that “investing in Iscor the taxpayers money is being used to subsidize the users of steel”.

†He says the taxpayer’s money is being used to subsidize the users of steel. But what is wrong about that? The users of steel are not only the manufacturers who use steel to make plant and implements. The users of steel are the manufacturers and the farmers—all of us in fact are users of steel; every consumer is a user of steel. Steel is so basic to the economy of every country and also in our economy that subsidizing steel is subsidizing production and subsidizing the consumption of the community at large. They always clamour for more and more subsidies and I think this is a worthy subject for subsidy by the State.

*Another of the nonsensical arguments we heard from that side of the House was the allegation that we, this Government, are allegedly on the road to socialism, to creeping socialism. This is a word they have learned outside, creeping socialism. In reality, Sir, we are one of the few countries in the world—I repeat—we are one of the few countries in the world—where the principles of capitalism, or let me say, the principles of individual private enterprise and profit motive still apply.

But you once wanted to nationalize the gold mines and the insurance companies. The National Party wanted to do that.

You are living in the past. We are now referring to debates conducted here last week, and to what we envisage in future. They said that this Government was on the road to “creeping socialism”, to an increasing, growing, creeping socialism.

Do you accept that you were also a socialist, but have now changed?

There are quite a few skeletons we could scratch out of your cupboard.

I wish the hon. member would give me a chance to make my speech. I did not interrupt him. I want to say that what these hon. members are saying is not only untrue and unreal, but also dangerous to South Africa. And now they quote the names of the few people—among others Mr. De Decker and Wessels and Wassenaar. But apart from quoting people’s names, they themselves did not mention a single example, or furnish a single item of proof. One of those people whom they quoted said that the Treasury and I were further left than Wilson. Would the hon. member agree that we are further left than Wilson? Is it not absurd to say a thing like that? I see my hon. friend opposite is also laughing at this. It shows he has a good sense of humour. What were the examples which were mentioned to prove that the Treasury and I are further left than Wilson? They say that estate duties and gift tax is paid in South Africa. South Africa, it is said, is the only country which still has a capital gains tax. Then reference was made to estate duties. Surely, Mr. Speaker, you know yourself and everyone knows that South Africa is almost the only country where there is no capital gains tax, except for those people who play with capital. You also know that estate duty exists in all parts of the world, in various forms. To regard South Africa as being socialistic now because we have estate duties is something which no sensible person could accept.

Mention was also made by members opposite to State intervention, State interference. A great song and dance was made over the drawbacks of State interference. I do not want to deny that the State interferes. I do not want to deny that the Government sometimes intervenes. If the Government did not interfere, it would be a very bad Government. However, I want to say that the interference of this Government is minimal. Take only one example. Other states, and even America, adopted a policy of interference in that they controlled prices, profits and wages. This is a form of State interference. We have always said that we were not prepared to follow such a policy of intervention, and introducing measures such as price control, and the control of wages and profits. And then, Sir, we hear again from hon. members opposite that prices rose. They then asked us why we did not do something. Sir, you see therefore that it is not we, but in fact that side, which advocates State socialism and State control over private initiative.

What about the public corporations?

I shall come to that; just give me a chance. Sir, they are the same people who said that we are the cause of inflation, and that we are the cause of the country not growing rapidly enough. Sir, with that they imply that if the State had to comply with all the requirements which they set the State, then it has to interfere, then it has to control, then it has to embrace a part of socialism.

I am very sorry, Sir, that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, from whom one would not have expected anything like this, made the same accusation. In an issue of To the Point shortly before the election, the issue of 1 March 1974, an interview was conducted with him. The following question was put to him—

To which the hon. the Leader replied as follows—

The hon. members is therefore levelling the accusation that, over a certain period of years, the investment of the State in State Corporations increased by so much, while that in respect of private initiative declined by approximately 40%. It is true that that decline did take place during that specific period. But the hon. member never took into consideration that that decline was attributable to a drop in supplies. In certain periods in the economic development one finds supplies increasing. Dealers, importers and factory owners then purchase supplies, in the exception that they are going to become more expensive. Then there comes a period when their supplies diminish. In that particular year—and the hon. member can look at the figures; I can give them to him if he wants them—supplies diminished to a tremendous extent. This is the decline which occurred, not a decline in investment. The hon. member should have a look at this book, the Reserve Bank Quarterly Bulletin; he will find the particulars there. If the hon. member had read this book and had not obtained his figures from someone else, which I am afraid is what he did, he would have found that private investment between 1966 and 1973 grew from R1 141 million to R2 470 million. This is not a decline.

Yes, but it still is a great deal less ...

Instead, one considers fixed investment, as in buildings and machinery for example. If the hon. member had studied those figures, he would have found that in those specific years to which he referred, investment by private enterprise grew by 75%, i.e. they grew at a rate of 10,7% per annum. He therefore takes the figures for one year incorrectly, and skips the other years. The hon. member also referred to the private investments which declined in that year. In 1970-’73 the private entrepreneur invested R1 718 million, while he invested R2 546 million in 1973-’74. This is an increase of almost 50%. I do not want to go too far into this matter, but the hon. member for Hillbrow also referred to State corporations. In what does the State invest its money? I shall mention these bodies to hon. members opposite and they must then tell me whether or not they want us to abolish them. We invest money in Iscor. We have already discussed Iscor and I do not know whether hon. members want us not to invest money in Iscor. Iscor supplies the country with steel at a time when there is a world scarcity of steel. The State also invests in a corporation such as Escom, i.e. the Electricity Supply Commission. Should the Electricity Supply Commission not have been there? This is a public corporation in which the State invests. Should the State not have helped this corporation to grow and have made it strong? Is the hon. member for Hillbrow and other hon. members not grateful that there is an undertaking such as Iscor in South Africa which can supply us with cheap power, power which makes us to a large extent independent of oil?

But why cannot private individuals invest money in Iscor?

A private individual cannot invest money in Iscor, in the first place because it is the object of the State to keep the price of steel as low as possible. When one allows private individuals to invest money then—I am not saying it is wrong—they want to make the greatest possible profit from it. The price of steel will then rise. Then there is still Sasol. One of my first tasks in this country was to defend Sasol. Sasol has today become something of which we are all proud. People are sent from all over the world to come and look at the processes which are being carried out at Sasol. At the moment there is one million tons of coal on its way from America to Sasol to be used in those processes. Should we abolish Sasol? What about Foskor? This company supplies chief phosphates to our farmers so that produce for our people is cheaper. Posts and Telegraphs and Railways are other fields in which the State invests money, and I am not even mentioning hospitals, schools, universities and other training institutions now. But the hon. member for Hillbrow asked: “What about public corporations?” Are there any of these State corporations which hon. members opposite want to discontinue, or think therefore be abolished? [Interjections.] Unfortunately I did not hear what the hon. member for Hillbrow said, but it does not really matter. I am sorry that that hon. member participated in this debate. He has made a few good speeches here, but this speech was certainly not one of his best. The hon. member did not only refer to State corporations, he also discussed pensions.

He tried to indicate how poorly the State is allegedly caring for pensioners. In 1948 old age pensions were R10; now they are going to become R57. However, the hon. member stated that this was not enough and that a pension should always improve in real terms. In addition he said that according to his calculation the national income had risen by 700% since 1948, and that pensions had risen by 470%. In other words, there is a backlog. But my friend forgot that this increase in pensions is a per capita increase, while the 700% increase in the national income is the over-all increase. Therefore he still has to reduce it on the basis of the growth of the population; and then he will arrive at an answer. I find it strange that the hon. member made this accusation, and did not take this simple factor into account at all. I also made a calculation of the growth of the population as compared with the national income, and the growth of the pensions over the same period. I find that the per capita increase was 6,2% per annum and the growth in pensions 6,9% per annum. This is a considerable increase, measured against the per capita national income, which the hon. member did not look at.

Then the hon. member came forward with a rare approach. He compared South Africa with Western Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden.

What about Australia?

Well, perhaps with Australia too. If the hon. member wishes to add that, he is free to do so.

I add it.

Oh, the hon. member adds it. Are there any others who want to add other countries? Sir, it is very interesting that that hon. member compares us with socialistic countries, countries where socialism is the mainstay of their politics, countries where social security reigns supreme, countries which do not adhere to the same political philosophy as we do. Now it is that same hon. member who in the next paragraph, after having said we were doing worse than all those countries, said that we are socialistic. Sir, I have seldom heard anything like that.

†Now I want to deal briefly with the hon. member for Constantia, if the hon. member will just give me his attention for a few moments. I like listening to the hon. member for Constantia. He is a serious thinker. I like listening to him, although I sometimes find it rather difficult. Sometimes I follow his reasoning, for a considerable time and with pleasure, I must say, but then, suddenly, I awake with a jolt. I feel that something is wrong with his reasoning. The arguments the hon. member uses seem to be quite logical. When I go further, I find that they are indeed logical, but that they rest on the wrong premises. His theories seem to fit, but they are not valid and they are not valid because they do not fit in with the reality as we know it. They fit in with an imaginary world, a dream world which does not exist today. With all due respect to the hon. gentleman, I find that his economic doctrine, although it is very interesting, is not the economic doctrine of today—it is the economic doctrine of bygone days. Therefore, I think it is really outdated as far as the present world is concerned. The hon. member is against inflation, but at the same time he accuses me of not giving away enough. It is the same old accusation. We are not giving enough, although he says there is no current surplus to be transferred to the Stabilization Account. That is what he said. He said that quite emphatically. In spite of that, I do not want to take up an argument with the hon. gentleman because he should realize that relief in the form of concessions and subsidies bring more money into circulation, and that they must be inflationary, however well they may be intended. Or is the hon. member also entangled in the web of confusion in which the whole of the United Party finds itself? I may say that the hon. gentleman’s argument is fallacious when he says that we have granted only one-fifth of what was possible. If the hon. gentleman adds up—I must again reiterate it—the concessions we have made for a full year, he will find that they amount to R250 million. Then the hon. gentleman added, surprisingly, that the present position called for less taxation. I know it is very popular today to ask for less taxation, but it is not very wise. The hon. gentleman must know that it is very difficult to explain these things. I do not think that even Aesop can explain these matters, but in times of inflation one should not give away too much; one should really ask more, one should increase taxation. The hon. gentleman told us that we should give away things.

Then he said something that I really do not like and that is that business confidence is shaky. I say that that is simply not true. That is not my experience of the business world. If one reads the reports and the business circulars one finds that by far the majority of businessmen are highly confident about the future of our country. If there is any lack of confidence, if there is such a lack of confidence in our country, it can only be one which has been caused by factors out of our control. There is, for instance, the international uncertainty in the monetary field. It must have a shaking influence on business confidence generally. Secondly, there is the probability or possibility of a recession abroad. This, too, must have an influence upon our people and it may create the possibility that we would not be able to sell our commodities on a larger scale abroad. Then there are the happenings across our borders. These are factors over which we have no control. If people’s confidence are shaken a bit by these factors, it is not something which has anything to do with the Government of this country.

As usual the hon. gentleman attacked us on the problem of devaluation. Hon. members will remember that over the last years in every debate the hon. gentleman could not forget the devaluation of late 1971. I can only say very briefly that since the day of devaluation in 1971, the value of the South African currency has increased to such an extent that it is now considerably stronger than it was in 1967, before the British devaluation. I can only say that the South African rand is regarded today as one of the strongest currencies in the world. I can only add that in this year South Africa was admitted as an article 8 country under the IMF. This means that it is one of the strongest in the world. I can only say that the devaluation of 1971 brought a strong improvement in our balance of payments and an increase in our gold reserves and foreign exchange. This was the factor that made it possible for South Africa to grow and to achieve what I very emphatically call the highest rate of national income growth in the world today of all comparable countries. If it had not been for our devaluation we would not have had the reserves to achieve this high rate of national income growth that we have today which, as I say, compares very firmly with the best in the world. Then the hon. gentleman said that we are to blame because the devaluation is the cause of the inflation of today. That may be the case, but it is also the cause of the growth we have today. Has the hon. gentleman ever considered the fact that even in countries which have revalued currencies, there has been inflation? Does the hon. gentleman know what the inflation rate in Japan has been all the time? For many years Japan has always revalued as against the dollar. The other day one of the foremost people in the monetary field in West Germany told me that he could not understand the position. In a short period they had revalued the Deutsche Mark 40% as against the dollar but at the same time the rate of inflation had increased by 40%. Therefore it is not so easy just to say that inflation has been caused by devaluation.

Lastly, the hon. gentleman again referred to the so-called “stop-go policy” of this Government. I am getting a little tired of hearing this. We hear so often of the so-called “stop-go policy” of this Government that the use of this phrase is becoming meaningless in debates in this House. What he actually means is that the economy has not always advanced at a steady rate. It is true that our economy has not always developed evenly, higher and higher. However, can that hon. gentleman or any hon. gentleman on that side of the House point to any other country in the world where the economy has developed at an even rate? No, Mr. Speaker, they cannot mention any country because there is no such country. In every economy, and particularly in capitalist societies, there are the peaks and the valleys, the ups and the downs. Go to America or Germany, and you will find that they have had these ups and downs. One finds them in all economies. Sometimes the brakes must be applied and at other times the economy has to be promoted.

Finally, I want to come back to the hon. member for Johannesburg North. The hon. member is not here ...

Here I am.

Oh, there he is. I do not want to refer to the hon. gentleman as an individual or because he is the member for Johannesburg North, but because he seems to be the spokesman of the party of which he is a member. I take his views as being the views of the Progressive Party. I shall not be too harsh, because the hon. member is a new member in this House. However, I think that it is my duty to point out some of the subtle points of his remarks. I could deal very thoroughly with these points and I could go into his remarks that we know nothing of the world capital market, but I shall leave that aside. I must congratulate the hon. member on having been straightforward and concise in submitting his views. Nevertheless, there is a great deal that is not clear and I think the House as a whole, both sides of it, would like some more enlightenment on some of his points. In the first place the hon. member said that Government expenditure was growing faster than the national income. Well, I have dealt with this point before. I may mention, however, that in respect of his claim that Government expenditure has been growing at a faster rate than the growth rate of the economy, there is a school of thought, of which he is no doubt aware, according to which it is the duty of the State to step in if private investment does not grow fast enough. According to that school of thought, it is then the duty of the Government to put more money into the economy and to compensate for the lack in private expenditure. Again, the hon. member repeated the view that Government spending is not as productive as private spending. These statements make little sense. That Government spending is not as productive as private spending is not the essence of Government spending. The essence of Government spending is something completely different. The Government spends money on social services. It spends money in fields such as that of health where the private investor does not spend. The Government spends money in building up the infrastructure and lays foundations upon which other undertakings can grow. The hon. gentleman has said a few things to which I must come back. In the first place there is his view on defence matters, in regard to which he said in his speech on Tuesday:

There you have the “but”. Then he says—

Mr. Speaker, I should like to know what the attitude of the hon. gentleman is. His attitude is not quite clear to me. He is really hesitant to make a decision in regard to this point. He weighs up the pros and the cons but I do think that if he were to have made a decision, his decision would have been in favour of the economic advantages instead of the safety of our country. That is the impression I gained listening to his speech. On balance, my impression is that he is not as much in favour of defence expenditure as, for instance, the hon. member for Yeoville has expressed himself to be. It seems to me that in his mind economic gains appear to be superior to the safety of a nation, I hope that I have misunderstood him, but if I have, he should be more clear and unambiguous in his statements. We do not want any “buts” and “howevers” in a matter of this nature.

The hon. member also spoke about the homelands. He spoke about the “myths of the establishment of viable homelands”. What does he mean by “myths”? They may of course be myths to him politically speaking. Very well, that is a point of view. They are not, certainly not myths geographically speaking. They are there and they are there as part of a country and they have to be developed as every part of a country has to be developed. The hon. member went on to say—this is very important—that the development of the homelands can only be seen as consequential and not as an alternative to the economic growth of the established industrial and mining complexes of South Africa, that they are there as consequences and not alternatives. Whoever said that the development of the homelands is an alternative? Did we ever say that? Our view on this side of the House is that the development of the homelands runs parallel and goes hand in hand with the development of the metropolitan areas. The hon. gentleman went further. He says that these homelands are consequential upon the establishment of outside industries. What does he mean? If words mean anything, he means that we first have to develop the metropolitan areas and that after we have become fat and rich enough in those areas then, as a consequence, we go back and develop the homeland areas. That is what the hon. member means—that they are there as a result of and do not go hand in hand with metropolitan development. I am surprised at this. I do not think that his view expresses the view of his party. The hon. member also referred to the funds available for expansion. I do not wish to deal with this matter again. I think it is sufficient that I have already dealt with the question of 30% increase as far as the debt is concerned. Finally, the hon. gentleman was being very theoretical—I do not wish to deal with this point in too great detail—when he said that there has been a deficit between domestic saving and domestic investment every year since 1963 with the exception of 1968. This is true, but what of it? If we in South Africa have not saved sufficient money for our investments, what is wrong with that? Surely this is the case in every developing country. No young country is in the position to generate all the capital it requires for its development. South Africa has always imported a certain amount of capital. There is nothing wrong with that at all. It is a sign of development and it is also a sign of confidence, the confidence of other countries in South Africa. That is why they invest here.

*Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude. You can see how hard it is to find a solution to these difficult problems. These are problems which have been tackled by monetary and financial experts without their having succeeded in finding a satisfactory answer, particularly to the problem of inflation. Yes, they have found answers which are theoretical; every economist has an answer, but these are answers which are inapplicable, which cannot be realistically applied in practice. I regret to say that it seems to me that the only people who have found an answer to this question are hon. members on that side of the House; they have the knowledge. If the hon. members on that side could only teach us how to apply their knowledge in practice to combat inflation, then the United Party would have the best export commodity South Africa has ever had. One thing which We do know is that we do not want a price control system; we do not want income and Wage control, and we do not want a system of indexing. If we want to counteract inflation, then we know that we will work have to work harder and will have to save more and will have to produce more; that we will have to take less out of the pool and put more into the pool; that we will have to ask for less and give more; that we will have to pay less heed to our rights and more to our duties, and that we should do everything within our power to break the inflationary expectations.

Mr. Speaker, a friend of mine recently wrote a letter to various financiers overseas—some of the greatest economic thinkers—and he asked them what they would do to counteract inflation if they were to become Minister of Finance in their country. I have the replies here.

What experts were those?

A large number of the greatest economists and experts throughout the world, from the East to the West, were asked what they would do if they were Minister of Finance to counteract inflation. I give hon. members the assurance that I shall not quote all the replies, but I could just mention three briefly. A very well-known economist wrote—

Another very famous Swiss banker said the following—

†Then, Sir, I come to the last one, also a very well-known Swiss banker—

The cat is out of the bag.

He goes on to say—

Mr. Speaker, I conclude with a word of thanks to my hon. friend, the hon. member for Von Brandis, who brought some hilarity to this dull debate last week by displaying his poetic qualities. The hon. member used a poem of Gilbert—plagiarizing, I suppose, we could call it—and he amended it in this way to read as follows—

I think it is poetically very good, but materially very bad. The correct version should have been the following—

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the Question,

Ayes—104: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Barnard. S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase. P. J.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Wet, M. W.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotze G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Loots, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Otto, J. C.; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pienaar, L. A.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W J. C.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C. (Maraisburg); Van Wyk, A. C. (Winburg); Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, M.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, J. P. C. le Roux, N. F. Treurnicht and A. van Breda.

Noes—41: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; Dalling, D. J.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven (’t Hooft), R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Jacobs, G. F.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Mitchell, M. L.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Oliver, N. J. J.; Page B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C, C.; Waddell, G. H.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. M. Sutton.

Question accordingly affirmed and amendment dropped.

Bill read a Second Time.

(Committee Stage)

Schedules 1 to 3:

Revenue Vote No. 1.—“State President”, agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 2.—“Senate”, agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 3.—“House of Assembly”, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned I was mentioning that included in the general provisions of this amending Bill were certain non-controversial clauses. Clause 9 deals with the creation of “key posts” for people who can be exempted from service. There is also provision for the award of further decorations. Clauses 13 and 14 refer to compensation for those who are wounded, injured or disabled on service. We in these benches have no objection to the substance of those provisions. But there are certain other categories of clauses in respect of which the hon. the Minister of Defence, we believe, has not discharged his duty to give to this House adequate reasons why they should be supported.

The first is clause 1, which creates a new offence in relation to employers who might turn down applications for employment from persons liable to do military service. Secondly, clauses 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 give the hon. the Minister powers to extend military service drastically, away from the existing additional period of an aggregate of four months in 10 years, to a period of six months at a time for as many times as he wishes during that period of 10 years. Thirdly, we have the creation of a new offence, with penalties of up to R10 000 or 10 years imprisonment, or both, for doing anything calculated even to suggest to, or in any way otherwise to cause a person to refuse or fail to do military service which may be required of him. Sir, it is to these three categories of clauses that I would like to direct the attention of the House, because I believe that they have a far-reaching impact on the whole South African community. And yet—I have read the hon. the Minister’s speech very carefully again—he gives scarcely any reasons why these provisions should be put on the Statute Book. His reasons for clause 1 are limited to a single paragraph containing a couple of brief sentences.

*He was referring to this clause and said—

This is all we heard from the Minister concerning his motivation for this clause.

† I believe the Minister should add to this general assertion more detailed information for this House.

What is your attitude to the principle?

Wait and see.

Mr. Speaker, he should tell us when this tendency started. He said “recently”—what does he mean by “recently started occurring”? When was his attention first drawn to this matter? What were his sources of information, and how reliable are they? Has he checked the information, which may have been given to him by young men in service, with their employers? How great is the incidence to which he refers that needs legislation of this nature? What proportion of employers are acting in the way which he suggests? Has he discussed this matter with employers in the light of complaints which he has been receiving? No, Sir, I believe that the hon. the Minister must come with much more detailed information before he can expect the support of the House for a measure as far-reaching as this.

Clauses 2, 3, 5 and 6 virtually give the Minister the right to have a form of mobilization, and yet he gives in his statement to this House no specific reason other than “ook kan dit geskied om ’n bepaalde operasie se sukses te verseker”. This is the only reason he has given to this House as to why he should have the right to call up people who are available for service on what is virtually a full-time basis for the next 10 years. This hon. Minister must say why in particular does he want these powers. In what circumstances does he propose using them? Why does he consider the existing provisions regarding the Citizen Force or the commando service to be inadequate? He has not dealt with any of these points. He just says that he considers it necessary.

Clause 10 includes ferocious penalties and very far-reaching provisions indeed. His motivation included a very brief, almost oblique, reference to Nusas, and a very direct reference to the S.A. Council of Churches and the resolution which it recently passed at Hammanskraal. To quote the hon. the Minister:

That is the sum total of his motivation for the change in the Act which will introduce a new category of crime in South Africa,

Do you agree that this should be an offence? Are you opposed to the principle?

The hon. member can wait until I have reached the end of my speech. Then he will realize fully what my attitude is. The Progressive Party has stated its disapproval of the resolution of the South African Council of Churches, but we want to make it quite clear that there is a world of difference between disapproving of a resolution and sending clerics to gaol for a period of up to ten years. Apart from the loose use of the word “aangeraai” by the hon. the Minister, we would expect him, in motivating so serious a provision in a Bill, to let us know whether conscientious objection has reached such a scale that it has become a matter of serious concern in the defence of South Africa. We would like to know whether the hon. the Prime Minister or the Minister of Defence has met with members of the South African Council of Churches or church leaders to discuss the problem which the Hammanskraal resolution has brought to the fore. We would like to know from the hon. the Minister whether he has consulted with Black leaders to assess the impact which this legislation is going to have on the Black communities in South Africa. We would have expected this hon. Minister to let us know whether his law advisers have considered the use of other provisions in other Acts which are on the Statute Book, apart from section 121 of the Principal Act, in relation to this resolution, and if not, why not? We in these benches are left with the impression that this is another instance of the Government’s desire to over-react, to over-legislate and to over-kill. On this occasion, the over-kill has all the overtones of a witch-hunt. I refer in particular to that sentence in the hon. the Minister’s speech where he said: “Ons is agter die bloed van diegene wat met ’n skynheilige mantel om hul skouers probeer om die veiligheid van Suid-Afrika te benadeel.” This is a clear indication that this is a witch-hunt legislation. It is not legislation to deal with a general situation.

The hon. member for Durban Point said that his party was not prepared to indulge in political point-scoring on matters of defence. Let me make the attitude of those of us in these benches abundantly clear. We in the Progressive Party recognize the importance of defence to South Africa or to any other sovereign State. We believe that the effectiveness of our Defence Force depends not only on the armed might of the Force itself, but on the loyalty of all South Africans whether they be Black or White. We know from the history of our own country over the last three centuries that loyalty cannot be force on people, that people cannot be legislated into loyalty. We believe that loyalty can best be established by creating for 25 million citizens a South Africa which, because it respects their dignity, because it offers them opportunity and because it ensures their protection, they will be willing to make sacrifices for and to defend. We look forward to a situation where all South Africans will be prepared to make those sacrifices to defend South Africa. We on these benches will certainly consider matters of defence extremely objectively. Where political factors impinge on defence matters, we will not hesitate to deal with them. We will evaluate very carefully and very objectively the arguments and the information which the hon. the Minister puts before this House. I want to make it clear to the hon. the Minister that we are not prepared to be his rubber-stamp, whether it be on this Bill, or on any other Bill which he puts before this House.

Let us look at the clauses of this Bill in greater detail. In clause 1, the objective appears to be to see that no one is unfairly prejudiced in seeking employment due to his having to do military service.

Do you accept the principle?

This, I sense, is the approach of the Government. We are sympathetic to this motivation, but the question is whether we should legislate in this field or not. I believe that this clause is once again evidence of this Government’s desire to swat flies with legislative sledgehammers. It has no recognition of a number of simple business realities which operate at the time when one decides to engage employees. It takes no account of the fact that very often one is seeking, in employing an individual, a replacement for somebody who is doing military service. The very fact that the one person is away is the reason why you are employing someone else, but this cannot be taken into account. It ignores the fact, the very simple reality, that very often people are engaged in business for a particular project and for a particular contract. It is no use the hon. the Minister saying that you can get an exemption because this provision says that the fact that that person may have to be on service cannot be taken into account. When one is looking for a replacement for a particular contract, one may not even ask the question, one may not take into account the fact that the second person may not be available.

Have you not read subsection (2)?

The simple question which is put time and time again by an employer to a would-be employee is: “When will you be available to start your duties with this firm? Will you be available for at least the next year?” Just the putting of such a simple question when a firm is employing people, will become a statutory offence.

The next aspect of this Bill is the assumption of guilt. There is an assumption of guilt on the part of the employer unless he can prove the contrary. If the employer says: “There were good reasons; I was looking for a replacement,” he incriminates himself because a good reason is no lawful reason. Merely to have that information is to incriminate. Intangible factors must be weighed up against the harsh realities of the law. Employment often involves the question whether one is pleased with an individual’s personality. So one has to argue in court against the incrimination that you knew someone was not available for service, or against the charge merely that you did not like his personality or did not think the individual would fit into the environment of your firm. One would also have to reveal to the court very privileged information. Time and time again one checks up on a person before one employs him. One gets a reference. One speaks to somebody else and confidential information is imparted which forms the basis of one’s decision. All these matters are going to become matters of decision by the courts as to whether your judgment of a person’s suitability was in fact the key factor and not the fact that you knew he was due to do military service.

Get yourself a good lawyer.

I believe there could be alternative procedures which do not involve penal sanctions. I believe that the Government should run a public relations campaign through the Chambers of Commerce, the mining industry, the “Handels-instituut”, the “Sakekamers”, through the professional associations, the State and local government employers to stress that South Africa would not wish people to be prejudiced because they are doing military service. Specific complaints should be investigated by the Department of Labour. Special employment bureaux should be established to try to bridge the awkward gap in a young man’s life when he is due to go on a year, 18 months or even two years of military service. These are the positive steps which should be taken instead of the negative ones set out in this Bill.

The next clause I want to deal with are clauses 3 and 5, which allow this Minister without reference to Parliament to extend military service beyond the additional four months over ten years to as many six-month periods as he wishes. We can find no reference to the fact that in other circumstances he must refer such questions to Parliament. We would like to know from the hon. the Minister what he contemplates. Does he contemplate what could well be nine years and nine months of military service by an individual? In what circumstances would he use these powers? Does he realize that for people who are not full-time soldiers this whole question of not knowing when your term of duty is to end, is very bad for morale? Just listen to the youngsters in the army. They use the phrase “min dae” because they are counting the days left before they can get out. Now there will be uncertainty as to what their length of service will be. This is bad for the whole business community and for society not to know what the maximum period of service will be.

Clause 10 is perhaps the most important clause in this Bill. This clause introduces into legislation a new kind of crime to which very ferocious penalties indeed are attached. Whatever the hon. the Minister intends to achieve by this legislation, we believe it will make serious inroads into the whole question of basic civil liberties in South Africa. I refer to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the Press, the academic freedom of universities, the privacy of the home, the legitimate activities of political parties and the intimate relationship between the priest and the communicant. We in these benches believe that this piece of legislation on its own will weaken rather than strengthen the defence of South Africa.

Have you read this Bill?

So, Sir, with all the responsibility at my command, and with a very deep sense of concern for my country and its people, I ask this House to stop and think again before it attempts by legislation to silence a discussion on the issue of military service. This discussion which is taking place is part of the general debate that is taking place throughout the world on the morality or immorality of violence. It reflects civilized mankind’s dilemma on the legitimacy of violence, whether it be in maintaining the system or in destroying the system, whether it be a defence of a State or an attack on a State. We in these benches believe that the debate on this great moral issue will continue. It cannot be legislated away. It will continue in South Africa.

Section 121 as it stands relates to serving personnel and it refers to deliberate action on the part of the people to get other people who are serving personnel to refuse a lawful order. The proposed new section 121(c) does not relate to serving personnel; it does not necessarily relate to people who are going to serve; it could relate to people who may become liable. I want to know from the hon. the Minister whether this includes all the women of South Africa. Does this include the Black people of South Africa? Does it only refer to people who are due for service in terms of the present Act as it stands?

How can you incite someone who has no obligation in terms of the law? You have not read either the law or the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban Point, having decided that he wants to be the hon. the Minister’s rubber-stamp, is now not prepared to listen to other hon. members who have read the legislation and have seen the implications of this Bill. This legislation also makes it a criminal offence to suggest in any way to somebody that they should do something which in itself is not a criminal offence, because conscientious objection is not a criminal offence. The hon. the Minister indicated that there is provision on the Statute Book for people who are conscientious objectors and yet one must make it a criminal offence for people in one way or the other to influence other people to become conscientious objectors. We believe that this clause is framed so widely that it brings almost any discussion on military service or the morality of the policy that is being pursued by the South African Government or any other Government into the ambit of this law.

The following are illustrations of the kinds of people and circumstances who and which would be affected by this Bill. The church in general in discussing the ethical and religious grounds for military service, would be involved in breaking the law. Prof. Jac Muller of the Stellenbosch University Theological School has pointed this out in an article to Die Burger. He wants a definition from the hon. the Minister as to whether his, Prof. Muller’s, interpretation is correct or not. Church denominations or sects, the Quakers or the Jehovah’s Witnesses for instance, who are opposed to military service, will no longer be able to proselytise. They will not be allowed to argue that their point of view is correct in case somebody liable for military service might hear it. Individual spiritual leaders, in fact, any individual who is a convinced pacifist would no longer be able to express his views freely in South Africa. Individual citizens or political parties would not be able to discuss the whole question of compulsory military service of whether there should be a volunteer army in South Africa.

Are you against compulsory military service?

The Press ...

May I ask a question?

No, you may not. The Press will not be able to publish articles, letters, speeches or reports from overseas. In fact, it would not even be allowed to report the resolution of the S.A. Council of Churches because by publishing that, it would already have fallen foul of the provisions of this legislation. Publishers would not be able to import or publish books dealing with these matters. I have just been given a book on the life history of Emily Hobhouse. Emily Hob-house, a person after whom one of our submarines has been named, is a person who argues against military service. That kind of book would not be permitted. The universities would not be allowed to include in their courses discussions on the issue of military service or the validity or otherwise of ...

You must be more sensible now.

Films, gramaphone records, tape-recordings and folk songs dealing with military service would fall foul of the law. A priest would not be able to counsel his parishioners. A father would not be able to put both sides of the story to his son. A Black South African who might deplore terrorism but who nevertheless stated his sympathy with the objectives of so-called liberation movements, would fall foul of this law. Any citizen attacking the policy of this Government because it was basically immoral or because that citizen felt that this law was in conflict with Christian ethics would fall foul of the provisions of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the question is this: Is this going to strengthen the defence of South Africa? We in these benches believe it will not, because by hunting for witches we are going to make martyrs, and by making martyrs in South Africa we are going to bring the day of confrontation closer to us—confrontation between the Church and the State, confrontation between Black and White South Africans, confrontation with the rest of the world. We do not want confrontation, we want both sides of the House to consult with Black leaders and Church leaders. We therefore move as an amendment—

Mr. Speaker, we believe that this is the appropriate amendment: It is one which will create the opportunity for White and Black people, for Government and churchmen, to find an area of reconciliation in what is a vital issue both to the defence of South Africa and the future of the South African people.

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member who has just spoken resumed his seat, I did not know whether to laugh or whether to cry, to cry not for his party but for the country, about what he described as a responsible approach to a Bill like this. You know, Sir, when the debate was adjourned and the hon. gentleman had the floor, he was doing a wonderful egg-dance, as you will recall.

An Eglin dance.

He talked out time because the members of his party had not made up their minds, and they obviously still have not made up their minds. There are still some hon. gentlemen in that party who are not happy about this; and if that was not so, Sir, it is rather strange that the hon. gentleman did not indicate the attitude of his party when he stood up as the leader of that party and as their first speaker and when, if I recall correctly, he took seven minutes to talk out time. But apparently Auntie Helen has talked them into it. Sir, this would not be so bad if the hon. gentleman was not so utterly misinformed and uninformed about what is in the Act and about what is in the Bill. He says, for example, that a conscientious objector does not commit an offence. Of course he commits an offence. You commit an offence if you do not do your national service, for whatever reason it may be. What I cannot understand is this: The hon. gentleman makes it clear that so far as the Progressive Party is concerned, the main objection is in fact to cause 10 which provides, to put it in a nutshell, that you shall not incite or encourage, advise or instigate any person to refuse to render his national service. He thinks that is the main principle; I quite agree with him. As far as we are concerned, that is a matter of principle, and what the hon. gentleman has done is to talk about everything else except what it is that we are going to vote on when we vote at the Second Reading. What we are going to vote on at the Second Reading is the principle of this Bill, the principle of whether or not an employer should victimize an applicant for employment if he thinks that he may be liable to do national service. Sir, they are against that principle. They are against the principle of the extension of liability for the death or injury of a serviceman. That is the principle, Sir, and that is what we are deciding. [Interjections.] No, they cannot run away from this. They are also against the principle that you shall not incite people not to do their national service. The hon. gentleman has made his own case here; he has dug his own grave because he has moved an amendment that the Bill go to a Select Committee before Second Reading. In other words, he and his party do not want to accept the principle at Second Reading. That is what he has done and he has made it quite clear. He does not accept the principle of the Bill. But, Sir, what makes it worse is that the hon. gentleman seems to have forgotten, when he spoke about all the details that in fact the hon. the Minister, when he introduced the Bill, indicated that it was going to a Select Committee after the Second Reading. Let them now. Sir, stand up and he counted after Second Reading. That means, for the benefit of the hon. gentlemen over there who have not had these matters explained to them by the hon. member for Houghton, that you accept the principle and then you argue about the detail and the amounts and the penalties in the Select Committee. [Interjections.]

I think the hon. member for Rondebosch is their spokesman on defence; we find that he made a statement in which he deprecated the Hammanskraal resolution of the Council of Churches, but when it comes to the point where they have to stand up and be counted, when you want to put teeth to the pious platitudes that are their stock-in-trade, then we see them for what they are. They have not got the guts then to stand up for what they say they in fact stand for. I must say I cannot believe that the hon. gentleman who leads the Progressive Party really believes all the nonsense he spoke here this afternoon, but if the object of the operation is a tactical one to make us vote with the Government, so that they will be seen to be opposing this measure while we will be seen as voting in favour of it, then on this issue and on the principle involved in this Bill, we will vote with the Government with pleasure. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that there is considerable confusion here in the mind of the hon. member for Durban North. I think there is a dangerous tendency, when it concerns patriotism, that the impression is created that the moment someone criticizes military matters or calls them into question, he is necessarily unpatriotic. That is the implication which the hon. member for Durban North tried to attach to it, i.e. that we are too afraid to put teeth into this standpoint which we have allegedly adopted in respect of the declaration of Hammanskraal. Sir, I want to state very clearly that I still adhere to the standpoint I adopted in respect of Hammanskraal.

And the whole party?

And the whole party, Sir. But the point is that there is a subtle process in progress here. If we have a good look at the scope of clause 10, we see that clauses 10(a) and (b) apply to persons who are members of the Defence Force and it specifically concerns the principle of incitement to dereliction of duty. If one studies clause 10(c), one finds that it applies to persons who are not yet members of the Defence Force and that it may possibly concern the fact that they can be induced to neglect their duty. Consequently one can simply accept that the all-embracing principle which, from the nature of the case, is not doubted by anyone in this House, is the defence of our country. But I want to argue that this is a fallacy, since existing legislation makes provision-already in this particular instance, for the protection of the principle with regard to the incitement to dereliction of duty of persons who are not members of the Defence Force, should they be called up. In other words, in this connection it relates to the principle of national defence. If we look at Criminal Law and Procedure, we find that the Riotous Assemblies Act, No. 17 of 1956, states very clearly in section 18(2)(b) that any person who incites, instigates, commands or procures any other person to contravene a statute or statutory measure, shall be liable, on conviction, to the same punishment as that which applies to the measure the person was incited to contravene. This is a general regulation which covers any statute or statutory measure. We can look at the Defence Act itself and find a few sections relating to persons who can be called up for military service and can be punished if they should refuse. In other words, if a person should encourage these persons not to perform their military service, measures are already in existence which can be taken in order to check such inciters or instigators in this connection. The point I wish to make is that the Minister can, indeed, deal with persons who might incite other persons not to perform military service, even if this person is not yet a member of the Defence Force. What is clause 10 concerned with? Here we must distinguish very clearly between a person who consciously incites someone to neglect his military duty in a debate, argument, seminar or sermon on moral questions which relate to military service in general. Legislation is available in respect of the former, but in respect of the latter no legislation can be introduced without causing great damage to our own society. The Minister himself says that he is after the blood of certain persons, and that is why he is framing clause 10(c) so comprehensively. For example, the clause lays down that any person who uses any language calculated to suggest to any other person to refuse or neglect to render military service shall be liable to punishment. Something of this nature is unheard-of. It touches at least three fundamental principles which were raised by the hon. member for Sea Point. For example, it affects freedom of speech. The mere fact that a father might speak to his child, could be affected by this. If one looks at the wording of the clause, one sees that academic freedom is being affected. There are hon. members who were with me at Stellenbosch and they know that philosophy, ethics, logic, moral philosophy and the entire Socratic method is based on the possibility that one may put forward or suggest something to someone else for the purposes of argument. The same applies in connection with the freedom of the Press. Can the hon. the Minister tell me, for example, what he would do after this legislation has been adopted if a report such as the one in The Tribune of 4 August 1974 should appear, in which Chief Buthelezi said—

What is the principle which emanates from this? The man is questioning a fact, whether the order which exists here in South Africa is of such a nature ...

Have you read the Bill?

I have read the Bill. It is very clear to me. The impression which is being created here is that it concerns the principle of national defence and I am trying to make the point that this legislation goes much further than that—as a matter of fact, as far as it concerns national defence, legislation is available which prevents any person from inciting someone to neglect his military service. But what it concerns here, is civil rights. I know that the moment I speak to that side of the House about civil rights, exclamations are made such as “sickly humanism”, “liberalism” and so forth. I just want to remind those hon. members that had it not been for the Afrikaner’s awareness of civil rights, he would not have been in power. There are sufficient indications of this in history. I should like to refer here to an article which was written by the Rev. J. C. Hefer, entitled “Kerk en Rebellie in 1914” (Church and Rebellion in 1914), at a time when the Afrikaner was involved in this very kind of debate. In that year the synodal commission of the Dutch Reformed Church, according to the Kerkbode of 11 February, passed a resolution that they were not going to prosecute people who had taken part in the rebellion. However, the representatives of the Orange Free State commission decided to go against this decision of the general commission. It was Afrikaners who conducted the debate. Furthermore, I refer hon. members to a motion which served before this House. On 29 August 1940 Gen. Hertzog moved “That this House deplores the action of the Government in persisting in its war policy and expresses its strong disapproval of the manner in which this policy is being carried out; and it resolves that every effort be made forthwith and immediate steps be taken to restore peace with Germany and Italy.” Here is a man who speaks from deep conviction and makes an appeal to his freedom of his speech.

What does that have to do with this matter?

It has to do with those points we mentioned earlier. Apparently the hon. member is not aware of what the implications are of section 121(c) which is being inserted by clause 10 of the Bill. The hon. member for Yeoville, and I accept that this was meant with integrity, said during a debate that (translation) “this side of the House will present themselves as the champions of the civil rights of the people of South Africa”. Can he, in all honesty, tell us that no civil rights are being effected here?

† Can the hon. member for Yeoville honestly say that none of the civil rights of freedom of speech, academic freedom and freedom of the Press are being affected by the clauses of this Bill? I do not think that can be said with honesty. If he does say it, I urge the hon. member to read the Bill again and to study it closely and to convince his party of the fact that this is not so.

*But, as we have said, it does not only concern civil rights. It goes much further than that. It concerns the lessening of conflict in South Africa. I think that all sides of the House are ad idem in regard to this and agree that we in South Africa have a critical situation. We have a tremendous problem here and it should be one of the functions of this Parliament to reduce conflict in this society. I truly cannot see how we can contribute in any way to the lessening of conflict by accepting the new section 121(c). As a matter of fact, I think we are going to create a platform here for the most sensational martyr trials in the history of South Africa. Those trials will create a greater awareness of whether or not there is any necessity for military service in this society. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to reflect deeply about the implications of such trials.

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Rondebosch virtually issued an invitation to me to reply to him. I think it is rather a strange situation that here we have a position where the Government is introducing a piece of legislation and where the official Opposition agrees with the principles which are involved in that legislation while the Progressive Party decides that it is going to try to create, artificially, a situation in terms of which they will be able to go back to their voters and say, “You see, the United Party votes with the Government.” Let me tell the hon. member for Rondebosch, the hon. member for Sea Point and anybody else who cares to join in this particular political circus, that where it is in the interests of South Africa we will not hesitate to vote with the Government of this country. The hon. member for Houghton gave the whole trap away when she said that they were going to show us that it was another kind of 90-day argument. In other words, already the threat is hanging over us that now this is going to be presented to the electorate in a patricular form, so that the electorate should get the wrong impression and some rather strange idea. This is the technique, the master-mind, of the hon. member for Houghton at work. She evolves this kind of philosophy and drags her little boys along behind her by the majority vote in her caucus. It is well known, in fact, to everybody who walks around this building, that there had to be, for seven minutes, a talking out of all sorts of problems in order to get their caucus togehter so that Auntie Helen could get out the cane and give them all six of the best. With great respect ...

You talk nonsense.

The hon. member need not worry. She is a girl. She cannot get caned.

You see, Mr. Speaker, I think we should get our lines and our divisions fairly clear. We believe that we are entitled to disapprove of the policies of the Nationalist Party, the Government of this country. We can disapprove of the way in which they are running the country, but we do not disapprove of South Africa. That is why we take this particular stand. There is a fundamental difference between disapproval of a political party and its philosophies and the love you have for your own country. That is something about which the hon. member for Houghton must not get worked up. It is a fact. It is a reality that motivates people.

Secondly, it is no use the hon. member for Sea Point getting all excited and using all the phrases of freedom of speech, freedom of this and freedom of that, and bringing all these matters into the picture. We also believe that there must be changes in policy. We also believe that the Black people, the Coloured people and the Indian people must get a stake in the country. We also believe that discrimination has to be removed, and that these are powerful weapons in the fight against terrorism and aggression against South Africa. But, Sir, with great respect, in order to bring about change in South Africa, you must make a choice between two methods of change, peaceful change or violent change. We do not go along with violent change. We believe in peaceful, constitutional change. Therefore we believe that you must be strong in order to bring about changes because they are morally right and not because you are forced to make the changes. You should not bring about changes because you are weak and are made to bring about changes under duress. Those are not the sort of changes which bring about a stable society and in which we on this side of the House believe. This is a fundamental concept.

Then we talk about civil rights. The hon. member for Rondebosch does sot understand, with great respect to him—and he has an intellect far above mine ...

Hear, hear!

The difference between the hon. member for Houghton and myself is that I know my place, and she does not. We were talking about civil liberties. I have addressed myself to the hon. member for Rondebosch, because he can, with great respect, as an intellectual, understand a point I am about to make. If you, in fact, do not have a strong society, if you are not strong and able to defend yourself, you cannot defend the civil liberties that he and I both believe in.

What has this got to do with clause 10(c)?

The hon. member raised the civil liberties issue. You have to be strong in order to defend these very concepts. This is my point. Let me ask the hon. member for Rondebosch: Has he seen in the offices of the church organizations overseas the posters inciting people to shoot our children in South Africa? Has he seen them? Is he proud to go and see them? I am sure he is not proud to go and see them. This is the kind of double standards that we encounter overseas. As regards us in South Africa, we have to be tolerant and allow incitement to discourage people from serving in the Army. But why is not somebody encouraging the terrorists to use peaceful methods? Why is somebody not encouraging the terrorist to be a conscientious objector? This is the fundamental difference that strikes us.

There are three separate issues emerging here. With great respect to the hon. member for Sea Point, the function of the Select Committee which the Minister announced is to deal with a number of the points which he raised and which, with great respect, were raised by the hon. member for Durban Point before him. I am referring, for example, to the problems that arise in respect of the first clause ...

What problems did he raise?

I will tell you exactly. I do not think the hon. member listened to the speech because he was too worried about what was going on in the caucus. Had the hon. member listened he would have heard what the hon. member had said. He can read in col. 809 what the hon. member for Durban Point, in dealing with the question of normal church services, including the preaching, the technicalities thereof and the various ways in which this had to be interpreted, said in regard to the problem that nobody wanted to interfere with the freedom of speech. He also said that he was satisfied, if selected to serve on the select committee, that we could evolve a clause which would safeguard these things. In fact, that is the function of a select committee. There are three fundamental issues which we want to raise ...

Oh, come on!

That hon. member says “Oh, come on!” but I shall ask him a few simple questions. Are those hon. members in favour of inciting people to become conscientious objectors?

Don’t be ridiculous.

On question number one they say that they are not in favour of doing so. The second question is: Are those hon. members in favour of the fact that people should be prejudiced, by reason of their national service, in respect of employment?

Of course not.

Of course hon. members are not in favour of it. Right, the hon. members are not against the second point either, so therefore they are in favour of the principles contained in this legislation. Those hon. members are making themselves a laughing stock. They are making themselves an utter laughing stock in the eyes of the public of South Africa because they are trying to employ a debating manoeuvre in order to put us on the spot. This is the whole truth of the matter. Let me deal with the third point. If the situation on the border is such that particular units have to be called up, should a national emergency be declared in South Africa? Are hon. members in favour of that or do they favour the hon. the Minister’s having the power to send particular units into the field? Hon. members cannot possibly be against it. I think the difficulty of those hon. members is that they are purely trying to create a political advantage situation whilst completely ignoring the fundamental principle involved. The sooner you get off the coat-tail of the hon. member for Houghton and you young boys think for yourselves the better. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker ...

Now Parliament is getting to be fun! [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Sea Point began his speech last week, he made an appeal which I want to repeat, namely, that when we talk about matters of defence and when we talk about these very sensitive issues, we should try to rise above party politics ... [Interjections.] Judging from the vociferous and strident voices to the right of me, and very much to the right of me, it is quite clear that the hon. members of the United Party are not prepared to follow this debate carefully, with some conscientiousness and with some sensitivity. Nevertheless, even though they border on hysteria—because they are afraid that they have indeed been put on the spot—as a member of this party and as a member of this Parliament I want to state my position very clearly.

And of the church?

Yes, indeed, and of the church and I am not ashamed of that, even if some may be. I want to make it very clear that when the hon. member for Sea Point got up to speak, such was the atmosphere in this House, so emotional, that he did his very best to defuse the debate. We knew exactly at that time—and I ask hon. members to accept my word for this—that we would not go along with this on the basis of principle and not on the basis of taking out one word or two. Just in case the hon. member for Yeoville has not yet had time to read the proposed new section 121(c) as inserted by clause 10, I should like to read it to him now. It reads: “In any manner whatsoever advises ...” and not merely “incites”, the word that he merely plucked out, “... advises, encourages ...” and so on.

Go on!

Read it all.

To do what?

One thing that has impressed me greatly in the few weeks that I have been in this House, is that many speakers, chiefly those on that side of the House, have again and again exalted the name of Jesus Christ in their speeches. Even in the first clause of the Publications Bill we are reminded of our so-called Christian way or view of life.

Why “so-called”?

So-called because there can be no such thing as a Christian party or a Christian country while there are people whose allegiance is committed to Jesus Christ on an individual and a Church basis and that alone. Once this whole foundation had been built, I would have expected the hon. Minister of Defence at least to have taken into consideration the long and varying Christian tradition since the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Founder of this religion. He has not done so. If he had would he not have remembered, for example, that for the first 300 years of the Church’s existence any member who wished to be baptized as a Christian, if he was a member of the armed forces, had to resign, so strong were the views of that small Christian sect against militarism, aggression and violence, seeking to take their example from their Lord. It is quite true that, over the centuries, this dilemma has continued so that, although Christian scholar after Christian scholar has spoken in favour of Christian pacificism, there have been other strands of tradition. There have been such strands even though, with respect to those first 300 years, one could quote almost ad nauseam from great scolars of the Church who have said again and again that, if a man is a committed Christian, he has no business whatsoever to don the uniform of any army whatsoever. [Interjections.] Other scholars have sought to interpret the Christian faith in a different way. In this way the idea of a “just” war evolved. Even so, there have been many Christian scholars who have disagreed on this point. Nevertheless, it is a fact that it is a part of the Christian tradition which hon. members on the other side of the House seem to be so proud of—indeed I am too—but let us see the whole of the tradition and not just select and use that part of it which we like. With regard to the concept of a “just” war, the hon. member for Yeoville has made it very clear—and I would agree with him—that there may come a time that, in the defence of one’s country, it would not merely be the choice of the Christian but his obligation to fulfil his responsibilities towards society. We stand four-square on that point as we made very clear in our public statement. Yet, there has persisted in the Christian faith a very strong pacificist tradition, and if we take the principle of the proposed new section 121(c) literally, as it stands, this tradition, which I agree has but a very small following, specifically the Society of Friends or Quakerism, is going to find itself outside the law of this land.

That is nonsense.

We do not want that to happen.

Read the Act.

Just read the Bill for yourself and stop talking nonsense.

You are doing that.

I have complete faith in every fact I am about to produce. In 1651 George Fox of the Society of Friends, wrote these immortal words—

One could read this testimony to the end but as it is a very long one I shall not do so. I am simply trying to make the point—I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister of Defence will concede it—that there are small groups of Christian people in this country who have written letters to me and other hon. members in this House, who have asked to be able to make representations and who have come to this building, not one or two or three or four of them, and said: “If this goes through then you leave us no alternative whatsoever but to disobey the law.” This is part of their teaching. Whether we like it or not, it is part of the Christian church’s heritage that pacifism ... [Interjections.] Because one does not agree with these small groups, it does not necessarily follow that one should ride roughshod over them and do them violence by imposing a fine of R10 000 or imprisonment for ten years or both. Any small group of people who gather around the Bible and discuss quite literally the Command “Thou shalt not kill” will immediately be in danger in terms of the principle contained in the proposed section 121(c) of breaking the law and, on being found guilty, be liable to a fine of R10 000 or imprisonment for ten years or both. At any time when a group of people come together and discuss in a church the subject of the Prince of Peace, they can be breaking the law. This can affect church after church, not only the Quakers. It could affect the Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church, the Church of the Province and many others besides. When they have young people for church membership classes one of the subjects they always discuss is the whole question of war and violence. If this Bill becomes law they will immediately not be permitted to do so.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, I have no time now; I should like to have the question a little later. I want to develop my argument. [Interjections.] The point I am trying to make is that we do not have to resort to this kind of legislation to meet what was in fact a misinterpretation on the part of the hon. the Minister of a statement made by the S.A. Council of Churches. When he introduced this Bill, the hon. the Minister of Defence had this to say in relation to this particular matter (Hansard, 15 August 1974, col. 800)—

This is in regard to clause 10—

The resolution from Hammanskraal, which was a bad one, does not say this. If this clause was inserted in the Bill on the basis of a misunderstanding or a misreading of a resolution, I suggest that paragraph (c) of the proposed section 121 could well fall away. One could go on at great length to discuss the resolutions of the various churches concerning pacifism and the idea of allowing conscientious objection. The hon. the Minister has made it clear that provision has been made for conscientious objectors. This provision is very limited. Such people would have to serve as non-combatants but nevertheless within the confines of the Defence Force. If there were time, one would like to go beyond that and say that there should also be opportunity, for people who feel very strongly on the grounds of their Christian faith that they cannot participate in any way, to serve their country and their society in a national service outside of the Defence Force.

Mr. Speaker, let me try to conclude. I received letters from a number of people from different churches. One person wrote to me in these words—

Note, Sir, not to the Progressive Party but to them—

Sir, we have made it very clear that we do not necessarily accept the Quaker position, but nevertheless there are people inside of this country who do maintain this position and I would ask that this House think very carefully about the defence of this country. If General Spinola made one thing clear in taking Portugal out of Africa, as is happening before our very eyes, it is that he has reminded us again of something we ought to know well and indeed perhaps know to a point, and that is that if you are going to defend your country, then it is absoltely essential not only to man the borders but also to win the hearts and the minds of all the people within the land. Sir, we believe that this is absolutely essential and we believe that in this particular Bill we are unnecessarily antagonizing not Blacks—because there seems to be an anathema as soon as the word “Black” is used by the Progressive Party and everybody thorws up his or her hands in great horror—but the White people of this country. We believe that in this Bill we are unnecessarily giving provocation to groups of people in this country who I believe are part of the very salt of the earth, people who give themselves regularly, carefully and conscientiously to this Lord who, it is quite clear in scripture, is above Party and, finally, even above Land; because there can only be a commitment to the Lord who is the Lord of creation, the Lord of the universe, and if that is so, then who are we to criticize these people who say, “We must obey God rather than Man”. We are in danger of interfering with this commitment, and therefore I want to make this appeal: Let us by all means defend the land, but let us defend it by winning the allegiance of people rather than antagonizing them.

Mr Speaker, clause 10 of the Bill reads—

This is a principle which is already contained in the existing Act. Secondly—

Here we are introducing a minor change in order to include the auxiliary services, which have obligations under the Act, as well. Then in (c)(i) we say—

The hon. member for Houghton voted for the original clause in 1957.

Now a tremendous hue and cry is being raised here, while there are express provisions in the existing legislation dealing with the question of objections on religious grounds. One has it in section 67(3) of the Defence Act—

Therefore the existing Act already provides for people with an honest religious conviction not to take up arms. It provides that the registering officer may register persons belonging to such a recognized religious denomination so as to fall under a unit in which they will be able to serve in a non-combatant capacity.

That is not in (c).

I am coming to the hon. member for Sea Point. He must just bide his time. He is going to have to listen to me a great deal yet in this House. In the second place the Act goes further and states that if such a person were to refuse to subject himself to the provisions of the Act, i.e. that he is to serve in a non-combatant capacity, then he is liable to punishment of 12 months’ detention, that is, if he has objections on religious grounds or if he has conscientious objections and he is so classified as to be able to perform nursing service or medical orderly service or administrative service or some other service in the Defence Force which is non-combatant, and he were to refuse to render any service whatsoever to his country, even in a non-combatant capacity, then he is punishable and he may be sentenced to 12 months’ detention. The Act provides for this. But the hon. member for Sea Point comes along here, with a whole choir behind him. One would swear we were making an outrageous attack on people’s objection on religious grounds. What nonsense! And then they have the audacity, the unheard-of audacity, to use the name of Jesus Christ for explaining away their propaganda outside this House.

Now I want to deal with the hon. member for Pinelands without further ado. The hon member for Pinelands swaggers around out there when he appears on stage, but I want to tell you in what spirit he approaches the problems of South Africa, what he is telling the youth as to what the position in South Africa is. In the name of Jesus Christ he tells this to the youth. On 31 May—Republic Day, of all days!—he told the youth—

This is the kind of philosophy he proclaims. Can you understand, Sir, why he is so opposed to this Bill? He wants to go on telling the youth that they are living in an unjust community, in a country in which to be Black means “to have the kiss of death”. This is the kind of philosophy he is proclaiming in the name of Jesus Christ. Now he is looking at us like a clean-shaven Father Christmas from where he is sitting. Let me tell that hon. member right away that he is not the only custodian of consciences in this country. There are people sitting on this side of the House whose followers collect millions of rand annually in order to spread the message of Christ among Black and Brown in this country. He need not come and jog our consciences; he should look to his own people when he tells such falsehoods about South Africa. I want to show him in whose company he finds himself. It is for their sake that he is putting up this opposition to this Bill. In whose company does he find himself? Here I have a publication by the Wits students—after all, they are kindred spirits of his. Listen to what they say—

It continues—

They are the terrorists—

These are his friends and the friends of the hon. member for Houghton and they are the friends of the hon. member for Sea Point. It continues—

Here, in other words, is open encouragement for people not to fight for South Africa. I can understand this, because the party of the hon. member for Sea Point has appointed as Secretary a certain Mr. Jan van Eck who was an immigrant from the Netherlands. He became a South African citizen in 1962. When he was called up in 1964 to do his national service in 1965, he relinquished his South African citizenship. Only recently has he reapplied for South African citizenship. This is the kind of person with whom they are friends. This is their kind of friend.

This is the kind of patriotism they speak of.

However they come here and then they have a mouthful to give us. The hon. member for Rondebosch is the great, exalted patriot—his patriotism sticks out at the top as well as at the bottom. However, I want to reply to them in the words of national servicemen and not in my own words. I want to read to them what 120 national servicemen telegraphed from Walvis Bay in reply to their behaviour and that of the Council of Churches—

This is the reply to the hon. member for Pinelands. This is also the reply to the hon. member for Rondebosch, who is a young man and who ought to be ashamed to conduct negotiations with the friends of terrorists and to fight his own Government when it wants to take measures to resist murderers and rapists of White and Black women. It is a disgrace. That party stands branded today as a party which is prepared to conduct negotiations with the friends of terrorists. It also stands branded as the party which is not prepared to help South Africa to take measures against them. It is time we exposed that party for what it is.

The hon. member for Sea Point asked why I wanted to call up units for six months. Did he not read my speech? I said expressly that South Africa did not want mobilization. Secondly, I said that in these times it was not a sound policy to mobilize, because by doing so one was harming the economy of one’s country. Thirdly, I said that one could not mobilize repeatedly. That is why I asked that a principle already contained in the Defence Act, namely that units may be called up for four months, be extended so as to enable units to be called up repeatedly for a period of six months. I do this for the very reason that I want to spare the country economic harm and because, at the same time, we want to have the flexibility in our Defence Force to resist any danger with the quickest possible action. That, of course, holds no water as far as they are concerned, because, after all, they move freely in the countries in which terrorists are trained. Those hon. members are allowed to move freely in those countries in which terrorists are trained. If I were to go there, I would be apprehended. The hon. member for Sea Point can go there and the hon. member for Rondebosch can also move freely where terrorists are being trained.

As guests of the Government.

He is a guest of the Government where rapists and murderers of South African women are being trained. He has a free pass to move about there as he likes. [Interjections.] Since the hon. member for Sea Point is asking me this, I want to tell him that it is against those people whom he saw there while he was moving about so freely, that we want to be prepared if they should dare to put a foot over our borders. We want to put them in their place in the event. The hon. member said, “We are not prepared to be your rubber stamp.” I have never yet asked the hon. member to be my rubber stamp. After all, we can pass this Bill without him. He may vote against it and need not even serve on the Select Committee. We shall cope without him and have been coping without him all these years. South Africa will cope without them in the future, too, because they are a purely temporary phenomenon. Such temporary phenomena occur in the life of any respectable people.

In addition the hon. member wanted to know from me from where I derived the motives for the measures contained in clause 1 of the Bill. I am Minister of Defence and the complaints come to me. The young men write to us and complain. We see the advertisements which appear in newspapers in which this clear question is put to young people. The hon. member for Durban Point, who has been assisting for a number of years now with the defence of South Africa in a responsible fasion and has not hesitated to attack me when he differs with me, but acts in a responsible fashion when it comes to the security of South Africa, has already had reason to complain about that in this Parliament. This is the necessary evidence. But the hon. member spends too little time in South Africa and too much time with his friends who are making plans against South Africa. He should spend more time in South Africa and less time with the people who are making plans against us. Then he will understand why we do these things. This is my reply to him.

The hon. member moved an amendment here this afternoon. This amendment is very interesting. The hon. member wants this Bill to be referred to a Select Committee before Second Reading. To do what, Sir.? After all, we already have embodied in the existing Act the principle that no one may be victimized into evading his national service. After all, the Act already contains the further principle that the Minister may call up units over and above their normal periods. After all, the Act already contains the principle that no one who is a member of the South African Defence Force may be influenced into failing to perform his duty.

For which they voted.

Yes, and for which the hon. member voted. Now, the hon. member for Sea Point does not want to refer the principle of the Bill to a Select Committee because it is a new principle; he wants to refer the Bill to a Select Committee before Second Reading, in other words, the principle, so that he may be enabled to have another look at the Act itself. Sir, what has happened to him since the days when he was in favour of the Act? Did the hon. member for Houghton get a hold of him? Or was it on his latest tours that people got hold of him? What brought about the change in him? After all, he has always been an advocate of this principle. In his day he voted in favour of it. Is it as a result of his latest tours that he has undergone this change in standpoint? Has he been brainwashed by his friends there on the other side of the border? Sir, this little party is a harmful thing in our society. We should ban it from our ranks, so that we may once again come to order as regards the security of South Africa. Therefore it is not my intention to concern myself with the hon. member’s stories. We are going to act. The hon. member said that I had said I was after the blood of certain people. Of course, Sir. I am after Beyers Naudé’s blood, to be specific.

What do you mean?

Must I spell it out to the hon. member? I am after Jan van Eck’s blood. I am after the blood of these Wits students. I speak of “blood” in a political sense. These Wits students tell the world that South Africa must lose in this struggle. That is what this attitude amounts to. I am after the blood of people such as Dr. Boraine, who says: “To be born Black in South Africa is nothing short of the kiss of death”. Those people are preaching a dangerous philosophy in this country, because they are effecting polarization between White and Black.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is the hon. the Minister allowed to threaten a member of Parliament?

The hon. the Minister clearly said that he meant it only in a political sense.

Well, his political sense can also be very dangerous.

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Sir, the hon. member for Houghton is wasting my time. She is just a troublesome woman.

The hon. member for Sea Point—I want to deal with him a little this afternoon—said at the start that we should not have emotions running high. He believes that “prevention is better than the conflict itself” and he believes that “you cannot decide the future of the world by military conflict”. Of course not, and I agree with him. I agree with him, too, that together with military action, there should be other measures, anti-insurgency measures, but on the other hand one may not allow traitors to undermine one’s military forces behind one’s back when one wants them to have the will to be resolute. This one may not allow.

What were you doing in World War II?

The hon. member for Houghton was not there either. But let me just tell the hon. member that if I had been called up, I would have gone. There are many people who know this. Never once have I resisted any properly made law of this country.

And if this legislation had been on the Statute Book then?

That hon. member may sing high or low to her heart’s content; I am talking now. The hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Sea Point, as well as the hon. members behind them, are a dangerous phenomenon in the public life of South Africa and we must protect the young people of South Africa against them. If the young people of South Africa were to fall into their hands, South Africa would be doomed.

† I agree with the hon. member for Durban Point that we can agree on the principle already laid down in the Act. What we are asked to do here is to come forward with improvements to various clauses of the Bill. That has been the policy which we have followed since I became Minister of Defence. During the past number of years I have tried to keep defence above party politics and I have tried to steer the matters in the Defence Force in a fair and decent way. However, I am not going to be fettered and diverted from my course by people who are more interested in talking to the enemies of South Africa than talking to their own people.

Nonsense.

You are talking nonsense.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? For the sake of certain legitimate groups, I want to ask the hon. the Minister to make it clear that section 121 (c) as inserted by clause 10 (c), does not affect the right of anyone to plead for non-combatant service—in other words, to plead against the use of force.

That is why I quoted the relevant sections in the Act once again. There is a right to plead and to stand legitimately for non-combatant service. That is being retained.

Or to suggest it?

Yes, of course, in the case of an acknowledged religious organization or church, but that does not mean that the hon. member for Pinelands can go on the way he has been going on because he is not an acknowledged church.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? I do not think there is any difference in the interpretation of this exemption clause ... [Interjections.]

Order!

There is no area of difference in the interpretation of the exemption clause.

Order! The hon. member must ask a question.

Mr. Speaker, the point is that if ...

Order! The hon. member must ask a question.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the hon. the Minister who is giving an explanation to the hon. member for Durban Point to cover another point as well. Apart from the individuals who may get exemption, do I gather from the hon. the Minister that the Quakers would be free to propagate in public and through their tracts to the general public of South Africa the pacifist cause or does it only relate to people who actually ask for exemption from service?

I do not know whether the hon. member has read the Act. I am not changing anything in section 67 of the Act.

But you are adding something.

I am not adding anything to section 67. I am dealing with section 121 of the Act.

You are adding to it.

I am dealing with people who, in the guise of priests, come forward and try to influence members of the S.A. Defence Force in the way in which it is described in the Bill, viz. “in any manner whatsoever advises, encourages, aids, incites or instigates any other person or any category of persons or persons in general” not to do their duty in the Defence Force. It is recognized in the Defence Force that, if you do not want to serve in a combatant position in the Defence Force, you are allowed to serve in a non-combatant position. Only when you say: “I am not prepared to serve in a non-combatant position; I am not prepared to serve at all’, then you are dealt with under another section of the Act. I explained this when I introduced the Bill.

Can the Quakers promote the cause of pacificism?

I am not an authority on the Quakers; apparently the hon. member is.

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

Does the hon. the Minister want to answer a further question?

No, I do not want to listen to any more nonsense.

The hon. the Minister does not want to answer further questions.

The answer is that I am not amending the section concerning objections on religious grounds.

You are adding to section 121.

Order! The hon. member for Houghton must please stop her running commentary.

Will the hon. the Minister permit me to ask him a question which I believe will clear the matter up? As I understand it, as the principle was already agreed to in the Principal Act, the suggestions which were made by hon. members of the Progressive Party for a safeguard could all in fact be suggested in the Select Committee.

Yes, of course.

In other words, the whole suggestion to ask for a Select Committee before the Second Reading is passed, falls away because once they have agreed to the three principles, they can in fact suggest all these proposals in the committee.

Yes. They did not think it over. They were thinking of the political propaganda they can get out of it for the benefit of those outside this Parliament.

*I quoted a document to hon. members and I want to do it again. One of the finest theologions in South Africa stated his opinion on this particular motion by the S.A. Council of Churches. I told hon. members that here we were dealing with a foreign theology. I called in Professor J. A. Heyns of Pretoria as a witness and quoted his commentary, namely (translation)—

That is the hon. member for Pinelands. I quote further—

That is what is behind this. The enemies of South Africa know that they can harm her in many spheres, but that up to now they have been unable to harm her as far as the united will of her military forces are concerned. Now they want to attack her in that sphere as well. That is quite clear from this document and from the report of the S.A. Council of Churches. Let me say that I have referred this motion by the S.A. Council of Churches to the legal advisers of the department. I did not speak prematurely. When the Press asked me what my opinion was on the matter, I remained silent. I said that I would seek legal advice on the matter, which was the responsible thing to do. When I received legal advice from my department, I asked that it be referred to the legal advisers of the State. The legal advisers of the State told me that the provisions in section 121 of the existing Act were not adequate to deal with this new danger. That is why we came up with a reformulation of section 121. I repeat that my approach to the whole question, as in the past, is that I should like to have the greatest possible co-operation, but as long as I am the Minister concerned, I shall not hand over the S.A. Defence Force to theories of revolution or to people who want to destroy its discipline. I think that this Parliament will support me in that spirit.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the Question,

Upon which the House divided:

As fewer than 15 members (viz. Dr. A. L. Boraine, Messrs. R. M. de Villiers, C. W. Eglin, R. J. Lorimer, Dr. F. v. Z. Slabbert, Mrs. H. Suzman and Mr. G. H. Waddell) appeared on one side,

Question declared affirmed and amendment dropped.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, at the beginning of the discussion I just want to announce that the Committee Stage of this Bill will be dealt with by the Deputy Minister.

Sir, the clause we now have before us reads as follows—

Let me say at once that we on this side have no objection to the spirit and the attitude and the intention of this clause. In fact, in the existing Publications Act it is provided that a publication is to be deemed to be undesirable if it is indecent or obscene or blasphemous or is offensive to the religious convictions or feelings of any section of the inhabitants of the Republic. This provision has been incorporated in the Bill before us at the moment. Provision does therefore exist in the Act, provision which is now being made again, for due observance of the religious character of the country in the application of the Act. However, the important safety-valve is that it has always been in the hands of the Government to decide—and it will probably do so in the future too—what the quality is to be of the person who has to implement the Act on its various levels.

Sir, although criticism was made in the past and will most certainly be made again on the knowledge and the good judgment of some of the Government’s appointments, nobody has ever made the accusation that the members of the Publications Board, or whoever may have been charged with censorship laws up to now, have not been having regard to the Christian character of the country. There was therefore no problem in this respect, and in our opinion there is no problem either. Sir, if some people do see some kind of problem, then it did not concern the Act as such, or any shortcoming in the norms laid down by the Act, but in fact the interpretation which the various bodies and persons charged with the implementation of the Act gave it in so far as it deals with religious views.

But, Sir, that kind of problem, the problem of interpretation, will always be there in any case; it will remain simply because people differ and will go on differing, even within the same religious community, on what complies with the Christian way of life and what does not. The result is that this clause, as it reads at present, is not going to solve or improve anything. On the contrary, there is a chance that it is going to create new problems which will and may turn the question of censorship in the future into a far more contentious one than it has been up to now. Sir, on behalf of this side of the House I should like to emphasize once again that we have no objection to the intention implied in this clause. In fact, we already have a blanket provision in the Constitution of our country which, as hon. members know, provides and also states clearly that the people of the Republic of South Africa acknowledge the sovereignty and guidance of Almighty God; this is a blanket provision which already forms part of our Constitution. Then we also find that both political parties have similar provisions in their own constitutions.

In the case of the United Party it is stated clearly in its programme of principles that (translation) “on the basis of universal Christian ethics, the party shall devote itself to promoting peace, welfare and happiness in respect of all whose home is in the Republic of South Africa, irrespective of their race, colour, language or religion”. The National Education Act is often referred to in incorrect terms. Let me just say that the National Education Act contains a provision which is not altogether comparable. That provision reads that schools in South Africa, White Government schools, shall have a Christian character, and it stands to reason that that is in order. But this does not apply to private-school activities, and it clearly provides “that the religious conviction of the parents and the pupils shall be respected in regard to religious instruction and religious ceremonies ’. In this Bill which we have before us at the moment one finds that for the first time in all our legislation a situation is being created where a measure, in its entire application, is being subjected by statutory requirement to the said view of life.

This is a view of life with which the vast majority of South Africans agree but on which there is a great deal of difference of opinion, even within our various religious communities. And it is not impossible that the clause as it is printed here may in due course give rise to a great deal of strife. I therefore move the following amendment—

Why do you say that it may give rise to a great deal of strife?

I shall come to that, and I may just tell the hon. the Minister that there is a possibility that I may exceed the 10 minutes slightly and that I shall be grateful if he would consider not replying before I have finished my argument. The amendment therefore proposes the addition of the words “with due observance of the individual’s freedom of conscience and of religion”.

Sir, I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister that the clause under discussion was not incorporated in the Bill submitted to Parliament in 1973. I am now referring to the Bill which was introduced after that marathon inquiry by the Interdepartmental Committee and was referred to our Select Committee in 1973, subsequent to which it was referred to the commission under the leadership of the present Minister of Justice. It was not incorporated in that Bill. Now, it is of course correct that the Select Committee, and also our commission, was free to submit an entirely new Bill, and this is in fact what it did. But, what has to be borne in mind now is that, because this clause did not form part of the 1973 Bill because and that Bill formed the basis of the inquiry of the Select Committee and of the Kruger Commission, we had no evidence, or had called for no evidence, on the clause as it is now printed here; we did in fact do so on general principles, but not on the clause as printed here. As it is printed here, no considered public evidence was given on it, not by the religious denominations, not by lawyers, nor by members of the existing Publications Board or by the public.

Now, in the commission itself—and I want to say this for the record—this matter was only raised towards the end of the proceedings, after the hearing of public evidence had been concluded and after the commission had divided into a majority and a minority group and each had started to draw up its own programme. Even then the majority group revealed that it was having problems with the formula, for, according to the propositions submitted to us, they originally wanted the question whether a publication or an object or a film or an entertainment was indecent or obscene or morally offensive to be “founded on Christian principles”. That was the first attempt, the first formula. It is clear that they ran into problems in that regard and that the members of the majority group were experiencing interpretation problems.

Apparently they also had problems in the Afrikaans version with the word “volk” (“population” in the English version) as it reads now. One of the earlier formulae referred to “bevolking” (population) instead of “volk” (people) of the Republic. A further formula subsequently put forward by them referred to the observance of the “Christian character of the South African community”; and eventually the final clause, as we now have it here before us, was submitted to us. In one of the final joint meetings we had, the minority group lent its support to the spirit of the clause, as we are also doing here, but it goes without saying that we reserved our judgment as to the wording. I should like to repeat that it is a very great pity that the commission was not given the opportunity to subject the clause to evidence in the form in which it has been incorporated in the Bill. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I merely rise to ask that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout be afforded the opportunity of completing his argument so that I may be able to reply to it more fully later on.

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I say it is a great pity that the clause as it reads at present was not subjected to public evidence. In their memoranda certain Christian denominations emphasized that censorship should be approached from the point of view that our country has a Christian character. Nobody had any fault to find with that. In fact, we supported it because it was already, and had always been, the existing position. One church organization asked in a memorandum that the norm of Christian ethics—these are the words they used—should be a determining factor in the Act itself.

We subsequently examined quite a number of church organizations on the concept “Christian norms” on what they understood it to mean. All of them pointed out that the various denominations differed on this point and that it was a difficult matter. The first time I really asked a witness pointedly what his reaction would be to such a provision being incorporated in the Bill, was when the last witness, the Rev. D. P. M. Beukes, appeared before us. He is the chairman of the Federasie van Afrikaanse Kultuurverenigings. When he was being examined on the question of “Christian norms” and his views in that regard, he said (translation)—

Then one of the members of the commission asked him whether it was fair to expect us to include the expression “Christian ethics” in the legislation. This was his reply—

A member then asked him: “And Judaism?” To that he replied: “No, I would not include that ...” After that this question was put to him—

His reply is interesting. He is a minister of religion as well as leader of the Federasie van Afrikaanse Kultuurverenigings. He said the following—

Owing to the problem experienced with the definition, the feeling was that this would not be appropriate in civil legislation. I do not want to pursue this matter any further because I do not consider it necessary. I am only trying to outline the problem here in a responsible manner as it arose in the discussions of the commission. The Government must remember that here for the first time the application, in its entirety, of a social law is being subjected to a view of life, the Christian view of life. This introduces an entirely new element into party politics, both inside and outside Parliament. The Minister himself, for instance, is directly involved in and concerned with the Bill. He has to make practically all the appointments arising from this legislation. He has to determine the conditions of service and also reserves to himself the right to interfere. Even in the case of the Appeal Board the hon. the Minister will have the right to interfere.

What do you mean by “interference”?

The Minister can instruct the Appeal Board to review a case. He can therefore interfere with the activities of the Appeal Board, which he cannot do in respect of a court of law. I hope he realizes that he will be called to account in regard to his own implementation of the legislation, especially in respect of the rights of other population groups and in respect of questions of equal payment for equal work, which are in accordance with the Christian view of life. I mention this because I want the hon. the Minister to realize that the introduction of this clause is now bringing a whole new element into party politics in the discussion of the implementation of legislation. The hon. the Minister should also realize that the clause is chiefly going to call forth two reactions, and has already done so. The one is from those people, especially those who are members of extremist sects, with whom he has created the expectation that from now on there will no longer be any publication on the market which will be even remotely daring. They will bombard him with the demand that even books dealing with the theory of evolution must be banned, to say the least of it. He is going to have infinite trouble from them, much more than before, because they will give an interpretation to this matter which will not be a reasonable interpretation. The hon. the Minister should also expect the various churches to keep a very close watch in future on the religious denomination of the various people appointed to the committees, the directorate and to the Appeal Board. One can see straight away what dissatisfaction and frustration is going to result from that. Another question that arises is whether the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council and the Indian Council will lend their co-operation, because there are Moslems serving on the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council, whereas the Indian Council consists mainly of Moslem and Hindu members. There is no indication of the light in which they will view this clause. These are problems we have to face.

Secondly, there are those who fear that the views of one particular group of Christians will predominate and be applied too strictly to the legislation, and that the individual’s freedom of conscience and of religion, which plays and has played such an important role in our country, will be prejudiced. It is for all these reasons that we move this amendment as printed.

In conclusion I should just like to point out that during the past elections the National Party, under the heading “Freedom of Religion” in its manifesto entitled “The National Party offers: ...’, made this promise to the country—

The words contained in our amendment are the exact ones used in the undertaking which the Governing party gave the country during the past elections. I hope that if for no other reason, it will for this reason accept the amendment as moved by us.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment apparently has only one object, and that is to throw up a massive smoke-screen, the implication apparently being that with the acceptance of this clause the religious freedom of individuals is not going to be taken into account. Let me point out clause 47(2)(b) to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, in which provision is indeed being made for the fact that any item can be deemed to be undesirable which is blasphemous or is offensive to the religious convictions or feelings of any section of the population—Moslems Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Christians, or whoever the case may be. The inclusion of clause 1, therefore in no way means a decrease in the religious freedom that prevails in South Africa. To want to move such an amendment is therefore nothing but the throwing up of a smokescreen.

In the in-depth investigation by the Longford Commission it was alleged that in Britain the active Christians would probably be in the minority. It was also alleged that apart from the Christian view of life, the only other acknowledged view of life would probably be that of Marxism, and it was said that Marxists were even more in the minority. Here in South Africa we as legislators do have the task, after all, in a Bill that deals with the norms to be upheld by a population, of laying a certain foundation, of giving a certain overall Christian substance to that. That is what is envisaged with clause 1. In other words, the moral norms that will be upheld will not simply be any moral norms, attention will be paid to the religious convictions of any other group. If offensive items, books, films, documents or whatever should appear in connection with any other religious group, in terms of this Bill action can also be taken against the guilty parties. But clause 1 is there to lay the general and acceptable foundation, and there is nothing to be achieved by moving such an amendment. It is nothing but a smoke-screen to try to create the impression that a Bill of this Government deviates from the acceptance of the religious convictions of other persons.

Mr. Chairman, I find it a very great pity that the previous speaker referred to the amendment as a smoke-screen, for I think the House should realize that this part of the House really has problems with the first clause, problems which come from the heart and not because one does in any way have doubts about the importance of upholding the Christian principles.

It is particularly in three kinds of respects that one finds problems which are created by that clause. The one has already been pointed out by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, namely that there is no question of a provision of this nature in any legislation other than our Constitution. Therefore, it is quite unusual to embody something of this nature statutorily in a Bill such as this. Then, of course, this question could be asked: Why should this not also be done in the case of other legislation? And then we would land in a swamp of discussion on the question of whether or not certain legislation does meet the requirements of the Christian principles. In the second place, there is the problem of determining exactly what is understood by these norms. I want to say in all honesty that I doubt whether there is anyone who can say with great honesty and frankness that he knows exactly what is meant by this. In the third place, I should like to know what the implications are of the application of these norms in accordance with the provisions of clause 1. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister or the hon. the Deputy Minister whether, in the implementation of the provisions of clause 1, it is the intention to appoint only professing Christians to the directorate, to the committees and to the appeal board. Perhaps the hon. the Minister or the hon. the Deputy Minister can give me a reply to that question; then I shall be able to pursue the point further.

The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that I cannot get a reply to my question. My question is merely whether it is the intention to appoint professing Christians to the directorate, the committees and the appeal board.

You will gradually gain a little more experience. Then things will go better.

If it is the intention that it is to be non-Christians who will be charged with the implementation of this measure, the following problems arise. Just what do we achieve with these provisions? I am putting these questions because I hope that we will get replies to them. I repeat the first question. If, therefore, it is the intention that this is to be applied by Christians, what is being achieved by this provision? The second question is how the task of upholding Christian norms can be left in the hands of people who are not professing Christians. My third question concerns the possibility of decisions which do not give effect to the objective of the legislation. I am thinking, for example, of several films which most of the hon. members of this House have probably seen already—films which are currently being shown in Cape Town—such as The Great Gatsby, A Touch of Class and Deliverance. In all honesty, no one can under any circumstances say that there is any evidence in those films of a Christian approach to life being applied. Is the intention now that we should have one criterion for films and another criterion for books or publications?

Fourthly, if it is not in the hands of Christians, it may become a constant source of agitation, as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said, and the Government may be accused of saying one thing and doing another. The Minister may be accused of not implementing the legislation. I do not want to protect the hon. the Minister, but that is what the legislation may give rise to, and in that respect I associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. If it is the intention that this legislation is to be implemented by people who feel in all sincerity that they profess Christianity, the question arises whether we are going to find the kind of people who will admit to themselves that they consider themselves competent to give effect to these intentions and to act as the Christian conscience for the rest of the people. I want to say in all humility that I should not like to put myself in that situation.

If, therefore, we should not find people who are prepared to take that responsibility upon themselves, how can we expect the public to have confidence in the conduct of the members of the committees? As was the case with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, I want to point out once again that in the cases where these posts will not be filled by Christians, I do not know what the advice of the Coloured and Indian panel members will mean, because it is being said in advance that, if that advice is to be in any way acceptable, it should be in line with those particular norms. Then this question also arises: “What about the other non-Christians?”, especially in the light of the intolerance and narrow-mindedness which have at times been a feature of religious zeal during the course of the history of man. Here one involuntarily thinks of examples of religious zeal as was found at the time of the Crusades, the Inquisition and the Reformation. In other words, merely emphasizing general ethical norms is no guarantee that a tremendous amount of narrow-mindedness and pettiness will not be displayed within those norms.

We are living in a time long after the Reformation.

Such narrow-mindedness may be displayed. If the same had held true at that time, I do not know whether we would in fact have had the Reformation.

In conclusion I should just like to say that, if there is a possibility that this legislation can be applied in such a way that it can be interpreted in the same spirit of intolerance which so often happened in the history of man, then it is necessary that we also provide in the Bill that we want to protect the individual’s freedom of religion. I may as well repeat that in respect of that principle it is not a smoke-screen, but a guarantee, an assurance, which we give the people, namely that in the exercising or application of principles there is no fear that this Bill will be applied in such an intolerant manner. In this regard I want to repeat that it seems to me as if this is the only way in which the Minister and the Government can safeguard themselves against accusations of either narrow-mindedness or hypocrisy.

Mr. Chairman, for several reasons I cannot see why the Opposition is offering any resistance in this case and why they have to move an amendment at all. The first reason for my not being able to see why they should be opposed to this, is their own party’s policy. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout presented, as a flag to the House, the fact that his party had incorporated the question of Christian ethics into its constitution. What is the party now doing with that? What does it do with people in the party who are not Christians? The Transvaal leader of the United Party is not a professed Christian as far as I know. How does he now reconcile the United Party’s constitution with the Christian ethics which the hon. member is now presenting? There are a few things in their own ranks which the hon. member has not ironed out yet. I simply cannot see on what leg the hon. Opposition is standing. If they accept Christian ethics as the basis of their party’s policy, and there are members who are non-Christians, what safeguards do they offer their own members against intolerance, what guarantee that they as a party will not force Christian ethics or Christian dogma upon their party members? I think the hon. members spoke a little too quickly.

There is a second reason that is related to the formulation of clause 1 of the Bill. Let me just read the clause again—

There are two important concepts in that clause, i.e. “endeavour” and “population”. If the hon. member for Bezuidenhout finds the concept “population” something of a stumbling block, I want to say that we know that in the written word and in discussions one can speak of a population in terms of the population of a state, i.e. the population of the Republic of South Africa. We were of the opinion that the majority of the population, the population of the Republic of South Africa, basically endorsed the Christian view of life. There is nothing here to state that the Christian view of life will be forced upon others by the Bill. Neither is a detailed explanation of the Christian view of life given, but the Christian view of life of the population of South Africa is recognized. We do not give a specific explanation of the concept “Christian view of life”, and neither are we going to ask every church in advance what its explanation of “Christian ethics” are, but—and this is the provision that is being made in the Bill—from all the branches of the entire population of the Republic of South Africa suggestions are being requested for people to serve on the panel from which these committees are going to be constituted. In other words, this is a democratic process, and as the Gospel and Christian ethics have made their mark on the general population of South Africa, likewise will the opinions, the standpoints of the population of South Africa be reflected in the decisions taken by the various panels that are constituted for judging purposes. Therefore I cannot see why there should be such terrible objections to this. Another reason why I cannot see any objection in this connection, is that the Christian view of life is not as exclusive as hon. members opposite profess it to be. To tell the truth, there is an hon. member opposite who believes in one Testament of the Bible. We believe in two, but the two Testaments do not contradict each other; in other words, if someone wants to say that the Christian view of life is antagonistic, let us say, to the Jewish view of life, I am compelled to say that he is very wide of the mark. The Jewish view of life, as reflected in its Testament, is also mine. In other words, there is no contra-distinction, and no coercion is being applied to those people here; this is inclusive instead of exclusive.

Do you accept the amendment?

No, because it is unnecessary. What is being embodied here is merely the recognition of the constant endeavour of the population of the Republic of South Africa. It is a constant endeavour. Why does one now have to guarantee the individual’s religious freedom by way of an additional explanation? Here we are giving recognition to the constant endeavour of the population of the Republic of South Africa to uphold a Christian view of life. We recognize this. In paragraph 22, page 8, of our report on this subject, we have stated the following—

What person is there on the other side who feels himself threatened, who does not accept Christian ethics? Even if one were to make a study of Buddhism, the eightfold path to Nirvana, one would find that on that eightfold path there was nothing that basically clashed with any decency for which Christian ethics also stand. It is not that one is here going to create an antithesis; this is actually more inclusive than hon. members opposite profess. To sum up I cannot see any reason why the Opposition should have any objection when their party’s constitution incorporates Christian ethics.

Mr. Chairman, as hon. members on the other side know, the Bill has now been read a Second Time and the principle has been accepted. We are now dealing with the details in order to ensure that whatever is set out now in the clauses should be as acceptable as possible under the circumstances. The wording of this clause is acceptable to all persons in this country. I have not the slightest doubt about this. However, I do not think it is necessary for hon. members on that side of the House to spend so much time endeavouring to explain to us the importance of the acceptance of the general broad philosophy of the Christian religion or the Christian way of life. In fact, as a professing Jew myself, I do not find it in conflict with my beliefs. The Christian way of life is as acceptable to me as the norms of my own religion from which Christianity has grown. However, we have a history in this country with regard to a certain sense of exclusiveness in this particular field which has been evidenced by an entrenchment, over the years, in our higher educational system of a conscience clause which, despite the broad Christian way of life, enabled a person of any religion, if he were otherwise acceptable, to hold a post, for instance on the staff of a university. He could also be a member of the clerical or administrative staff at a university. There are one or two exceptions in the field of higher education. These universities have become known exclusively as universities where the specific Christian theological philosophy is taught as a subject. By and large, however, the conscience clause has become an entrenched part of our way of life. All that is suggested here is that to allay any fears or remove any doubts in the minds of any members of our community, we should add the provision that no person will be affected in any way but that the interpretation of the clause in its narrowest field would be with due observance of the individual’s freedom of conscience and of religion. Sir, we are known for our tolerance in our country. Tolerance is the very basis of the religion of the Afrikaner, if I may use that term without wishing to categorize any section. The very basis of the religion of the Afrikaner community and of their churches is the tolerance which they have practised not only in their own community but towards all other communities who inhabit our country. This tolerance is one of the most vital factors in the flow of immigration which we invite to this country through our association with the international committee of European migration; through the establishment of immigration offices of which we have 17 throughout the world and through the enormous amount of money which we spend on assisted immigration. I think we are spending an average of about R4 million a year to bring immigrants to this country. We invite these immigrants because we want to strengthen our country in many directions. Sir, this is a very fine demonstration of our country’s tolerance towards people as long as they conform to our broad general way of life and fit into the background of culture of the nations from which we ourselves as a people emanate; we welcome them in our homes and in our midst. But, Sir, some people do have other views; it is a perfectly natural thing, and we should give expression to this tolerance by accepting this amendment, which does not in any way distract from the clause as it now stands.

It adds to it.

In fact it adds to it; it exemplifies this tolerance of which we are so very proud. In fact, the purpose of the conscience clause was to avoid any fear on the part of people that their religion would be interfered with. The extremely orthodox Jew, by virtue of his history over the years, always wants to be reassured that his religion will not be interfered with in any way but tolerated, and in South Africa we have always enjoyed religious freedom and tolerance. What I have said of the orthodox Jew, could also apply to the Moslem, the Hindu and people of other religions. Sir, there are people of other religions who do not call themselves Christians but who nevertheless conform to and observe the Christian way of life in every sense of the term. Sir, in a Publications Board of this nature it may well be necessary to appoint people who are not themselves observers of the Christian religion, but who nevertheless conform to the Christian way of life, and the acceptance of this amendment would allay any fears that they may have, or any reticence that they may feel in applying for the posts in respect of which the hon. the Minister has invited nominations from the public to show his fairness and his impartiality in his approach to this whole problem of censorship of publications, films, documents, etc. Sir. there is just one other thought that I would like to express and that is this: In our great tolerance not only in respect of religion but in respect of conscience we would be able, if this amendment is accepted, to allow into this country books such as Darwin’s ...

Theory of Evolution.

... Origin of Species, a publication which, as we all know, formed the subject in a judicial proceeding in the United States at the insistence of a particularly inhibited section of the community. Not only was the case a classic one, but it has been presented as a stage play and also in our own country; it is one of the most famous stage plays. We should permit an investigation to take p ace into the origin of man or anything which has to do with man. I know that such an investigation would offend against the strict religious teachings and religious interpretation of many people. It is not an unusual thing to find and you will find it at all times and in all phases of man’s history, especially since the establishment of religious life as we know it. So we are not asking the Government side in any way to detract from what they have suggested. We accept it, but we ask that we should give expression to what we have always stood for right throughout our history, and that is that there should be no man or woman in this country who should fear any intolerance or persecution or differentiation or prejudice. I think if we hold that as our guide-line in considering the amendment, I do not think that the Minister should have any difficulty in complying with this request and adding to the lustre of the clause rather than, as some hon. members have pointed out, trying to avoid what it implies. If anything, it will increase the value and the depth and the appreciation of the nature of the clause.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Jeppe was right. The proposal here was to add something to the Bill, to the relevant clause. In my opinion it is a tautological addition. What he is requesting is already incorporated in the relevant clause, because what is the clause saying other than that the constant endeavour of the population of South Africa to uphold Christian standards is being upheld—“the constant endeavour of the people of South Africa”. There is nothing here at all to state that we are now all being asked to conform to some or other Christian Church’s view of what Christian standards are. The Christian standards, as precipitated in the general South African community, are applicable here. That is what is being recognized here. This particular clause has two important functions. The one function is to give us specific course and direction in judging publications and those things that offend us. It is a specific course and direction that is generally recognized as having an opinion-forming function in other countries of the world. I shall quote here, from the Longford Report, a remark which was made by a certain Archbishop Temple, who said this—

That is on page 366 of the Longford Report, and that is exactly what the first important function of this particular clause is, i.e. to create a certain spirit, to determine a certain course or direction, to create a certain atmosphere within which healthy recreation can be enjoyed, wholesome reading matter can be produced and good films can be screened. That, in the first place, is the object of this clause, i.e. to give direction to the whole legislation and the judging of the publications we are dealing with. I maintain, however, that it also has a second important function, i.e. to determine certain standards in the judgment itself, something that has become essential particularly if one takes note of the various definitions supplied by the various courts in the past in connection with the judgment of these publications. One need only go into this matter from an historical point of view. There was the case of R. v. Hicklin, to which reference is made in the Longford Report. On page 407 of the report we read—

“Whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences and into whose hands a publication of this sort may fall.”

At this stage the definition was therefore: “To deprave or corrupt,” and judgment had to take place according to certain standards. In the course of time, however, this standard was abandoned and other standards accepted. In the United States of America we thus have, in the case of Roth v. United States, another definition being applied, and again I quote from the Longford Report, page 408—

Here the “prurient interest” idea came to the fore. First it was “to deprave and corrupt”, and then “prurient interest” came to the fore. So it went on, and I note that in 1966 the American courts accepted a threefold standard. They had three tests—I read on page 84 of The Obscenity Report—Pornography and Obscenity in America—

This illustrates the search in the courts for standards. Let us take a further look at the Longford Report, which is a very good attempt in Britain to reach a certain conclusion. On page 383 of the report we find clause 1 of their draft legislation which reads as follows and introduces another test—

Here we are dealing with “contemporary standards of decency ... accepted by the public at large”. Our courts, and the people investigating this matter, therefore have a need to find a definition which will be able to stand the test of time. Our own courts also have encountered problems as far as these definitions are concerned, and even they had to refer, in the court cases we have had recently, to the standards applying at the present time. They said that the standard should be that of “neither a prude nor a libertine”. In other words, people in society must set these standards. In my opinion these varying standards constitute one of the factors that upset the community and gave rise to the commission of inquiry in which we participated. The clause we are now dealing with is an attempt to incorporate into our legislation a particular standard which will not be as variable as the notice taken of what the community in general accepts as a standard. In other words, this is not a variable standard; it is a relatively fixed standard. It is not, as I have already said, the standard of some or other particular church or some or other particular denomination; it is the general endeavour of the population of South Africa to uphold Christian standards. In other words, these are not the standards generally accepted in the community, but the standards being aspired to in the community. It is therefore a higher aspiration than the prevailing standards in the community, which can be variable, which can change from time to time, and which can create problems in the interpretation of the Act or of what may be undesirable. In this respect I find that the clause, as it stands here, will not restrict the liberty of persons who have conscientious objections, while still creating the opportunity for fixed standards, which can be aspired to, in connection with publications in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, there is no need for me to rehearse the arguments that have already been made in connection with clause 1, but it does seem to me that we need to be reminded again that one of the cardinal virtues of the Christian faith is humility, and flowing out of that is tolerance towards other people. In a pluralistic society I would have thought that the way to develop a constant endeavour towards living out a Christian view of life would be to allow quite clearly and quite concretely the amendment as proposed by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I would like to support that amendment.

Mr. Chairman. I must thank hon. members on both sides of the House for having discussed so calmly a matter which may easily become an emotionally inflammable one. I also have a high regard for the views of members of the Opposition. I am also pleased that where as we had heated discussions during the Second Reading debate, and where as it was suggested that certain machinery which is to be established was not going to work, we discussed it here calmly, for here we are concerned philosophical and definite views of life.

As was said by the hon. member for Waterberg, it is important to note that a factual statement is, as it were, being made here i.e. that the endeavour of the population of South Africa to uphold the Christian view of life in the application of this legislation shall be recognized. An endeavour is involved here, and we should like to recognize that endeavour. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said something important in this regard. He said that, in his opinion, the present Publications Board respected the Christian views and norms in their handling of the existing Act. It is a good thing that we are getting that recognition, because I am also unaware of there having been any complaints specifically about this question in the application of the existing Act. Even if we should admit that there have been mistakes on the part of the existing Publications Board, we must also admit that the religious convictions of people have never been brought into collision. That gives us some satisfaction. The hon. member also says that we are solving nothing through this Bill. In the application of this clause we do not want to force one group’s philosophy of life on any other group. This safety-valve we also have in the Bill, i.e. in clause 47(2)(b) where it is specifically stated that, in judging any publication, object, etc., it will be undesirable if it is blasphemous or offensive to the religious convictions or feelings of any section of the inhabitants of the Republic.

“View of life” is a wider concept than “religion”.

Yes, I realize that. We are of the opinion that it is not necessary to effect in this first clause that addition which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout proposed. We believe that, even if it is wider in scope than just religion, further provision has also been made in the Bill as we have it before us. Sir, in the Christian view of life there is one inherent characteristic which is inextricably interwoven with this concept, and that is that if one accepts that view, one is in fact a person who displays tolerance. We have tried to point that out on this side of the House. We have tried to apply it in the handling of the existing Act. I believe, Sir, that it is the endeavour to do so under this Bill and this specific clause as well. The hon. member for Jeppe admitted, even though he is a professing adherent of a religion which differs from ours and even though the views he holds differ from ours, that he must praise our conduct when it comes to tolerance. He has no reason to complain about it. He even praises it.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout mentioned that the vast majority of our population subscribe to this view. In that case, if the vast majority of the population subscribe to this view, what is wrong with our recognizing in this Bill the endeavour of that vast majority of the population?

What about the application?

We shall come to its application. This is an endeavour which is recognized here.

As far as the application is concerned, the hon. member for Edenvale specifically wanted to know more about it. He wanted to know whether it was only going to be Christians who would be appointed to, for example, the committees, the decision-making element. I want to say No at once. This reply is also to be found in the argument advanced by the hon. the Minister at the end of the Second Reading debate. What he said was that he was going to invite everyone interested in this matter to submit names to him. He is not going to lay down the requirement that he only wants the names of Christians, people who hold a Christian view of life. In other words, out of the wide spectrum of all those names he receives, the Minister is going to compile the list of persons from which the committees may be constituted.

Then there was a further question, namely that if there should be non-Christians on that list as well, whether this would not in fact vitiate the endeavour of the Bill. It does not vitiate the endeavour; the endeavour remains, but their outlook will also be taken into account, because there are things which will strike a responsive chord in them, which will even not be undesirable to them, but which one may find to be undesirable. The hon. member also had to admit it, even if he had to go back as far as the Crusaders for an example of intolerance in the field of religion and as regards philosophical views of life, that we in South Africa were displaying that tolerance.

Sir, I cannot really add anything to what has already been said by our side. We are not going to impute motives to one another here. We should just like to see recognition being given to that endeavour of the vast majority of the population of South Africa, i.e. that theirs is a Christian view of life and that, in the judging and practical application of this legislation, this will be taken into account. As the hon. member said—to use it in this sense as well—it is no law of the Medes and Persians, even if the hon. member and his party do not have this protection in their constitution. The flexibility will be there, but this is an endeavour which we are keen to recognize. We shall try to see this endeavour realized without placing anyone under pressure if his views should differ from those stated in the Bill.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.